Situational Ethics

This story was reported on Ananova:
Armed robbers raided a monastery in Brazil and made a priest swear on the Bible that there was no more money left on the premises.
Okay, here's the question. Would it have been wrong for the priest to lie and say there was no more money left if there were?
Talk amongst yourselves, and leave your answer in the comments.

Et Tu John Kerry?

The Patriette has some good information on a book John Kerry probably doesn't want anyone to see. Meanwhile, over at A Collection of Thoughts there seems to be some indication that not all Vietnam Vets are happy with Mr. Kerry.

Yes, it would've been fun beating up on Howard Dean, but since he isn't going to be around much longer - what's the point? (Alas, Howard Dean we hardly knew ye.)

Essential Etiquette for Blogging

A few days ago, Politburo Diktat had a post citing Top Ten Rules of Blogging. In the same spirit I would like to offer, Essential Etiquette for Blogging. These aren't hard and fast rules - just suggestions about what I think makes for good manners in Blogdom.

1. Try visiting another blog besides your own for a change and leave some comments. It's annoying when "it's all about me" on someone's blog.
2. If someone mentions a good post of yours or gives you some link credit, mention how much you appreciate it. You do appreciate it don't you?
3. I've noticed how even some very popular blogs still suck up to the big boys at every opportunity. As far as I'm concerned, Instapundit has had his fifteen minutes. Besides, no one likes a suck-up.
4. If you want to be anonymous for "security" stop making personal references to yourself!
5. If you're going to leave some comments disagreeing with the post, at least have them be logical. While it may be tempting to leave a comment saying, "You're an idiot" - that doesn't really further the discussion.
6. If you're going to run around leaving comments on other's blogs, and especially if they're negative, have the cajones to leave your real email/url. (It saves me the trouble of having to track you down so I can visit my vengeance on you and your household.)
7. I realize there are some pretty cool looking blogs out there. I enjoy them as much as the next guy, but when I'm on a dialup connection it just sucks all the fun out of it if the page takes 10 minutes to load. Try to keep the graphics light. Not all of us have broadband at home.
8. If you want to have links on your blog to people with alternate viewpoints that's fine, but list them accordingly. It will save me from visiting some Deaniac site where Bush is proclaimed as the anti-christ. I get enough of that garbage from the mainstream media.
9. You might want to pace yourself a little with the posts. Don't go for a week without posting anything and then throw up 25 posts and expect that people will read it. Oh, and while you're at it you might want to look into some medication for being Manic Depressive.
10. This last one is especially important to those of you on Blogspot. Get RSS! I don't have the time or energy to visit every single blog on my list each day so if you don't have an RSS feed I'm not going to waste my time. It's a pity to see a good blog and then...no RSS.

Okay, that's part of what I think makes good etiquette. Any questions?

UNICEF and Abortion

On it's website, UNICEF claims it is, "the driving force that helps build a world where the rights of every child are realized". It goes on to say, "We believe that nurturing and caring for children are the cornerstones of human progress." Some recent reports suggest that UNICEF has adopted a radically different agenda from what they claim on their website...

Joseph Bottum in an article from the Weekly Standard, cites concerns that UNICEF actively promotes abortion and has done so since Carol Bellamy was named as it's executive director by Bill Clinton.

The National Catholic Register reports that Ms. Bellamy was radically pro-abortion during her term as a NY state senator from 1973 to 1977. "She voted against parental-consent laws, rejected a conscience clause for health workers and even voted against legislation seeking to protect babies born alive during late-term abortions." Ms. Bellamy was appointed to yet a second term as UNICEF director in May 2000, shortly before Clinton left office.

Further, National Review reports that UNICEF has endorsed and helped to write documents that call for the worldwide legalization of abortion. The United States is UNICEF's largest donor, providing it with $200 million dollars every year. It's nice to know that your tax dollars are at work.

In a related story, The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute reports that the US Congress has permanently reallocated $59 million away from the UN’s population control agency, UNFPA. The money represents the amount the US has withheld from UNFPA over the past two years because of UNFPA’s participation in coercive abortions in China. Instead, Congress gave the money to programs to combat sex trafficking, and to improve maternal health.

Be sure to check out the articles linked here if you'd like to get the full-story on the UN's agenda toward the un-born child.

Jedi Master is Missing!

The famous Jedi Master, Yoda, is missing. According to USA Today he was last seen bolted to the back of a flatbed truck outside the Westway Inn. The driver, who I assume is not a Jedi Knight himself, parked the truck in the parking lot while he stayed at the hotel. There has been some speculation that Yoda may have gone over to the dark side.

Chicago Winters

If you're like me you get tired of listening to all the whining from the East Coast every time they get a little bit of snowy or cold weather. What makes it all the more frustrating is that Chicago winters have become pathetic. Nowdays, we get a few inches and everyone gets all nervous about road closures, but it didn't used to be like that. Go back with me, if you will, to the halcyon winters of yesteryear...

During the winter of 1976-1977 the temperature remained below freezing for 43 consecutive days. During the 1978-1979 winter, 89.7 inches of snow fell during a three month period. A few pictures here and here help you to get the idea. These past few winters, we get a few little wimpy snowstorms and that's it. These things used to be a regular occurence. Pretty soon, kids will have to visit the Digital Snow Museum and especially this page just to figure out what snow is supposed to look like.

I'm not saying that all this is due to Global Warming or anything. To be honest, I have no clue why our winters have become so pathetic. We used to be able to scoff at those out on the east coast because we knew we'd been through much worse and barely said a word. It's a real let down because we haven't had worse and we can't brag anymore.

Just to put it in perspective, here are some little vignettes from NOAA that recount the way winter used to be:

January 25th, 1977: This was the 29th consecutive day where Chicago's High temperature was below freezing. The 43-day long cold snap lasted from December 28th, 1976 through February 8th, 1977 setting the all-time record for the longest period of below freezing temperatures to occur in Chicago. Rockford had two record temperatures set and Chicago had three during this long period.

January 13th, 1979: The "Blizzard of '79" moved into northern Illinois and northwest Indiana. At the time, this date had the greatest calendar-day snowfall of 16.5 inches in Chicago. This storm also contributed to Rockford setting the all-time record snowfall for a single Winter season with a total accumulation of 74.5 inches.

January 14th, 1979: As the "Blizzard of '79" moves off to the East, the region began to dig out of the snow. The greatest snow depth ever recorded for Chicago was set with a measurement of 29 inches on this date.

January 28th, 1979: January of 1979 received 26.1 inches of snowfall in Rockford, making it one of the snowiest Januarys on record for the city. The Winter of 1978-79 had a total of 74.5 inches of snowfall, setting the all-time record for most snowfall in one season ever for the city.

January 8th, 1982: Three days of blizzard conditions started, affecting much of northern Illinois. Though the actual snowfall totals were rather small, around an inch, high winds caused widespread whiteout conditions.

January 10th, 1982: Bitterly cold weather gripped much of the state as most reporting stations recorded Low temperatures of 20 below Zero or colder. Some of the coldest air settled in over much of northern Illinois overnight causing temperatures to plummet to 27 degrees below Zero in Rockford and 26 below in Chicago. The Rockford temperature is the all-time Low temperature on record for the city.

January 20th, 1985: Chicago's O'Hare International Airport recorded the lowest temperature ever reported for Chicago with 27 below Zero. A record Low temperature was also reported at the Rockford Airport with 26 below Zero. Both locations also recorded the minimum High temperature for this date with a High of 4 below Zero in Chicago and 5 below Zero in Rockford.

January 11th, 1991: A 3-day winter storm began across northern Illinois and northwest Indiana. The combination of freezing rain and 35 MPH winds caused extensive damage to trees and power lines. Widespread blackouts occurred over much of the area. The freezing rain changed over to snow during the late evening hours, dumping over 4 inches of new snow by the following morning.

January 3rd, 1996: While the snowstorm of 1999 was the worst New Year's snowstorm in Chicago, northern Illinois was affected by another winter storm on the 2nd and 3rd of 1996. This storm produced up to 8 inches of snow, and 30 to 40 MPH winds created near whiteout conditions across open areas.

January 2nd, 1999: Northern Illinois was in the grips of a severe winter snowstorm, bringing much of the area to a stop. Heavy snow and high winds caused drifts of more than 4 feet in many areas. On this date 18.6 inches of snow fell in Chicago, the greatest single-day snowfall total ever recorded for the city. Over the 3-day storm 21.3 inches of snow fell across portions of the Chicago Metro area.

Can't we seed the clouds or something?

Note To Self

My *advisors tell me that if I ever hope to get elected to political office I'm going to have to tone down my right wing rhetoric a little. They say these types of things have a way of coming back and slapping you in the face. As a result, I've posted a little note to myself about topics and subjects I should definitely avoid.

Note To Self:

• Don't write things that others may misconstrue as being insensitive, especially if it is concerning certain protected classes like Muslims as I did in Terrorists On Parade. No matter how much you mention that you are not against all muslims or [fill in the name of the protected group here], if you are the least bit critical you'll be portrayed as a racist, intolerant to others, etc.
  
• Don't write things that are critical of international organizations and especially not the UN. These organizations all have peaceful intent and want nothing but the best for the USA. Therefore, don't write articles like this one, "The World According to Me, or
  this one, International House of Justice. Also, don't ever write articles critical of support for foreign countries that don't agree with us as I did in Sugar Daddy.
  
• Don't write articles about certain important "Philanthropists" like George Soros. He's really feeling picked on since this article, this article, and this article appeared.
  
• Don't ever mention Jesus unless it's as a swear word. If I really believe certain things concerning religion, I should keep them to myself, unlike what I did when I wrote, Why I Believe and Surfer Jesus?
  
• Don't appear overly militaristic or imperialistic by heaping praise upon our soldiers like I did when I wrote, Hooray for Heroes or Manifest Destiny
  
• Don't write articles in support of wars waged by George W. Bush in order to steal the oil of certain unfortunate countries like I did in Remarks at Whitehall and in this article.
  
• Don't write revisionist history praising Ronald Reagan
  
• Finally, don't make goofy predictions about popular culture and the entertainment industry like I did in Must See TV

  
  Okay, that about does it. From now on I'm going to write like this site and I'm definitely not going to write anything else that could be misconstrued. Right? Right.

  I agree with my *advisors on this stuff except that there's a little problem. I need to be true to my principles otherwise there's no sense in bothering to run for public office. I will have to be careful not to give anyone the wrong impression though. One thing is for certain, Blog-Writing is different than a lot of different types of writing. I would say it's more like news writing except it's somewhat different than even that. Normally, there isn't enough time to be subtle and sentences have to quickly grab the reader's interest or they'll move on. In blog-writing, it can be difficult to fully develop ideas so the reader understands why you're making a certain statement. I will work on being a little clearer, but I'll also be sure to be true to my beliefs.

  Note to JP Carter (and anyone else doing a Friday Roundup):
  This post would be really good to include under the category: Most Links to Himself in a Single Post, Wouldn't it?? Or it could be under Most Annoying Use of Trackbacks.

  *Actually it was only one advisor. Okay it wasn't really an advisor, just a friend giving advice.
  

  Posted by jdmays at 01:01 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

The Other Shoe

Life isn't perfect but it's pretty darn good. I have a great job. I live in a nice community. My wife and kids are healthy and happy. We are able to go on fun vacations and generally enjoy our lives, but sometimes there's a sense of anxiety that accompanies all of this and I'm betting you've felt it too.

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. In the newspapers and on television we hear of others less fortunate. Those who have lost their children or parents in car accidents, natural tragedies, and crimes. Those who contract some kind of rare disease from which there is no cure. Those who have the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We see these reports and silently thank God we're not the subject of them. But there are no guarantees and that's the disturbing part.

Bad things happen and there's no guarantee they won't happen to me, or to you. Those of us who place our faith in Jesus Christ often don't fair much better when it comes to worrying about our unpredictable future. Although we read in the Bible that God watches over us, that He loves and cares for us, we still witness bad things happening even to those who put their trust in Him. On rare occasions bad things even happen to people because they put their trust in God.

It can be a challenge to maintain a faith in a loving God with disaster and tragedy all around us. We know, at least in a logical level, that all of these things occur as a result of a fatal human flaw. We know that this is the cost of free choice in a fallen world. We can't have free choice in a fallen world and not reap the results of those choices. It seems like an awfully high price and we still wonder at how God can allow bad things to happen.

But there's one other thing we haven't taken into account. We haven't counted on the fact that our time in the world is barely a blink of an eye when compared to eternity. This physical world of ours is all we've ever known. We believe there is a world beyond, but it seems so far away, so impermanent. Fortunately, it isn't. It's real. The only way we can begin to grasp how God can allow bad things to happen is by placing the whole thing within the context of eternity. Right now is barely a blink of an eye in comparison. From God's perspective, any tragedy we face must be balanced against allowing us free will in the context of eternity.
If we could only, somehow, have that same perspective. If we could somehow hold on loosely to this present life and live it to it's fullest, come what may, then we can begin to understand the eternity that awaits.

Surfer Jesus?

"We didn't want another movie with Jesus as some kind of Aryan superman or Jesus as a surfer," Father Wiliam Fulco is quoted as saying about the Mel Gibson movie, The Passion of Christ. Father Fulco is one of Mel Gibson's advisors on the dialogue of the movie which is all in Aramaic or Latin.

It's been a while since a movie with subtitles caused this much of a stir. It has taken a lot of criticism from liberal critics who take umbrage at it's interpretation of the Gospel account. Meanwhile, most of these critics haven't even seen the movie yet.

Father Fulco goes on to say, "We didn't want an American Jesus, or a Japanese Jesus or a French Jesus. What we wanted was a language that allowed Jesus to be none of these nationalities, so that he can be all of them at the same time. This is a universal story."

Terry Mattingly has an excellent article about The Passion of Christ with more quotes from Father Fulco and more background on the movie. The full text of his article can be found here.

Terrorists On Parade

I had an idea last night that involves a connection between the Super Bowl and the pilgrimage that all muslims are required to take at least once in their lives.

In 2001, the government used facial recognition technology at the Super Bowl in Tampa Bay in order to search for possible terrorists or criminals in the crowd.
What if we were able to get our good friends, the Saudis, to participate in doing this facial recognition thing at Mecca?

I realize that the vast majority of muslims are peace-loving people, but there are many nasty terrorist groups out there who are united by one thing - they're muslim. Wouldn't it make sense to try to identify muslim terrorists at the place where all of them are supposed to go at least once in their life? (The annual pilgrimage to Mecca is described here.)

I know this idea will never take place. For one thing, I'm not sure that facial recognition technology is far enough advanced to be worthwhile. For another, the Saudis aren't really our good friends and cooperating with the Infidels is probably not real high on their list. Finally, it's just plain politically incorrect.

The World According To Me

Recently I've had a few people accuse me of being on the extreme right side of the political spectrum. I'm not. I think that my political views are pretty mainstream, however, I suspect that most people think their political views are mainstream, regardless of whether they actually are. As a result, I thought I would use the rest of this post to more clearly state my political views and let those who read this blog make their own judgement as to where I stand on the political spectrum. If you disagree (or even if you agree) I welcome your comments and differences of opinion, as long as they're nice.

I doubt anyone wants to read a 10 page thesis on my political beliefs so I tried to keep them succint. They tend to jump around a little and for brevity I wasn't able to fully define my rationale for why I believe certain things or to what extent. However, I think this will give you a good idea of just exactly where I stand.

Foreign Policy and Our Role in the World

The USA is the greatest country ever in the history of the world. We have become great as a result of our emphasis on individual freedom constrained by a Judeo-Christian view of right and wrong. We aren't perfect but compared to the rest of the countries of the world we are the best.

Often we hear people complaining that we don't do things the way they do in Europe or other parts of the world as if that were something bad. I'm glad we don't think and act like many of the other countries in Europe. We wouldn't be a great country if we didn't cherish individual freedom, our belief in God, and our conviction that there is such a thing as objective right and wrong. Our country was founded on the belief that God has endowed all with certain unalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I'm one of those people who can be accused of being "jingoistic" at times. Whenever I say the pledge of allegiance or sing the national anthem I get a lump in my throat. I am willing to die for the high ideals embodied by our country. I'm proud that we're the greatest country and we should continue to be the greatest.

As a result of our position as the sole superpower there are some duties we face. I don't believe that the US should be the "policeman for the world", but I do believe we have an obligation to stand against evil wherever it may be. For the most part, we ought to stay out of the internal politics of other countries. However, when a leader or a group of people practice genocide against their countrymen I believe that we have a moral obligation to intervene. I'm ashamed that our country did not intervene in Kosovo sooner than we did. I'm glad we're in Iraq regardless of the absence of WMD because Saddam Hussein was as evil as Hitler and needed to be removed. I think that war should be the last resort, but there are people who say this but use it as camouflage for the fact that they really don't believe war is ever a necessary evil. I'm not one of them.

In an age where a terrorist may transport a WMD across our borders and wipe out millions of people, I think we must pursue a policy consistent with preemptive intervention when there is a clear and present danger to our safety and security. Furthermore, we need to spend enough on our defense so that no nation will ever be in a position to threaten our liberty.

I think the UN is a travesty. The idea that countries who oppress their people should have any moral, ethical or legal standing regarding our country's decisions is repugnant to me. I believe the UN is a tool that Globalists use to advance their aims of a one world government. I believe that the International Criminal Court would sacrifice our nation's sovreignty and that our nations troops should never be under the command of any country but our own. I think we should work with other countries whenever possible but that true peace comes when countries recognize our differences and are able to discuss them rather than seeking a monolithic governing organization that seeks to subsume our differences in favor of the "good of humanity".

The Environment

I think there are times when big business acts against the long-term interests of the citizens of the US and that sometimes government has to step in to protect the environment from business interests. We need to conserve and preserve our natural resources, but we need to do so in a way that balances the needs of people vs natural resources.

Economics

Supply side economics works. With lower taxes and less regulation ultimately all people benefit. Taxing only the rich and seeking to "redistribute" wealth does not work. Whenever possible, private enterprise should be left to it's own devices to regulate supply and demand. However, I think that Microsoft is an illegal monopoly and that there is a real danger of our political system being taken over by wealthy amoral corporations. I believe that one of our biggest areas of vulnerability lies in the potential for corrupt politicians votes to be purchased by whoever is willing to pay the most. We need more citizen politicians than career politicians.

Taxes

High taxes inhibit personal initiative and are an impediment to growth. We need a certain level of taxes in order to provide certain essential services, but I believe that we as a people are overtaxed and over-regulated.

Social Policy

We have way too many people languishing in prison. A vast number of them are there as a result of alcohol and drug addiction. Government needs to address addiction and imprison those who commit non-violent crimes much less. We need to incorporate the idea of retribution by those who commit crimes. For example, a thief should not only face possible jail time but must also forfeit a portion of their income and work to those who have suffered loss. Government should have much less involvement in the education of our children, especially pre-school children. Parents should be the primary caregiver of our children, not big brother.

Compassionate Conservatism

I don't believe in socialism and I don't think health insurance is a basic right for each person, but I believe that in a great country everyone should be able to afford basic health insurance regardless of their employment status. Government does have a role to play in caring for the innocent, the downtrodden, and the needy in partnership with non-profit and religious organizations.

Religion

Relativism is the biggest danger facing our country. Objective right and wrong exists whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. Without a common definition of right and wrong we will be forced to make government so powerful that it will threaten our liberty. We are a great country because we tolerate different religions and views other than our own. We need to continue to practice tolerance but we must have a common definition of right and wrong that transcends any single religion.

Elite Globalist Warns US

As reported by ABC News, Kofi Annan today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland warned the US that a, "too-narrow focus on fighting terrorism could worsen global tensions and threaten human rights." He said, "The most privileged members of the UN are currently and understandably preoccupied with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. (But) the U.N. must also protect millions of our fellow men and women from the more familiar threats of poverty, hunger and deadly diseases."
Of course, that's easy for him to say since his country isn't under attack from terrorists. I suppose he thinks if we just ignore the problem that it will go away and that terrorists don't "worsen global tensions and threaten human rights".

Explain to me again why we tolerate the UN?

Bah!

When I first started blogging, it involved posting just a few little tidbits here and there. I didn't have a sitemeter and didn't care. If someone stopped by and read one of my posts I was thrilled. Otherwise, I was writing strictly for myself.

Then I started writing longer, more thoughtful posts complete with actual research and links galore. I was posting once a week, then once a day and eventually I was posting several times a day. I got a sitemeter and I kept looking at the darn thing, willing it to collect more hits.

I started doing posts mentioning specific weblogs - daring them to visit my site and hoping they would send others. I was averaging 10 visits a day, then 20 and 30 and it was great but it wasn't enough. I got 174 hits in one day and there was no going back! I want more! More! More I say! I started looking for bloggers from Wisconsin, Michigan, Maryland, Vermont, Oregon, and then some from Washington DC, Yeaaaaaaaaaeaaahhhh!

...Then I crashed.
I started getting cynical and bitter. "Bah! If Hugh Hewitt is such a great blogging proponent, how come he never visits my site!", I sneered. I couldn't sleep. I just kept tossing and turning - and tossing and turning. I racked my brain, "What could I write about next? Who can I add to my blogroll? What is the secret to the universe?", But still nothing would come.

I began to feel like Howard Dean after the Iowa Caucuses, hurt, deflated, trying to look like a winner, but deep down just plain angry at the world. I combed news sites looking for the perfect story that would attract just one more hit. I was strung out and looking for more hits all the time, "Hey, buddy, can you spare some hits?", I found myself begging.

Finally, I realized I had a problem. I admitted that I was powerless over blogging and that it had made my weblog unmanageable. I vowed I would take one giant step away from the computer and I did. I vowed I would take a few days off.

I began to enter a state of perpetual bliss where I no longer worried that everyone else was going to get more hits than my site. Finally, I realized, "hey this would make a good post on my weblog!", and I was back at it again.

Linkin' Park

I remember it well. I was camping in Baja, CA and it was hot. For obvious reasons, we couldn't drink the water. To my relief I was able to buy a Pepsi at a little outdoor stand in the middle of nowhere. It definitely hit the spot. I knew that bottle of Pepsi was going to be okay to drink because I knew the brand. This isn't an ad for Pepsi. It's an example of the importance of establishing your "brand".

A link is like a brand name. Seeing a certain link on a weblog helps me to know if the blog is going to be worth a closer look. I imagine some clever social scientist could earn a Ph.D. by studying how blogs begin to associate with each other over time. The fact is that well over 90% of the blogs I visit are due to referrals from other blogs. I suspect that's typical.

For the real popular blogs, the super-pundits, there's a real danger. The number of links on many of those pages dilutes the brand name to the point where the link doesn't really mean anything. I've noticed one way that many bloggers have coped with the proliferation of links is by designating their normal links and their "reciprocal links". When I see that term I basically ignore those links because their presence only signifies that a link-trade went on - nothing more.

One of the more successful brands I've come across is MilBlogs. There isn't any watering down of the brand because there is a pretty clear definition of who you have to be in order to be listed. The related "friends of Milblogs" works too, since those members basically pledge their support to the military bloggers. There are a few other successful "brands" out there like Blogs 4 God and Blogs for Bush. The most successful blog brand I've seen (besides Glen Reynolds of course) is Evangelical Outpost. That particular link is like a cockroach. It's everywhere and that's a testimony to the hard work of JP Carter, it's soon to be famous author.

I'm not saying here that it's bad to have links on your blog. The point is that if you have links, try to limit them to 15-20 or so and only link to the blogs you like. Otherwise, it's pointless. For that reason, I don't have a ton of links on my blog. (I should actually have more and I'm going to be adding more in the very near future.) The few links I have there now are because I truly enjoy reading and visiting those sites myself. They are:
BlackFive not only does he have a cool name, but he always seems to have the inside stories on the war in Iraq.
Arrgghhh! is another military blog and it's run by one of the nicest guys around -- especially if you love guns then you need to check him out.
A Collection of Thoughts knows more Special Forces people than Hamid Karzai and she isn't afraid to let her opinion be known. Just don't ask her about CAIR - she gets real ticked off when you bring up those SOB's.
The Evangelical Outpost is like a virus, but in a good way. He's got links all over the place because his writing is good and he's also willing to help out some of the less fortunate bloggers among us. (like me)
J Dedman is pretty cool, for a lawyer. He's from Baylor and he's on the same side as me so you might want to pay him a visit.

I'm getting ready to add a few more links of blogs I like. If you notice your blog in this list and you add my link to your blog that's great, but regardless of whether I'm on yours; if I like your blog then I'm happy to link to you. Lately I've really been enjoying Rev Mike, La Sabot Post Moderne, The Patriette, One Hand Clapping, Vessel of Honour and Captain's Quarters. I know there are tons of others out there that are really good too and if I left someone's name off the list, please let me know and I'll be sure to pay you a visit. In the meantime, I'm working on building my "brand" and I want it to be a good one.

I'd like to get some opinions on this, but if you feel like I'm maligning your blog ---take a deep breath and cool down for a few seconds. Unless you run one of those blogs that's cheerleading for Howard Dean, you can be assured that no insults are intended. I would like to hear how some of you handle this whole links thing.

Civil War?

A story in the Philadelphia Inquirer today cites concerns "broadly held within the US Government" and by the CIA, that Iraq could become embroiled in a civil war. Channel News Asia reports that three straight days of demonstrations by the Shiites has "struck fear in the hearts of the Kurds and Sunni populations". Considering the sheer volume of weapons freely available in Iraq it seems that such fears are well founded.

Meanwhile, the worlds "elite" are meeting at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Former President Clinton, who doesn't seem to realize that he should just retire somewhere and keep his big mouth shut, is a featured speaker.

US Army and Arena Football

A story in USA Today reports on the difficulties faced by Army recruiters. There are roughly 7,000 recruiters and they estimate they must make 120 to 150 contacts just to get one person to enlist. They're offering special incentives to potential recruits but there's a great deal of concern that not enough will enlist. Meanwhile the Army is trying this unique partnership as part of their recruiting effort...

As part of their partnership with arena football there are "multiple enhancements" which designate the U.S. Army as the official military service partner of the league for the season. This includes logo identification on all player home jerseys, on-field signage and various additional in-arena promotions.

Judging by the fact that this league isn't exactly on fire, it might be a little too much to hope this partnership will make up for any potential shortfall in recruiting numbers. ...and judging by the fan base, only the marines will be able to take in these recruits. (just kidding)

Lt. General John Riggs worries about finding enough soldiers to maintain current levels and for a possible 10,000-soldier increase that was endorsed by the Senate last year but failed to win full congressional approval. He says, "I have been in the Army 39 years, and I've never seen the Army as stretched in that 39 years as I have today."

Meanwhile, General Blount is trying to look at the bright side. He says that the majority of the Army will have a combat patch for the first time since Vietnam, "We were already the best army in the world. Now we're the most experienced." Of course he's in charge of Army readiness so what's he going to say.

Says Who?

Blackfive has a great post that also points to a post by Roger Simon regarding a blogger's identity. I wrote way too much on the comments section over at Blackfive and then still had more to say. Instead of filling up yet more space over at his blog I thought I'd just come back to my own and finish up.

In regard to a blogger's identity, some people dislike anonymous blogs...

I'm one of those people that isn't crazy about them. Even in real life, when someone tells you something you want to have some basis for evaluating what they're saying. Unless you know the person really well, you want to know where they got their information. Without that, what they say is meaningless.

Now that doesn't mean that you have to go and blabber all about your personal life all over your blog. There are whackos out there that get off on victimizing people who reveal too much - and that's without taking into consideration all those disaffected deaniacs lurking under every bush. You should reveal enough about yourself so the person reading your blog has some way of judging if what they are reading is true or worth considering.

There is an exception to that though. Whenever I post on anything that is even vaguely factual I try to reference reputable news and information sources so the reader can evaluate what I say based on them and not so much on my own identity. Most of what I blog about is my own opinion. In that case, it's nice for the reader to know a little about me, but that's it.

Recently, I was bored and did a whois lookup on several of my favorite bloggers. I was horrified to find that some of them have their home address and telephone numbers on their domain registration. In my book, that isn't a good idea. I think it's wise to keep details about your personal life; your kids, your wife, the place where you work, from your blog. No one needs that kind of information.

There's also the question of your employer. No one needs to know that either. Additionally, I serve in a obscure but vital elected position in my community. I need to be careful that what I say isn't somehow taken out of context. Therefore, I'm careful about what I write. Also, if I run for elected office in the future I don't want what I write to be used against me. Having personal information obscured is a good way to avoid any problems with that as well as watching what I write.

It's possible to get too paranoid. If anyone really wants to they can figure out where you live, etc. You can obscure some things but as for the rest, that's part of the risk inherent with having a blog read by (hopefully) thousands of people. My dad was a cop while I was growing up. We had an unlisted number but we always knew that if some whacko showed up that we had the means available to protect ourselves. You shouldn't take the risk unless you're able to do that.

If you're one of those people with your home address listed on your domain registration then change it! Otherwise I think it's good to just be careful out there.

Sola Scriptura?

Over the past several days, some discussions have come up here, here, and here that seem to involve common definitions for religious and philosophical terms. At least two of these guys are Presbyterians so I'd like to point out an excellent reference. The Presbytery of San Diego has put out a publication called, Essential Tenets and Reformed Distinctives that gives an overview of the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church. There's probably nothing here that's new or advanced, but the information is presented in a format that makes it perfect for a quick reference. The document itself says that, "It distills the Book of Confessions to a helpful summary - six essentials and sevent distinctives." If you're so inclined, check it out.

Special Forces After 9/11

There's a great article in the current issue of The Weekly Standard that discusses 9 reasons why Special Forces Troops weren't used against terrorists. It points out some lessons that future administrations would be wise to follow if we are to be successful in the war on terrorism.

It wasn't just the Clinton Administration that was guilty of not using these troops but also the first Bush Administration. For all of the criticism Donald Rumsfeld has taken, I believe he has made a much needed contribution toward helping to change some attitudes that kept our country from using these soldiers (Marines, too) the way they should be used.

By the way, if you aren't getting this publication, you should. For conservative thought and analysis it puts others to shame.

War Stories

The definitive book on the Iraq War hasn't been written yet. In the meantime, there are two books that I've read recently that describe the invasion in great detail; Boots on The Ground by Karl Zinsmeister and The March Up by Bing West and General Ray Smith. I've written a review of these two books in the following paragraphs.

Boots on The Ground is written from the perspective of the 82nd Airborne. It follows the unit from Kuwait to Baghdad. Throughout the book the author gives us brief snapshots of the various men he observes in combat situations. The vignettes of the soldiers are interspersed with commentary by the author on topics related to the invasion. He lays out a case for going to war, criticizes it's oponents and laments how the press has missed a lot of the more positive stories. All good stuff, but he's preaching to the converted here and I'd rather read about the soldiers. The book is 213 pages long with pretty big print.

My main complaint about Boots on The Ground is that it's way too short. Many of the soldier's stories I've read elsewhere, so much of the material isn't new to me. It's a good book, but I would've preferred to see more material about the actual combat and less political analysis.

The March Up follows the Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) of the 1st Marine Division from Kuwait to Baghdad. The authors have a great advantage over the other embedded reporters since they are former Marines. One of them, Ray Smith, is a retired general. As a result, the Marines they are with seem to trust them to a far greater degree. They have a front row seat as the division marches toward Baghdad.

At 289 pages and with smaller print this book is much longer than Boots on The Ground. The authors do a good job getting us inside the heads of the Marines and showing us the confusion and struggles of being in a battle. At times, Boots on The Ground and other similar accounts I've read tend to mythologize the soldiers, but The March Up presents their heroism along with their faults. There is very little political analysis which made the book easier to enjoy.

Both books make for enjoyable reading. If you don't know a lot about soldiers or the political analysis leading up to the war, then Boots on The Ground gives you a good start. The March Up gives you an account from a much smaller perspective and is better at showing the everyday lives of the marines involved inthe conflict. Until the definitive book on the entire Iraq War is written, these two should keep you satisfied.

Rssify!

I'm sure I don't read as many blogs as some, but I've found that the list of must-read blogs gets longer over time. What I've found really frustrating, though, is the sheer number of people who don't use RSS. RSS allows people to see when you post new stories without having to visit your site. This saves loads of time and energy. More importantly for those of us who use aggregators to track the blogs we read, it allows us to add you to the list so we can actually remember to visit your site. The Evangelical Outpost has some links to an excellent guide to get you started.

It's very frustrating when I come across a great blog like this one that I'd like to read, but...NO RSS! I'll never remember the url so these sites just sort of fall off my radar.

Please, I beg of you...add RSS now! (especially you blogspot people.) Have mercy on those of us whose lives are so pathetic that we've resorted to living our lives vicariously through the blogs we visit online.

Electronic Countermeasures

I have a question concerning the safety of our troops in Iraq and IED's. I posted the question last week, hoping for some kind of answer by a miliatry blogger but there weren't any takers. I decided to try it again because I know there must be a simple answer. Hopefully, through the use of gratuitous trackbacks I'll be able to get Blaster, John, Greyhawk, Blackfive, or at least the famous JP Carter to respond. (I promise I'll never do it again, honest.)

The Question is as follows:
On December 18 of 2003, someone tried to assasinate President Musharraf of Pakistan. The part that I find interesting is that the attempt was foiled by some type of electronic jamming device in his motorcade. My question is this; Since the terrorists in Iraq are using things like garage door openers to trigger IED's, why don't we have some sort of jamming device for them?

It seems like such a simple thing.

Well, anyone?

Deus Ex Machina

Scientists and philosophers of the enlightenment believed that God created an orderly universe consisting of various immutable laws. As a result of this belief they were able to begin searching for those laws and make great scientific discoveries. The secular humanist philosophy of the modern age has attempted to paint the enlightenment as being at odds with religion rather than as a byproduct of it, but the basic understanding of our universe today is as it was then. Natural law governs the universe.

Of course, Christians believe that God works by means of natural law. If I drop an object, it falls to the ground 100% of the time. These natural laws are present in all we do, but that's also the problem. If everything is governed by cause and effect where does that leave God?

When we pray to God for something to happen, in effect, we're asking Him to suspend natural laws in order to answer our prayer. Furthermore, most Christians seem to believe that God has a specific purpose for each of our lives. If the world is governed by an almost mechanistic cause and effect relationship, it doesn't leave God with much active involvement. On the other hand, God sent Jesus to this world in order to reverse natural law. So the question remains, How much does God involve Himself in our affairs? On the surface this question seems to be very esoteric in nature; interesting to contemplate, but hardly practical to daily life.

However, the answer to this question has some profound implications. If I believe that God has a specific plan for me, then I must seek his specific will in all my decisions. If I believe that God only has a general plan for me and that I'm free to act in any way; then I can make any decision as long as it is ethical and legal and still be considered acting "within His will".

A more mechanistic view of the world helps to explain how God allows bad things to happen to good people. Tragedies are only the result of cause and effect in a defective world. (This leaves the question of why God isn't more actively involved if he cares so much for us.) A less mechanistic view seems more hopeful and optimistic that God will act for us somehow during difficult times. Which view is correct?

I'm not sure anyone has the answer to this. Personally, I pray that God will intervene on behalf of various people, but in reality, I also pray the His Will be done. His will may be to allow natural law to run it's course, but because I know that in the past God has intervened, then it is certainly possible that He will again in the future. Through the act of prayer I am subjecting myself to His will regardless of what it is.

I'd really like for there to be an easy answer for these questions, but I doubt there is. In the meantime, I'll act in a way that is consistent with his general revelation for us and continue to seek his specific will.

Deus ex Machina literally means "God in the machine". He's in there but is he expecting us to do certain things or is He merely hopeful that we'll make the right decisions with the direction he's already given us?

One Shot

I know it's a cliche' but it happens to be true. One day you wake up and you're just a few months shy of 40. You start thinking about decisions you could've made differently.

As a kid you were really into the military - you wanted to be a fighter pilot someday - but you got older and somehow you never got around to joining up. You ended up with glasses so you knew it was no use joining the air force. You know you would've drifted toward certain military specialties; the ones that took skill and brains, and since you're also kind of a door-kicker, they would've had to be dangerous. You'd be a Major by now and you'd be in Iraq doing something that mattered instead of shuffling electrons around on a computer screen or telling other people what to do.

Sometimes you still wonder if there's any way to get directly involved. You search the DOD website to see if there's anything that you'd be qualified to do. There isn't of course, but you still look, and who knows? You're a bright guy with some great language and tech skills. Maybe you'll even meet someone who knows someone who knows just the perfect place for you. Not too close to danger but close enough for you to feel like you're able to make a difference for someone else, for your country.

You make the mistake of thinking just a little too much sometimes. You begin to think about the implications of your decisions. You start to think about your comfortable life. The way you're always there for your kids birthdays, holidays, band concerts and other special events. You've never been gone for your wedding anniversary. No one worries that you won't come home from work. Their biggest fear is that your fast driving will get you hurt. You don't have war related injuries or back problems from bouncing through a humvee in the desert.

You only get one shot at this life. You make the best decision you can at the time and that's all anyone can do. You guess that you made the right decisions, but you still wonder.

Politics or Economics?

George Soros is closing factories. Is it due to politics or economics?
On January 13th, Mr. Soros' company abruptly closed seven plants in Illinois, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Many employees around the country were caught by surprise when they arrived to work and found the plants shut down. Since Mr. Soros has stated in the past that defeating George Bush was the central focus of his life, I have to wonder if he's doing his part to sink the economy or simply doing business as usual.

(Special thanks to SE for this story.)

Blogwatch DejaVu

Every time I mention this guy I see my sitemeter bump up a few hits. It doesn't take a real rocket scientist to figure out that I should mention him more often!

He's mentioned, again, in World Magazine's Blogwatch where his article on Defense of Common Definitions Act is mentioned. If you're looking for a talented writer, visit his blog often.

Roadblock Ahead

So there we were driving home from the University of Illinois where we had just watched our team win the state championship, when I see some flashing lights up ahead. My first thought was, maybe it's an accident. It wasn't. Instead it's a roadblock and all cars have to stop while the officer checks our driver's license, insurance cards, and lights. The officer described it as a "safety check" but I know better.

A recent ruling by the supreme court upheld the practice of officers stopping cars for no reason other than to seek information. In my case it wasn't a big deal. Just a quick stop and we were on our way, but it felt an awful lot like living in the old Soviet Union.

Momentum in Iowa

There has been some discussion about the fact that Howard Dean may fizzle out and someone like Wesley Clark could end up running off with the democrat's nomination. Meanwhile, this NYT story breathlessly describes John Edwards campaign:
"He is packing halls across Iowa. He is finding what many Democrats say is the stride that eluded him for much of the year. And he was attacked by name in a new television advertisement released Tuesday by Howard Dean, a development that Mr. Edwards's advisers celebrated as a sign that he had arrived."

Edwards doesn't need to win Iowa to be considered successful. He can pick up some momentum by simply surviving. A San Francisco chronicle story reports Edwards' strategy as this:
His basic strategy: a stronger-than-expcted finish in Iowa's Jan. 19 caucuses, a respectable showing in New Hampshire's Jan. 27 Democratic primary, then a big stand in South Carolina, one of seven states holding primaries the following week.

Personally, I'd much rather see a Bush vs. Dean contest. I hope we won't someday be nostalgic for the time when we could laugh about Dean's latest gaffe.

As for Clark, I still think he hasn't got a chance!

IED Miscellany

I have a simple question. There's probably a good answer too, but I don't know any other way of asking it except by posting it on this blog. I'm hoping that one of those military guys will see it and be able to give me an answer.

On December 18 of 2003, someone tried to assasinate President Musharraf of Pakistan. The part that I find interesting is that the attempt was foiled by some type of electronic jamming device in his motorcade. My question is this; Since the terrorists in Iraq are using things like garage door openers to trigger IED's, why don't we have some sort of jamming device for them?

Mystery Bag

Try not to think about this kind of thing and maybe you'll manage to sleep well tonight.

The Usual Suspects

The usual suspects are trumpeting the allegations made by Paul O'Neill about the White House and President Bush. The Arabic News has the headline, US official reveals the US intended to invade Iraq prior to 9/11 events and the BBC has, Bush plotted Iraq war from start. It appears though that Mr. O'Neill's evidence isn't exactly airtight. This article sheds some light on the nature of his evidence.

In a recent development, the Treasury Department wants to investigate Mr. O'Neill. I'm really interested in seeing if the people all upset about the supposed White House leaks with the CIA agent will get just as upset about O'Neills cache of NSA documents, etc. proudly displayed for 60 minutes.

I have a helpful way we can show Mr. O'Neill what we think of his allegations...

If you've looked at your money lately you'll notice that the treasury secretary's signature appears in the lower right hand corner of the bills. From a brief glance into my wallet I have a couple of Paul O'Neill's, a Lawrence Summer's and a Robert Rubin. To protest Mr. O'Neill's specious allegations I propose that you find all the currency you have with his signature on it, pull it out of your wallet, and send it to me!

Yes, that's right, send me all of your Paul O'Neil currency. Just to show Paul O'Neill that he can't push us around I promise that I'll purchase something for myself. That purchase will help to stimulate the US Economy and you, my friend, will have helped your country (and me) in a very nice way.

Cognitive Dissonance

I just finished reading the latest issue of The Atlantic and I'm more than a little disturbed. As far as I can tell, the magazine has taken a decidedly leftward turn in the last few issues. The last issue featured an excerpt from George Soros' new book. The current one features an article by James Fallows wherein he proceeds in excruciating detail to lambaste the Bush administration for it's recklessness in post-war planning in Iraq.

I'm concerned for a few reasons:
First, I'm concerned because the charges made in the article are disturbing and I have no way of knowing if they're fairly presented.
Secondly, is it me or is this magazine going off the left-wing deep end? Other articles in this latest issue are extremely critical of both conservatives and the administration as well.
I'd like to see someone do an in-depth analysis of the Fallows' article. (Someone more capable than me of responding to the charges leveled.)
If they are indeed true, then the Bush Administration has a lot of 'splaining to do. If not, then I need to find a new favorite monthly magazine to read. (Other than the Weekly Standard that is.)

Sugar Daddy

The United States provides nearly $10 billion a year in economic assistance, mostly in grants. Giving aid to foreign countries originated with The Marshall plan and originally focused on furthering our foreign policy objectives such as supporting anti-communist countries. A portion of our aid to other countries goes for humanitarian relief, but for the remainder some serious questions linger about whether we're really getting our money's worth.

There are those who claim the US doesn't give enough money to foreign countries. (here.) They point to the fact that US aid, in terms of percentage of our GNP is the lowest of any industrialized nation in the world. Our giving amounts to only .1% of our Gross National Product. At events like the World Summit on Sustainable Development the US is ridiculed because we give less of our GNP than any other country in the world. Implicit in this ridicule is that we somehow owe money to other countries because we've been successful and, for the most part, haven't squandered our resources on things like repressing our own citizens.

Those who are critical of our lack of foreign aid typically represent the various world organizations like the UN, the IMF, and other NGO's. These are the same people who espouse the one world government view and would have us violate our sovreignty by being subject to the International Criminal Court. We're supposed to feel guilty for being successful and I suppose we're supposed to feel obligated to these other countries.

These groups usually neglect to mention that in terms of raw dollars we give more foreign aid than any other country. In 2003, we gave over 11 billion dollars in foreign aid. They neglect to mention that a conservative estimate of American's private giving is at least $34 Billion dollars. Our foreign aid far outstrips the aid provided by any other country. (This is without even considering the 81 Billion dollars recently provided to Iraq and Afganistan.)

If we were making a difference in these countries, either in terms of promoting democracy, economic reforms, or at least overall humanitarian relief, then it wouldn't be such a tragic failure. A report written by the Cato Institute examines the results of our foreign aid and concludes that the result has been greater debt, dependency and poverty.

Our foreign aid has also done little to positively influence the support of our foreign policy initiatives. A report by The heritage foundation concluded the following:

• 74 percent of US foreign aid recipients voted against the United States a majority of the time. This was up from 68 percent in 1996 and 64 percent in 1995. Thus, nearly three out of every four foreign aid recipients vote against the United States in the U.N. most of the time.
  
• US foreign aid recipient votes against the United States have increased in number in each of the past three years.
  
• Of the ten largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid, six voted against the United States more than half the time. This is the same level as in the 1996 U.N. session

This lengthy document details the objectives of our foreign aid program. Clearly, there are some instances where foreign aid is in our best interests and may even be a moral imperative in the interest of humanitarian needs. However, there are some who argue convincingly that it's time to turn off the foreign aid.

A listing of the foreign aid being doled out is here. Some examples from that list; Palestine 111 million, Egypt 919 million, Belarus 12 million, Samoa 1.3 million, Barbados 1.2 million, Israel 529 million, and Mexico 64 million. Clearly some serious questions need to be asked about why we're giving these countries so much money, or why we're giving them anything at all.

Coincidentally, the left-leaning NGO's are very active in pointing out how much we give Israel. While searching for information on this article I came across many articles decrying our aid to them. They fail to highlight that Israel is a democratic country and a loyal ally. Somehow we're supposed to believe that the Palestinians are more deserving of our aid. Some so-called aid sites like this one seem more interested in propogating anti-Bush and anti-USA propoganda than they are in fostering greater foreign aid.

One pleasant surprise was an organization called C-FAR. C-FAR is a group of Canadians (amazing isn't it?) who oppose the type of foreign aid given by their country to other countries merely due to a guilt-trip about being successful. There definitely needs to be more of an outcry from US Citizens about our foreign aid. In times when there is so much being said regarding our budget deficits and especially when the war on terrorism is costing us so much, we can't afford to foolishly throw our money away. A great deal of our foreign aid is simply money wasted and this needs to be stopped.

There is a legitimate place for foreign aid. Events like the earthquake in Iran are a perfect example of how humanitarian aid can serve a legitimate moral and foreign policy purpose. Perhaps, people like this guy and this guy can attest to the usefulness of doing joint military readiness exercises and training foreign military groups. However, legitimate aid seems like it should be far less than it is currently. We desperately need Welfare Reform for these countries. There is no inherent reason why the US should be the Sugar Daddy to the World.

The Apprentice

I was suffering from Post-Vacation Malaise last night so I was mindlessly flipping through the tv channels and came upon The Apprentice on NBC. In this show 16 people; 8 men and 8 women, vie for the chance to become Donald Trump's assistant. Normally, I just flip on past this kind of stuff, but something caught my attention and I hung on for a while.

In the first episode, the contestants were divided into two teams based on their gender. What caught my eye, and the reason I watched the show for a while, was that I wanted to watch the differences between how the men and women interact with their teammates.

This episode featured an interesting challenge. Each team was given $250 to start a lemonade stand. The team who made the most would win.

The teams ended up interacting as I suspected they would. The men displayed a certain macho - mine's bigger than yours - attitude toward each other, but generally buried their egos in order to sell the Lemonade. (There was one guy who couldn't seem to handle this and he instead tried to talk one potential customer into buying a glass of lemonade for a thousand dollars.) After getting a restaurant owner to donate some equipment and purchasing the rest of their supplies they seemed like they were off to a good start.

The women bickered and back-stabbed each other over who would control the team. They got lost trying to meet up after determining a location and one of the members actually took some time off to go get lunch. This burned up a lot of time so they ended up doing something quite expected. That's right, they resorted to sex.

The women chosen for this show are all attractive and most of them seem to know it. Although they had much less time, they sold their lemonade for $4 or $5 a glass by doing things like giving the customer (guys) a kiss or including their phone number. The halter top and other sexy outfits didn't hurt either. This article does a great job of describing the whole -using sex to sell- dynamic in this episode.

My wife asked me why the men didn't use sex to sell their lemonade. I knew this would never work because, "women don't care about sex", at least not like the men. Unfortunately she didn't contradict me on this point. The poor guys worked hard and managed to double their money, but they ultimately lost. The women quadrupled their money. How depressing.

For their effort, the women's team "won" a trip to The Donald's Penthouse. Of course, it's filled to the gills with the same kind of stuff that Saddam Hussein seemed to prefer in his palaces. The episode was interesting enough, but I just can't handle the arrogance of Trump. Apparently, he's the Executive Producer of the show.

A good part of the show seems to revolve around Trump and how he's such a shrewd businessman, judger of personality, etc. I'm not sure I buy that and even if it's true, it's hard to watch. The fact that the women were able to succeed by acting like glorified prostitutes didn't sit too well with me either. I don't know. Maybe I'm just bitter because the guys lost.

The Game is Afoot

President Bush has little to lose and a lot to gain by making some concessions toward the left of the political spectrum. Regardless of whether you think the proposed immigration changes are a good idea, it would seem that he can't lose by proposing them. (A summary of the proposal can be found here.) Personally, I don't know if I agree with the proposal or not, but I think it's something that more right-thinking Democrats will find to be a good idea. There are a few of them who may actually switch parties when faced with a choice between a "Compassionate Conservative" and a raving left-wing lunatic.

Overall, I'm guessing that you're going to see strange things coming from the President both before and after the next election. For example...

I would expect that President Bush would, whenever possible, make some concessions that conservative and/or moderate democrats are going to like. Sure it will anger conservative Republicans, but what are they going to do about it? Vote for Howard Dean? Of course, there's a limit to how the President could stretch things, but I'm guessing he's got that pretty well figured out.

After the election, GWB is going to need support from his core constituents, especially those in Congress, so you can expect to see some swings to the right as well. (This assumes that he clobbers his Democrat opponent in the election.) On the foreign policy front, I would expect that you'll see quite a bit more aggressive action directed toward Iran and Syria. Probably not an all out invasion, but I wouldn't be surprised by some surgical strikes and covert funding of opposition groups. On the domestic side, expect the president to look for opportunities to cut taxes again and become a much more vocal opponent of gay marriage. He may even look for some opportunities to get out from under his recent moniker of being a tax-and-spend Republican.

A Long and Winding Road

Imagine you were a thousand years old or more. Not only that, but every seven years you would fall into a deep sleep and your body would rejuvenate itself to that of a typical 25 year old. There is no doubt that having this type of immortality would affect your outlook on life. The real question is, how would it affect it?

We often say to ourselves, "If I could have it to do over again..." and swear that we'd do things much differently the second time around. With a prolonged lifespan, chances are, you would have it to do over again. For many, wisdom is associated with old age, but if you outlived everyone would you be that much wiser?

As you watched your children grow old and eventually die, how would that affect you? Would you re-marry knowing each time that you would outlive your mate and ultimately be left alone?

There are really only two responses that someone would have to such a scenario:

• You would live each day without regard to the future because the future is almost limitless for you. You could eat, drink, and be merry or as the line from a Johnny Cash/U2 song goes, "I went out there, in search of experience, To taste and to touch and to feel as much as a man can before he repents."
  
• You would see how there is really never anything new. You would become weary of this world and all it has to offer. Despair would become your closest friend. You would most likely be able to relate to the lyrics from this song, "I close my eyes, only for a moment, and the moment's gone. All my dreams, pass before my eyes, a curiosity. Dust in the wind, all they are is dust in the wind. Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea. All we do, crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see... If you sat down to write anything it might read a lot like this passage: "What does man gain from all his labor
  at which he toils under the sun? Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever. The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from,
  there they return again. All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing. What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

How would having extra time affect you?

Wounded in Iraq

Specialist Casey Nally was wounded in Iraq. He now has a blog called Through A Soldiers Eye which describes the conditions he experienced there. He's also looking to establish an online community for those returning from Iraq. It can be found