May 2003 Archives

My radio station is 97.1 The Cities. My brother-in-law classifies it as music for middle aged white men. Me? It's the closest thing that I can get on the airwaves that plays alternative rock. But quite frankly, it is staid, boring and monolithic (there I go name calling). And who owns this radio station I listen too? Why, Clear Channel, that's who.

Wow! A must read. I've added Andrew Olmsted to the links. I was lead to his site by Winds of Change. Another apparent conservative added to my links list!

This via Busy, Busy, Busy. Basically, I get the message that how dare those uneducated criminals educate and improve themselves and take away our job security.

Ok, added most of my favorite blogs to the link list. I surprised myself and added one or two conservative blogs. I was impressed with their non-condescending manner. I left out several "liberal" blogs that seemed more about name calling and unsubstantiated claims then mature discourse. I didn't like it when the "Moral Majority," in judgmental superiority, pointed their fingers in unmitigated condemnation at the inferior sinners that were responsible for the weakening of America; I certainly am not going to enjoy reading the same manner of judgmental superiority from the left side of the spectrum.

Changed the template, hopefully to include an email link. Not that there is anyone but me reading this blog!

I am slowly, and not too surely, adding links to my page.

I was directed to this story from the Agonist. Now I'm getting confused. Which paper is right? Then, again, we've heard from Judith Miller before, only to have the story either not pan out or simply fad away. And has anyone else noticed that the supposedly liberal NYTimes is producing articles that back up the claim to WMD, while the supposedly conservative (my opinion) WaPo is producing stories to discredit the claim of WMD? Are the rivers flowing upstream? Wait.....is that an asteroid heading towards earth? And oh my......are those angels trumpeting the return of Jesus!? Oh, wait. Sorry it's just my stomach, I need to eat something.

I woke up this morning to a very interesting thought: Innocent Until Proven Guilty. This thought worked it's way into my very thick morning brain while I contemplated the Washington Post story about the 75th Exploitation Task Force. I can already imagine the renewed cries of "Impeachment" coming from several different blogs. My problem with this whole scenario is-can we prove that President Bush and the administration knowingly lied about weapons of mass destruction in an effort to deceive both the American people and the rest of the world? Look, former President Clinton lied under oath. It was proven he lied under oath. As a result he was impeached. As much as I loath to admit it, he was properly impeached and for good reason. Had he simply told the truth; "yes, I received a blow job in the oval office while talking to a senator on the phone" there would have been no grounds for impeachment. That he was the focus of a witch hunt is no excuse. I expect my President to be able to handle that kind of pressure with character. To borrow a line from the movie The American President; "being President is all about character." Let's remember something my fellow Americans: innocent until proven guilty. That we (as much as I hate to admit it-the current administration of the United States of America is my government and it does work for me) did not appear to follow this fundamental, constitutional belief in pressing it's case for invasion. And before I hear screams of "Saddam is not American" The Declaration of Independence states "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" not "that all American's are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." If the administration is going to claim God is on our side (which I do believe) then we (my administration) needs to act in a Godly manner. That means living and behaving by our beliefs towards all men, regardless of their nationality. We need to be good role models for how decent democracies behave. Let us now look at current President Bush. Did he knowingly lie and mislead the American people in an effort to justify an attack of Iraq? If an investigation proves beyond doubt that he did, then I am all for impeachment. But if, as this article, and this article, seems to indicate, he was simply misinformed, then no, I am not for impeachment. As much as I agree that Clinton was properly impeached, I loathed even more the cost of the witch hunt investigation. And before the hawks start screaming about my being a dove, I whole heartedly believe that we needed to go into Iraq. I'm not opposed to the ends, just the means. I don't agree with the dishonest, manipulative nature of our Administration as it went about trying to justify the war. You know what? On second thought, let's go ahead and impeach current President Bush. We can do it on November 2nd, 2004 with no additional costs to the American tax payers. He's already cost our nation, and our world, enough. Besides, "being President is all about character" and I have decided I don't like his.

I hit one of the Google search links on Brad DeLong's Website and came across this article. How this ended up in a list searching for Paul Krugman is beyond me. It does not even mention Paul Krugman. However, that's really not my point. I'm a Chemical Dependency Counselor and I can tell you that what they are suggesting is pure crap. I hope to explain this in more depth later.

Via Calpundit, this just in:

Frustrated, U.S. Arms Team to Leave Iraq Task Force Unable To Find Any Weapons

I am livid. Our last President was impeached because he lied about receiving a blow job in the Oval Office. I certainly think that the current President can be impeached for giving the country a blow job from the Oval Office.

I sent an email to Calpundit with a recommendation since he expressed a passion for reading math books. May I also make that recommendation to those who've stumbled upon my humble blog; "CHANGE: Principles of PROBLEM FORMATION and PROBLEM RESOLUTION" by Paul Watzlawick, Ph.D., John Weakland, Ch.E., and Richard Fisch, M.D. Now, it's not exactly a pure math book. But I think you might appreciate the authors' use of Theory of Groups and Theory of Logical Types. Hopefully, this will pique your interest:

And, to cast a brief glance into the future, it is a fairly safe bet that the offspring of our contemporary hippie generation will want to become bank managers and will despise communes, leaving their well-meaning but bewildered parents with the nagging question: Where did we fail our children?

This book was first published in 1974.

Ok, here is my first official post. Since I'm just doing a stream of conscience write it is going to be a bit weird. So, I am wondering what my blog is going to grow up to become. I have all the dreams, hopes and aspirations for this infant that any parent has for their child. And, like all good parents, I will have to let this blog develop it's own personality. Besides, like any good parent I'm already proud of my prodigy. Anyway, I figure that no one will see this particular post (if someone else is actually reading this right now you're a die hard and you rock!)