Thursday, September 30, 2004

INDCent Bill for the Investigative Reporting Pulitzer

I don't know anything about Pulitzer Prize rules, but if there's one for Investigative Reporting and Internet media is eligible, Bill Ardolino from should get the Prize.

He did the original digging (link)to find an expert willing to go on record against 60 Minutes II in the Pajamahadeen attacks on CBS. He has returned today to gnaw on their collective ankle some more with on record interviews from 3 people at CBS News regarding CBS's deceptively sourced, and hoax-document supported anti-Bush screed about the draft. (sponsered in Congress by Democrats)

Bill's doing yeoman's work. Drop a tip in his paypal bucket to keep him encouraged. Someday he'll even get some more moonbat research done.

UPDATE: Jon Henke from Q and O agrees, kind of. (last line of the post)

UPDATE II: How embarrassing, I misspelled Bill's last name. It's fixed now. Oh well road to hell, good intentions, yadda yadda. (and embarrassing. That's flabbergasting (I got that one off English, just because I majored in it don't mean I can spell it.))

Why He Is (and I Ain't)

Allah has a lesson on when and how to beat the MSM (and everyone else) with the MEMRI stick. Why can't anyone except pajama-clad ankle biters figure this stuff out?

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Site Stats Update

Woo-hoo, I've almost hit the small time. I'm now only every 3rd visitor and every other page viewer. That means that I have at least 5 visitors a day! Who woulda thunk it?

The view from SpaceShipOne. I can't wait to look out a window and see that!

Space Blogging - Halfway to the X Prize

It looks like SpaceShipOne is halfway to the X-Prize. Edwards AFB says 337,500 feet or 63.9 miles. I am so stoked. I can't wait to go to space. I just hope I don't have to hold up banks to be able to afford a ticket. Imagine, private citizens in orbit by 2010! Rutan and Allen rule! Good Luck on Monday guys.

O'Reilly and Bush III - Bill Lets the Man Talk

I don't think I've ever seen Bill O'Reilly talk so little. I'm not sure there was one interruption in the whole thing. I wish he'd go that route more often. Ask good questions and let the guy talk.

About faith. I think the President nailed it. If a person chooses to live their life in accordance with a religious faith, he cannot divorce the principles of the faith from their actions. Heavy drinkers who quit drinking find faith. Period. Whether through a church or through a 12 step program, those people must find a faith that works to not drink. It can't be a CEO or Sunday morning but not Saturday night faith either. It doesn't make Bush perfect, or God-inspired, or even mean that he thinks WWJD before every decision. But if you ask him to explain his thoughts and processes, God's gonna be in there.
O’REILLY: This time I want to ask you, why do you think some people get upset when you mention your faith vis-à-vis your job?
BUSH: I really mention my faith vis-à-vis my life, and I don't know. -- I don't know why people get upset with that. People, -- I’m asked a question, -- what does faith mean to me, it means strength and calm in the face of the storm. I mean, I do rely on prayer, and I am empowered by the fact, I’m empowered by the fact that people pray for me. -- I’m sustained by that, not empowered -- I’m sustained by that, is a better word. I don't know why people object to somebody who is, -- when asked -- says religion’s important.
O’REILLY: Is it important in your decision-making?
BUSH: It’s an important part of my life. I don't see how you can divorce religion and how you live your life. I mean -- I, they're -- if faith is an important part of your life it’s ingrained in your soul, and ingrained in your being. And I make decisions based upon what’s best for this country. And I pray for wisdom, I pray for strength, I pray for others who are in harm’s way. I pray for the soldiers, I pray for their families. And I make decisions -- I make decisions about earthly matters, I make decisions about how to get out of recession, or how to improve education, or how to spread the peace-- and that's what I believe we’re doing is spreading the peace.
As I said above, this is a good explanation of people who feel that way. It doesn't mean that God gives Bush wisdom, or strength. But at least he asks.

As a side note, "spreading the peace" is a bit Orwellian for my taste. I would prefer something that acknowledges that killing bad guys is a part of it. But I understand this sales angle.

CBS and the Memory Hole

Reports are pouring in across Pajamahadeen blogs everywhere. At first I was just going to stay out of it. I mean, it's no longer worth mentioning when CBS runs an anti-Bush story based on fabricated documents. Eh, they're tabloid journalists, who cares. But this, this is unacceptable. posts a transcript that adds a key phrase left out of last night's broadcast about the anti-draft (yet somehow anti-Bush who also opposes a draft) mother. Go to LGF or Ace to see for yourself. The video don't match the transcript. The video is from the guys at (who I believe are blogging at (link to fake docs redux here) I want to get original credit right, but am not sure how it plays out. I believe RatherBiased broke the fake docs story this morning, but LGF is the first place I saw the coverup allegations)

This has crossed the line. The line has nothing to do with my disagreements with CBS about what constitutes evidence, partisianship, unimpeachability or truth. This is cover up. CBS needs to be taken to task for their cover up just like Enron, Nixon, and the Catholic Church. Making a mistake, exercising bad judgement, or just outright lying are within the depths of my cynicism. Lying to protect mistakes, bad judgement, and lying is unacceptable. There is no way for CBS to rebuild their credibility without completely cleaning house and bringing in people who have reputations for being brutally, yes-honey-you-do-look-fat-in-that-dress, honest.

I have been in communication with my local station manager since the first Rather poor story. He's been a good guy throughout. But I sent him an email bordering on nasty this time. I wanted him to understand, and I hope everyone else pushes their local station managers to understand, that the local station could no longer separate or insulate itself from the fallout of CBS National News' bad faith efforts at delivering news. Bush needs to cancel the CBS moderated debate.

UPDATE: Allah, of course, has the perfect picture


Bush also brought up a good point about healthcare. O'Reilly asked if the government had a moral obligation to provide healthcare. I heard Bush explictly say "no", but the transcript reads "now" as he transitioned to another point. Who ya gonna trust, them that have the tape or my lying ears? Anyhow, the point he made is that the US has taken on a legal obligation to provide healthcare for a significant portion of it's citizens via Medicare and Medicaid. I think this is an important point.

I said in an earlier post that healthcare is not a right, it is a privilege. I hate the idea of government run healthcare. However, the US government does have a legal obligation to provide for those who qualify for Medicare and Medicaid. I just wish to hell they'd put some means testing in there. I don't mind the idea of providing healthcare for seniors living on cat food. I think our society is rich enough that we can treat kids without insurance. I think it should provide a minimum standard though. Let those who can pay their own way. So their kids inherit a little less.

O'Reilly Night Two - Bush is Smarter than Kerry

So let me get this straight. According to my Democrat friends, John Kerry is nuanced and Bush is an idiot. And yet, in less than a week John Kerry and his sister manage to insult Australia and Iraq. Somehow this is how Kerry is going to make us more respected abroad. OTOH, O'Reilly tries to get Bush to take it to Chirac and Bush says:
BUSH: Well I think, uh, yeah, I mean, there was, I believe that we have to take threats seriously before they fully materialize, I saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. Everybody saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. My opponent saw a threat in Saddam Hussein,
O’REILLY: Not Jacques Chirac?
BUSH:: Well, he voted yes at the Security Council.
O’REILLY: Yeah, but he stabbed you guys in the back, you thought he was going to help you and he didn't.
BUSH:: Well, the, in the first resolution that took place in — right after my, well not right after my speech, but shortly after my speech, at the General Assembly in 2002, — the resolution said, the resolution said, disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences, and France voted aye. When it came time, after diplomacy had failed, to define serious consequences, that's where we had a divergence of opinion. I believe when international bodies speak, they ought to, — theyought to mean what they say. And I believe when a President speaks, he ought to mean what he says.
O’REILLY: What’s Chirac’s problem?
BUSH:: In Iraq? Well he...
O’REILLY: He hasn’t been a great ally to the U.S. since 9/11, they won't, he doesn’t want NATO forces to protect elections in Afghanistan, come on, I mean, this guy’s…
BUSH:: Well they're helping us in Afghanistan some, they’ve helped us in Haiti some. But you know, he’s, — he just didn't see the wisdom of the action in Iraq and I think history’s going to prove him wrong. I would, I …
O’REILLY: You think it was political, you think he’s playing to his left-wing base in France?
BUSH: Well, you’d better get him on your show “Factor,” because I don't want to put words in his — I’ll tell you this. I’ll tell you this. — If Saddam Hussein were in power today, we’d be a heck of a lot worse off. And it’s really important for our citizens to understand that. This is a guy that had the capability of making weapons. I believe he was trying to delay and hope that the world would turn its head once again, and remember, there was what, seventeen different U.N. resolutions…
Notice that Bush is unwilling to sell out even our most dubious "ally". That's Presidential. Kerry on the other hand, has insulted anyone and everyone who's worked with the US on Iraq. Everyone.

My favorite moment came when O'Reilly brought up The Attack of the Pajamahadeen. Bush didn't give the MSM a single thing to use against him. For an idiot he sure does seem to make good decisions about which battles to fight.

O’REILLY: All right. In light of the CBS document fiasco, do you think you get a fair shake from the network news and the elite media like the “New York Times?” Do you think your administration and you get a fair…
BUSH:: That — O’Reilly, you know I’m smarter than that, to be taking on the press in the middle of a campaign.
BUSH:: What do you want…
O’REILLY: Philosophically, let’s talk philosophically. Do you think you get a fair shake?
BUSH:: Look I, that's up for the people to decide that. You know, I — I just tell people what I think. And I try to be as clear as I can be. You know, when it’s all said and done, and people look at this campaign, they're going to have to decide whether or not they want somebody who tells them what he believes and doesn’t change positions based upon pressure and polls or, or articles in newspapers.
One of the best men I know told me once, "It's none of my business what other people think of me. My job is to do my best." Bush has learned that lesson. His opponent, eh, not so much.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Christopher Hitchens Stole My Idea

OK, he didn't steal my idea. He's been in the business longer than me by however long he's been in the business minus about two weeks. Also, it wasn't my idea. I was going to write something smart and witty about the Democrats and their ambivalence on whether US victories abroad are good. But Mr. Hitchens beat me to it, and it's better than I would have managed. Of course.Here it is.

Monday, September 27, 2004

Why I'll Vote for Bush over Kerry

Taken from the transcript of the O'Reilly Factor interview tonight:
O’REILLY: So you're not going to military militarize the border to stop,
PRESIDENT BUSH: No, we’re going to use the border patrol and beef it up, and make it, give it better technologies and better equipment to do its job.
O’REILLY: Okay. You know a lot of people are not going to like that answer, you know that.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well it’s a, a truthful answer.
Note the last exchange. That's the difference. Bush won't be out there promising to militarize the border, or claiming that his words were twisted tomorrow.
I hope like hell O'Reilly can get Kerry on. I'll put up the transcripts as the ultimate proof.

UPDATE: Let me also mention how pissed I am that Bill had two Democrat shills on for the analysis portion. Where's the Republican analysis. Fair and Balanced don't mean letting them take cheap shots.

Once a Peanut Farmer, Always a Goober

Ok, I really tried to ignore former President, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and senile-dictator-appeasing-commie-lover Jimmy Carter. That idjit had the temerity to say:
Voting arrangements in Florida do not meet "basic international requirements"
Are these like the "basic international requirements" that delivered 100% of the vote to Democratic All-Stars Kim Il Jong and Saddam Hussein? Are you kidding me? FLORIDA doesn't meet that requirement, but Venezuela does? Quit smoking that stuff you find around the Habitat sites.

Lemme tell you something Mr. Carter: I happen to know that people within the Florida Department of Corrections are working their asses off to get rights claims processed by the deadline this Thursday. And another thing: Are you so desperate to recruit votes that you need the felons-who-have-not-had-that-right-restored vote?

Go see INDCJournal or Q and O for some rational commentary on it. All I can say is that I intend to vote, but should there be international observers where I am voting I fully intend to pick a fight on my way out of the polls. F*** you Mr. Carter. Whyn't you quit hugging dictators and go back to building houses for poor people. You seem to be genuinely good at that and genuinely terrible at politics.

Space Blogging - Private Companies

With SpaceshipOne set to launch on Wednesday for it's first of two flights to garner the Ansari X Prize it seems like a good day to roundup all of the private space ventures that are looking less like vaporware every day.

Burt Rutan and Paul Allen seem to have hit the Trifecta:
$10 Million X Prize. Check
$21.5 Million from Virgin. Check
An Undisclosed amount from DARPA to drop test the X-37. Check

Quote from the Virgin Deal, emphasis mine:
"It is expected that Virgin Galactic will formally commence the contractual and design phase of the project after the conclusion of the Ansari X Prize flights and start construction of the first spaceship, the ‘VSS ENTERPRISE’ in 2005."

Now, my little heart flutters at the idea that I have only 3 or 4 years to come up with $30000 for my orbital flight. Let me write that again because it was way too sweet not to repeat: for my ORBITAL flight. But wait, there's more. This stuff is closer to the vaporware end of the spectrum. However, if Branson's planning to orbit, he might as well be the courier service for the Budget Suites LEO division of Budget Suites America.
"Robert Bigelow, chief of Las Vegas-based Bigelow Aerospace, is apparently setting higher goals for private spaceflight endeavors with America's Space Prize, a $50 million race to build an orbital vehicle capable of carrying up to seven astronauts to an orbital outpost by the end of the decade, according to Aviation Week and Space Technology."

If you didn't read the link, Bigelow owns Budget Suites America and is attempting to launch inflatable hab modules into orbit. This is probably a good thing since Virgin Galactic probably won't have the space in their ships for everyone who wants to join the 'Zero-G Club'.

Saturday, September 25, 2004

Soft Power, ad hoc Coalitions, and Regime Change

Much has been made by the Liberal factions of the US about the lack of soft power and the use of ad hoc coalitions used to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Less has been made about the very successful use of these facilities in bringing down the illicit nuclear network of A.Q Khan and embargoing missile and nuclear technology from North Korea. I think the situational differences in these examples make a great starting place for the discussion of when soft power may be useful and when there is no substitute for hard power. I believe that there is no substitute for hard power when affecting regime change.

All of this is pertinent to the previous discussion of pushing regime change in Iran. As I stated yesterday, I do not believe that the US has the credibility to push regime change in Iran without the use of hard power, and we have stretched the resources of our partners to the limits. Attempts have been made to parallel Iran to the Soviet satellite states, but I don’t believe the parallel applies.

Iran will not be Poland. The fundamentalist element throws too much of a wrench in the plans. I do not believe that the US or George Bush can exert enough soft power to counter the fundamentalist problem. The best we can hope for in the next year or two, while Iraq and Afghanistan (hopefully) stabilize, is to turn Iranian activities in Iraq into money pits. The US can afford to fight proxy battles in Iraq. I doubt that the Iranians will be able to afford to keep up. If the nuclear problem comes to a head the Israelis will act, and the US will be between the Iranians and Israelis. The UN will roundly condemn the Israelis for acting unilaterally, the US will prevent a resolution against the Israelis from passing and the status quo ante continues to exist.

What soft power can change is the dynamic of Israeli/Palestinian situation. Hussein was a major source of funding for the Palestinian militants. He’s gone. Syria is pulling back in Lebanon and that will jeopardize Hizbollah’s positions in Lebanon. The security fence is being completed. Arafat clings to power, but is being marginalized.

None of this is meant to state that the Iranian mullahs will not be deposed in the next year, but the US cannot play a large role in it. We have no credible carrot nor stick to offer.

Friday, September 24, 2004

Pushing Regime Change in Iran

Michael Ledeen, Stephen Green, and The Key Monk have all weighed in on regime change in Iran. They make good and valid points. I guess my question to them is, what does more constructive engagement look like?
All three note that Bush should not engage in military operations. All three note that Bush has made public calls for freedom and democracy. I ask what else he can do. Given Carter's abandonment of Iran to the mullahcracy and Bush Sr.'s inaction after a Shiite coup attempt in neighboring Iraq in '91, what credibility do we bring to encouraging the opposition?

Note Green's comment:
""Beyond the government itself . . . there's little wrong with Iran in need of fixing. Prior to the Khomeini Revolution, Iran was a mostly-functional member of the Semi-Decent Nations of the World. It can be again."

No offense, but this sounds like everyone's description of Iraq, pre-Saddam. It's great that Iran was Semi-Decent 25 years ago. Why won't they face the same problems as Iraq? A smaller scale perhaps, since they haven't been on the Oil for Palaces program, but still a concern. Wouldn't the counter-insurgency be worse in Iran, as the mullahs have more pull than Saddam did?
The idea of Nuclear Imams is scary, but I fail to see what the practical 'soft power' engagement format looks like.

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Rights (or Preachin' to the Choir)

I’ve been musing on the concept of Rights lately. If I recall correctly from my studies Rights are the guarantees and moral obligations of an individual within a society. The common discussion of Rights in the political forum of America has gotten far from this idea. It seems that Rights in common parlance means a handout from the Government. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Rights are, in essence, negative. They can only be taken and not given. Healthcare, for example, cannot be a right. Something must be given in order for everyone to have healthcare. It is possible to argue that healthcare is a privilege that every citizen should enjoy, but it is not possible to argue that healthcare is a right. The same can be said about programs that ensure a minimum standard of living. Nobody has the right to be fed and clothed at the taxpayers’ expense, but one could argue that these are privileges that every citizen should be able to receive should they need to. Make no mistake: the Constitution places no moral obligation on me or the government to give charity. My religion might compel me, but the government was compelled to welfare by labor unions. And those unions had no more claim to morality than those who felt otherwise. It ain’t a right.
America was founded upon an agreement that life, liberty, and private property would be mutually defended from attack or seizure. The government would defend you against bandits, and the people would come to your aid against the government. Any time that your rights and my rights came into conflict we would accept (or the government would legitimately impose) a solution arbitrated by a jury of our peers. From those agreements, our societal rights descend.
I’ve been thinking about this and other things ever since having a conversation with Jon Henke at Q and O. You can read his post here about how a misconception of Lockean rights as a priori truths saps libertarians (and small l- liberals in general) of the ability to engage in realistic foreign policy debate. He’s dead on. Lockean rights are not a priori truths. They descend from a Social Contract that the vast majority of a society is willing to agree upon and enforce.
Take for example fundamental Islamism. I mean the real deal, Al Qaeda, form. In order to be eligible for their rights you must be a male Muslim holding their beliefs. To them, any human not meeting this standard is just like a bear or a tiger: a possible threat to people (as in those with rights) that must be subjugated or eliminated. We must realize; anyone who considers us in that manner MUST be treated in the same manner. They are ineligible for rights, because they will not accept our legitimacy.
One caveat to that last statement: just because these people are not eligible for rights due to their conflicting values, they should be given the same dignity as any other dangerous animal if captured. Our social values prohibit the torture of captured animals, and we shouldn’t torture captured humans.

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

The Fall of the Two Party System

The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth is new model for political interest groups. A massive, distributed, single-issue campaign based on the Internet and funded by microdonations has scored a direct hit. I expect that the “Swift Boat model” will begin to play a larger role in politics in the next election cycle. This is the beginning of the end for the two-party system. And this could be great for politics.
As information and capital (the lifeblood of politics) become more distributed, blocs of voters will stop associating with the two major parties. Fiscally conservative Democrats and socially liberal Republicans are on the verge of bolting their parties. Hawkish Democrats are on their own island. Soon these blocs of voters are going to figure out that they can create their own commercials, distribute information, and raise money without needing the “boots on the ground” of the traditional parties. Having a clear policy position on issues is going to be the key to winning in the future. It may be the key to winning now. The treatment of the Kerry campaign proves that making statements one day to keep the base together and the next to attract the swing voter is impossible when everything you say can be posted on the Internet sequentially.
The ability to collect money outside of the traditional avenues of fundraising is changing politics. With the click of a button I can give money to the Swifties, Thune or Daschle in South Dakota, Coors or Salazar in Colorado, all while living in Florida. Weblogs and websites make me care about these things. I believe that party identification will play less and less of a role in the election process.
It would be interesting to see what effect electing five or six of these true Independents to the Senate or thirty to the House could have. The effect I hope it would have would be to raise the bar on what gets through Congress. With five percent of a chamber of Congress unbeholden to a political party, the dynamics could change significantly. One of the benefits of democracy is that it is possible to deadlock the Government. We’ve been passing laws and raising taxes for 216 years. And the trend has always been to higher tax and more regulation. I think a moratorium on that would be good for about 20 years. As Thomas Paine opined, “Government is, at best, a necessary evil.”
This is not destined, but it is a possible future that those of us who oppose passing laws for the sake of passing laws can work towards.

A Rambling Critique of Classic Libertarianism

I've been thinking a little about a conversation I had with one of the authors at Q and O about what he calls neolibertarianism. I'm not sure I agree with the philosophy, but I certainly agree with him that Classic Libertarians put too much faith in a Lockean 'State of Nature' that cannot possibly exist. Classic Libertarianism (I believe) operates on at least 2 wrong assumptions:

1. That values and standards of living are relatively uniform throughout the world.
I was going to re-run the old critique about Libertarians being Isolationist, but I think that this goes more to the heart of the matter. Libertarianism is essentially a selfish philosophy. (I don't use selfish in a negative connotation. It is just a neutral observation.) I think that many Libertarians assume that other countries and cultures value Western 'rights' and 'rule of law'. I think that they assume that other cultures live far enough above the subsistance level to get what Americans would consider a poor education. This is wrong. In many cultures bribery and extortion are part of the benefits package for government employees. In many cultures people are too busy trying to eat to get any education. They are ignorant to the concepts of 'rights' and 'rule of law'. This matters because as 9/11 proved, just because we ignore them doesn't mean they ignore us. Isolationism wouldn't have helped because MTV on the satellite is as much to blame for that group's hatred of us as government policy. (Note: I don't want this to in any way imply that I care why they hate America. People killing Americans need to die.) The global interdepencies of this Capitalism that Libertarians are so fond of demands interaction with the outside world. That interaction is actually much easier if duties are coordinated at the level of government and we have both carrot and stick large enough to discourage most pirates and bandits, even in many nearly anarchic countries.

2. That America could be run with a weak government in today's era
Would that this were true. But it ain't and won't be so long as we have cities that have millions of inhabitants and current technology levels. The ability to kill 3,000 people with 2 jetliners prohibits a weak, unstructured government if we are to continue enjoying a standard of living comparable to today. Either we have a government strong enough to ensure our lives against foreign and domestic enemies or we join the Third World. If the Union had not won the Civil War and guaranteed the primacy of the Federal government, if Hoover's FBI had not made kidnapping for ransom a losing proposition, if Washington hadn't marched an army out to stop two early rebellions, Americans could easily be enjoying Third World status. There are costs and benefits for every system. A strong government is no threat to an armed populace, and the benefits of strong government are nice.

I am sure that my examples and points are not directly topical to Neolibertarianism as put forth by the Q and O author. I am not sure that I qualify as a neolib. I know that I do believe in limited social spending and minimal social regulation. I hate drinking age laws, smoking ordinances, and gun licenses. I support the abolishment of the income tax in favor of consumption tax (or no tax!). I could not care less about the legality of gay marriage and abortion. I wouldn't avail myself or my partner to either, but I don't think legislating morality is practical or wise.

Brave New World

Well, the High Priests are once again being overthrown. This time it's big Media. Like most revolts against the priesthood this one is driven by the fact that the priests are no longer the guardians and distributors of Information. Prepare for a few years of confusion.

This is the promise of the Internet come to fruition. Many Westerners thought that the Internet would destroy the remnants of Totalitarianism. Rather, it's bringing down liberal institutions. This is not a bad thing. The Pajama Affair, I want to avoid anything involving -gate as that was the previous era, is a canary. More will follow and it will be confusing.

Feudalism is a great example of what happens when the world changes and ideas don't. Since before the Germanic tribes migrated through the Roman Empire they had a law: All free men fight, every fighting man is free. And each man had to provide weaponry for himself. When this meant bring a sword or spear or staff or axe, most men could afford to fight in the king's service. When the king decreed that all fighting men must be mounted, only the rich could afford to be free. It only took about seven hundred years to create a new paradigm of freedom. We have entered a new era and there is no going back. I think it is time to question everything: modes of governance, taxation, social programs, roles of government, etc.

With the advent of Industrialization came Democracy, with the advent of mass production came the Income Tax, with the advent of distributed networks comes? I don't know. I know that a man I respect very much has been advocating that I (as a 25 year old) need to prepare for a future that will be different from the past.

I am not a pessimist. I do not believe that the world is going to end, but the rate of change is accelerating. Holding fast to time-honored constructs won't work. We need a new paradigm.

Saturday, September 11, 2004


I know that nobody reads this blog, but I can't allow this to go by without doing my small part to remember. Because only by forgetting can we dishonor our heroes, living and dead. I add my small voice to the chorus of "Thank You". God willing, we will meet at this time each year and feel ever safer, always sad for our lost and grateful for their example.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow – this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
-Abraham Lincoln

Thank you to all of the Policemen, Firemen, Port Authority workers, soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, coast guards and citizens who have acted bravely in the face of danger.

I Remember

Friday, September 03, 2004

It Feels Like 9/11 Again

Watching the pictures and reading the stories of the Chechan Islamic Terrorist attacks, my gut feels like it did on 9/11/01. That same feeling of anger, horror, a little fear, and a lot of helplessness is back. Every time I think of it my mind starts in: Those f'ing bastards. Who attacks a school? I think it's time to start attacking mosques. If they won't respect our holy sites (and yes, to me a school full of children is at least as holy as a mosque full of thugs) then we should level theirs.
I dislike this part of me that hates Muslim citizens of the Middle East indiscriminately, but right now my discriminator seems to be shorted out. I hope Putin and his boys roll clear to Tehran.