Monday, November 29, 2004

A compedium of over-the-top rhetoric from the last election. Is it just my imagination or is the level of civility in political discourse really degenerating?
Europeans decide to proceed unilaterally. I guess the message is clear. If the United States does it, it is wrong. If Europe or the French do it, it is right. All right-thinking people know this.
Cross Kerry and lose your job.

Friday, November 26, 2004

Hypocrisy du Jour

"No blood for chocolate! No blood for chocolate! No blood for
chocolate!

Where are the mass protests in the streets of the world's capitals
against France's military intervention in the Ivory Coast?

This month, French peacekeepers in the former French colony launched a
pre-emptive assault against the Ivorian air force. They also
interferred with the internal politics of the troubled nation and
sought regime change -- or at least they have been accused of both by
President Laurent Gbagbo.

They acted without authorization by the United Nations Security
Council.

They violated both the UN Charter and the terms of the peacekeeping
resolution that established their specific mission in the West African
nation.

The Security Council did sanction their attacks after the fact.
Nonetheless, the French acted unilaterally, and only sought and
received a UN cover story later. There wasn't even a coalition of the
willing. No Brits, Aussies, Poles or Dutch to help out; just French
troops, jets, helicopters and armoured personnel carriers.

While the French have achieved their military goals quickly and
easily, they have failed to stop the destruction of much of the I.C.'s
infrastructure.

They have been powerless to end a Muslim insurgency that controls half
of Ivory Coast's territory. They have stood by while schools and
libraries were torched, failed to prevent widespread looting and have
even fired on civilian mobs twice, killing as many as 60 Ivorians. And
they have hardly been welcomed as liberators by the locals.

Tens of thousands of Ivorians wielding machetes, clubs and long-
handled axes marched through the streets of Abidjan, the financial
capital, last week shouting "French go home!" and "Everybody get your
Frenchman!" as they ransacked French-owed businesses and residences.

Tens of thousands of immigrant Ivorians have been turned into
refugees, fleeing into neighbouring Liberia, Guinea, Burkina Faso and
Ghana.

Who knows, perhaps we'll also soon learn that some fabulous national
museum containing world heritage treasures -- yet a museum no one in
the West, outside of a handful of archaeologists, had heard ever of --
was picked clean thanks to French neglect.

All of this was done in the name of protecting French commercial
interests in the IC's lucrative cocoa trade (and timber, mines and
oil).

So where are the campus radicals, the smug Western intellectuals and
the preening pundits with their accusations of blood for chocolate?

Where is their accusation that the whole thing has just been a giant
conspiracy to ensure French President Jacques Chirac's buddies in the
chocolate industry have all the cheap cocoa butter they want?

There has been no media talk of quagmire, even though the French have
been involved in the I.C.'s civil war for nearly three years. The
French military intervention proceeded for the first 17 months without
any UN authorization whatever. And the Chirac government has
repeatedly escalated its troop commitment from 500 in 2002, to 2,500
in 2003, to 4,000 earlier this year, to 5,000 today. And the situation
only worsens.

Where is their outrage at the inability of French forces to secure
instantly and perfectly every block of the Ivory Coast's teeming
cities? Where are the BBC interviews with Secretary-General Kofi Annan
declaring the French adventure "illegal," as he did concerning the
Anglo-American invasion of Iraq? Where are the letters from Annan to
Chirac entreating him not to quell the insurgency or crush the forces
fighting French troops for fear of provoking worse from the locals,
the way he cautioned the Americans against pacifying Falluja.

Let me be emphatic: The French have done exactly what they should have
in Ivory Coast. They destroyed the five-aircraft Ivorian air force
after it had bombed a French base, apparently by mistake, and killed
nine soldiers. They fired on an ugly Ivorian throng only after the mob
threatened to attack the country's largest airport, which the French
had secured so jets could whisk thousands of French nationals to
safety.

What's galling is the way the French have done it all without any
deference to the multilateral consensus-building they so smugly
demanded of the Americans and British last year when the boots were on
the other feet.

Doubly galling is the silence -- even complicity -- of the UN and the
international community, which last year so sanctimoniously and
vocally obstructed the invasion of Iraq.

No other nation has inserted itself militarily into African affairs in
the post-colonial period more than France -- nearly two dozen times --
including on behalf of the murderous Jean-Bedel Bokassa, who
proclaimed himself emperor of the Central African Republic, and in
support of the Hutu government of Rwanda, whose supporters butchered
half a million or more Tutsis in 1994.

The truth is, international opposition to the Iraq war (including
French opposition) was prompted as much by bitter anti-Americanism and
irrational hatred of George W. Bush as it was by any true concern for
peace or multilateralism. "

Read the whole thing.
What Really Happened in Fallujah

Get the facts here, if you dare.

Saturday, November 20, 2004

Why Not Just Put All Those Nasty Republicans in an Oven?

The other night the Bush daughters were refused entry to a New York restaurant, which caused all the patrons there to cheer.
Tell Me They're Not Neo-Puritans

The British government wants to outlaw eating, drinking, smoking, and sex. All for your own good, of course.
Nihau

Amidst all the troubles of the world, in the middle of our seeming fight to the death with the Islamofascists, one question is more salient in my mind than all the others: How can the United States compete with China? At this point China can build everything we can build. China has access to all the same technologies that we have. They are publishing papers in all the same areas that we are. They can read English, which is taught more or less uniformly throughout China starting from first grade; we have almost no in-country knowledge of Mandarin. We have, in short, lost our technical lead.

Given that they have about four times as many people as we, that their educational system is significantly better than ours, that their country is "lean and hungry" while ours is overfed and languid, and finally that they have a serious shortage of girls, a condition known to cause nations to become particularly war-like, I ask again, how can we expect to compete? In fact, our very survival may be at stake.
If you're still under the impression that the United States is a free country, this article about Big Brother riding shotgun in your car should disabuse you.

Friday, November 19, 2004

A fascinating interview with the chief interrogator of Shin Bet.
Why Romans and chimpanzees both make war.

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

Eat Your Heart Out, Osama

People at MIT have developed a prototype space elevator. Story here. Pictures here.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Politics as Life

In the early days of computers the mathematician John Conway invented a little game which was easy to program and attracted a wide following. The game, called "Life", was an early example of what's now called "emergent complexity", i.e., the rules are simple but the results are complicated.

The game works like this. There is a board with checkers on it and there are rounds ("generations"). Each round you put a checker on an empty square or remove a checker that's already there, depending on the positioning of the checkers already on the board near that square. The point is that from one generation to the next the patterns of checkers propagate, creating new patterns, very much as life propagates itself. A free version to play around with can be downloaded from here. It's fascinating to set up a certain pattern and then let it run for many generations to see what it does over the course of time. Many patterns die off and the board becomes empty of life. Some patterns become completely static. A few really interesting patterns keep reproducing, mutating over the course of time into an endless variety of surprising forms.

The game of Life is based on the premise that each checker exerts a kind of "force field" on the squares around it, so that its very presence will determine the presence or absence of a checker during the next generation on those nearby squares.

Now take a look at the county-by-county results of the latest Presidential election, and click on the tab to compare to the results of the 2000 election. It's apparent that blue counties tend to clump together, like checkers in the game of Life. Thinking of each election as a new generation, we see that the blue areas are propagating themselves (as are the red areas).

I'm not a political scientist and I possess neither the means nor the time to do the experiment, but I'd like to pose the question: is it the case that simple location is a far better predictor of ones vote for President than any other possible indicator, such as family, gender, income, or all the other criteria social scientists are incessantly using to slice us and dice us?

I posit that one can probably determine rules for politics, similar to the rules of Conway's game of Life, so that the presence in the last election of overwhelming red voters in all the adjacent counties makes it very likely that a given county will turn out red in the next election. I posit that the votes of the people around us exert a sort of "force field" on our thinking which strongly, perhaps more strongly than anything else, determines how we vote next time.

It's well known that people aren't rational. Much as we all like to think we're making rational choices for President, that's probably not really true. But it's interesting to investigate exactly what the factors are that are most influential in producing results. Could it be that mere geographic location is highest on the list? It is at least plausible. Human beings want to get along with the people around them. We're hard-wired for this. It causes lots of difficulties to be a Bush supporter in a predominantly Kerry area or a Kerry supporter in a Bush area. It tends to make one doubt ones own belief system. There is a huge tendency to want to vote with the people one knows.

I further posit that, if one could create connections in "another dimension" on the map (such as, for example, a line from Broward County, FL to Manhattan, NY)--necessary because all the people "known" to some residents in some parts of the country are actually residents of some other part of the country--one would be able to almost completely predict how any given county would flip, based solely on describing the way things went in surrounding counties, "surrounding" being taken in this broader sense.

Here's a further question. If this is so, doesn't the Electoral College make a tremendous amount of sense?
134 examples of media anti-Bush bias in the election.

If you view your job as reporting the facts for the reader/viewer to assess, then this is wrong.

But if you view your job as proclaiming the ultimate truth to the world, regardless of the facts, then this is appropriate.

In other words, our media are filled with religious fanatics. All those fanatics who belong to the same religion think that's just dandy.

Honest people see things differently.

Saturday, November 13, 2004

The Elites Speak


We, the bold, free-spirited peoples of the Diverse Lands of Blue America, hereby contract with you, the safe, ordinary drabs of the Nearly-contiguous Lands of Red America to exist peaceably and amicably in the manner to which we've become accustomed.

We will continue to exist in heavily-impacted urban centers in areas where our explosive growth and profligate lifestyle are completely unsustainable -- deserts, swamps, mountains, frozen wastelands, coasts and islands -- and so we will be needing to pull heavily from your water and other natural resources. We will need you to have power plants, waste recycling plants and refineries in your areas, since we can't stand to look at the ugly things.
...

We need a tremendous amount of ever-changing, ever-improving goods and services. We will need you to provide manpower for industries and meet these needs. As such, we will need you to raise respectful, honest, hard-working children. We don't care how you do it, but please don't tell us how. If it has anything to do the preservation of the "traditional family unit" or instilling "moral values" we really, REALLY don't want to know.
...

Though we hold the brave and unique opinion that wars are a bad idea, we will occasionally sanction aggressive action. We will need you and your children to defend us, since we're not very good at the whole macho thing. Be assured that we support the troops, though we're not really sure what that means. We think that it means that we will denigrate their efforts constantly by putting on chic protest events with cutting jibes and clever costumery and a LOT of drugs and alcohol. If so, we support the troops. If it has anything to do with not encouraging the enemy with treasonous talk and the leaking of sensitive information, we don't support the troops. (Sorry. That would just be asking too much.)
...

Since we are too intelligent and enlightened to tolerate mere Christianity or any other traditional religion, we will offer instead our own religious beliefs, which are that good and evil are almost interchangeable, stuff is good and basically there isn't anything to believe in. And you can believe us on this. In fact, we insist that you do. Your religion leads to peace of mind, human dignity and theosis; ours promotes spiritual decay. You see the problem.
...

And STOP driving SUV's. We hate those things too. Don't you realize that your conspicuous consumption will overshadow ours if you drive those boats? Plus, they're big, which just means we have to find something even bigger to drive.

We don't have to be the only ones with strong emotions. We encourage you to despise rich people, who are greedy and mean. But please target rich businesspeople only -- not celebrities or moguls or rock stars or sports figures or recording executives, or anyone who might vote Democrat. They're not despicable -- they're your paisanos, man.
...

Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
...


Thursday, November 11, 2004

Glenn Reynolds explains neo-Puritanism.
Veteran's Day

I seem to post my best comments on other peoples' blogs. I'm an extravert. What can I say?

What I can say is "thank you" to all of our noble veterans for ensuring, still, that "government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this Earth," despite the best efforts of Michael Moore. Thank you!
Bifurcating Reality, Take 708

The view is widespread in Europe that the Palestinians are victims, the Israelis are the new Nazis, and Yasser Arafat was a wonderful human being. The view here in America is that he is a terrorist and probably was a Soviet agent. How can there be such a radical divergence of opinion?

This page explains all. Compare the view of Arafat being offered to the Europeans to the view of Arafat being offered to the Americans.
Global warming is real.
Just Like the Old Racism, Only Better

To be a "racist" is to think of or treat a human being based on his or her race rather than on his or her individual merits.

We all know it's wrong to be racist. Nothing is wronger. Racism is so wrong that all unwanted speech is now routinely labelled "racist".

Except when it's right. Remember: a black Democrat is a good black. Knows his place. We love a black Democrat. Michelle Malkin has more:
Minority Democrats in public office are inspirational role models. Minority Republicans in public office are embarrassing sellouts.

Minority Democrat politicians are principled. Minority Republican politicians are misguided.

Minority Democrat politicians represent the hopes and dreams of all Americans. Minority Republican politicians are traitors to their "communities."


Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Iraqis speak.
The total biomass of giant squids now exceeds that of humans. They are increasing due to overfishing and global warming. They don't live much longer than 200 days. Link...
It can be argued that religion makes people better than they might otherwise be. It was religious--not secular--people who built Europe's magnificent cathedrals over the course of centuries. Compare these wonderful buildings with the temples of commerce built by the modern-day secularists in all our major cities. 'Nuff said. Here's another piece of interesting evidence. The generosity index compares the states, based on how much wealth they possess and how generous they are in their philanthropy, and ranks them accordingly. Scroll down to find the first "blue" state. [Hat tip: Powerline Blog]

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

There may be hope for Europe yet.
Computers are recipe machines. They have various states; they read through the recipes they are given, step by step, and change themselves from one state to the next, depending on what state they were already in and what the recipe (program) says to do. They are completely incapable of doing anything other than exactly what they are told. The person who writes the recipe (program) has complete control over the machine.

Typically the programs are written in a language readable by human beings. To make them run faster, these are translated into a language readable only by computers, called machine code. The translated programs are stored in so-called binary files. Typically programs are distributed in binary format only, because most people only want to use the programs and have no interest in knowing what the recipes actually say.

In principle, anything that can be codified, anything that can be reduced to a routine, anything that requires no human intervention or thought, in short, anything that can be automated, can be done by a machine. This saves labor and money, which means that lots and lots of activities previously effected by drones working inside vast governmental or corporate bureaucracies will be performed in the future by machines. Governmental and corporate rules and regulations will increasingly be executed only by computers.

Unfortunately, this automation exposes society to a novel danger. If society's rules are enforced through machines and if the only people who are able to see those rules are the computer programmers, then there will be no way for the citizens to know what the actual rules are or to ascertain whether they are being applied fairly. Although the programmers may pay lip service to one set of rules, the computers will obey the rules actually given them by the programmers, not the rules which the programmers claim they are giving to the computers. In effect, we are giving control of our basic social functions to unaccountable computer programmers. It's not that computers are taking over society, as is often feared; rather it is programmers who increasingly hold the reigns of society in their hands. There isn't any problem if the programmers are honest, and most are of course. But if the programmers are dishonest there is no way to check whether the correct societal rules have been applied. A binary file will tell the computer to do exactly what the programmer wants, not necessarily what the citizens want. And the citizens will never know the difference because the binary file is unreadable, unknowable.

The most obvious example of this danger lies with voting machines. These are computers running programs designed to collect votes. What could go wrong? If the programmer has programmed the computer to, say, give every fifth Democratic vote to the Republican, then a fraud will be perpetrated on the voters, completely without their knowledge or consent. When we collected votes via paper ballots we always insisted that there be several observers present to ensure that no votes were miscounted and no cheating occurred. Why do we not demand the same level of accountability from our programmers? Sunshine is the appropriate disinfectant for potential governmental fraud.

Fortunately, there is a simple way to let the proverbial light in. All that is required is that the original recipe which controls the voting computer be made available publicly. Then no shenanigans can occur because everyone will be able to see exactly what the recipe says, exactly which rules the computer is following. In computer parlance, the original recipe (program) is called the "source code" and what is required is merely that the source code be made open to the public. Hence the name "open source". All important governmental processes that are accomplished by computers need to be "open sourced". This is true especially in the case of voting.

All citizens should demand this. This is an essential element of computer-mediated democracy in the brave new Twenty-First century. If it is not done, closed-source computers under the control of possibly nefarious third parties will inevitably add fuel to the conspiracy fires already being fanned by the paranoid. Surely that is a result we all wish to avoid.

Even without any actual fraud occurring, doubts about fraud will be sufficient to bring down the ship of state.
I never thought I would see this. The New York Times yesterday published an article blatantly calling for the assassination of the President.
One of the current dogmas is that poverty causes terrorism. There doesn't seem to be any empirical evidence for this, it's just a matter of faith among the faithful. Now one Harvard researcher has decided to investigate the issue scientifically. His conclusion? Freedom squelches terror.
Lileks Captures the Zeitgeist

"Paul Harvey, of all people, noted that the hard phase of the battle would involve house-to-house combat, “just like Vietnam.” Sigh. It’s now the all-purpose metaphor. There could be a war on the moon with armies on dune buggies launching crossbows at each other, and someone would pronounce it a repeat of a disastrous battle in the Mekong Delta. But he’d be 108 years old, the last boomer, a brittle old survivor - not the Greatest Generation but the Generation that Grates, determined that any conflict should be seen through the prism of his youth with “White Rabbit” playing in the background. Times have changed. It's FLIR and Kid Rock now, I think."

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/1104/110904.html

Friday, November 05, 2004

The current meme being passed around by the Democrats and their MSM organs is that Bush won the election because of "red-staters" who believed "moral values" were the most important issue of the campaign. "Moral values" is being spun to mean "hated gays". This is transparent nonsense.

What's going on here? Well, when is a war over? Exactly when one side agrees it has been defeated. Wars end psychologically, not materially. That's what allows little countries like North Vietnam to defeat big countries like the United States. They destroyed us psychologically.

Similarly, an election is over when the defeated party agrees that it is over. If they refuse to agree, and if they convince themselves utterly that the election was lost for reasons which are illegitimate, then they can keep up the good fight and deny the reality which obtrudes upon their pleasant narrative of victory.

That "moral values"--whatever that might mean--were not the issue for most voters in this election is elegantly attested by this new blogger who calls himself "Hogarth". Here's a small excerpt:

Specifically, I voted against:

- I voted against a man that clearly used his Vietnam experience as resume padding. After failing to get his requested deferments, he enlisted in the Naval Reserve, fully expecting stateside duty. When that didn't work out for him, he went overseas and bought a 8mm movie camera to chronicle his exploits. Once enough film was in the can, he gamed the system and got his three purple hearts. Had he been an enlisted man, I think I could have lived with that. As an officer, expected to lead and set a positive example for his men, I cannot. His actions in Vietnam showed early on that this man does not understand or care about the responsibilities of being a leader.

- I voted against the man that came back from Vietnam and slandered his fellow soldiers, ostensibly in protest of our involvement in the war, but more likely in order to make a name for himself to launch his political career. I voted against the treasonous action of illegally meeting with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong representatives on two, if not three, occasions. The fact that he was still in our military at the time exacerbates my feelings of disgust at his actions. There are right ways to protest the actions of our government, and there are treasonous ways to protest. This man chose the path of dishonor.

- I voted against the man that can't seem to tell the truth about even innocuous things like having run in the Boston marathon (he did not). I voted against the man that testified before the Senate that he was in Cambodia in December, 1968. He was not. As examples of this casual, and possibly pathological, lying became even more common I decided that there was no way in the world he could be trusted on any topic. It became even more obvious who had the most credibility between Kerry and the 254 Swift Boat Vets that had come forward to share their direct experiences with Lt. Kerry, war hero.
Works for me.
This county-by-county map shows the real story of the election.
The Problem of Fallujah

We pulled back from Fallujah in the Spring, allowing the place to become a haven and center for terrorists and thugs. The commander at the time thought this was the best way to win hearts and minds. I wasn't sure at the time which was the proper policy, but now I'm convinced it's time to drain that particular cesspool. Here is what one marine has to say. It's so important that I quote it in full.

Dear Dad -

As you have no doubt been watching, we have had our hands full around Fallujah. It would seem as if the final reckoning is coming. The city has been on a consistent down hill spiral since we were ordered out in April. It's siren call for extremists and criminals has only increased steadily and the instability and violence that radiates out of the town has expanded exponentially. If there is another city in the world that contains more terrorists, I would be surprised. From the last two years, I just don't see a way that we can succeed in Iraq without reducing this threat. The cost of continuing on without taking decisive action is too high to dwell on.

The enemy inside the town have come to fight and kill Americans. Nothing will sate their bloodlust and hatred other than to kill everyone of us or at least die trying. It is hard to fathom as a Westerner as rational thought would dictate that we will only be here for a relatively short blip in their history and while we are here, billions of dollars in investments will pour in and opportunity that is beyond comprehension will open up for anyone willing to work. This is not Kansas and this enemy does not think like that.

If we build a school or clinic, they destroy it. They would rather deny medical care or education for the children of the citizens who live nearby than to have any symbol of the West in general and America specifically among them. It is hard to comprehend. Frankly, we are done trying.

For eight months, we have been on our chain. The enemy has fooled itself misinterpreting our humanity and restraint for lack of will and courage. For eight months, we have watched Marines, Soldiers and Sailors maimed and killed by invisible cowards hiding behind some wall or in a canal as he detonates another IED. For eight months, we have been witness to suicidal sociopaths driving vehicles laden with explosives into crowds of Iraqis and into our own convoys.

Just last week, we lost another nine Marines killed and an equal number of wounded as the result of some ignorant extremists who was able to convince himself that killing himself and as many Americans as possible would send him to paradise where he could finally get his virgins.

Now, their own ignorance and arrogance will be their undoing. They believe that they can hold Fallujah. In fact, they have come from all over to be part of its glorious defense. I cannot describe the atmosphere that exists in the Regiment right now. Of course the men are nervous but I think they are more nervous that we will not be allowed to clean the rats nest out and instead will be forced to continue operating as is.

Its as if a window of opportunity has opened and everyone just wants to get on with it before it closes. The Marines know the enemy has massed and has temporarily decided to stay and fight. For the first time, the men feel as though we may be allowed to do what needs to be done. If the enemy wants to sit in his citadel and try to defend it against the Marine Corps and some very hard Soldiers... then the men want to execute before the enemy sobers up and flees.

It may come off as an exceptionally bellicose perspective but where the Marines live and operate is a war zone in the starkest reality. When the Marines leave the front gate on an operation or patrol, someone within direct line of sight of that gate is trying to kill them. All have lost friends and watched as the enemy hides within his sanctuary that has been allowed out of what one must assume is political necessity. The enemy has been given every advantage by our sense of morality and restraint and by a set of operational rules that we are constrained to operate under. The Marines feel like their time has come and we will finally be ordered to do what must be done and be given the latitude to do it. Even though the price will be high, there is not a man here that would chose status quo over paying the price.

Every day, the enemy takes more hostages, assassinates developing Iraqi leaders and savagely beats suspected collaborators. I will give you just one recent example that happened last week. One of our patrols was moving down a street when they saw what looked like a fight. The Marines closed with the scene. It was a family that had come to Iraq on religious pilgrimage that was taken hostage and was being taken into Fallujah. The muj stopped for some reason and the father began fighting. The Marines interdicted and captured two of the kidnappers. Two more ran and the Marines could not get a shot without fear of killing/wounding others.

Every day, insurgents from inside Fallujah drive out and wait for Iraqis that work on our bases. Once the Iraqis leave they are stopped. The lucky ones are savagely beaten. The unfortunate ones are killed. A family that had fled Fallujah in order to get away from the fighting recently tried to return. When they got to their home, they found it taken over by terrorists (very common). When the patriarch showed the muj his deed in order to prove that the house was his, they took the old man out into the street and beat him senseless in front of his family.

Summary executions are common. Think about that. Summary executions inside Fallujah happen with sobering frequency. We have been witness to the scene on a number of occasions. Three men are taken from the trunk of a car and are made to walk to a ditch where they are shot. Bodies are found in the Euphrates without heads washed downstream from Fallujah. To date we have been allowed to do nothing.

I have no idea the numbers of beheadings that have occurred in Fallujah since I have been here. I have no idea the number of hostages that have ended up in Fallujah since we have been here. I just don't know that Americans would be able to comprehend the number anyway. Unfortunately, the situation has only gotten worse. There is no hope for any type of reasoned solution with an enemy like this.

Once again, we are being asked by citizens who have fled the city to go in and take the city back. They are willing for us to literally rubble the place in order to kill the terrorists within. Don't get me wrong, there are still many inside the town that support the terrorists and we cannot expect to be thanked publicly if we do take the city. There is a sense of de ja vu with the refugees telling us where their houses are and asking us to bomb them because the muj have taken them over. We heard the same thing in April only to end up letting the people down. Some no doubt have paid with their lives. The "good" people who may ultimately buy into a peaceful and prosperous Iraq are again asking us to do what we know must be done.

The Marines understand and are eager to get on with it. The only lingering fear in them is that we will be ordered to stop again. I don't know if this is going to happen but if it happens soon, I will write you when its over,

Love,

Dave
If you like microchips controlling brains, you're going to love brains controlling machines. This brain in a dish controls a flight simulator, flying airplanes around. Robocop anyone?

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Some useful post-election thoughts for Democrats.
If you're having some remorse over the election, this should make you feel better.
You might have wondered why, with 98% or 99% of the actual votes counted in the key states of Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico, CNN was unwilling to call the race for Bush. You might also be under the continuing misapprehension that the MSM is evenhanded in its approach to the election. This will explain all.
Intifada Against College Republicans

Are Republicans the new Jews? [Hat tip: Betsy's Page]