Why doesn't this surprise me?
On Drudge's page today, these two headlines, this one about halfway down the left column says, "Iranian President Bans Western Music". While over near the bottom of the right hand column is a headline saying "Eminem Music Allegedly Used As Torture Device".
And I like what I've heard of Eminem. I guess one man's music is another's torture.
Good thing Bush ordered spying
As far as I'm concerned, Bush is just doing his job, and if he didn't do this, he'd be criticized by the same people criticizing him now. But I'm glad he ordered the NSA to spy on US citizens, because he ordered it done under certain limited circumstances, and used the authority of the executive branch under war to do it. And he did it for the benefit of our country. Which means he did it to protect everyone, even those who hate him. Which is, dare I say, noble.
I was taught there were 3 branches of government. Each branch's job was not to obey, or break laws, but to
use laws to push the envelope. And if there was no law pertaining to a particular circumstance, to
use that to their advantage as well. Each branch trying to become more powerful than the other. Yet always being held back by the other 2, if they went too far (which sometimes happened). Checks and balances.
This is an example of the executive branch flexing it muscles, and if it has gone too far, it is up to the legislative and judiciary branches to rein them in. If anyone has been injured, or damaged by any surveillance, there are plenty of attorneys who will have a field day with their case. But I haven't heard of anyone claiming injuries, or damages, from this. No harm, no foul.
Besides, today there is an unofficial fourth branch of government. It's called the media, and the court of public opinion. I'm not afraid of any branch of government becoming too powerful anymore, because the media, and court of public opinion will expose them. I mean, look at the amount of criticism against Bush, and he hasn't even broken the law. Imagine how everyone would tear him up if he did break the law?
Today someone can be tried, convicted and executed in the media, and court of public opinion. I'm more afraid of that, than I am of the NSA listening.
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong,
Ahoy from the Captain.
Hillary just warming up
Hillary is just warming up. Realizing she cannot continue to misjudge the American voters, as Gore, Peolosi, Kennedy, Dean, Boxer, etc have been doing, she's remaking her image. The only way the Democrats take the White House is to be tougher than the Republicans on immigration (sealing our borders), and dealing with Iran. Once Iraq is not page 1, these issues, and others, will have to be dealt with.
Illegal immigrants don't vote, so support for sealing our borders won't cost many votes, and the party will probably gain votes from moderates who support a strong border policy.
Instead of letting Republicans take the lead and define these issues, the Democrats must beat them to the punch. The Democrats can be just as tough as the Republicans, but the country doesn't know that, and should be reminded every now and then.
So don't be surprised if Hillary supports sealing our borders, coming down hard on Iran, and continuing to support an American military presence in the Middle East. These are just some of the things one must do to retake the White House.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Ahoy from the Captain.
Misc stuff
To say Sen Lieberman's recent comments about staying the course, and support for Bush's plan in Iraq, are divisive, and may even hurt the Democratic efforts to present a unified voice on the Iraq issue (which is bad for Democratic Party troop morale), is to admit Democratic remarks which leave the impression they might pull troops from Iraq before the job is finished, are also divisive, and hurt the nation's efforts to present a unified voice (which is bad for troop morale). You can't have it both ways, either both of these are examples of healthy discourse, or they're not.
Say you've got cancer. They're going to operate. Do you want a doctor who cuts out some of your living tissues in order to insure he gets all the cancerous tissues? Or do you want one who stops short of taking any living tissue, but is sure he got all of the cancerous tissues?
Sure we're going to suffer losses, and we have. Our casualties have been relatively minor, as far as wars go. How many civilian casualities since 9/11? Our casualties have been military, not civilian. They're paid to be shot at, and they shoot back. Maybe we forget, that they have their jobs to do, and we have ours. That's what having an army is all about, so they get shot at, while we can do our jobs without getting shot at.
When we really look at what both sides are saying, they pretty much agree on doing the same things. But the Republicans are calling the plan a success. While the Democrats say it's Bush's fault the plan isn't working. Since both sides are talking about the same plan, the truth, as usual, lies somewhere between these two views.
Man did I get off track. Well I'm about to go further off track... Ever hear of those games where they take a TV program, and re-cast the characters with other well known people? Here's what I'm talking about:
Which popular TV police/crime shows best depict the Democratic and Republican parties? I say, the Republican Party would be The Shield, and the Democratic Party would be, like...Monk. Yeah, one side touchy-feely, the other kickin' ass and takin' names.
Yeah, Bush would be Vic Mackey, bustin' in doors. Shoving faces onto red hot stoves. Taking shots from all sides, and bending a few laws. Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld would be Mackey's tactical team. See how this works? You match up the characters on the show with who they best fit in the respective parties.
This is where I need help, I can't really place who would be Monk. I figure Monk is the character created by the images of Kerry, Pelosi, Boxer, Kennedy, Gore, etc, all rolled into one weird dude. I mean Monk is a pretty weird, shifting in and out of reality, type dude. Kind of like the Democratic message.
The Governor of Louisiana (sorry, I can't remember her name, I'm drawing a blank) could be Monk's aide, someone carried along for the ride, by events out of her control, but isn't willing to admit it. How do you know which one I'm talking about? See, that's how you tell if it's a fit, or not.
Dean would be perfect as Randy the idiot lieutenant.
The media could play itself.
Harry Reid could be an attorney for the mob.
Ahoy from the Captain.
The problem with politics today in the U.S.
This may be harsh, but one of the worst things parents can do to their children, is to fight in front of them. I'm not talking about arguments, but even these should be waged away from the children whenever possible. I don't know, is it ignorance or stupidity? It seems pretty clear that if the parents fight in front of their children, they have failed as parents. Parents who cause their children to believe they love each other, turn out to be selfish liars, more interested in their own short term gratification, than anything else. There really are no winners of these fights.
That's what I see today between the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. The level and tone has just gotten so nasty, I wish they'd keep their arguments private, and present a unified voice to the nation. Sure they can disagree, but they need to show the nation that they really are more alike, than they are different. They need to show the rest of the family they care about us, not just each other. Otherwise, they just reveal their ignorance and stupidity, and their lack of respect for the rest of the family. They also reveal their failure as leaders.
So I say to them, what they are basically saying to us: Fuck them all.
Now I ask, is this any way to converse?
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Ahoy from the Captain.
Atheism is a religion, just as secularism is a religion
If religions are belief systems created by man, then so is atheism and secularism. All religions, all beliefs, come from man. Sure there are old stories about how God
gave particular beliefs to particular individuals, so that they would spread these beliefs. But these stories weren't written by God, they were written by men who say they were
inspired by God. I haven't spoken with any of these people who say they were inspired by God, so how do I know if God inspired them or not?
Whether there is a God or not makes no difference when talking about beliefs. Some people believe in a God, some people don't. Both groups believe something, and both groups are entitled to their beliefs. One group's beliefs should not interfere with, or be placed superior to the others'. But to say that a non-belief, is not a belief is clearly wrong. Just because there's no formal house of worship for non-believers makes no difference, many believers do not attend any formal services, or belong to any particular church. Sure, it's easy to be a non-believer, you don't have to do anything, believe in anything, remember anything, in order to be one. But that doesn't mean it's not a belief system, or a religion.
I believe our founding fathers created a way for church to be separate from state, and yet allow believers and non-belivers to each express their own beliefs. The separation of church and state is not threatened by references to God or to a creator. It is only threatened when the power of the state is used to promote one set of beliefs over another. I believe this refers to any legislation that promotes one set of beliefs over another.
For example, let's say a student in a federally financed school draws a picture of Jesus praying. The school did not tell the student to draw this picture, the school did not promote the picture once it was drawn, in fact the school proved this by not allowing the student to display this picture. Yet the school went too far, and actually promoted one set of beliefs over another by making the student remove the picture. The state must protect the right of the people to express their personal beliefs, while not imposing any particular belief system in the process.
People have the right to express religious views, even public figures. To silence them is to violate the separation of church and state. That would promote one set of beliefs over another, using the law, using the force of the state to establish a belief system. Isn't that exactly what our founding fathers wanted to avoid?
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Ahoy from the Captain.
GPS in NFL?
There was a game this year when the 49ers played, I believe, Chicago. A Chicago player returned a missed field goal. He caught the ball 8 yards deep in the end zone, ran to his left out to the 20 yard line or so, and was to the left of the numbers on the field when he reversed direction. He ran all the way across the field to his right, and then ran the length of the field. He was credited with a 108 yard return, but if there had been a GPS chip in the ball, I'll be he had more like a 158 yard return.
If there were a GPS chip in the ball, and all the out-of-bounds and goal lines were GPS tracked as well, it could speed up replays where it's not clear if the ball broke the plane, or was in or out of bounds. Hang time of a punt? Old school. With GPS we would know hang time, average speed, highest speed, slowest speed, height of kick, and if it went out of bounds on the fly we'd know exactly where to spot it. We would know how fast centers snap it, how fast QB's throw it, and how fast runners run with it.
That's with a chip just in ball, now if we put chips on all the players as well...But maybe no one cares about all this. Maybe owners, coaches and players don't want this information available to everyone, like, what if Ted Washington
is faster than Kerry Collins? It would be harder to hide an injury to a key player if everyone knew he wasn't running or throwing as fast as he had been, and this information could be available instantly so that announcers could mention it after each play.
On a completely different subject, how about this? If Peyton and Eli Manning each have 2 boys who grow up to be NFL QB's, and they each have 2 boys who grow up to be NFL QB's, and so on. In just over a hundred years, every team could have a Manning QB, even if the league expands to 64 teams.
Ahoy from the Captain.
