Obama’s campaign has done an excellent job portraying his opponent, John McCain, as a fixture in the capitol; one of the good old boys who has been kicking around for so long that he’s grown roots. In contrast to this image, Obama is the newcomer to Washington, and thus, the man who is going to bring about much desired change. It’s true that Obama is relatively new to Washington. He was elected as a United States Senator in 2005. Prior to that, he served six years as a State Senator in the state of Illinois, dealing with issues on a much smaller scale than at the national level. Two years after Obama was elected to the United States Senate, he announced his bid for president. In a few months Obama have been in office for four years. Thus, half of his Senate career has been spent campaigning for president. Even Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, Obama’s vice presidential pick, criticized Obama’s lack of experience when he said during the Democratic primary debates, “I think he can be ready but right now, I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.” Perhaps the rooted tree is not so bad in comparison to the newly sprouted twig which has yet to bear fruit.

Not only is Obama a newcomer, he is a newcomer with questionable connections back in Illinois. Senator Obama and his wife, Michelle, attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for twenty years. Obama’s pastor during that time was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a man whose sermons are full of anti-American and racist sentiments. “Not God bless America,” said Wright in a sermon one Sunday morning, “God damn America!” Wright has also referred to America as the, “U.S. of K.K.K.A.” Wright advocates Black Liberation Theology, whose founder, James Cone, said in his book A Black Theology of Liberation, “There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks…What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God’s love.” This view of God is very different from traditional Christian theology, which teaches that God loves everyone. Wright is a strong supporter of Cone’s writings, and is well steeped in his views, which are reflected in Wright’s sermons. Clearly, Wright’s views are questionable, if not radical, and he preaches far more than religion.

Many in the Obama camp have disputed the relevance of Obama’s ties to Wright, claiming that to attach Obama to Wright’s rhetoric is guilt by association. But one has to question why Obama attended his church for twenty years if he did not agree with Wright’s preaching. One would have to be stupendously oblivious indeed to be ignorant of their own pastor’s views—views which he mentioned from the pulpit fairly often—but perhaps Obama simply is not a regular church-goer. Even so, it’s still hard to believe how one person could possess the happy luck of skipping church for twenty years on every Sunday where Wright decided to say something inflammatory, anti-American or racist. Even harder still is it to believe that no one else at the church would have told Obama what Wright had said on Sunday, especially once he became an elected official. Wright’s sentiments were frequently published in Trinity United’s church bulletin, which Obama likely would have read. The title of Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope was even inspired by one of Wright’s sermons. Thus, it’s clear that Obama could not have been entirely unaware of what his own pastor and spiritual mentor was saying. Why did he stay, then? We have not been given a clear answer. But one thing is certain: Obama’s choice to remain at Trinity United and select Jeremiah Wright, of all people, as spiritual advisor, shows a clear lack of judgment.

Obama’s judgment is poor not only in his choice of church, but in his policies as well. In the last presidential debate of the year, Obama explained to the American people that he is going to cut taxes for 95% of working Americans, while the top 5% will see a tax increase. The problem with this statement is that only 40% of working Americans are tax paying Americans. It’s impossible to cut someone’s taxes if they aren’t paying taxes in the first place. In other words, Obama’s plan would involve giving government hand outs, paid for by tax payers, to the remaining 55% of working Americans. Obama said to the now infamous Joe Wurzelbacher, also known as Joe the Plumber, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” This idea of spreading wealth around is embodied in one of Karl Marx’s slogans: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Obama supporters dislike it when critics label Obama a socialist or communist. But the idea of spreading wealth around is a Marxist one. The fact that Obama would support such policies is unlikely to sit well with the American people once they realize the implications.

It would certainly be a change in modern times to elect a man president after serving just four years in the U.S. Senate and six years in the Illinois State Senate. It would also be a big change to elect someone who had attended such an extreme and hateful church for two decades. So too would it be a change for the American people to elect to the highest office in the nation someone who advocates communist policies only a generation after the end of the Cold War and the staunch opposition to communism during the Reagan administration. But all of this talk about change misses the point. Regardless of this election’s outcome there will be a change. We will have a new president. The real issue is what sort of change this new president will bring. Barack Obama will bring inexperience, poor judgment, and socialist policies to the White House. Such change is change America cannot afford. Such change is change Obama can keep.

But, I’m flying by myself to Washington, D.C. on a red eye on Tuesday to go to a TeenPact alumni event where we get to tour the capitol and attend the Values Voter Summit. McCain and Obama are invited. But what I’m hoping for is Palin.

I make no promises, but with any luck I’ll blog about it once I get back! Flying home on the 15th.

Take a drink every time:

• Obama says, “Thank You,” while waiting for the crowd to quiet down.
• The word, “change,” is uttered.
• George Bush is mentioned.
• The phrase, “Now is the time,” or, “This is the moment,” is used.
• John McCain is mentioned.
• He uses the phrase, “The politics of the past.”
• The word, “hope,” is used.

Oh my. Did he seriously just say, “If you don’t have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone you should run from?”

Was that a general statement or was he referring to a specific case?

• I have a new laptop (JOY!)
• It’s better than my PC (RAPTURE!)
• It was a steal on coupon at Costco (MONEY!)
• It runs my games quite pleasantly (PWNAGE!)
• Its OS is Windows Vista (…AGONY!)

That is all.

P.S.
It’s 8/8/08!

Many things have changed in my life since then. In October, I had just barely started my senior year in high school and planned to study Elementary Education at Multnomah Bible College the following year. Somewhere along the line, however, I went crazy, and decided to go into politics instead. Now I’m several months away from beginning my studies at a local community college, with plans to transfer to a four year school after earning my associates degree.

That was only the beginning

My social circle is not even the same as it was when last I blogged. In October, I’d had the same two best friends for nearly eight years, but all three of us since have had a falling out, about which I needn’t go into detail. It’s a strange thing to adapt to; living life without two people with whom you shared everything for eight years. But I’ve made new friends since then, including new best friends.

I never thought I’d be friends with some of them. If you’d told me I’d ever be best friends with them back in October, I would’ve laughed. I’m so thankful I was wrong, though. Other friendships of mine have been strengthened, and despite the pain which necessarily must go hand in hand with such a radical change, I’m now glad it took place.

The best year of my life?

I’ve had tremendous opportunities this year as well:

• I spent a week in my state capitol for TeenPact Leadership School, a Christian government class which includes mock elections and a mock Senate.
• A few friends I made along the way talked me into a small, but real election, and I ended up representing my county as a delegate at Washington’s Republican State Convention.
• During the week prior to state convention, I attended Music in May at Pacific University, where I spent three days rehearsing with a three-hundred voice choir. It was directed by Dr. Craig Jessop, former director of the Mormon Tabernacle choir.
• Just during this past week I’ve been at a Worldview Academy Leadership Camp, having the best week of my life.
• And finally, in September I’m flying to Washington, D.C. for a TeenPact Alumni event which includes attending the Values Voter Summit. Speakers at the summit last year included all of the Republican presidential candidates and invited this year are both Obama and McCain.

Have I been incredibly blessed this year or what? When I take a step back and realize everything that I’m doing all at once, I wonder if, in the future, I will end up regarding this as one of the best years of my life.

And yet I haven’t blogged about it!

Throughout all of this I’ve been unable to blog, however, because I’ve been desirous to make some major changes first. Those changes have been, or are being, made now, so I may finally start blogging again!

But, and this is a big but, many of my old visitors are likely to find that they are no longer interested in my posts. As you may have noticed, many of my archives are gone, including all of my web design posts.* That’s because I don’t intend to blog about web design in the future. Instead, I intend to blog mostly about American politics, religion, and my life.

No one is without a bias, so I will be forthright about mine: I am a Christian, and, as you might have gathered from the rest of my post, I lean to the right politically. I welcome those who disagree with me to read my posts and comment just as much as I welcome those who agree.

I also know that there are people who disagree with me and would rather not read my posts, and there are also those who are uninterested in such topics. Thus, I thought I would offer this head’s up to allow people the opportunity to remove links or unsubscribe from my feed if they so desire. That is, assuming anyone is still subscribed in the first place!

For the rest of you: enjoy the new Eruantale.net—which should hopefully include more frequent posting!**

Notes

* If you found the information in my web design posts helpful, I still have them on my computer. Just let me know in a comment and I will gladly e-mail them to you.

** So there, Meli!

The comment that started it all

On September 26th, 2007, Rush was talking to a caller about people who lie about their military service to give them credibility and then denounce military efforts in Iraq. He was referring to the case of Jesse MacBeth, the man who claimed to be a veteran of the Iraq war and lied to reporters about fictional war crimes his unit had supposedly committed. MacBeth had actually only been in the army for forty-four days before he’d been deemed unfit and subsequently kicked out. Rush referred to such soldiers as “phony soldiers” in this call:

CALLER: No, it’s not. And what’s really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
RUSH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they’re proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they’re willing to sacrifice for the country.

Congress throws a hissy fit

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his buddies in congress took this phrase and ran with it, attempting to vilify Rush. Representative Mark Udall introduced a Resolution in the House of Representatives lying about Rush’s comment and condemning him for something he did not say. Here is a quote from the resolution:

Whereas on September 26, 2007, the broadcaster Rush Limbaugh told a nationwide radio audience that members of the Armed Forces who have expressed disagreement with current policies of the United States regarding military activities in Iraq are ”phony soldiers’‘…

Meanwhile, in the Senate, Reid and forty other Democratic senators, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Kerry, wrote and signed a letter to the president of Clear Channel, Rush’s syndication partner. Reid apparently lacks the I.Q. to comprehend what Rush was saying as well, judging by this quote from the letter:

Although Americans of goodwill debate the merits of this war, we can all agree that those who serve with such great courage deserve our deepest respect and gratitude. That is why Rush Limbaugh’s recent characterization of troops who oppose the war as “phony soldiers” is such an outrage.

Forty-one senators total signed this letter and sent it Mark Mays, the CEO of Clear Channel, apparently unaware that Mays is a personal friend of Rush. Mays laughed it off and gave the letter to Rush, who then hatched an ingenious plot to totally pwn the lot of them.

Rush pwns all

Rush announced on October 12th that he would be auctioning off the letter on eBay. The auction includes the original smear letter in a Halliburton briefcase, a personal thank you letter from Rush and a photograph of Rush displaying the letter in Philadelphia on October 11th. The entire winning bid of the auction is to be donated to The Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation. Furthermore, Rush is going to personally match the winning bid dollar for dollar in his own contribution to the charity.

Reid and his goons accused Rush of being unsupportive of the military. It’s no surprise to me that this accusation came in the wake of MoveOn.org’s General ‘Betray Us’ ad and Hillary’s claim that to believe General Petraeus’ report on Iraq would require the “willing suspension of disbelief.” The Democrats attacked Rush in order to say: “ZOMG! RUSH DOESN’T SUPPORT THE MILITARY, WE DO!” Rush called their bluff. No, wait, Rush didn’t just call their bluff—Rush delivered them a roundhouse kick to the face, Chuck Norris style. And Rush has called upon those senators to match the bid in their own contribution to the charity as well:

And I would like to issue this challenge to Senator Reid and the 41 senators who signed his letter. You say you support the military. You say you’re big, and you think it’s patriotic, and that I was unpatriotic. Well, I would like for each of you, Senator Reid, and the 40 Senators who signed, to match whatever the winning bid is. Show us your support for the US military by all 41 of you pro-military people, Democrats in the Senate, match whatever the winning bid is and send that amount to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation.

Will any of the Democratic Senators take up this challenge? We shall see. But I’m doubtful they would want to acknowledge the auction at all, which, by the way, just jumped up to more than $500,000.

1. Hardback or trade paperback or mass market paperback?

For collecting: hardback. For reading: trade paperback. For the sake of my wallet: mass market paperback.

2. Amazon or brick-and-mortar? (buying online or in a store?)

Though I don’t typically buy from Amazon, I prefer online because it’s generally cheaper and we don’t have any large bookstores here. Also, if I’m looking for a particular book, I can never find it at the bookstore. However I do love browsing sections and finding new books at bookstores.

3. Amazon or the Co-Op Bookstore?

What?

4. Barnes & Noble or Borders?

Barnes and Noble

5. Bookmark or dog ear?

Bookmark. I’ve never even really considered dog earing. But get this: my sister doesn’t use either. She remembers what page she’s on.

6. Alphabetize by author, or alphabetize by title, or random?

None of the above! I sort by subject, and then by height and color. It’s better for your books to group ones of the same height together, and within those groups I sort by color. My bookcase is the main focal point of my bedroom. It has to look good.

7. Keep, throw away, or sell?

Generally keep. The only book I’ve ever thrown away was The Da Vinci Code, because I bought it before I knew it was a crock of absurd conspiracy theories.

8. Keep dust jacket or toss it?

Either or. It all depends on whether or not I’m too lazy to put the dust jacket on after I’m done reading. If that happens, usually it gets stepped on, and then I throw it away.

9. Read with dust jacket on or remove it?

Remove it. It just gets in my way.

10. Short story or novel?

Novel. I’m not big on short stories unless they’re really good. Then again, I’m not big on anything unless it’s really good.

11. Collection (short stories by same author) or anthology (short stories by different authors)?

Collection, as long as I like the author.

12. Harry Potter or Lemony Snicket?

Neither. I stopped reading Lemony Snicket in 6th grade—and that’s probably where I should’ve left Potter, too.

13. Stop reading when tired, or at chapter breaks?

Wherever. I don’t insist on holding out for a chapter break. I’ll stop mid-sentence if I feel like it.

14. “It was a dark and stormy night” or “Once upon a time”?

Once upon a time. They’re both cliches, but the former is too dramatic for me.

15. Buy or Borrow?

I usually borrow because if I bought all of the books I read I would go broke. If I had the money, I would do it. I love owning a large amount of books.

16. New or used?

New.

17. Buying choice: book reviews, recommendation, or browse?

Browse, I suppose. I’ll buy a book on a whim after reading the back if I’m in a bookstore. But most of the time I buy books by authors I know I like or because I need them for school.

18. Tidy ending or cliffhanger?

Cliffhangers are only permissible when there is a sequel and it’s sitting right next to me, prepared to be read the moment I finish my current volume.

19. Morning, afternoon or night-time reading?

Any time I’m awake.

20. Stand alone or series?

I don’t find myself reading many series lately, so I guess stand alone.

21. Favorite series?

Hands down: Lord of the Rings.

22. Favorite book of which nobody else has heard?

Hmm… I primarily read classics, so I don’t often read a book no one else knows about. I suppose I’ll have to go with Cry, the Beloved Country by Alan Paton.

23. Favorite books read last year?

That’s a really tough question. I read so many wonderful books last year! But I’m going to go with Hard Times by Charles Dickens. The ending of that book is so skillfully orchestrated that it probably could move most anyone to tears. It certainly did so for me.

…is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

This comes as no surprise to me, but I am still a bit… confused. Alfred Nobel, the man whom the award is named after, said that the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded, “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.

Putting aside my doubts on the subject of global warming, I do not see how Al Gore and the IPCC’s efforts to raise public awareness on this subject contribute to “peace” in any way. Shouting to the world, “Global Warming is coming!” doesn’t really count as promoting fraternity between nations. It doesn’t discourage fraternity, either. The two things are entirely unrelated. Likewise, neither Gore nor IPCC have done anything in particular for the abolition or reduction of standing armies. As for the holding and promotion of peace congresses, as far as I’m aware, that has not been their concern.

It is interesting to note that this comes shortly after a British court found nine inaccuracies or “untruths” in An Inconvenient Truth, and ruled that Mr. Gore’s documentary could only be shown in schools if the teacher pointed out these inaccuracies and made clear that the film is a political work. Here are a few of the inaccuracies listed:

• Mr. Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. The judge said: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s “wake-up call”. He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - “but only after, and over, millennia”.” The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”
• The documentary speaks of global warming “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor”—the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the IPCC, the judge said that it was “very unlikely” that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.

As a result of this ruling, Dr. Muriel Newman, Director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, has written to the President of the Academy Awards, asking that An Inconvenient Truth’s Oscar be revoked. She is quoted in a press release as saying in her letter:

Given that the Oscar Award was presented in the documentary category and not the drama category, the only appropriate action now is for the Academy to rescind the Award as it was clearly inappropriately classed as a documentary.

The truth, as inconvenient as it is to Al Gore, is that his so-called documentary contained critical distortions that are quite contrary to the principles of good documentary journalism. Good documentaries should be factually correct. Clearly this documentary is not.

Dr. Newman goes on to say that An Inconvenient Truth belongs in a “Political Drama” category, but I disagree. In order to be a political drama, the film would have to admit that it is, in fact, fictional. But the film is called An Inconvenient Truth, and it attempts to pass itself off as fact, not fiction, even while it, ah, “exaggerates” things a bit. That’s called propaganda.

Gore even admits to overstating things:

“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”

He knows that his film misrepresents the actual danger, but that does not stop him from labeling it a documentary and offering 50,000 copies of the film to the National Science Teachers Association (which, by the way, declined). This goes far beyond documentary or political drama. An Inconvenient Truth is a convenient lie for Gore, whose concern over global warming apparently is not large enough to stop him from living in a mansion which uses much more energy than the average home, or from flying around in private jets. And yet, somehow this man has done something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.

The Academy has not yet responded to Dr. Newman’s letter. I am doubtful that it will do much. I’m doubtful this blog post will do much. However, I’m about as sure that Mr. Gore does not deserve this Peace Prize as I am sure that Live Earth had quite possibly the largest carbon footprint of any event to date—which is to say I’m certain of it.

Now, in her latest work — “Backlash” meets “Stiffed” and thinks about terrorism — Faludi wonders why the nation’s response to the 2001 attacks was to retreat into a mythological framework that insists the only way for America to be safe is for men to be strong, and the only way for men to be strong is for women to be weak.

Or as she describes the combined reaction of media and government in “Terror Dream”: “Why were we willing ourselves back onto a frontier where pigtailed damsels clutched rag dolls and prayed for a male avenger to return them to the home?”

Uh… What?

Am I the only one completely lost here? What country has she been living in? Iran, perhaps? I haven’t a clue what the devil she’s talking about. Did I miss the memo announcing that women have all quit their jobs or been fired by their male bosses? Did I merely dream that Nancy Pelosi became the speaker of the house? (Lord, I hope so.) Have I been misinformed about the Democratic party’s current front runner primary candidate? Did the blogs I read not pick up on the new report saying colleges have all dropped their Women’s Studies programs and adopted Men’s Studies programs instead? No?

I haven’t the foggiest notion how 9/11 can possibly relate to feminism—unless you relate it to the repression of women in the Middle East. Why don’t you write about a problem that actually exists, Ms. Faludi? How about the women coerced into committing suicide in Turkey or the women stoned to death in Iran for committing adultery, even though the practice has been outlawed?

Ah, but I suppose those two issues don’t fit very well with her politics. Well, in that case, ignore away, ma’am, ignore away…

Usage of the cover of The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America is considered by the author of this article to be fair use under copyright law.

A Comparison: Old Zune vs. New Zune

For the record, Microsoft now offers a 4 GB, an 8 GB, and an 80 GB Zune. But since the 80 GB Zune is now only available in black, I will be comparing the old 30 GB pink Zune to the new 4 GB pink Zune, because it’s difficult to see the buttons in the photos of the black Zunes.

The Old

I actually really liked the design of the old Zune. I thought it was very attractive.

The silver border around the screen and the circle in the middle contrasted nicely with the color of the player and the screen. I liked the fact that the two buttons on either side of the scroll wheel knockoff* were centered vertically.

All in all, everything contrasted nicely and there was good symmetry. If my iPod looked exactly like that and did not need a case, I would be in heaven.

Enter: Zune 2.0

Where do I even begin criticizing this fart of a design?

The lack of a silver border separating the pure black screen and the pink finish takes away a lot of the appeal of the old appearance. I hate the fact that the scroll wheel knockoff and the buttons are no longer perfectly round. Also, as one of my friends put it, the scroll wheel now has “Mickey Mouse Ears.” I can’t see any good reason for putting the buttons above the scroll wheel. It’s not useful and it’s not pleasing to the eye at all.

Additionally, there seems to be entirely too much pink now. Even the labels on the two little buttons are pink. It seems somewhat difficult to distinguish them. The entire design in general is just very unappealing, and it makes me say, “Man, am I glad my iPod doesn’t look like that.”

Sadly, this pink version of the new Zune is actually the most attractive color of them all, save perhaps black. But the only reason black looks more attractive is because all of these little design flaws are less noticeable.

Is Microsoft just Stupid?

I cannot fathom why Microsoft would throw away such a nice design in their new incarnation of the Zune. I mean, the Zune didn’t really have much going for it anyway. Its greatest innovation was the ability to wirelessly send a song to another Zune, whose owner could then listen to the song a grand total of three times—and even then, the system was flawed.

Microsoft always seems to be several years late on everything they release. They never really offer anything better than what’s already out there, and when they do attempt to innovate, they end up breaking something that works nicely, such as this, or Internet Explorer’s user interface in version 7. And how about that new OS, Vista? That one’s really selling like hotcakes, isn’t it?

Maybe it’s time for Microsoft to fire a few of the morons who design this junk and hire some folks who actually know how to come up with decent new ideas.

Meanwhile, I’m pining for an iPod touch. How ’bout you?

Notes:

*I hesitate to call this a scroll wheel, as I don’t know if it functions that way, but the term works for me and I’m going to use it anyway.

[source] “I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so when that young person turns 18, if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college.”

Well, if we’re talking about ideas we like, here are some I like: I like the idea of giving every new married couple $10,000. We could also buy everyone a house, and a car, and pay everyone’s cell phone bill. In fact, if this is all on Hillary’s dime, let’s hand out free toilet paper, pay people to go to school, and buy us all Lexuses!

Oh, wait. It’s not on Hillary’s dime. Nor is it on the government’s dime. The United States government does not have any money. It only has the power to take money from the taxpayer. So listen up, folks: If you think you’re getting free anything out of any presidential candidate—free insurance, free college, free day care, or a free deposit in your baby’s college savings account—you’re wrong. You will pay for each of these services through tax hikes, and if you vote for these things, you are voting to force everyone else to pay for it too. In essence, you are taking my money.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m not interested in paying for everyone else’s college. I’m concerned enough with paying for my own.

Correction (9/29/07): I originally linked to Clinton talks ‘Baby Bonds’ as my source. While this was one of the articles I had read while researching this post, it was not the article I intended to link to as a reference. This has been corrected in the post above.

First came the news that Iranian President Ahmadinejad was coming to the USA to speak to the UN, and wanted to visit Ground Zero while he was in New York City—to place a wreath there, naturally. Ahmadinejad has, in the past, denied that the Holocaust ever occurred, and frequently calls for the destruction of Israel and the US. It seems that the NYPD has refused to provide protection should he venture to Ground Zero, but last time I checked, he still wanted to visit, and may get Secret Service protection.

After this came the news that Ahmadinejad would be giving a speech at Columbia University where he would also be answering questions from students. Apparently, they plan on challenging his stance on things such as the Holocaust and his calls for the destruction of Israel, etc. I keep hearing words and phrases such as “free speech”, “debate”, “discussion” and “diplomacy” tossed around in defense of this, but I personally have two choice words to throw back: “evil” and “propaganda”. You don’t give evil a platform from which to spew propaganda. There’s nothing praiseworthy or honorable about that. It’s just disgraceful and naive, especially when you take into consideration the fact that Columbia doesn’t even allow US Military representatives or the ROTC on their campus.

While all of this idiocy was going on, Iran had a parade where they showed off their military, including fighter jets and their new long range missile. Ahmadinejad’s favorite part of the parade was when the banners proclaiming “Down with USA” and “Down with Esrail [sic]“ went by.

But why am I even talking about this? None of this is important! The more pressing issue is that water is going to be lapping the sides of money towers in Silicon Valley in a century, all because of Global Warming! Forget the fact that much of Silicon Valley is… a valley… and therefore not on the coast—the AP said it’s going to happen! It must be true! Quick! Change all your light bulbs and stop flushing your toilet! Try to breathe less! You’re releasing too much carbon into the air! Someone call Al Gore and tell him to hop on his private jet and give a speech in Washington, D.C. immediately!

Entertainment Weekly: What do you think is the larger social commentary of The Brave One, which in some ways plays as a straight-up Dirty Harry revenge movie?

Jodie Foster: Here’s my commentary: I don’t believe that any gun should be in the hand of a thinking, feeling, breathing human being. Americans are by nature filled with rage-slash-fear. And guns are a huge part of our culture. I know I’m crazy because I’m only supposed to say that in Europe. But violence corrupts absolutely. By the end of this, her transformation is complete. ”F— all of you, now I’m just going to kill people with my bare hands.” [source]

Excellent idea! Let’s give all the guns to the unthinking, unfeeling, breathing human beings instead!

Granted, I know that’s not what she meant. Things would be a lot better off if no one had any guns. I’ll give her that much. Here’s the problem: I don’t know about Ms. Foster, but I don’t live in a John Lennon song. I live in reality. And in reality, the bad guys will always find a way to get guns if they want them so badly.

In one of history’s more absurd acts of totalitarianism, China has banned Buddhist monks in Tibet from reincarnating without government permission. According to a statement issued by the State Administration for Religious Affairs, the law, which goes into effect next month and strictly stipulates the procedures by which one is to reincarnate, is “an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation.” [source]

Now, I’m no reincarnation expert here, but… how is that even possible?

Reading further, this apparently is an attempt by China to regulate the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, who can supposedly control his rebirth. Though I wouldn’t put it past China to pass this law just so they could randomly arrest babies, but there wouldn’t seem to be much point in that.

$10 says that if my site is not already banned in China, it soon will be.

This post is 156 words long and is part of ERULYNSKY Blogathon 3000
View the score so far!

When I was nine, I wore pink sweatpants and a purple Pocahontas sweatshirt, or maybe overalls. My mom was lucky if she could get me to brush my hair in the morning. These girls, who are between the ages of nine and twelve, are getting spray tans, manicures, highlights, and waxings.

My idea of a manicure was coloring my fingernails with markers or putting Elmer’s glue all over my hands and then peeling it off once it was dry.

Then again, I was not involved in any kind of modeling or pageantry, as these girls are. If I had been, and had started behaving like this, my parents, being sane, would have pulled my butt out of that deal and told me, “NO MAKE-UP UNTIL YOU’RE THIRTY!”

These mothers are destroying their children, and it disgusts me. Belle Chapman’s mother Cheryl had this to say about her daughter, who is eleven:

“She does all this very sexy dancing, ’shaking your booty’ I think it’s called.

But she has no idea how sexual the moves are. I wonder what’s going to be left for her when she actually becomes a teenager — where is it all headed?”

Yet she doesn’t put a stop to all of this nonsense. And how about this gem of a quote from nine-year-old Bethany’s mother?

Catherine says: “If her nails need doing or the tan needs topping up, Bethany complains she doesn’t feel right - a feeling lots of women can associate with.”

I’m sorry, Catherine, but your child is not a woman. She’s a nine-year-old girl. She should be stringing up McDonalds toys with dental floss, pretending they’re The Borrowers. She should be outside riding her bike for two hours, not inside executing her beauty regimen. She should be wrestling a Barbie away from the dog, or trying to talk her sister into eating a mud pie.

Please, someone go slap these parents silly. I would do it myself, but unfortunately I’m on the other side of the pond (and then some).

Photograph copyright © gofish343.

This post is 382 words long and is part of ERULYNSKY Blogathon 3000
View the score so far!