Most ridiculous new item of the day....

Today was a doozy for ridiculous news stories. For example, there is the story about the conservative group lobbying the FBI to investigate hotels that offer porn Pay-Per-View for possible violations of community decency standards. Then, there is the body part recall (note to self: check the liver serial number). Not to be overlooked, Tom Cruise's release from Paramount.

What trumps all of these? The Presidential reading challenge.

Yep. The President has challenged Karl Rove to a reading challenge, or more specifically, who can read more books this year. According to the White House press office, Mr. President has read 60 books this year. Here is a partial list.

Now, let's look at this logically. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that each book averages 250 pages. Divide the total number of pages by 7 months (210 days). That is a staggering 70 pages per day. Not impossible, but as a college student, I have trouble getting through 50 pages of required reading each day. I think that he may have slightly more important things to give him time to.

Of course, this could simply be a punlic relations piece designed to distract those who criticize his apparent lack of intellectual curiosity. If it is not, then I would like to politely ask the President to stop reading on taxpayer time and focus more on his job: serving the American people.

Funny thing about a cease fire

I should preface my thoughts here by saying that I am always happy when two sides agree to stop beating the hell out of each other. That said...

There is something funny about the new cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah. Don't most parties involved with this view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization? Aren't cease fires negotiated? Despite our harsh rhetoric, did we just negotiate with terrorists? Very interesting that a non-state terrorist entity can get a negotiated cease fire agreement through the United Nations.

I think that this could be very bad long term for the interests of both Israel and the United States in the region. Israel made a serious strategic error in thinking that they could just bomb Hezbollah into submission. In the beginning, they had the support of almost every country in the region, but as the air campaign wore on and Hezbollah showed no signs of weakening, public support began to move to the side of Hezbollah. Furthermore, Hezbollah was able to do something that no Arab nation has ever been able to do: Fight Israel to a standstill. I think this has less to do with the capabilities and fortitude of Hezbollah and everything to do with Israel's strategic blunder. Seems to be a bunch of that going around lately.

Now, Hezbollah has shown the Arab world that they are capable of standing up to the "Zionist aggresor". The public adores them. So far, they have been Johnny-on-the-spot in the destroyed areas with cleanup and humanitarian aid. This would be like the Republican party rolling into New Orleans and funding the cleanup and reconstruction out of their private bank account. The public is only going to love Hezbollah more. Remember that Lebanon is a democratic republic, and that chances will increase of Hezbollah obtaining additional power in the government.

Also of interest today was the fact that President Bush called Lebanon the third front in the war on terror. Someone should have told him that the world brokered a treaty with a terrorist organization and the war is over, at least for now.

This could have possibly set a precedent. I wonder if someday the United Nations will broker a cease fire between the United States and the Iraqi insurgency.

They hate us for our freedom....

I am going to puke if I hear this one more time. It is a wholly inaccurate statement that too many people who don't know any better have bought into. No disrespect here, but it amounts to nothing less than Bubba patriotism.

Let's just think about that statement for a second. Can you think of anyone who truly likes to live under the rule of dictatorship? I can just imagine a group of Arabs, sitting around drinking chai and puffing on a hookah: Damn those Americans!!!! They are free, get to drink alcohol, and their women walk around in skimpy clothes. They get to make choices for themselves and wear blue jeans. All we get is women in burkas, a police state, and a religion that requires us to pray 15 times a day. Fuck it, let's kill 'em.

For some reason, I find this unrealistic.

The truth is far more complicated than any sound bite could ever articulate. The most simple explanation is that they hate us because we have been meddling in their affairs for the last 60 years. After WWII, the Western Imperial powers redrew all of the politcal boundries of the region, forcing tribal groups that hate each other to now function as a single nation. As part of this "redistricting" effort, they carved out a little spot for Israel.

Then, the Western nations adopted a policy of standing up monarchs and dictators in these countries that would bend over backwards to help Western companies extract their only natural resources. In this scenerio, the people in power got rich and the remaining populace was relegated to poverty.

Eventually, our pet governments began to fall and the new governments had ideas other than allowing the status quo to continue at their countries' expense. The Western powers punished these new, uncooperative governments with economic sanctions and trade embargos. We supported neighboring countries in wars with these uncooperative countries.

Then came Gulf War I. After Saddam invaded Kuwait, the U.S. came to the rescue. At the request of the House of Saud, we placed troops in Saudi Arabia to prevent Iraq from invading, and then pushed Saddam out of Kuwait. In pushing back Iraq, the U.S. pelted southern Iraq with depleted uranium shells which has contributed to an exponential increase in cancer patients in the country. We then continued to have troops in several countries throughout the region, much to the dismay of the populace. No country likes to be occupied.

Of course, there is also the religious element to consider. I think that this aspect is over emphasized.

In summary, we have told them what there political boundries are, what country they belong to, we take their lone natural resource, we prop up repressive governments, we wage war against them when our favored governments fall, our troops occupy their countries, and our economic policies prevent them from entering the modern world. All things considered, I might hate us too.

Something else that scares the pants off of me is that our elected officials might actually believe that the statement is the truth. How many of our elected officials have spent time in the Middle East without a compliment of security and staff in tow? In the situations that surround there travel, they only get to see what they are shown, much like what happens when the company you work for hosts high profile visiters. If our elected officials are not aware of the history of the Middle East and are not aware of the culture, they are apt to create policy that will offend the people of that part of the world, not help.

Some thoughts on the latest "terror plot"

I can't help but be skeptical of the latest "terror plot" to be foiled and the timing of its announcement. In the past, everytime that the administration needed to deflect criticism away from itself, they would announce the foiling of some "plot" to destroy the US. Does anyone remember the guys who were going to destroy the Brooklyn bridge with cutting torches? How about those crack terrorists, the Miami 6?

My point is that yesterday was a referendum on the President's policies and the public voted for a change: Out with Presidential smoocher Lieberman, in with Lamont. In response, key members of the GOP machine trotted out their talking points: Well, if you support Lamont, then you are supporting another 9/11 and various other scary rhetoric. Oh, and today? Yeah, we caught terrorists trying to blow up airplanes. Go back to sleep America, the GOP has everything under control.

On to the plot itself...

It is being reported that the British government has arrested 21 men, mostly of Pakistani origin, that had planned to detonate liquid explosives on planes headed from Britain to the US while somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean. Not all of the suspects are in custody, and raids are continuing.

What? Not everyone is in custody? Then why are you telling us? Because you just told them that we are looking for them, you idiot...

Mr. Chertoff, Head of Homeland Security, offer this bit of scary genius: "This is a direct threat to the United States."

Scary and effective statement, but not entirely accurate. This plot, if real, is certainly a threat to American citizens, but not a threat to the country itself. The plan was to be executed over the ocean. Murder, yes... Threat to the homeland, no....

What measures are being taken to protect us?

All domestic European flights out of London have been cancelled, and the overseas flights have been delayed. Does this seem backwards to anyone? I thought that the plot involved overseas flights...

Passengers will not be allowed to bring beverages onboard any flight, overseas or here in the US. Huh? First, isn't the plot based in Britain? Second, is it safe to assume that our existing security protocols of requiring passengers to take a drink of any beverage that they intend to bring through security and onto a plane are no longer suffiecient to prevent an explosive from slipping through? Have the terrorists devised a non-toxic explosive? Why not ban electronic devices instead? Surely the detonators must be electronic, and by preventing cell phones from being in the passenger compartment, you certainly are preventing a remote detonation of something stashed in the luggage compartment.

Not to be a Doubting Thomas here, but this whole thing seems assinine. At the very minimum, the actions taken on behalf of our safety seem to be for appearance only...

Now, let's put this in perspective of the Bush War on Terror Doctrine. Since the suspects are of Pakistani orgin, does this mean that it is time to declare war against Pakistan? I thought that President (or is it General? I get confused when it comes to "democratically elected", coup d'etat dictators... er, leaders) Musharraf was an ally in the war on terror. How could he let this happen? Um, wait... Doesn't he have nukes? Isn't Al-Qaida hiding in Pakistan in the mountains? Isn't that country on the verge of war with India because of extremist elements that the President cannot or will not control?

No, better attack Venezuela instead. They have oil, and the adminstration can claim to be tough on Socialism while offsetting the BP pipeline shutdown (British company, btw).

Immigration Madness

As I was sitting in the backyard this morning, enjoying a quiet spring morning, my thoughts were interupted by sirens, horn honking, and random cheers. When I went down the street to investigate, I found a group of approximately 50 hispanic high school students walking down the sidewalk, jumping on the bus-stop benches and trashcans, and waving the Mexican flag. I assume this group was heading to the capital to join in the protest. Interesting was the fact that this group of truant students was receiving an escort downtown by AISD police.

Now, perhaps I am wrong here, but I thought that we had truancy laws. If these kids want to skip school to join a protest (and don't misunderstand, I like the fact that SOMETHING has gotten the youth interested in political happenings), then they are truant and the school law enforcement has an obligation to return these students to campus. If they have decided to let this slide, then they CERTAINLY should not be providing security for their truancy.

This happening, among others, has had me thinking about our current national immigration debate, and the mass protests that have become a function of this debate. There are several things that I find fascinating and frustrated...

I should preface this by saying that I thought that the United States has laws relating to immigration and employment. Where is the enforcement of the existing laws?

I am fascinated by how the terminology that we use regarding those who have come into the country is no longer being used. Somewhere along the way, the term "illegal immigrant" has become a dirty word. I was watching some guy who was on Lou Dobbs who threw this term in with such offensive terms as kike, wop, and nigger (yes, he said nigger on air). Once upon a time, behavior that fell within the law was referred to "legal" and those behaviors that fell outside of the law was "illegal". There are 12 million people in this country who came in outside of the legal system. To me, these are illegal immigrants. It seems that the new accepted terminology is "undocumented workers". How do we apply this new terminology to those who have arrived outside of the law for other purposes? Do we now have "undocumented unemployed", "undocumented students" (those who have overstayed their student visas), "undocumented tourists" (overstayed a tourist visa), etc.? No matter what words one chooses to describe the situation, there are people from many countries in the United States outside of the law. This behavior is in violation of the law, thus "illegal".

I am fascinated by how those who are lobbying for full amnesty for those here illegally have been spinning anyone's unwillingness to offer forgiveness as racist or anti-immigrant behavior. I can't speak for others, but for me, this is simply about border security and law enforcement.

I am fascinated by the brazenness of the protests attempting to sway legislation. Now, I will conceed that I am not aware of the demographics of those attending the demostrations, but I will assume that, at least in California, that some percentage of those involved are not legal citizens, thus they do not have a vote in the system, and are flaunting there presence. My thought is that the INS should be attending these gathering and enforcing the existing laws.

I hate how that in this country, we have a knack for framing debates only in terms of two sides. Are you a Democrat or Republican? Are you for or against amnesty? Are you pro- or anti-immigrant? Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Are you with or against the terrorists? This seems to be how the debate regarding legislation designed to enforce border security and address the presence of the people who have illegally crossed that border since we last actually enforced our existing immigration lawsis becoming. It doesn't help that some plans go too far, such as the plan to make felons out of anyone here outside of the law. This benefits no one other than those who build and operate prisons. Let us not forget who picks up the bill for the incarceration of our felons.

I offer my own plan:

First, secure the border. Send in the National Guard with the orders to immediately secure the border. Once the border is secure, then fund the Border Patrol and the Customs Service to whatever level they feel is necessary to provide lasting border security. For example, if the Border Patrol wants to build a fence, then fund a fence. If agents are concerned about tunnels under the fence, then drop density sensors in the ground to detect the building of tunnels. This should not be up for debate.

Next, fund the INS to whatever level they require is necessary to enforce the existing immigration laws. While we are waiting for the effects of the funding for both the INS and the border security project to yield fruit, we tackle the issue of the people who are currently in the country illegally. We should announce that in one year, the INS will resume the old "La Migre" raids for the purposes of deporting illegals.

During this year, the United States will issue 6 month work visas to anyone currently in the country illegally. This will allow for the documentation of those currently off the books. Once the visa has been issued, the possessor of the visa must then abide by the terms of the visa. Once it expires, the possessor must apply for an extention or re-issue. Once the year period is up, the INS needs to begin enforcement of the existing immigration laws and deport anyone who has not been issued a visa.

Since the big corporations are a major part of the "guest worker" lobby, I suggest a national database for those companies that claim that they require foreign national workers to flesh out their workforces. These companies will have to register the positions they wish to fill, and then these positions will first be offered to those citizens currently in the unemployment system. If the position cannot be filled from that pool, then a foreign national applying for a work visa would then be matched with the employer's position.

Last, to ensure that foreign national workers are not exploited anymore than they already are, we need to raise the minimum wage. If someone holds a job in America, they need to earn more than what the existing wage is.

To pay for this plan and to provide further security along the border region (currently extremely dangerous as Mexican drug cartels are waging a territory war so brutal that Nuevo Laredo currently has no law enforcement beyond the Federalis), I propose that we amend our country's drug laws. We spend a huge amount of money to enfore our current cannibis laws, which is contributing to the violence along the border. It is time to legalize cannabis, regulate it's production, and then tax it to fund my above plan. This would allow both American and Mexican farmers a new crop to grow, reduce the amount of subsidies currently paid to Amercian farmers to not grow crops, and provide a new product a tobacco industry that ironically is heavily reliant on federal subsidies for survival.

Britney Spears is the pro-life poster child???

This a repost for Trav.

While perusing the Drudge Report this afternoon, I came across this article:

http://www.caplakesting.com/2006_catalog/de/index.htm

The article is about an artist who has created a sculpture that is intended to reflect the beauty of the birth of Britney Spears' first child, citing Britney as the "ideal" model for a pro-life statement.

The gallery director offers that "A superstar at Britney’s young age having a child is rare in today’s celebrity culture. This dedication honors Britney for the rarity of her choice and bravery of her decision."

Um, excuse me? Rarity of choice and bravery of her decision?

First of all, this is a girl who's first marriage lasted all of 55 hours, and then married a dancer from her show who was already as deadbeat of a dad as they come. Then, she set a fine example for young women by proceeding to fuck in places where the paparazzi had clear vantage points with her new hubby. Rare choices, indeed. As for her "bravery", Mrs. Spears is worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Regardless of what she thinks about her career, she truly does not have to work another day in her life. If she does decide to resume her career at some point, she can dish out for the best nanny on the planet. Ooooo, so fucking brave of her...

Not to be outdone, the artist provided this brainy quote: "Britney provides inspiration for those struggling with the ‘right choice’. She was number one with Google last year, with good reason --- people are inspired by the beauty of a pregnant woman."

Again with the "right choice" crap. Dude!!! She has more money than freaking God!!! She can buy whatever choice she wants!!! Most people on this planet are not, nor will ever be in such fortunate situations!!!

As for her Google ranking... Sir, I am wagering that her being number one had little to do with her pregancy, and far more to do with the fact that she is hot and men like to jerk off to pictures of her. After viewing your sculpture, I happen to think that you were doing the same. All you have succeeded in sculpting is a likely representation of what Mr. Federline was hitting during the third trimester.

Vince Young: Running for the dollars

Dear Vince Young,

So, it seems that you have decided to declare for the NFL draft. Knowing that you came from a crappy H-Town neighborhood in which everyone you know suffers in poverty, I totally understand while you decided to go for the money. I mean, how often does someone from your neighborhood get a chance to collect a $10 million-plus lump sum payment? I wish you the best of luck.

That said, I cannot hide the fact that I am dissapointed in your decision. Two words for you: delayed gratification. All throughout your press conference, you talked about how much you have grown while at UT, how much you have improved as a man, how important it is for you to be humble, and how this is a one in a lifetime opportunity. May I submit to you that your staying at UT for your senior season was a bigger once-in-a-lifetime opportunity? There may never be another time in your career when you will be surrounded by the quality of talent that UT has, nor the time of standup men that UT has placed on their coaching staff. The offense is built for you and your unique talents. The UT record books are there for you to rewrite. The time was ripe for you to win a second national championship. Didn't you say that championships are what it is all about? Had you made the more difficult decision, the money would still have been there for you.

I know that you will be a great NFL quarterback. I selfishly hope that you get drafted by the Texans so that I will no longer have to watch terrible football games on fall Sundays (they may still be terrible, but at least you might be entertaining. I hope that you are able to keep your head on straight and that you use your money to lift your family out of poverty.

Good luck...