To all the women out there, Armed Females of America wants you!

Firearms are the great equalizer. A 6' 5" 300lb rapist is hardly a match for a chick with a .45 tucked in her purse. This article by the Independent Women's Forum should be required reading for all women.

I jumped the gun, so to speak, on buying a gun to stick it to Michael Moore. The organizers of that 'Buycott' were hoping that purchases would be made on April 15. I made my purchase today. I had been wanting a .45 ACP pistol for quite some time, so I finally broke down and purchased a Taurus PT945. It should provide plenty of knockdown power, and it is as easy to field strip as my Glock. I was tired of DAO pistols, and the stainless steel finish is a nice change of pace for me as well.

FYI, the base model PT945 cost me roughly $419 + tax, and came with only a single magazine. By the time I added a second mag, some ammo, a holster, and some cleaning accessories, it was $550 out the door. Compensated models, or those with rosewood grips or night sights cost a bit more. I saw some nice Kimber compacts and a really nice Springfield subcompact .45 with a nickel finish, but the damn thing was $800.

Photo via Taurus

I probably wont have a chance to shoot it for a while, as I've got a lot of other things to do this week. As for the April 15th 'Buycott', who knows, maybe I'll buy another gun next month.

As I grow older, more and more of my friends are getting married off. When that happens, as a single guy, I get to witness 'the change' first hand. When it comes to married people, they aren't as much fun to hang out with as single folks. I'm not saying that I dislike married people, I'm simply saying that marriage is akin to 'fixing' a pet. Sure, they look the same after the process, but they don't seem to walk with the same spring in their step that they used to.

My biggest gripe is that married people are always attached at the hip. They also seem to always utilize a veto power over their spouses. Now, I've been to a lot of weddings, and never once did I hear the holy man ask 'do you promise to always get permission before you go out and have too much fun?' Spouses and married people try to sell it as having respect for one another, but I look at it as not trusting each other. Throw kids into the mix, and you get the "you're not going out and having fun and sticking me with the kids" attitude.

For instance, if I ask a married friend to go see a movie that I've been wanting to see, I always get the "Let me ask my wife (or husband)" response. At this point in the conversation, I am thrown into a sort of marriage purgatory. While they go ask permission from their spouse, I'm left wondering if I'll get to see the movie I started out wanting to see. On more than one occasion, I've had a friend ask their wife if they can go see a movie with me. Naturally, their wife gets upset, because he hasn't taken her to a movie in over three years. If they have kids, next thing I know the whole family is coming, and I'm roped into seeing Monsters, Inc. instead of Monster's Ball. I realize this sounds selfish, but why should I be punished simply because this clod never takes his wife to the movies? Ultimately, what happens is that I've become conditioned to rarely ask married people to do anything separate from their spouses. After all, I pretty much know what the answer is going to be.

Another thing that bugs me about the married is that they always act as if single folks have some sort of disease that desperately needs treatment. I realize that misery loves company, but I'm not at a point in my life where I'm ready to settle down. Still, that doesn't stop married people from grilling me on my dating prospects, or trying to fix me up with their socially rejected friend. I hate blind dates, and I've never had someone billed as 'perfect for me' actually turn out to be perfect for me.

When it comes to marriage and dating, I value my independence. I will not attach myself to a woman that won't let me go out and have a good time without her every once in a while. I also will not tolerate a woman who doesn't like my friends and doesn't want me to hang around with them. I wouldn't dictate who she can be friends with, and she shouldn't limit me. When it comes to your spouse, I think it's important that you treat them with respect. In my opinion, that should include not having to ask permission to go out and have a good time. Besides, if the answer is often 'no', what does that say about your marriage?

Don't take this the wrong way. I've been thinking about this for quite some time, but don't know how to say it without sounding arrogant or mean. Also, I'm not saying that married people suck, I'm merely saying that this is what sucks about married people. I'm sure single people have their flaws too.

Basically, I don't mind hanging out with married people, but sometimes you just want a guys (or girls) night out. Perhaps I don't understand marriage. Perhaps I'm way off base, and I will end up simply alienating all of my married friends. Perhaps I'll live and die alone. Perhaps the only people that show up to my funeral will be there to piss on my grave*. So be it. I'll make sure I'm buried face down so that all of you can kiss my ass.

*Actually, I hope to have an open bar at my funeral, not so much to celebrate life, but to make sure someone (besides me) shows up.

In a wonderful case of irrelevance, Reuters reports that a study shows that New Yorkers may one day embrace the public smoking ban that Mayor Bloomberg is thrusting upon them. Evidence cited includes the quick assimilation of Californians their state wide smoking ban. "As people grew accustomed to smoke-free bars they absolutely realized that smoke-free bars are so much more enjoyable," said study co-author Colleen Stevens, of the California Department of Health Services in Sacramento. Pavlov would be proud.

The article and study are dripping with the arrogant notion that resistance is futile. The state knows what's best for you, and even if you don't like it, you'll soon grow to accept it. Also, never once do they even address the ethics behind behavioral conditioning, or taking away the rights of private property owners and their patrons. This should stand as a perfect example of the dangers of democracy, in that the unethical act of dictating the behaviors of property owners and their patrons is being legitimized by basic mob rule and majority acceptance. It makes me sick.

In a related note, similar studies also show that when aliens take over the Earth, people will get used to anal probes and mind control devices.

I will be traveling to the land of rocky top today, to visit my sister. I'll be gone all weekend, and am not sure how much time I'll have for weblogging.

Feel free to check out the archives, or any of the fine weblogs in the blogroll.

Boycott Hollywood put together a rather comprehensive list of celebrities that are actually in favor of the Coalition of the Willing. I should note that while I find the list interesting, I personally do not encourage or even actively participate in boycotts. However, if you wish to do so, that is your business.

Cheers go out to Tiger Woods, who had this to say about the war:

I have great respect for the men and women fighting overseas to protect our way of life in Iraq and other parts of the world. As the son of an Army officer, I understand the strength, courage and discipline required to successfully carry out their missions in hostile environments and feel tremendous pride they are representing us.

Obviously, no one likes war. Our Congress and President tried hard to avoid the use of force, but ultimately decided it was the best course of action. I like the assertiveness shown by President Bush and think we owe it to our political and military leaders, along with our brave soldiers to be as supportive as possible during these difficult and trying times. I just wanted to take this opportunity to let our forces know that I am thinking about you and wishing you and your families the best.

It's refreshing to finally hear a celebrity make some sense. This is about the first positive celebrity statement I've heard since R. Lee Ermy told Babs she was so ugly she could be a modern art masterpiece.

(link via Taranto)

Reader Vanessa, who's stationed in the Middle East sent me this intelligence photo of the Iraqi Navy getting ready to make an offensive on our warships.

On Sunday, I recommended an efficient way for celebrities to utilize their duct tape.

Wednesday, Martin Sheen followed my advice.

If reading David T. Hardy's analysis on Michael Moore's mocumentary wasn't enough to convince you that Moore is a liberal moron, perhaps you'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth. In the LA Times, Moore proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he rode the short bus to school, saying that his only regret on Oscar Sunday was going to church.

To believe Moore, you must believe the following:

• George W. Bush was not elected President, despite the fact that he garnered more electoral votes than Al W. Gore.


• Bush didn't get over 50% of the popular vote, and thus doesn't have a mandate from the voters to further his political platform, despite the fact that Bill Clinton was elected in a 'landslide' in 1992 with a mere 43% of the popular vote.


• The war in Iraq is over oil, and the Bush Administration's oil interests, despite the fact that global oil prices have plummeted, along with oil company stocks.


• Moore's book sits at number 1 on the best seller list despite the fact that it is number 2. (this is called the Al Gore Syndrome)


• The fact that Moore's book is number one two on the best seller list means that most Americans agree with Moore's politics.


• The fact that President Bush has a 70% approval rating means that polls are not as accurate as best seller lists.


• The majority of the people booing at the Oscars were in fact, booing the booers and not Michael Moore. (no shit, that is what he claims)

Moore also notes that on Oscar Sunday, his thought turned to a homeless man he passed (in his limo) who was begging for change. (He didn't stop and give him any, but at least he was 'thinking' about him.) He also mentioned that his next big cause is going to be the plight of flight attendents.

The Bradenton Herald reports the latest on Martha Burk and her movement to destroy freedom of association. The latest chapter is truly disgusting.

As Neal points out this morning, it would seem as though all the war news has pushed Martha's message to the back burner. Not one to let publicity slip through her fingers, Burk is now trying to use the war in Iraq to further her cause.

Burk whines that women fighting for America in Iraq are not allowed to join the ultra exclusive 300-member Augusta National Golf Club. "We have women fighting for American values in Iraq. Women fighting for their country. But there's something wrong with this picture. Women can't get into Augusta." I'd bet dollars to donuts that those men fighting in Iraq are not members of Augusta National Golf Club either.

The sad fact is that it is our core American values that Burk is trying to break down. She is attempting to dismantle a person's fundamental right to pick and choose their friends, and associates. What really burns me up is her outright bitchiness confidence. "It's a shame that things have gotten to this point," Burk said. "Augusta should have ended this months ago. We know what the outcome will be, that they will change their membership policy. I don't know why they have put themselves through this."

If for no other reason than to stick it to Ms. Burk, I hope that Hootie Johnson prevails. Legally, Burk doesn't have a leg to stand on. Instead she is trying to appeal to the court of public opinion, to get enough people on her side to vote with their dollars. It is somewhat akin to the action of boycotting the French, or the Dixie Chicks based on their beliefs. Burk hopes that if enough people boycott the Master's Tournament, their sponsors, and anyone else involved, Augusta National Golf Club will open their membership. They are free to keep their membership closed, but then again, Coca-Cola and other former sponsor's are free to dissolve their relationship. That is the price Augusta may have to pay for exercising their freedoms.

Although I disagree with Augusta's policy, I observe their right to do so. I also note that Hootie Johnson helped desegregate South Carolina University, and was responsible for the appointment of women to management positions at Banker's Trust. The members of Augusta National are also stepping up to personally provide $3.5 Million to the private charities that usually benefit from the Club's sponsors. Given that, I am much more apt to be sickened by Burk's blatant opportunism than the exclusiveness of the club. At first she was exploiting the cause of women's rights to shamelessly raise herself up to national prominence. Now she's exploiting the war.

I'll say it again: If Burk is successful, the legal team at Ravenwood's Universe will seriously consider exerting public pressure to allow men's admittance into the Girl Scouts, the National Organization for Women, the Oprah book club, and women's public restrooms.

UPDATE: If you want to delve more into the politics of Burk's quest, I suggest reading the synopsis of Bryant Gumbel's excellent interview with Burk.

Carnival XXVII is being hosted over at Dancing with Dogs this week.

This is the second week in a row I haven't participated, mainly because I keep forgetting to submit an entry.

Yesterday, I commented on Virginia Democratic Gov. Mark Warner trying to preserve the dispicable practice of the raiding of corpses looking for cash. Today, Owen Courreges humorously notes that a picture is worth a thousand words.

The WSJ has an op-ed by National Security Advisor, Condaleeza Rice, who notes that more than 50 nations have joined the 'unilateral' effort against Saddam.To put this in perspective, the combined population of coalition countries is approximately 1.23 billion people, with a combined gross domestic product of approximately $22 trillion. These countries are from every continent on the globe, representing every major race, religion, and ethnicity in the world.

An Albuquerque D.A. pointed out some undercover cops at a peace rally. It sounds harmless enough, but interfering with police work by a District Attorney of all people would seem to be a violation of their oath of office, as well as a criminal act of obstruction. She was placed on paid leave, naturally, and is screaming that she's being persecuted for her political views. Ironically, now that she's being paid not to work, she'll have much more time to attend pro-Saddam rallies.

Organizers and members of the rally claim that the presence of undercover officers at rallies is harassment. Methinks they don't know the meaning of the word harassment.

Ananova reports that a German gardener phoned police to report shots being fired in his garden. When police arrived, they too heard the shots, and moved to investigate. The shots turned out to be the seed pods from a large species of wisteria. When the spring weather breaks, the seed pods break open with a loud pop, to spread their seeds. No arrests were made, and the plant was released unharmed.

Well, no wonder Germany didn't want to join our Coalition of the Willing. They have enough trouble wrangling plants with an over active libido.

The AJC reports that CNN has cancelled Connie Chung Tonight. It had been pre-empted since last week for the breaking war coverage, but Chung was informed that when normal programming resumes, she won't be part of it. Connie Chung, Bill O'Reilly, and Phil Donahue had been in a heated ratings battle in the 8 PM time slot for CNN, FOX NEWS, and MSNBC respectively. O'Reilly has been the king of cable news for the 8 PM slot, followed by Connie Chung. MSNBC cancelled Donahue's show in February, after it failed to even generate ratings better than the program it had replaced (News with Brian Williams).

A British traitor 'Human Shield' has apparently been missing since the bombing in Baghdad began, reports the Independent. The Independent's report characterizes just how clueless these 'human shields' are.

Friends said Mr Warren had raised concerns that he and other members of the group were being manipulated by the Iraqi government rather than being given the freedom for humanitarian work.

Surprise, surprise, Hussein and his minions are being deceptive and manipulative. I can forgive their cluelessness, and chalk it up to blind ignorance. But this next passage intimates that the 'human shields' campaign was nothing but an empty promise and a publicity ploy any way.

When the protesters arrived in Baghdad in February they intended to position themselves at schools, orphanages and hospitals. Iraqi officials suggested they would be more usefully deployed at water-treatment centres, bridges and power plants.

I'm afraid I have to side with the Iraqis on this one. Human shields are not needed near non-strategic sites. The Coalition would never intentionally bomb schools, orphanages and hospitals. Utilities and infrastructure are fair game, however, and the whole purpose of human shields is to prevent the loss of strategic targets.

Of course, there really is no such thing as a 'Voluntary Human Shield'. Someone who volunteers to use their own life to protect an enemy of the state should be guilty of treason. At the very least, the Coalition should not be overly concerned about protecting the lives of those who willfully aid and abet the enemy.

State Legislators in the Commonwealth of Virginia recently voted to repeal the death tax. The idea of state officials being first in line to collect someone's inheritance before the body's even cold is quite disgusting. That didn't stop Democratic Gov. Mark Warner for vetoing the bill however.

What is most disturbing to me, is Socialist Democratic Senator Linda Puller's attitude toward taxpayer money. Even though she voted in favor of the repeal, she has gone on record as having changed her mind. "I've learned more about it, that most of the money goes to a very few people," Puller said.

This is representative of how most (if not all) Democrats and even a handful of Republicans look at taxpayer dollars. In their mind, it isn't your money, it's theirs. You should be eternally grateful to those fucks that they let you use it. Repealing the collection of taxes from the dearly departed is viewed by congressmen as GIVING money to 'a very few people." (Dead people, at that). This notion is nothing new, but it still makes me want to scream bugs me every time I hear a tax grabber say something so ignorant, blatantly callous, and condescending.

Wait until PETA hears about these dolphins that are being drafted into the military, and being assigned to mine-sweeping duties. Apparently the playful mammals are good for something besides getting caught in tuna nets.

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that numerous anti-war protesters are putting their jobs on hold to continue their protests. They claim to be driven by their conscience.

I wonder how many of these people are collecting unemployment benefits. If you remember, it was the People's Republic of California that insisted the fed extend unemployment benefits for another 6 months to a year.

The Media Research Center reports that while most networks are frantically trying to cover the war the best they can, ABC seems to be carving out a niche with the Anti-War crowd. Jennings and Koppel have been working overtime to ensure that the anti-war crowd is heard, and thrown softball questions like "Why do you feel so strongly about this war?" Meanwhile, Ari Fleisher and members of the Administration are hit with hardball anti-war conundrums.

Shortly after major air attacks on key buildings in Baghdad, ABC's Terry Moran asked Ari Fleischer if the President cared about the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians: "Have you heard him talk about this responsibility, which may weigh on him heavily today, and that is for the deaths of innocents, for Iraqi moms and dads and children who may, despite our best efforts, be killed?"

I've always known that media outlets are in the business to make money, and will do anything they can to draw ratings away from the competition. I just wish they would drop the bullshit 'Holier than thou' attitude.

Aside from the 'Where will we attack today' questions that reporters ask of our military commanders, this has to be the stupidest press question I've ever heard. Yesterday on the radio, I heard a reporter ask Secretary Rumsfeld about discrepencies in reporting on the war effort. The reporter told Rumsfeld that the reports that Gen. Franks was giving conflicted with the reports the New York Times was giving. Rummy humorously responded that he was much more likely to believe General Franks report than the New York Times.

If I were in his shoes, I don't think my response would have been that civil.

Michele and the Command Post got a mention in the New York Times today. After speaking with Michele for half hour, the Times painted her to look like a bored housewife with nothing better to do. As she notes in an email, her "fifteen minutes of fame is more like ten seconds of bemusement."

I'm not sure if she actually expected the Times to write a serious article about weblogging or not. Considering the NY Times is frequent fodder for bloggers and right wing pundits, it comes as no surprise that they would try to sweep them under the rug. More so, weblogs are fast becoming competition for major media. While I doubt the Times is in any danger of being phased out by weblogs, there is always the room for embarrassment at being scooped or corrected by some random Joe and a computer.

David T. Hardy takes a look at the truth behind Michael Moore's Oscar winning Mockumentary Bowling for Columbine. What he finds is that Moore's work is extremely disturbing, and intentionally fraudulent. The real tragedy comes not in Michael Moore's success, but in the slap in the face the Academy has given to real documentary film makers who were nominated for the award.

Bowling for Columbine is dishonest, deceptive, and sleazy. Hardy takes a thorough look at Moore's creative editing and fabrication of facts; something that directly violates Academy rules governing documentaries. Hardy gives his best analysis in Moore's depiction of NRA President Charlton Heston. Moore portray's Heston as an insensitive clod, who chases down child/gun shootings to stage pro-gun/NRA rallies. In fact, Moore completely fabricated Heston's speech through editing. The speech Moore gives to his audience was made of two separate speeches, and includes passages pieced together from several different paragraphs. Passages are assembled to fabricate a speech that makes Heston sound arrogant and disrespectful to the Columbine tragedy. While this is only one of several fabricated and deceiving events portrayed in Bowling for Columbine, it seems by far to be the most damning. For the rest, check out Hardy's comprehensive analysis.

Michael Moore essentially does for documentary filmmakers what former Emory Professor, Michael Bellesiles, did for Historians. The blatant lack of respect for the trade should be condemned, not rewarded. Moore's winning of an Academy Award shows just how out of touch the limousine liberals really are.

(for still more on Moore, check out the WSJ, and Forbes)

I've been collecting a few photos over the past few days. I'm sure you've seen some of these before, but I think it is important to show the faces of liberation.

As someone who wouldn't piss on Michael Moore if he was on fire, I like to keep a close eye on Moore Watch. Today, they note that Moore's Academy Award winning 'documentary' is a bit loose with the facts. Of course, most people knew that already, but here is the evidence de-bunking his 'gun in the bank' story. Apparently, if you had watched Moore's mockumentary (I have not), you would have seen him walk into a bank to open a new account. He fills out some forms, they hand him a gun as a perk, and he walks out.

The truth is, the process isn't quite so streamlined, and as they point out, Moore is either "making a statement of fact that's contrary to physical evidence" or "presenting a 'reality' that only exists through filmmaking."

Editor's Note: The Staff Writers at Ravenwood's Universe can only feel sorry for the folks that made real, honest documentaries that were overlooked by the Academy out of sheer popularity.

Newsweek and MSNBC offer up this biased editorialized gem in their 'War on Iraq' news section. The very first line is "Happy to have the messy diplomacy behind him, Bush settles into the cadences of commander in chief." Yeah, war is always better than diplomacy, and killing people is so much easier than talking to them.

They also take several shots at the President's intellect, saying he didn't like the movie Conspiracy Theory because it had a "slow start, confusing plot, [it's] just a mess." Later on, they play the 'Bush is an idiot' card.

This is a president who likes his stories upbeat, his plotlines simple and his villains clearly marked. So it was no surprise that last week he settled comfortably -- almost with a sense of relief -- into the constitutional role he has come to like best: commander in chief.

(link via Neal)

Michael Moore didn't disappoint on Oscar night. Staff Writer Jenn with two 'n's wants to know if I was psychic to make such a prophetic post. I say, with a fucktard like Moore, it was pretty easy.

Here is what the graceful Michael Moore had to say: "We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much."

UPDATE: Take a look at the differing perspectives:
Michael Moore booed as he slams Iraq war at Oscars - Famed US documentary maker Michael Moore used his win of an Oscar to launch a violent attack on US President George W. Bush and war in Iraq amid loud boos from the audience. -- Yahoo! News

Michael Moore criticizes U.S. war in Iraq in Oscar speech - A standing ovation and a handful of jeers from Hollywood's elite greeted filmmaker Michael Moore when he criticized President Bush and the U.S.-led war in Iraq during his acceptance speech Sunday after winning the documentary feature Oscar for "Bowling for Columbine." -- SF Chronicle

Vanessa, a member of the Air Force stationed in Qatar sends her thanks for the support.

No, Vanessa, thank you. Thank you for doing a job that very few people would be willing to do. Thank you for leaving your home and traveling halfway around the world. Thank you for voluntarily putting yourself in harms way, so that others may have a chance at the freedoms that we take advantage of every day. Thank you for doing your part to secure our homeland, and our way of life. Thank you and everyone like you. Your work is not in vain. Your work is not unappreciated.

Thank you.

The Command Post has moved. DNS appears to be working, so upgrade your bookmarks to Command-Post.org.

I just wanted to go on record as saying I encourage celebrities to wear duct tape at the Academy Awards Celebration tonight.

Staci Griebel, at Unique Snowflake has managed to shatter Dawn Olsen's record for banning me. After posting a mere five comments each on two different posts, trying to explain my point of view, I was most rudely banned. It's as if Saddam Hussein himself were running the place... 'No dissenting views allowed here. Thank you for playing, good bye.'

First I got the 'don't go away angry, just go away' spiel from Staci's roommate, a commenter named Raven. (italics mine)

Just go away. You have your own blog to be mindlessely, blindly jingoistic on. Opposing viewpoints are quite welcome here, I'm sure, but only if they're well thought out and have some factual backing behind them. ...You lose. Shoo.

Wrong on that one Raven. Opposing viewpoints are definitely NOT welcome there. At first, she seemed to genuinely want to debate, but I could tell she was hoping I'd get the feeling that I wasn't welcome there and just go away. Then Staci sealed it with this gem.

Let me ask you this... Do you know how a bomb works?

Followed quickly by the final kiss off and ban..

And I agree, go back to your own blog. I don't go to people's blogs who I /know/ I'm going to disagree with to post on their comments.

Well then Staci, I don't ever expect to see you here then, although you are always welcome to contradict my views without fear of persecution. Ravenwood's Universe is a dictator free zone, and you'll never hear me say "I'm getting very very good at banning IPs."

I love how some people just cannot face logic or a difference of opinion. My parting advice for Snowflake is that if she doesn't want people to comment, she shouldn't allow comments. You're much more likely to get respect without the pussy 'comment only if you agree with me' bullshit attitude.

Kudos to Michele for pointing out this SF Chronicle story. The headline reads "War protesters not too thrilled about their night in S.F. jail / They say police were rude, food and bedding inadequate". But wait, the whining gets better:

"We understand that we were not on vacation, but it was unacceptable the way we were treated," said a protester who gave her name as Pancetta, 24, of Berkeley.

They griped that their requests for water or food were ignored or delayed for hours. When they did get fed, they got cheese or peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches that didn't taste great.

It never ceases to amaze me how people that willingly violate the law can complain about the way they were treated. Perhaps they could have been boarded with one of these commuters, or with the guy who makes his living off of this newspaper box. Weren't these the same people that were trying to justify their actions by saying that a little inconvenience never hurt anybody?

Went to the range today, and didn't have time for weblogging. Perhaps I'll get to it later.

I am confused here? In this video (at 1:17), MSNBC is reporting that the DOW closed at 1421.17. Were they thinking of the NASDAQ, (which closed at 1421.84)?

BTW, the real payoff comes at 1:25. Check out the Iraqi response to Saddam's photo being ripped down.

Geez, you know you live in a podunk town when even Cleveland makes fun of you:

CUYAHOGA FALLS -- A member of Ohio's 5694th National Guard Unit in Mansfield legally changed his name to a Transformers toy.

Optimus Prime is heading out to the Middle East with his guard unit on Wednesday to provide fire protection for airfields under combat.

Optimus Prime the Soldier

Optimus Prime the Autobot

Optimus Prime claims, "I got a letter from a general at the Pentagon when the name change went through and he says it was great to have the employ of the commander of the Autobots in the National Guard."

Taranto offers up this list of House Representatives that have openly said that they do not support our military, with an official 'no' vote on HB 104.

John Conyers (Mich.)
Mike Honda (Calif.)
Stephanie Tubbs Jones (Ohio)
Barbara Lee (Calif.)
Jim McDermott (Wash.)
Charles Rangel (N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (Va.)
Fortney "Pete" Stark (Calif.)
Edolphus Towns (N.Y.)
Maxine Waters (Calif.)
Diane Watson (Calif.)

It should be noted that this was not a vote in support of war, merely a vote to support our men and women putting themselves in harm's way, so that we can continue to enjoy that freedom we take advantage of on a daily basis. The specific wording expressed "the support and appreciation of the nation for the president and the members of the armed forces who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom." It should also be noted that several (21) Representatives voted 'present', which Taranto says must mean that "they can't decide if they're for or against America's troops".

I was a little surprised to see Bobby Scott's name on the list, since he co-sponsored a similar bill, HB103. Scott's website offers the following statement:

Congressman Scott opposed H. Con. Res. 104 tonight, because provisions in that resolution sought to establish that Iraq posed a continuing threat to the United States and that Iraq was specifically associated with the terrorism of September 11th. The case that Iraq posed an imminent threat and the case that Iraq participated in the events of 9/11 have not been proven, and the lack of that evidence was the primary reason that our U.N. resolution could not achieve even a simple majority in the U.N. Security Council, with several of our traditional allies among those in opposition to the resolution.

I guess Saddam's open sponsorship of Palestinian terrorism, and other Iraqi ties to al Qaeda just weren't convincing enough. But then, with your head in the sand (or up your ass), sometimes it's hard to see the light.

With all this war coverage, how come we aren't hearing about any of the voluntary 'human shields'? Did they all turn tail and run? I realize that most left weeks ago, but I had thought some had stayed.

The idea of a voluntary human shield, is akin to a voluntary hostage. That is, they cease to become an innocent bystander, and should be considered someone aiding and abetting the enemy.

Venomous Kate must have been burning the midnight oil to put this together.

Owen Courreges coins the phrase "Axis of Ugly".

Whaddaya know? Hans Blix gets a clue.

Gun grabbers are making headway in Illinois, emboldened by victories by democrats in the last election. With the state under firm control of liberals and socialists, several new gun laws have been proposed to disarm law abiding citizens.

The new legislation consists of setting up a state wide firearm's registry (HB 2532), which will make future gun grabbing even easier; banning private gun sales except through a federally licensed dealer (HB 2536) (liberals call this the 'gun show loophole'); and an outright ban of all semi-automatic firearms and 'large caliber' firearms (SB 1195), which includes just about all hunting shotguns. There were also proposals on the table to raise the fee for a Firearm Owner's ID (FOID) Card 500%, from $5 to $25, and to limit firearms purchase to one per month.

Thankfully, several of the proposals were stripped from the bills in committee. The gun ban (SB 1195) is still alive although it has been vacated of it's wording. Senators are working on a compromise bill that should protect hunter's rights, but screw everyone else. In the House, the registry bill (HB 2532) was defeated in committee, but after Socialists replaced two gun friendly politicians from the committee with their own gun grabbers, they were able to get it passed to the full house for a vote. The 'loophole' bill (HB 2536) passed through committee pretty much intact.

If the bills pass, I'm sure that thugs and criminals across the state will be lining up to turn in their firearms.

This has to be the most disgusting form of self expression I've ever heard of.

This is shocking. Are Californians really so shallow that they're worried about the war messing up Oscar night? The NY Times says they are.

During some lunchtime and office-cooler chatter there has even been longing for President Clinton, a Hollywood favorite, who, the reasoning goes, would never have allowed a war to play havoc with Oscar night, one of the state's most hallowed traditions.

(link via Taranto)

I've decided to open an online store, featuring Ravenwood's Universe branded merchandise. Since my website is a profit free zone, I've decided to donate 100% of the proceeds to helping our troops and the war effort. Currently 100% of the proceeds will go to Troop Trax.

For each item in the store, $2 will be sent to Trooptrax. I'm not sure how much merchandise we'll sell, but every little bit helps. Currently there are only a few products being offered, but as I hone my photoshop skills, more are on the way.

By the way, I have ordered a mousepad and coffee mug for myself, (to verify the quality) so already I have $4 earmarked for Trooptrax.

I've always had a fondness for Jack Cluth and The People's Republic of Seabrook. Sure, we don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, but we always respected each other's opinion. He was also the very first person to blogroll me.

I'm pretty happy to see that Jack's site has really taken off recently. I don't think he even realized it, until I pointed out that he had cracked the Top 100 on Blogrolling.com. He's since dropped a few spots, but with 95 blogrolls, I reckon he's probably ranked about 105 or 106.

Recently, he even got a mention in the Washington Post as a warblogger. It'll be interesting to see him claw his way up from the bowels of obscurity to the limelight of success. Who knows, he might just turn out to be the liberal version of Glenn Reynolds. Hell, he's already got my vote for the liberal Rush Limbaugh that the democrats are looking for.

"Today I weep for my country. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. ... Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. After war has ended the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe." -- Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV

"Today I weep for Robert 'Sheets' Byrd. No more is the image of Byrd standing tall with national pride. Around Congress, Senators and Congressmen speak out against our nation. They flaunt their political status with arrogance and partisanship. They speak out for the sake of speaking out. They dissent, not for ideology, but for political gain. We need to rebuild Congress with men and women of character and ideals, not political aspirations and delusions of grandeur. We will have to rebuild the political image around the nation, and wipe this petty partisanship from the earth." -- Ravenwood, Chief of Staff and Chief Political Analyst at Ravenwood's Universe.

This is an open letter to the five weblogs on my blogroll that do not ping weblogs.com. (You know who you are.) PLEASE start doing so. It will generate much more traffic to your site, you'll get a neat * next to your name whenever you post an update, and most importantly, it will make me much happier, and you'll be removed from Laurence Simon's shit list.

I made my nominations for the Anti-Bloggies Awards. I don't have time to make multiple nominations to stuff the ballot box, so the weblogs I nominated are on their own.

News Max reports that the Dixie Chicks are blaming the VRWC for their troubles. I guess it's too much to ask for them to accept personal responsibility for their own foot in mouth disease. After all, it was the VRWC that took down Trent Lott and many others that have made verbal gaffes.

I have nothing against people speaking their mind. But when they say something stupid, they shouldn't blame us for pointing the finger and giggling.

Laurence Simon continues to deliver classic commentary on domestic events.

ABC reports, "Iraq War Protester Dies in Golden Gate Bridge Fall".

Amish Tech Support reports, "Apparently, these people understand the Law of Gravity as well as they understand International Law. They should fine his parents for littering in the Bay."

With the countdown come and gone, and barely a dozen cruise missiles fired, major 24-hour news services are expressing disappointment. An MSNBC employee who chose to remain nameless expressed his disappointment. "We had a countdown to zero hour and everything. It was like New Years Eve without the kiss at midnight. No payoff what-so-ever."

Sheppard Smith from Fox News went on the record, "I've got to work all night, and nothing's freakin' happening. I jockeyed to get this slot because I figured everyone would be watching. This is nothing like Gulf War I, but then sequels never are as good as the original. We're lucky to get footage of a single missile strike."

CNN's Manager of Online Operations, David Manning, whose job it is to make the online news exciting, said that they were making the best out of what's happened so far. "Sure, there were only a few cruise missiles and some fighter attacks, but we made the best of it. We had our extra large 'Decapitation Attack' font, and plenty of banners. Still, it's nothing like Gulf War I, when we had thousands of air strikes, and exclusive footage of the sky lit up like Independence Day. Those were the days."

The major news outlets have a genuine financial interest in this war. They are spending millions of dollars on 24 hour international coverage. CNN's media scoop during the first Gulf War gave them a boost from third rate news channel to a full fledged two-bit network. Now, 12 years later, CNN and other 24 hour networks like Fox News and MSNBC hope to duplicate that success. Unfortunately, although President Bush said the war would begin at 8 PM sharp ET, the attacks have so far been very anti-climatic. The few air strikes that have happened are no more severe than the daily air strikes that have happened over the past 3 months.

Geraldo Rivera, former tabloid journalist and foreign correspondent for Fox News wanted to recycle old Gulf War footage. "I don't see what the big deal is," he said, "just take that old CNN footage and wipe their logo off. Hell, give me a blue screen and a camera, and I'll double the ratings of my 'Al Capone's Vault' prime time special."

So far, all America can do is sit back and wait. The countless Americans that set their VCR for 8 PM were undoubtedly disappointed to get regular network programming like George Lopez and Survivor.

Well, it looks like I'll be moving yet again. I've received an offer from a government contractor in the DC area. I should start work within a month, which gives me a little bit of a cushion to get most of my stuff moved down there. I'm excited about moving back to the south, although I'll miss all my friends and family in the buckeye state. There are still some details to be worked out with this job, so there is a narrow possibility it will fall through. Still, with some luck and good planning, I should be down in DC within a month.

And now, I arrogantly do a small interview with myself to try to answer any questions that might crop up:

Q: How can you move yet again?
A: Gotta follow the money, babe.

Q: Aren't you concerned about living and working so close to a terrorist target?
A: Not just no, but hell no. I've come to terms with my mortality in this world, and what will happen, will happen. Besides, I believe in living life to the fullest.

Q: But couldn't you live life to the fullest someplace else?
A: Not without a job. See answer #1; you gotta follow the money.

Q: Is this a step up?
A: Depends on what you call a step up. From being unemployed it is a definite step up. From my previous position, I'll be making slightly less money. (very slightly) Then again, my old company was in a dire financial condition, and raises were becoming few and far between. This company is much more financially sound, and has the potential to be far more lucrative.

Q: Define lucrative.
A: Being a smaller company, it has much greater potential for raises, and advancement. I'm excited about the opportunity, and my new company. From what I've read, and the people I've met, it looks like a wonderful place to work. I think I'll be very happy at my new place of employment.

Q: How long were you unemployed? Were you getting desperate?
A: Not really. I'd only been unemployed for about four months. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I'm pretty much financially sound. If worse comes to worse, I could take a year off without pay before having to rely on friends and family to keep me from being homeless. Sure, I'd hate it and have to make adjustments, like maybe selling my car for a more modest one, but I'd get by.

Q: So how much did being unemployed really cost you?
A: Well, it hasn't really cost me anything yet. I've been drawing severance pay all this time, and never even filed for unemployment. My severance runs out very soon, but I'm still not too worried. Several people told me I was stupid for not taking advantage of free government unemployment money. Still, something in me told me that I'd be much more motivated if I saved my unemployment benefits until I really REALLY needed them. Besides, living off the state just isn't my style. It goes against everything in my being. If I file for unemployment, you know I'm getting desperate.

Q: Enough about you and your moral superiority complex, what about your readers. Will your weblogging suffer?
A: Well, both my readers should be fine. I might miss a few weblogging days here and there, but for the most part it is a short move. I guess it depends on how quickly I can get my utilities set up down there.

Q: If money were to become a problem, would you try making money from weblogging?
A: I doubt I have the traffic to do that. I personally abhor popup ads and banners. I'd rather 'cut off my nose to spite my face' than do that. That is, I'd rather shut down operations than resort to cyberbegging, advertising, or what ever. I just cannot do it.

Well, I hope that answers any questions you might have. Any others can be submitted in the comments or with the feedback form.

In Colorado, lawmakers are working to pass some sensible gun laws to rein in the local restrictions put on law abiding citizens. Kim du Toit delightfully points out the media's narrow view on a person's unalienable right to keep and bear arms.

And one last note for the Rocky Mountain News: these laws don't expand gun rights, they've restored them, you journalistic morons, you Constitutional ignoramuses, you horrible hacks. If Sheriff Asshole had decided that Black people couldn't vote in his county, would you have called a similarly-corrective law an "expansion" of voting rights?

I cannot help but feel that if more people realized that basic human freedoms of life, liberty and property were unalienable, and not granted by the imperial federal government, the world would be a much better place.

Survivor started off the season with a battle of the sexes. It made for the best watchable Survivor show since the initial run. To be honest, I haven't really watched it since the first season, until this year's battle of the sexes. Still, I cannot help but think they made a HUGE mistake by mixing up the tribes.

First of all, they ruined the watchability factor, in that now I don't know which team to root for. Second, depending on when the merge is, there may not be any women left. One team has already voted the women down to a minority, and if tribal loyalty still comes into play, a woman may not emerge from that tribe. The other team was leaning heavily toward getting rid of the women, and may be able to pull of the same coup. If they do a 3-3 merge, you could end up with all men coming down the final stretch. Even if they merge prior to that point, women are still in the minority, and tribal loyalties may dictate that they are picked off one by one.

But what do I know?

The LA Times is going out of their way to convince me that they know absolutely nothing about economics. Typical is how I describe their doomsday scenario that speaks of Trillions (with a T) in deficits, starving seniors, and an economy described as a 'house of cards'. The boogie man in this fable is none other than George W. Bush, and his 'massive' tax cut. Just when you thought they'd let this tall tale hit the presses without mentioning the fictitious 'social security trust fund', they mention that congressional plans would 'tap into the Social Security surplus'.

The LA Times rams this same story down the throat of their readers at least once a month, hoping that if repeated often enough, people will accept it as fact. I can only hope that readers will recognize it for just what it is. A big pile of shit.

The entire premise behind the LA Times' doomsday scenario, is that the economy will not grow, or will not grow as fast as government spending. Lately that has been all too true. Government programs have continued to get 6-8% increases in funding, even while gross tax receipts have been declining. Rather than cut spending or even suspend growth, liberals want to stick a gun in the face of hard working Americans, and tell them to dig a little deeper this year. Lawmakers and the media are so in favor of big government programs, that they continually mislabel spending increases as cuts, in hopes of swaying public opinion. Even programs that grow at double the inflation rate are called a 'cut' because they didn't receive the massive 8% increase that pork barrel spenders had hoped for.

What is needed, is for Congress to return to fiscal responsibility. Spending increases should be held to the inflation rate, or halted altogether during periods of negative or slow growth. As the economy turns around, and tax receipts start to increase, the deficit will be reduced and eventually eliminated. That is how we got the surplus in the first place. Democrats and some Republicans are impatient, however, preferring to hit taxpayers with a bigger tax bill rather than cut or halt the growth of big government programs. After all, you can't buy votes by cutting spending. I can only hope that voters realize that big government spending and higher taxes are never good for the economy.

While, I do stand up for smoker's right to smoke and a property owner's right to entertain smokers, I want to point out that this is not me. I would never waste good explosives on a John Deere.

I think it's a shame that the cigarette nazis are driving people to the brink. I seriously doubt they even care.

Here is a good example of true democracy in action. This man was denied his unalienable right to a trial by jury, and sentenced by mob rule. I don't mean to trivialize a tragic death like the AP and Reuters do with their 'Oddly Enough' sections, but there are honest parallels to be made here.

People in this country are quick to vote away the Bill of Rights, under the premise that 'majority rules'. While I don't think that your average American would participate in this sort of mob justice, I do think that many people wouldn't hesitate to vote away someone else's unalienable right to free speech, religion, or right to own a firearm.

Saddam's deadline comes to pass at 8 PM this evening. All over the U.S., anxious Americans are asking themselves the same thing: "Will Survivor be pre-empted tonight?"

The Carnival is over at WylieBlog this week.

In the spring of 1996, about a year after I graduated college, I received a call from a cute sounding young co-ed about an alumni organization. I was told that the class of 1995 was starting a group called the Pylon Society. They were going to be characterized as those alumni who give financial contributions year after year to the university. Although I had a job, I wasn't making much money, but the girl on the other end of the phone sounded cute and sincere, so I decided to go ahead and enlist. I pledged $100 support, but had to have it billed quarterly, because of my dire financial status.

Years went by, and each year I diligently sent in a check to the university. I spread it around, giving to my major department, the college of business, and in 2000, I even started making donations to the Virginia Center for Civil War Studies. Still, while I got plenty of nice letters from Virginia Tech, I never heard back from the Pylon Society. Was it for real? They had no web site, no literature, and of everyone I asked, no one except me had ever heard of them.

It didn't bother me much, it's not like I had been duped in some two-bit ponzi scheme, or a game of three card monty. It did bother me enough though, that I mailed a letter to the University to inquire about the mysterious group, of which I was apparently a member. I sent my letter off in 2001, and about a month later I heard back from the Office of University Development. I was told that the Pylon Society did exist, and that I was considered a member in good standing. Still, there was no literature, and no physical evidence to show that it even existed. Instead I received generic instructions on how to continue donating to the University.

Well, today I received in the mail, a letter from the elusive Virginia Tech Pylon Society. It thanked me for dutifully giving to Virginia Tech every year, and welcomed me as a member of the exclusive Pylon Society, as someone who had donated for the past five consecutive years (actually seven, but who's counting). It included a nice 'Pylon Society' window decal, and some pre-printed address labels; just desserts for my years of loyalty. It would seem as though they are even getting a web site, however it is obviously still in the construction stages.

While I did have to wait seven years to get any sort of recognition from them, I'm not the least bit bitter. I'm actually happy that the organizers of the Pylon Society are finally getting their act together, albeit a bit late. I'm also happy to know that I'm not crazy, and that the phone conversation I had years ago wasn't all in my mind. Who knows, if I ever start going to ball games regularly, perhaps I'll join the Hokie Club.

UPDATE: Now that I think about it, I never got my membership card to the U.S. Beer Drinking Team either.

The Media Research Center notes the differing media reaction on the whole Jim Moran flap. If you remember, when Trent Lott showed support for Strom Thurmond, he was ostracized by Democrats and Republicans alike, and the media lapped it up. Lott was forced to give up his position as Senate leader.

Recently Jim Moran blamed the war in Iraq on the J-E-W-S, and the silence was almost deafening. CNBC even noted the differing media reaction. The networks pretty much gave Moran a pass, and ABC has yet to even report on it. When Moran gave up his 'regional whip' position (he was 26th in line for Democrat leadership) CBS even played up his 'punishment' by reporting that he was "was forced out today as the Democratic Party whip," which is actually a senior congressional position.

Neal provides this delightful suggestion of when to attack (third item):

President Bush is going to launch an attack on Saddam Hussein. The blame is Saddam's, the choice of timing is Bush's. May I humbly suggest 0015 hours GMT on Monday, March 24th? I think we're at 5 on GMT right now and that would schedule the first strike about 45 minutes before the start of the Academy Awards in Hollywood. What better way to start the liberation of Iraq than to take the spotlight away from some of Saddam's principal supporters?

"Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? ... The answer is, we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily." -- Tom Daschle, in 1998 under Clinton.

"I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. ... [Bush is] rushing to war without an adequate concern for the ramifications of doing so unilaterally, or with a very small coalition." -- Tom Daschle, in 2003 under Bush.

Clinton decided to go it alone when he launched attacks against Iraq, while Bush has the support of 34 nations, but according to Daschle, Bush is the one acting unilaterally.

Anyone remember the episode of Seinfeld, where Jerry accuses his dentist, Tim Whatley, of converting to Judaism just for the jokes? Ladies and gentlemen, lets have a round of applause for Senator John 'Felafel' Kerry."So who said I don't have the matzoh balls to be here?" Kerry asked at a St. Patrick's Day Breakfast.

The AP notes that after taking a few jabs at the hoopla surrounding his Jewish and lack of Irish heritage, "he ended his brief appearance onstage by singing a parody of 'If You're Irish Come Into the Parlor,' entitled 'If You're Yiddish Come Into the Parlor.'"

On the show, when asked if it offended him as a Jew, Jerry replied, "No, it offends me as a comedian."

When Rachel Corrie, a 23 year old U.S. college student stepped in front of a bulldozer to prevent it from tearing down a terrorists home, she expected it to stop. She was wrong.

Bulldozer 1, Human Shield 0.

FOOTNOTE: When someone runs out in front of a train, most people call it an act of suicide. Why then does the Washington Post blame the Israeli bulldozer?

UPDATE: The Sydney Morning Herald (AU) reports on the apparent outrage in Ms. Corrie's death. (although they annoyingly keep going back and forth on the spelling of her name) Personally, I think anyone who foolishly puts themselves in harms way, deserves what they get. After all, if you play in traffic, it's only a matter of time before you get hit.

If you aren't celebrating it on Monday, I hope you are at least drinking some green beer this weekend. St. Patrick's Day is one of my favorite holidays, and not just because I like to booze it up. In the day's of pleasure police and the PC nazi's, having a drinking holiday around is a refreshing reminder of the finer things in life.

I encourage everyone to live by The General's motto.

Live the good life. Drink, smoke, gamble, feast, joke, fornicate and be tolerant of those who do. Take risks and thrive for the good challenge. Work hard and play hard without going over the edge. Live in the moment. Believe in moderation in all things, including moderation. Live it up!

Life is finite. You might as well enjoy it while you can. Drive an SUV, smoke if you want to, drink, fornicate. Do what you want, as long as you don't deprive anyone else in their pursuit of the same.

Live free or die, brother. Live free or die.

Happy St. Patrick's Day

Useful Fools wants to know.

Personally, I'd make them the centerpiece of the French variant of the "It's a small world, afterall" ride at Euro Disney. But then again, I have a mean streak.

When it comes to my blogroll, I like to keep it pretty short. Although the favorites list on my PC is cluttered with weblogs, I try to keep the blogroll pretty short. I am also considering eliminating all those blogs that don't ping weblogs.com, but I'll decide on that later. (You guys that don't ping, know who you are.)

Although I rarely raise any fanfare when I add and remove sites from my blogroll, I want to point out that I have added Venomous Kate to my short list of sites. Typically I wait until I've read a site for at least two weeks straight before I add one to the list, but I've decided to break that trend and add her early. Although she has done a wonderful job of link-whoring to drum up traffic for her new weblog, here* is the real reason she was added. (At least I'm honest about it.)

*You prolly don't wanna click that link from work.

This came as no surprise.

Libertarian - You believe that the main use for government is for some people to lord it over others at their expense. You maintain that the government should be as small as possible, and that civil liberties, "victimless crimes", and gun ownership should be basic rights. You probably are OK with capitalism. Your historical role model is Thomas Jefferson.

(Quiz via Courreges)

Remember the 9/11 Memorial on private property that was vandalized while police sat around and watched? Well, an anti-war American protestor involved with that vandalism has been arrested for allegedly assaulting a woman who helps maintain that memorial. Tracey Chandler, who maintains the memorial, and another woman were allegedly grabbed, poked, and shoved by Jennifer Quintana Tuesday evening. She was arrested for misdemeanor assault.

Although witnesses report that Quintana boasted of her involvement in the vandalism, police have yet to 'find sufficient evidence' to arrest her for that incident. In related news, Jeff Collision, owner of the property tried filing a complaint with the police regarding the vandalism. According to Collision, he was told by police that he could not file a complaint because he was not the victim.

In the immortal words of Police Chief Wiggum, "Lemmie tell you what I tell everyone who comes in here, the police are powerless to help you."

"I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict." -- Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix in an interview on MTV.

Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines remarked during a recent concert: "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." Country music fans responded by flooding a Nashville radio station with calls to boycott the trio's music.

The Dixie Chicks released a statement saying, "there is nothing more frightening than the notion of going to war with Iraq and the prospect of all the innocent lives that will be lost."

Actually, I think it is more frightening to ignore a problem until we get to the point where thousands of innocent lives are lost. Proactively addressing terrorism and despotism, and not letting it fester seems to be a more worthwhile solution than merely hoping they'll love us, learn to accept our way of life, and leave us alone.

In another statement, Maines fired back in her defense, "I feel the president is ignoring the opinion of many in the U.S. and alienating the rest of the world. My comments were made in frustration, and one of the privileges of being an American is you are free to voice your own point of view."

Just what we need is a lecture on the privileges of being an American. For once, I wish these idiots would learn that just because they can say what they want, doesn't mean they should; especially when they have a new album coming out.

John Fund takes a look at hypocrisy and short Hollywood memories.

"What if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? . . . Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." -- President Bill Clinton on Iraq in 1998.

"I think it's appropriate for the international community in situations like this to intervene. I am in favor of an intervention." -- Antiwar activist Mike Farrell, in favor of the war in Kosovo in 1999.

"Once over there, I felt extremely patriotic. Here are these people, from 18-year-olds to military veterans, enduring real duress for the cause of peace. I don't ever want to play for a regular audience again, only military folks who are starving for music." -- Sheryl Crow, commenting to the San Francisco Chronicle about her joy in supporting our war effort in Bosnia.

Lately, all these people have changed their tune. I wonder why.

I hope this isn't a death knell for the Soprano's final season. I've been hooked on the show since the first episode debuted.

Here is a surprise, the NY Times features an Op-Ed demanding that states raise taxes. Jim Gogek tries with futility to address the problem of substance abuse programs. With state and local budgets on the verge of busting, Gogek fears that substance abuse programs will be some of the first cuts made. Gogek's solution is to simply raise taxes on alcohol to pay for the supporting program. He even offers this gem of logic.

Raising taxes would also make the heaviest drinkers pay more, which is fair because they're the ones associated with the worst alcohol-related problems.

Liberals are so quick to tax, that they completely miss the easy solution. Ok Jim, so you feel that people that abuse alcohol should bear the burden of the corresponding alcohol abuse program. Actually, I'm inclined to agree. However, following that logic, it would make much more sense to lower or eliminate the tax on alcohol, than it would to raise it. When it is time for substance abuse treatment, rather than have the government pay the bill, have the abusers pay for their own treatment. After all, it's only "fair because they're the ones associated with the worst alcohol-related problems."

It's so simple, I think it's brilliant. If Gogek wasn't stuck in liberal la-la-land, thinking that it's the government's responsibility to provide treatment, he might have seen it for himself. Why punish everyone who drinks for the boob who can't hold his liquor? Make him pay for his own treatment, eliminate the layer of government bureaucracy, and leave the rest of the social drinking public alone.

I challenge anyone to find a hole in my logic.