This is why I started a blog in the first place

I was tired of seeing my predictions come true without getting enough of an opportunity for em to say "I told you so," and sick of seeing my ideas being spouted as fresh long after I had come up with them.
A case in point. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal today about how Mr. Rogers is responsible for the increased sense of entitlement in Americans that have grown up in the past twenty five years. It was true, but it was annoying to see my theory of childern's self-esteem building television in a major newspaper before I had published it anywhere myself.
My theory is that Barney is a particularly egregious culprit of building excessive, unfounded, unmerited, unshakeable senses of entitlement. That is why there is such a sharp downturn in the propriety of behavior one sees amongst people just a few years younger than I am. I suspect that my cohort, those born in the early eighties, started saying "what's wrong with kids today?" younger than any generatiin in history. There is a clear, easily seen difference in behavior in those that thought Barney was for babies and those that watched it.
And I would wager anything that Barney watching will eventually be found to have a strong correlation with property crimes, since it raised a whole generation to believe that sharing is a moral obligation, and that those that won't share are bad enough people that they are beyond the bounds of society.

Ride the Lightning

I'm not sure how many religious voters were planning to vote for Rudy before Tuesday's debate, but I doubt any still are. I happen not to think that God was drowning out Rudy's response to a Catholic bishop's criticism of his abortion stance, but if I were the sort of person that thought that there was divine intervention in American politics, I most definitely would. I'm glad that CNN saw the humor in the situation and has replayed the clip a lot, but you really miss out on the full effects unless you watch the full debate. The lightning caused a series of small chirps and sound difficulties that did not really disrupt the debate once Wold Blitzer explained that it was interference from the lightning and everyone could stop wondering "what are those little chirps." Then came Rudy on abortion. Then the lightning got serious. Basically his entire answer was drowned out by a series of squawks made by the lightning. When he finished, the lightning went back to making the small chirps of interference. This sequence was so much funnier if one actually watched the debate than if one just saw clips. I highly recommend going for the whole thing. Especially if you are a religious Rudy backer.

And if it gets popular again?

Some people I know seem puzzled by my opposition to Hilary Clinton. She seems to be a fairly moderate centrist person, just the sort of person I'd be likely to vote for. My answer is fairly simple. If the Iraq war becomes popular again, I think she'll be for it again, and I don't want to vote for a public opinion poll. She makes the first Clinton seem like a paragon of political courage. Now, I liked the first Clinton (policy-wise, not personally, well, at least after '94 I liked most of his policies) despite his political cowardice, but at least he had the guts to seek middle ground. All that Hilary has shown is the ability to stand exactly where conventional political wisdom says a politic an should be standing to be popular. I find it amazing that Democrats will not give Joe Lieberman their nomination anymore because he continues to agree with Bush yet are considering giving Hilary their nomination after she went around acting like his cheerleader for the Iraq war. But, of course, political wisdom at the time recommended support for the Iraq war and a fawning attitude toward President Bush. And, of course, Hilary Clinton needs to be the next president. Because, of course, she is the only person, not only in America today but in America for all time, who can break the gender barrier and become the FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT.
I, for one, still believe that people with the sort of mind-boggling desire for power at the expense of principle that Hilary Clinton has should under no circumstances be given power. People like her should stay as litigators and stay out of government, even if giving them power would make an important statement.
(And, lest that be taken as some sort of senseless lawyer bashing, I'm a law student with a strong interest in litigation....)

Primary debates.

After watching the primary debates and the past six years of Republican political dominance, is it any wonder that "Some Democrat" trounces "Some Republican" in polls but there isn't any Democratic candidate really in the running that can beat any of the Republicans with real prospects of winning his party's nomination in poll? When all of your even remotely exciting candidates seem to think that debates are good forums for making themselves seem stupid (Obama, Biden) delusional (Richardson on his policies, Kucinich on his chances of being president) nauseatingly phony (Clinton, Edwards) or just plain crazy (Gravel, who delivered the best points of the night, yet choice the rather unfortunate literary format of "insane rant") leaving only Dodd, sensible Dodd, interesting as plain, boiled chicken Dodd, you've got a problem. Don't get me wrong, Dodd would make a good president or presidential candidate in the 1930's, but please, please, Democratic party, don't nominate a smarter but less presidential looking version of Kerry. There are an awful lot of us that would like to elect a Democrat if you will only nominate someone palatable. (Well, all bets are off if Rudy can win the Republican primary without making us vomit, but that seems an ever more doubtful proposition...)

A modest proposal...

... for clarifying discussions of Iraq. Ban the use of the phrase "the enemy" and all variations on it. No "our enemy," no "freedom's enemy," no "America's enemies" None of it. From now on, instead of "the enemy" specific group of people that are our enemies must be identified. If we mean "foreign al-Qaida linked fighters" then that's what we have to say. If we mean "Iranian supported Shiite militia linked death-squads in the security forces we are setting up" then that's what we say. No more of this treating them as the same thing by referring to them both in the same phrase. The sooner we get into our minds that in this war "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not true, the better our chances of coming out with an even halfway decent solution will be.
Although we don't like to say it, we are working with Iranian backed groups in some parts of Iraq. For instance, we work with the governing coalition of the Iraqi parliament. This means that if the claims are to be believed, we are working with Iranian backed groups in some parts of Iraq, and being attacked by those same groups in other parts of Iraq. If we can't have faith that our friends and allies against one group of enemies in Baghdad are not our enemies in Basra, how can we possibly imagine that we might win this war
thinking about "the enemy" as a unitary force?

Has this guy never heard of youtube?

John McCain has effectively ruled himself out of the presidential race with his recent Beach Boys routine. This stellar feat of un-statesmanlike behavior rules him out for a few reasons. First, his big selling point was supposed to be his responsibility, his maturity, his good sense. Well, endorsing military action to the tune of Barbara Ann showed how much sense he has. Second, let's think what happens to the moral high ground we need to have in our effort to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions when our "he called for Israel to be wiped off the map!" can be met by their "at least he took it seriously enough to do it in prose!" And, that brings me to reason number three, either he is foolish or he is out of touch. If he understands the power that video sharing has, then he is an imbecile for singing "Bomb Iran" at a campaign appearance. For the sake of strongly agreeing with one questioner at a rally he made a permanent ass of himself in front of the whole world. If he doesn't realize the power of video sharing, he's basically out of touch with the current world, something very possible in the oldest major presidential candidate ever. Perhaps, for all this talk of how big name recognition and early ability to raise money will decide these primaries, these primaries will prove to be about who can go longest without shooting himself in the foot.

Greetings

As I sat on my couch, idly musing about the affairs of the day, it struck me! The internet has now created a medium wherein idle musings can be shared with millions (or, more likely, dozens) of people with ease. I hope you all will enjoy some of them.