Electronic America.

NSRose.BlogSpot.com

2005-08-04T21:12:00.000-05:00

My musings will all be here now.

http://nsrose.blogspot.com/

Six-'til-Close

2005-07-03T13:37:00.000-05:00

I began deleting my entries a few days ago one by one just because I like the feeling of a clean slate, but decided to stop myself because I like to keep some account of how my writing style has changed. Also: nostalgia can be a nice distraction some times. That's why some of my (relatively) recent entries are missing, if you were wondering.

Work is riding me hard lately. Thirty-six hours this week, including a 6-'til-close shift on the 4th. I didn't really have any plans. Usually my aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. would get together at my house and blow stuff up, but we have a family reunion today (that, luckily, I'll miss because of work) and my sister goes into the hospital on Tuesday for a two day visit for some tests she'll be having done. They think she might have epilepsy or some problem with the back of her brain. It might require surgery, it might just need medication. They're not sure yet. I didn't ask for details. I'd rather stay in the dark on them until the doctors know for sure what it is. My parents haven't said anything about paying for it.

On an unrelated note, Newsweek is pulling a gutsy move by hinting that Karl Rove might have something to do with the Valerie Plame leak in this report. I'm still skeptical. If Newsweek is going to throw allegations like this around, they better have concrete facts to back it up. It blew up in their face last time and more flimsy reporting might result in a wicked backlash.

I'm getting sick of work...
Mon: 6 PM-Close
Tue: 5 PM-11
Thr: 4 PM-Close
Sat: 8 AM-4
Sun: 4 PM-Close

اخصائى رياضى

2005-06-28T22:03:00.000-05:00

Taking a break.

HI!!

2005-05-31T16:11:00.000-05:00

An english teacher in Japan had his students re-write some Penny Arcade strips. I had one up, but it was too huge and I don't feel like resizing it.

Here

"It's NASCAR, not NASCOON!"

2005-05-27T23:54:00.000-05:00

I know this is old, but a friend of mine showed me this earlier tonight.

Soul Glowwww...

I was literally in stiches.

All that icing; all that cake.

2005-05-20T00:50:00.000-05:00

I'm supposed to be cleaning up my draft of Dick Washington Saves America, but I'm easily distracted so I started writing another screenplay. It's about the second (save DWSA) that I have now lying incomplete. It doesn't have much of a point, yet. That's how you're supposed to write novels, but not screenplays. Most writers will get an outline with a story arc and such all pounded out before they sit down and start writing dialogue. Then again, most movies simply aren't that interesting. I might post a rough cut some time if I ever get around to working on it again.

Do me a favor and cross your fingers for DWSA. I'm really hoping we make this flick. It's been fun working on it so far, but I'd really like a finished product (on the cheap, if possible). Hell, even submitting it to Movies Askew isn't that big of a deal to me, I just want to make a funny fucking movie.

Free walk-backs, motherfucker!

2005-05-15T21:22:00.000-05:00

I hadn't ran around and played capture the flag in the longest time before tonight. It was nice to jump around and argue about little rules and whether or not I was on their side of the tree and therefore in jail. Surprisingly, I didn't feel out of place. I think half of it has to do with my having four younger sisters who all keep me a kid and the other half being that I don't want to grow up.

It sucks getting older, but honestly, I'm still a kid. I think I'll milk it.

"You meet the Buddha on the road," Lin Chi says, "kill him."

2005-05-02T00:13:00.000-05:00

I wrote this about three weeks ago and totally forgot about it.

~

Faith isn't static. Anyone who really, truly believes (in) what ever it is they believe, will admit that. Faith changes. Over a course of hours, days, weeks, years, decades etc. it evolves (or devolves depending on where you're standing). When I was younger, I took it as gospel (pun somewhat intended) that God was in heaven, Satan was in hell, and when you died you'd live forever. I'm sure it had something to do with hearing it every day in my religion class at the now defunct St. Timothy's grade school and my mother's being a strong, Catholic woman. (Often times people looked shocked when I tell them my Mom has five children, but once I mention my mother is Catholic, they seem to get it).

In religion class last year a handout was given to me. It listed a set of class rules, the first being "Get over feeling inhibited or stupid when it comes to reflection, thought or discernment. If you consider the amount of worldy knowledge, we're all equally stupid..."

I can't say how old I was exactly, but once when I was younger and in the bath I tried to think what forever would be like. (I always seem to do my best thinking in the shower). I closed my eyes and imagined living forever. Maybe it was a half-epiphany, but I thought it seemed impossible. I didn't think anything of it really at the time, God would sort it out, but you could say the first seedlings of forming my own faith were planted then.

The Catholic church has it's own rite of passage, which I experienced after I had just turned 14. It's called Confirmation, a sacrament in which the church sees you as old enough to confirm your faith on your own (as opposed to Baptism). I had doubts then already, I felt, well, rushed. I won't lie, I was a bit of a do-gooder in grade school. Our teacher told us that we should be absolutely sure that we were ready to accept Catholicism. (My teacher also said it would make things a lot easier if we just got Confirmed, too.) So I thought it might be a good idea to, you know, take a look around and see what else is on the table, so to speak. I browsed over the other Christian religions, Islam, Judaism, Eastern philosophies. And when I say browse, I mean I quickly read a synopsis of a few of them through sites I found on Google. So I did. Nothing seemed to appealing and, honestly, I wasn't too concerned about it. So I was confirmed.

I think they have us confirmed just before we enter high school because we haven't yet fully entered that phase where we say "fuck off!" to the church, most times just because we don't want to get up early on Sunday mornings. I'd suppose always seeming like you pop a boner right before you have to go up for communion isn't much of an incentive to go to mass, either. But it's strange that it usually seems to happen around the same age for most kids, usually being at some point in high school. Questioning your faith, that is, not always getting random wood. Although, they do seem to coincide.

Maybe it was that I hadn't reached that stage yet. Maybe it was I had already passed that stage. Maybe it was just that I was vulnerable, intimidated and relatively lonely in my freshman year of high school. But I never really felt compelled to deny the existence of God. God was still in heaven, Satan in Hell and I would live forever. I had joined a youth group at St. Timothy's, headed by a half-Indian with a mullet. She was a nice lady, and seemed to accept me. I was quiet at the meetings. It felt strange, but it was comforting.

For those of you uninitiated with what goes on at a Roman Catholic youth group, it isn't like it's portrayed on television. We didn't stand around in white robes and chant. There wasn't any poisoned punch, nor were Nikes required for entry. It was casual. We sat around and talked, or in my case, listened for the most part. It began with a prayer. Not a structured "Our Father" or "Hail Mary", a free-form prayer. You asked God for help, thanked Him, worshiped Him or expressed frustration with Him. I usually kept mine short, with a few exceptions where my mother was experiencing trouble with her pregnancy. Then we moved on to the topic of the night. Some nights it was dealing with peer pressure. Other nights it was what faith meant to us. Other nights it was just whatever people felt like talking about. Usually one of the older teens would give a little talk. They all had interesting, melancholy stories to tell about themselves. Depression, close family friends dying, drug abuse. You know, typical teenage angst stuff. It made my smug suburban life seem a too bland. That's not to say I wished my Dad was an alcoholic or that I was chronically depressed or my best friend abused my sister while he was spending the night (all of these were said to be true stories). I'm blessed or lucky or whatever you want to call it, and I was thankful for it.

Anyway, as I said earlier, most nights I wouldn't say much, but they seemed to appreciate my company. Sometimes I think they just wanted warm bodies in the chairs. It bugged me somewhere in the back of my mind, because I figured just anyone would do. They started asking me to tell my friends about it. I sort of just nodded and laughed at the thought. "They aren't the type." Not anything against them, they just aren't the type. Jane or Judy (the two ladies in charge) would always ask me, "How can we appeal to more teens?" I wanted to tell them that making it more appealing would require dumbing it down and would bring in kids that wouldn't really be to interested in anything serious. But, I never did. I would just shrug. When you're in a setting where everyone seems to accept everyone you(at least to your face, behind your back is another story), you can't help but subconsciously connect those good feelings to the attitudes and actions concerning a God. Right? If I praise God, they'll all still give me hugs and talk to me and laugh at my stupid jokes.

A lot happened between the first time I stepped into the rectory the day I decided that it just wasn't for me. And I'd hope it would, considering it consumed about one and a half years. Retreats, meetings, youth masses. My faith slowly deteriorated. Something creeped into my head somewhere along the line. Satan began whispering into my ear, is what I used to use as an analogy. Where is your god? Have you ever really seen his presence like so many of these people say they have? Isn't it possible that it's all psychosomatic? God's not there, I'm not here and when you die, you're dead. Tragic, huh?

In the church where I first struggled with those questions, one of the girls on that particular retreat was sobbing in a pew. "What's wrong?" I asked, which was stupid. Usually these things were emotionally intense, or at least people feigned emotion in the presence of others. I'm pretty sure it was sincere, but anyway, she said something about how humbling it was to think that someone would die for us. I was taken back and a little confused. She seemed intelligent and rational. How could she know for sure? Are we all just shouting toward the sky at some mythical man in the clouds? I knew then what faith was and that I could never believe in Abraham's god.

At the last retreat I attended (which was sophomore year) we had an exercise in which we wrote something to god on a piece of paper and burned it. I wrote something along the lines of "show yourself." It probably wasn't that melodramatic, but you get the point. It was supposed to be a challenge, or something along those lines. I was sort of at the stage where I needed proof or else I was gonna split. God, in all his omnipotence, must have known that. Nothing. So split I did.

The whole culture was strange. It's full of contradictions. We're supposed to be good Catholic children, but then we go out and get wasted on the weekends. It's a little hypocritical and it's sort of depressing, that the model youth are playing drinking games once they step out of the church on the weekends. Of course, this all sort of unraveled over a period of two years. My dad made a good point when he said "I don't care if you're a bunch of religious kids, you're still teenagers."

And after I left I floated around for the next few years. Sometimes believing. Sometime not. I didn't feel like what I did was a waste of time. I don't dismiss Catholicism or those who believe as quickly as most people because of my time spent in that setting. It was a good experience. I guess you could say I know what it's really about, as opposed to someone just talking out of their ass on the subject. I did feel used at some points. One time we put on a sort of silent play that was flagrantly supposed to be a tearjerker at a retreat for a bunch of grade schoolers. On top of that it was set to "Total Eclipse of the Heart" by Bonnie Tyler (stop snickering). It was something about how Jesus (played brilliantly by yours truly) was nailed to the cross by Satan for some little girl who he was playing catch with earlier, and then everyone hugged at the end. I just get a sick feeling in my gut whenever I recall it, for some reason.

This year we had to go to a religious retreat. It was dull. Mostly we sat around during the breaks and played poker or screwed around with some kid's guitar. But one of my classmates gave a "talk" about what faith meant to him. It was... weird. He talked about evangelizing the world. About how he wanted to convert millions. As much as I thought there was something noble in it, he seemed disillusioned, self-righteous and a little power-hungry. When he was done with the talk, people got up to congratulate him on the talk, or something like that. I decided I didn't want to. It may have been my own self-righteousness or a late-blooming rebellion against organized religion, but I just didn't agree with him. Why should I give him a hollow gesture when I didn't agree with a word he said?

When I started writing this, the point was supposed to be to state where I stand as far as what my beliefs are. I don't like calling myself agnostic, because personally it seems like a default, although a lot of what it stands for does really makes sense. I'm not Catholic. I haven't believed that Jesus was God in a while. I'm not Jewish. Nor am I Muslim. Nothing from the East really seems to do much, except make me think a lot.

That's where the title of this entry plays in. It comes from this story in a good book and means different things to different people (which is sort of strengthens the point, if you think about it) In the end, I have days when I believe and days when I don't. And days when I don't give a fuck either way. Those seem to be the ones that come around most often, lately.

I don't think I'll ever go back to praising a storybook God with a long beard and a cane that sits on a throne in the clouds. It seems archaic. Maybe some abstract spirit of collective man. Maybe the world is a colorless glob of energized string when no one is looking. Maybe god is what fills that empty space in between everything. Maybe it's just space waiting to be filled. Maybe when we die, we're never really

Truman Questionnaire

2005-04-22T20:41:00.000-05:00

I'm still not set on where I'm going, but I'm down to Truman and (S)MSU. I filled out a questionnaire for Truman earlier today:

Majors	Arts and Sciences (Undeclared)

Interests	Political Science	Art Studio

Math Placement Information

Mathematics Self Placement - MATH 194 Liberal Arts and Sciences Calculus (3 hours)

Foreign Language Placement

Foreign Language Options - Yes

Foreign Language Selection - Japanese
Foreign Language Selection - I do not have a second choice language.

Personal Well-Being

Personal Well-Being - HLTH 195, Lifetime Health and Fitness (1.5 hours), and HLTH 196, Lifetime Physical Activities (0.5 hours)

HLTH 196 Activities - Football & Frisbees
HLTH 196 Activities - Kickball
HLTH 196 Activities - Racquetball and Wallyball
HLTH 196 Activities - Team Sports
HLTH 196 Activities - Ultimate Frisbee for Fitnes

Modes of Inquiry (In order of interetst)

Social Sciences -- Historical, Social Scientific, and Philosophical/Religious Study Mode of Inquiries
Fine Arts -- Aesthetic Fine Arts Mode of Inquiry
Literature -- Aesthetic Literature Mode of Inquiry
Sciences -- Scientific-Life Science and Scientific-Physical Science Modes of Inquiry
Mathematics -- Mathematical Mode of Inquiry

Social Sciences
1. POL 171 Introduction to Political Science (3 hours)
2. PHRE 185 Exploring Religions (3 hours)
3. PHRE 186 Introduction to Philosophy (3 hours)
4. PSYC 166 General Psychology (3 hours) (Psychology majors only for first semester)
5. HIST 142 East Asian Civilization II (3 hours)
Fine Arts
1. ART 223 Art in Europe and America from the Renaissance to the Present Day (3 hours)
2. MUSI 204 Perspectives in Music: Art Music in Western Thought (3 hours)
3. ART 224 Non-Western Art (3 hours)
Literature
1. ENG 265/266 American Literature (3 hours)
2. ENG 225/226 World Literature (3 hours)
3. ENG 245/246 British Literature (3 hours)
Sciences
1. PHYS 100 Concepts in Physics with Lab (4 hours) (not for science majors)
2. PHYS 185 College Physics I with Lab (4 hours)
3. PHYS 246 Astronomy I with Lab (4 hours)
Mathematics
1. MATH 194, Liberal Arts and Sciences Calculus (3 hours)
Additional Courses - Design

Class Time Preferences

Class Time Preferences - 7:30 a.m.
Night Classes - No, I would prefer not to take a night class.

Interests

Additional Interests - I am thinking about studying abroad at some point during my time at Truman.

Lonesome Nights...

2005-04-16T00:23:00.000-05:00

Something to tide you over on those lonesome Friday nights.

Like"Oz", Only Funnier.

2005-04-08T14:43:00.000-05:00

Jinx's "The Complete Frag" T-Shirt.

Bored On A Thirsday Night

2005-04-08T02:27:00.000-05:00

I was bored Thursday so I decided to take a trip to Border's with my sister.

While there I officially lost all rights to my penis.

What's lamer than song lyrics for an update?

2005-04-02T02:18:00.000-06:00

It's a fact, in the blogging world, that song lyrics are just a shitty excuse for an entry. And, seeing as I haven't written or created anything in the past week or so worth posting on the internet, I leave you with a hastily chosen music video...

At least it's not song lyrics, I suppose.

EDIT: I took it down, it was getting annoying.

DeviantArt

2005-03-16T10:55:00.000-06:00

I opened a DeviantART account to screw around on. All I have up so far is a quick, 10 minutes sketch with a charcoal pencil. My account can be found here. My username is NSRose.

College Update - Truman State University

2005-03-13T13:49:00.000-06:00

Truman State University in Kirksville, MO has been the first college to send me any type of financial aid information, and it looks really good.

It will cost $11,022 to attend Truman in 2005-06 (includes all costs except books), and Truman is offering me $10,925 in aid. It breaks down like this...

Federal Pell Grant...................................$2,400
Fed. Supp. Ed. Opp. Grant......................$400
Fed. Perkins Loan*..................................$1,500
Fed. Sub. Stafford Loan*........................$2,625
Fed. College Work-Study........................$1,500
Pres. Combd. Ability Sch........................$1,500
Truman Access Grant.............................$1,000
Total Awards.................................$10,925

(* = indicates it must be paid back starting six months after college graduation)

Everything except the loans don't need to be paid back, so that means that it will only cost me $97 up-front every year (minus books) to attend Truman and $4125 per year (plus interest) in loans I need to pay back after I graduate. Not a bad deal.

Now I'm waiting for what Saint Louis University and Southwest Missouri State are going to offer me. I'm not sure when Truman needs a response by, but I'm pretty sure it's soon. Most colleges want to know by April or May 1st. Not to mention I feel like I'm the only one who hasn't decided what they're doing after high school.

Some things that interest me about Truman are:

Clubs such as a filmmaker's club, anime club, computer gaming club (including DDR), Colleg Dems (or Greens depending on what mood I'm in that particular day)

A newspaper, radio stations, television station, literary magazine, etc.

Looks like it's full of geeks and nerds

3:2 Girl-to-guy ratio

It sucks that:

Kirksville (the town itself) doesn't have a whole lot going on

It's not the prettiest place. It doesn't look run down, it's just that it's no SLU

If you don't know anything about Truman, it's been ranked as the best (coughpubliccough) university in the Midwest for about a decade now. Here's the College Board's little blurb on Truman:

Type of School

Public
Liberal Arts College
University
Four-year
Coed
Percent applicants admitted: 84%
Regionally accredited
College Board member

Calendar: Semester

Degrees offered:

Bachelor's
Master's

Setting

Rural setting
Large town (10,000 - 49,999)
Residential campus

Size

Degree-seeking undergrads: 5,482
First-year student enrollment: 1,480
Graduate enrollment: 246

Student Body

1st-year students:

76% In-state students
24% Out-of-state students
0% Part-time students

59% Women
41% Men

1% American Indian/Alaskan Native
2% Asian/Pacific Islander
3% Black/Non-Hispanic
2% Hispanic
89% White/Non-Hispanic
2% Non-Resident Alien
2% Race/ethnicity unreported

45% in top 10th of graduating class
81% in top quarter of graduating class
99% in top half of graduating class

99% had h.s. GPA of 3.0 and higher
1% had h.s. GPA of 2.0 - 2.99

Test Scores

Middle 50% of
First-Year Students Percent Who
Submitted Scores

SAT Reasoning Verbal: 570 - 670 19%

SAT Reasoning Math: 570 - 670 19%

ACT Composite: 25 - 30 97%

Most Popular Majors

For Bachelor's Degrees

Business/Marketing: 21%
Biology: 10%
Psychology: 10%
English: 9%
Social Sciences: 9%
Visual and Performing Arts: 7%
Health Professions: 6%
Parks And Recreation: 6%
Communications: 5%

Graduate Paths

Percent of graduates of four-year programs who typically continue their education within one year of receiving their bachelor's degree:

Law school: 4%
Medical school: 5%
MBA programs: 1%
Other graduate or professional programs: 34%

All Majors

Levels at which colleges offer specific majors are designated by the following letters:
A = Associate degree, B = Bachelor's degree, C = Certificate or diploma.

Agriculture & Related Sciences

Agricultural Economics B
Agronomy/Crop Science B
Animal Sciences B
Equestrian/Equine Studies B

Arts, Visual & Performing

Art - General B
Art History/Criticism/Conservation B
Commercial/Advertising Art B
Drama/Theater Arts B
Fine/Studio Arts B
Music - General B
Music - General Performance B

Biological & Biomedical Sciences

Biology B

Business, Management, & Marketing

Accounting B
Business Administration/Management B

Communications & Journalism

Journalism B

Computer & Information Sciences

Computer/Information Sciences - General B

Education

Education of Speech Impaired B

English Language & Literature

English B
Speech/Rhetorical Studies B

Foreign Language & Literature

Classics B
French B
German B
Russian B
Spanish B

Health Professions & Clinical Sciences

Communication Disorders B
Nursing (RN) B
Predentistry B
Premedicine B
Prepharmacy B
Preveterinary Medicine B

History

History - General B

Law & Legal Studies

Prelaw B

Mathematics

Applied Mathematics B
Mathematics - General B

Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies

Ancient Studies/Civilization B
Global Studies B
Intercultural/Multicultural/Diversity Studies B

Parks, Recreation & Fitness

Exercise Sciences B
Health/Physical Fitness B

Philosophy & Religion

Ethics B
Logic B
Philosophy & Religion - General B

Physical Sciences

Chemistry B
Physics B

Psychology

Psychology - General B

Security & Protective Services

Criminal Justice Studies B

Social Sciences

Economics B
Political Science/Government B
Sociology B

Special Study Options

Double Major
Dual Enrollment of High School Students
Honors Program
Independent Study
Internships
ROTC, Army
Semester At Sea
Student-Designed Major
Study Abroad
Teacher Certification
Visiting/Exchange Student Program
Washington Semester

Academic Support Services

Tutoring
Writing Center

Counseling & Other Support Services

Career Counseling
Economically Disadvantaged Student Services
Employment Service
Financial Aid Counseling
Freshman Orientation Program
Health Services
Minority Student Services
Personal Counseling
Placement Service
Veterans Counselor
Women's Services

Services for Students with Disabilities

Partial Services/Facilities For Students With Learning Disabilities
Services/Facilities For Hearing Impaired
Services/Facilities For Speech Or Communications Disorders
Services/Facilities For Visually Impaired
Wheelchair Accessibility
Tutoring

Computer Services

900 work stations, available in:
dorms
libraries
computer centers
student centers

Dorms Wired for Access to Campus-Wide Network
Email Accounts Provided to All Students
Commuter/Off-Campus Students Can Connect to Campus Network
Computer Helpline Available
Dorms Wired for High Speed Internet Connections
Online Library
Student Web Hosting
Wireless Network

Housing and Policies

First-Year Students Guaranteed On-Campus Housing
99% of first-year students live in college housing
48% of all undergraduates live in college housing
Housing options:
Coed Housing
Women's Housing
Apartments For Married Students
Apartments For Single Students
Fraternity/Sorority Housing
Special Housing For Disabled Students
Special Housing For International Students
Wellness Housing

First-time first-year students allowed to have car

Campus

Rural setting
Large town (10,000 - 49,999)
Residential campus

Unique facilities:

observatory, greenhouse, local history museum, farm, human performance laboratory, speech and hearing clinic, biofeedback laboratory, IR and NMR instrumentation, independent learning center for nursing

Geographical location:

220 miles from St. Louis, 150 miles from Kansas City.

Activities Available
indicates availability

Choral groups Concert band

Dance Drama

Film
Fraternities

Jazz band Literary Magazine

Marching band Music ensembles

Musical theater Opera

Radio station Sororities

Student government Student newspaper

Symphony orchestra Television station

Yearbook

Percent of men who join fraternities: 31%
Percent of women who join sororities: 22%

	Middle 50% of First-Year Students	Percent Who Submitted Scores
SAT Reasoning Verbal:	570 - 670	19%
SAT Reasoning Math:	570 - 670	19%
ACT Composite:	25 - 30	97%

Activities Available	indicates availability
Choral groups		Concert band
Dance		Drama
Film		Fraternities
Jazz band		Literary Magazine
Marching band		Music ensembles
Musical theater		Opera
Radio station		Sororities
Student government		Student newspaper
Symphony orchestra		Television station
Yearbook

An hour for naps is to follow

2005-03-09T16:11:00.000-06:00

I really don't feel like scanning a bunch of pictures in from my D.C. trip or recapping, so maybe another time.

I don't really feel like talking about the state of social security or the new bankruptcy bill that's being debated, so maybe some other time.

Maybe it's just because I'm cranky, but I'm literally counting down the days until school is out and I can move on to college. Which college specifically I'm not sure of yet, but I just need to get out of that dull-brown school. I want to sit around and pretend to talk smart with a bunch of other kids who want to sit around and pretend to be smart. I don't want to sound too high and mighty, but some of the classes are starting to insult my intelligence. We did a vocabulary cross-word puzzle in our religious vocations class. A cross-word puzzle. My Dad works his ass off so he can send his kid to a private school where they have them doing cross-word puzzles?

It didn't help that I was late to the class either. Seniors are allowed to go off campus to eat on Wednesdays as a privilege, and three of us went to Lucky Food off of Watson after art class. I was about two minutes late and got some grief. When I sat down, he handed out a cross-word puzzle and it took every ounce of self-restraint in me not to make a snide remark about the fact that I got crap for coming in late to a class where we were doing a cross-word puzzle.

The fact that Valerie described to me how religion classes go down at Incarnate didn't help either. I felt sort of cheated at Vianney. Our classes are uninspiring. Maybe it wasn't the fault of the school or the faculty; but rather the upper-middle class and kids who go there and have a hard time being even remotely serious. Or maybe, just maybe, the school could take some of the tuition (which is obscenely high) and apply it to molding students, sprucing up the campus, or hiring teachers who aren't deadbeat instead of buying a new asto-turf football field.

I will cede something, though. Vianney does have a really good art department. I'm allowed to do most anything I want within reason and, on occasion, within the ambiguous confines of the assignment. And my law class is pretty intriguing. I think I'm just sick of the whole routine. Maybe whoever decided that high school should only be four years was right on the money.

I've started reading a new book, On The Road by Jack Kerouac and I've decided I'm going to bum my way out west this summer. Who wants to tag along?

Back From D.C.

2005-02-28T13:40:00.000-06:00

I arrived home from D.C. on Saturday and took four disposable cameras worth of pictures. I'll put them all up here when I get them developed. I'll also go into detail about what I did, who I met, etc. But now, I have to get ready for work.

So what are you doing after high school?

2005-02-19T14:18:00.000-06:00

Oh, I've decided to go to a tiny art school in Idaho.

NPR & Manga, Rabbits & Lesbians -or- Mickey Rooney's Ass

2005-02-02T19:32:00.000-06:00

NPR does Japanese Culture, mostly manga & anime. It's a pretty interesting take on American interpretation of Japanese pop culture and the history of manga (among other things)...

~ ~ ~

(The following entry was not approved by the federal government, much to the chargin of 50% of high school students)

More startling revelations from parental watchdog and morality groups. Not only is Spongebob Squarepants gay, but now Buster Bunny (Arthur reed's best friend) has sided with the fags. Apparently no child is safe unless they've got their head buried in a Bible. Wait... that's not a Bible. Anyway, the hard right has to be running out of fights to start, unfortunately they won't find another one to start in between the action at the Super Bowl this year. The fact that Mickey Rooney won't be showing his ass on television is what disappoints me the most.

Speaking of Mickey Rooney's ass, I was just wondering if Michael Savage was trying to reach a new level of irony when he posted a news story on his site in which the ACLU (an organization often blasted in conservative circles) defended a professor who was fired for making a broad generalization about homosexuals and their lackluster planning skills. At least he said it in English unlike those Latino sympathizers in Congress. If you're gonna come to America you need to learn to speak American!

C-SPAN has been fined $5,000,000 for showing Bush and Lieberman getting down and dirty on national television. (There was a video of it here, but I suppose it's down). I can't blame Bush for what he did in a fit of passion. Lieberman is one hot tamale. Speaking of hot tamales, that Iraqi woman on the balcony was smoking. Or, I shouldn't say Iraqi. It turns out she wasn't there for the elections and her father was murdered by Saddam because the United States tipped off Saddam Hussein about the impending coup. Hasn't the Bush administration ever heard of a google search.

I'm off, have to get ready for my date.
Later.

No.

2005-01-17T15:30:00.000-06:00

In my interviews, I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran...

It's Like They Want To Be Full Citizens or Something

2005-01-10T17:58:00.000-06:00

Two news stories caught my eye today:

Source: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6807912/

Justices Reject Gay Adoption Appeal

The Associated Press
Updated: 1:38 p.m. ET Jan. 10, 2005

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday by four men who challenged Florida’s ban on adoption by gay couples, avoiding another contentious fight over gay rights

Florida is the only state with a blanket law prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children, but the high court was told that other states could now feel free to copy the ban.
Opponents argued that the 1977 law, passed at the height of Anita Bryant’s anti-homosexual campaign, was irrational because it excluded potential parents for thousands of abandoned children.

Supporters contend the state has the power to promote traditional father-mother families.

The high court’s refusal to hear the case, made without comment, avoids a second showdown over gay rights there in two years. Justices, in a historic civil rights ruling, barred states in 2003 from criminalizing gay sex. The court said then that states “cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.”

The ruling set off a firestorm of criticism by conservative and religious groups. Three justices also complained that the court, generally known for its conservatism, had gone overboard in pandering to the “homosexual agenda.”

The latest case involves gay foster parents in Florida who want to adopt children in their care.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, representing the parents, argued that that the state unconstitutionally singles out gays, based on discrimination.

“The plain and well-understood purpose of the ban was to tell gay people to go back into the closet,” ACLU attorney Matthew Coles told justices in a filing.

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has maintained that the children, often products of troubled and unstable backgrounds, should have a father and a mother.

“It is rational to believe that children need male and female influences to develop optimally, particularly in the areas of sexual and gender identity, and heterosexual role modeling,” justices were told in a filing by Florida’s attorney, Casey Walker.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled against the men a year ago. In July, the full court declined on a 6-6 vote to reconsider the case.

Florida allows gays to be foster parents, but not permanent parents.

The Child Welfare League of America had urged the Supreme Court to review the restriction and defended the parenting abilities of gays. League attorney Stuart Delery said that Florida allows singles, divorcees, people which disabilities, and even in some cases convicted criminals to adopt. The state had more than 8,000 children awaiting adoption in fiscal 2002, while there were 126,000 nationwide, Delery said.

By excluding gays, he said, “Florida ensures that many children will never have a family of their own.”

The case is Lofton v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Children and Families, 04-478.

In other cases before the court Monday:

Missouri lost an appeal over its decision to bar a Ku Klux Klan group from a highway litter cleanup program. The court’s rejection, made without comment, means that the KKK chapter must be allowed into Missouri’s Adopt-A-Highway program, which is designed to save money by using volunteers for garbage pickup. Volunteer groups are publicly thanked with signs along the highway acknowledging their help.
Justices declined to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the 1999 shooting of a letter carrier by a white supremacist. Without comment, justices let stand a ruling of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that reinstated a lawsuit against gun manufacturers and distributors. The companies’ weapons were used by Buford Furrow to kill Filipino-American Joseph Ileto and wound five people at a Jewish day care center in a Los Angeles-area rampage.
Ralph Nader lost his bid to have justices consider whether Pennsylvania officials were wrong to keep him off the presidential ballot last November.
James Traficant, a flamboyant former congressman from Ohio, lost his appeal seeking review of his conviction on corruption charges and of his eight-year prison sentence.

And the other...
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-09-williams_x.htm

Media Distributor Severs Ties with Commentator
By Judy Keen and Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Armstrong Williams, who was paid by the Education Department to promote President Bush's education policies, says the public outcry and his firing by the company that syndicated his newspaper column are "the price you pay" for a mistake.

USA TODAY reported on Friday that Williams, a prominent black pundit, was paid $240,000 to promote No Child Left Behind as part of a $1 million department contract with the Ketchum public relations firm. The contract required Williams to comment on Bush's program on his TV and radio show, to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige and to produce radio spots that aired on his show. (Related link: Williams contract)

Williams said he deeply regrets his actions. "It's important that I have a credible voice and that I'm not perceived as being paid for what I say," he said. "This is my responsibility. I blame no one, I get the message, and I will be better."

People For the American Way, a liberal interest group, today will launch an online campaign urging Williams to return the money. "It's the taxpayers' money given out illegally," says Ralph Neas, the group's president.

Williams said in an interview Sunday that he won't return the money. "That would be ludicrous," he said, "because they bought advertising, and they got it."

Several members of Congress are demanding investigations.

Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings was among Democrats in Congress who asked President Bush to "publicly renounce the use of covert propaganda to influence public opinion" and reveal whether other commentators have been paid to promote his policies.

"It is unbelievable that the administration used limited taxpayer dollars to self-promote No Child Left Behind, while underfunding money for our schools, books, technology and after-school programs," Cummings said.

Rep. John Boehner, an Ohio Republican who chairs the House Education Committee, also called for an inquiry by the Education Department's inspector general.

Williams' support for Bush's policies came as the president's campaign was trying to woo black voters. Bush received 9% of black votes in 2000 and 11% in 2004.

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said the White House is not involved in departments' contracts and referred questions to the Education Department.

John Gibbons, an Education Department spokesman, said the contract followed standard government procedures. He said there are no plans to continue with "similar outreach."

Several federal laws forbid the use of taxpayer money to influence public opinion on matters of government policy with the intent of shaping policy or putting pressure on Congress. Administrations have run afoul of those laws periodically, but criminal prosecution is rare.

At least twice in the past year, Congress' Government Accountability Office has chastised federal agencies for disseminating information to the public disguised as news reports without disclosing that the information was produced by the government.

The Department of Health and Human Services hired Ketchum — the same firm that paid Williams — to produce news releases promoting the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. The material aired on at least 40 TV stations, but because audiences weren't told it came from the government, it constituted "covert propaganda," GAO said.

The agency last week issued a similar criticism of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which distributed news segments about drug use among youth.

The practice isn't new. In 1987, the Reagan administration's State Department was found to have violated the law by paying consultants to write opinion pieces for newspapers endorsing the administration's hotly debated support for anti-communist rebels in Nicaragua.

Complaints also arose in 2003 when Attorney General John Ashcroft mounted a public relations campaign in support of another controversial Bush administration initiative, the USA Patriot Act, which gave authorities more tools to investigate terrorism.

The GAO found that Ashcroft's campaign, which included speaking trips to 14 states, cost $210,000. But the department's inspector general ruled that it did not violate the anti-lobbying law because Ashcroft, as a presidential appointee, is exempt from it.

Williams, 45, a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is one of the nation's top black conservative voices. He hosts The Right Side on TV and radio and has written op-ed pieces for newspapers while running a public relations firm, Graham Williams Group.

Tribune Media Services, which distributed Williams' weekly newspaper column, told him Friday that it was terminating its relationship with him immediately.

"Readers may well ask themselves if the views expressed in his columns are his own, or whether they have been purchased by a third party," Tribune Media Services said in a statement.

Contributing: Greg Toppo

Sean Hannity Is A Hypocrite (among other startling revelations)

2005-01-09T18:44:00.000-06:00

If you haven't ever tuned into 97.1 FM Talk in St. Louis, you should do so some day between 2 and 4 PM CST just for kicks. Sean Hannity hosts a talk show then and it starts out with the bump "Fighting the liberal media establishment!" with some sweet guitar riffs in the background. Totally in my face. (If you don't know who Sean Hannity is, here's the Wikipedia article on him). Mr. Hannity is like a modern-day minuteman, fighting the tyrants and despots that guise themselves under the banner of liberalism instead of those tea-drinkin', crumpet eatin', buck-toothed no-good sister-marryin' Red Coats of yesteryear. Except that he does so with biting commentary, rather than bullets. He said he found his calling in life after the Iran-Contra Scandal hearings (take a wild guess what he thought of the hearings). He's been fighting the "liberal media establishment" ever since. A moral crusader, a working man's man, a patriot.

But it's ironic. Mr. Hannity is employed by Fox News, which is owned by News Corp. And how often are those liberal Hollywood folk accused of turning America's morality down the drain? One of his counterparts called the election of George W. Bush a clear sign from the American people that they're sick of Hollywood pumping out its moral sludge into our homes. And it's what Mr. Hannity claims to have been fighting for in all his years in the media (granted, he's only been on television for three years). So answer me this: if he is really so concerned about America's moral fiber, why would he continue to make money for one of the most obvious perpetraitors, News Corporation?

You don't need to go far to find "moral sewage" in its family. Just down the dial on Fox Broadcasting you can find quality family programming such as The Simple Life, where two rich dumb broads flaunt their bodies around a bunch of southern hicks while trying to perform odd jobs (the more tasteful of them involving milking cows and handling sausage); The Swan, where women get to feel better about themselves by getting their faces cut up, their breasts enlarged and the fact sucked out of them; Cops, where real, poor shirtless males and real, poor toothless hookers get beat down by the police; or MadTV, which regularly features obscene language, sexual innuendo and on special occasions Debra Wilson's breasts flopping around.

So... every time that Sean Hannity opens his mouth, every time his ratings go up a few points, every time he blasts the "moral sludge" pouring out of Hollywood and into middle America, he funds the shows that I just mentioned. Someone needs to sit him down and explain all this to him. And if for every time he talks about moral decay, there is a time and a half he implores the name of "Hollywood elites", which he also funds. (News Corp. owns 20th Century Fox and Fox Searchlight Pictures). If this man were really dedicated to any real cause, he wouldn't be on Fox News. I suppose much like the Moderate/Fiscal Republicans, he's willing to talk a bunch of culture war bullshit in order to further his financial stance.

E - C - O - N - O - M - Y

2005-01-03T19:14:00.000-06:00

Sound out the vowels, Cletus. Ee - cohn - oh -mee. Economy. I know you don't hear much about it on Fox News - and there is a reason for that - but it is somewhat important. The right is raping you of your economic well-being under the guise of the greater good. You want to stop abortion? Great, but what does that have to do with union busting? You want think stem-cell research is immoral? Good, but what does that have to do with letting corporations regulate their own pollution? You think that gay marriage is wrong? Whatever, you have a right to, but what does that have to do with tax laws that favor the rich? Nothing.

If I've heard it once, I've heard it a million times. "What good does an economic policy do if you're not alive to favor from it?" cry the pro-life neo-conservatives, as if to justify their irrational voting behavior. They know that the right's agenda favors big business owners (although, you don't need to venture far into the so-called moderates to find someone re-writing laws to favor a big campaign contributor - coughLiebermancough - sorry). To them it seems that the Republican party is the only one fighting moral decay. And who could blame them for wanting to save America's moral fiber after that nigger was all up in that white woman's kool-aid on Monday Night Football. All that bare flesh! Her back was fully exposed for Christsake! But, I digress...

The point that I was trying to arrive at was that most of the moral crusades that right-wing candidates go on during election season seem to be forgotten once in office (at least until the next election). What headway has been made in the pro-life movement in the past four years? None. Has gay marriage been stamped out? No, at least not on the nation-wide level that our President keeps pushing. What about stem-cell research? Federal funding is still available, it's just somewhat limited. No ban. In the four years that the right has controlled this nation no drastic moral change has occurred (Wait, come to think of it I had heard something about a war a year or two ago).

What would happen if all of these battles were suddenly won? The right loses its power. There's no battle to be won, thus no fire in the bellies of the right-wing voters. And that means that it'll be harder to get the trickle-down reaganomic policy that has increased the gap between the middle and upper classes past the public. As economists analyze the numbers and claim to see an economic upturn, why are so many dissatisfied with the state of the economy? Because they see the real state that it's in around them. They aren't better off than they were four years ago, and they won't be for a long while.

P.S. - River's new entry at Baghdad Burning is pretty interesting:
New Year And Elections... at Baghdad Burning

Tired (or Lazy)

2005-01-01T20:08:00.000-06:00

I'm tired right now, and I really don't feel like working on a real update, so here are some good reads for the new year:

U.S. Top Judge Concerned About Criticism of Judges (Reuters)

Editorial: Sudan Peace Deal (Arab News)

GOP Has the Muscle to Make History (St. Louis Post-Dispatch)

Merry Christmas!

2004-12-23T23:57:00.000-06:00

Turn on any cable news channel on any given night this holiday season and you would probably be surprised to find out that Christmas is under attack. Frightening, isn't it? What sick, demonic instruments of Satan would want to do such a thing? Al Qaeda? Saddam Hussein? No, silly: liberal elites! That's right, those east-coast liberal pricks want to outlaw Christmas. Why? Because liberals hate God and the country that stands under him. They also hate candy-canes and Santa Claus. Li'l Timmy wanted a football for Christmas(American football, none of the communist "futbol"), but liberals want to ban Christmas so li'l Timmy cries on the morn of December 25th... Ok, not so much. With gay marriage yesterday's news, conservatism needs to find a new moral battle to fight. What better than defending Christ's birthday? So leave it up to the Catholic League to charge in with trumpets sounding. Some of their evidence was startling to say the least. Catholic League president William Donohue wrote:

"On December 10, we issued a news release documenting 16 instances of nativity scenes that were vandalized nation wide. Since then, there have been 24 more reported incidents that have come to our attention."

Holy Christ! That means... 40 nativity scenes have been vandalized! Out of the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of these glowing shrines to our Lord and savior have been vandalized! That's anywhere from 0.0004% to 0.00004%! The humanity! Anyone and everyone is danger! Donohue goes on to say:

"So what’s going on? The vandals in Norwalk, Connecticut gave us an idea. Not only did they thrash a nativity scene, they wrote profanity and drew satanic symbols on one of the figures. This isn't’t the act of some crazy drunks—it is the act of hate-filled persons."

Yes... I see. It's not those damned teenagers with their rock music and their baggy pants, it's those liberal college professors and Hollywood elites. I have my money on Affleck, not some dumbass kid who decided to write "Fuck" on baby Jesus because his friends dared him. But is any of this new? How rampant was nativity vandalism 10, 20, 50 years ago? If 40 cases constitutes a "War on Christmas", we may see Armageddon soon. But it's not just vandalism, no my children, this is a multifaceted war. Who plays the part of Usama bin Laden in all of this? Why the ACLU of course! They want to keep Christianity our of schools and only teach Satanic works like The Quaran, the Tao Te Ching, and whatever the Buddhist equivalent is. They want Christmas banned from public schools and government property. Bunch of communists, if you ask me. But luckily we have Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity to save Christmas.

In all honesty, I will admit, that people have gone too far in the name of liberalism. Kids should be allowed to sing Christmas songs at their holiday concert. Secular Christmas decorations should be allowed in schools and public property. That's not the issue here, though. Why is it necessary to display a Christian nativity scene on public property? Like it or not, it is an infringement of the constitution. The people are free to practice their faith openly and without persecution and free from being forced to worship. That's what a nativity scene is, a governmental sponsorship of an established religion. Yes, 80% of this nation believes in Christ, but what does that have to do with the government endorsing Christianity? Why is it necessary to adorn a governmental building with images of Christ in order for me to celebrate Christmas? Why the fuck are my tax dollars being spent on a tacky, glowing nativity scene? Maybe I'm a textbook case of "one of those who 'just don't get it'", but I just don't get it. Where is are the Yom Kippur decorations? Or the Ramadan ones? I'd prefer that my government not press my holiday on others, as it doesn't do the same with others. Christmas lights? Cool. Baby Jesus? No. It's the equivalent of putting up a big, glowing crucifix in the yard outside a couthouse.

And by the way... why, oh why does anyone care what Macy's is doing? Weren't we just bitching about the commercialization of Christmas a few decades ago?

The Case Against Invasion

2004-12-17T10:46:00.000-06:00

I just finished up an argumentative essay for my college composition class. It's rushed and written pretty craptacularly. Any suggestions or criticisms are helpful...

The Case Against Invasion
Nicholas Rose

On March 19, 2004 the United States of America began its mission to oust the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein by launching cruise missile strikes on buildings where Saddam and his two sons were believed to be. Two days later, the ground war began with British and American forces invading from the south (“Timeline: Iraq”). According to the White House, all diplomatic negotiations with Iraq had failed and beginning a war was the only way to secure America, and the world, from terrorism (Bush). America began pleading its case to its citizens and the world in 2002. It claimed that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat to the world because of the chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry he possessed or was in the process of creating, his ties with the al Qaeda terrorist organization that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, to free the Iraqi people from a tortuous and tyrannical leader, to end sanctions on the Iraqi people and to provide humanitarian support (Wikipedia, Invasion). The left was skeptical from the first mumblings of invasion. Claims that the war was started to secure Iraqi oil that the military industrial complex rushed to war for profit that American corporations pressed for invasion so as to profit from the rebuilding of Iraq and that the war was started to increase the popularity of the president and the Republican Party before the next election. (Wikipedia, Invasion) Many of these claims were made with little evidence other than inference. But, even more frightening was the weak case for war built up by the administration of George W. Bush.

Saddam Hussein was a terrible man; there is no doubt about it. He was guilty of torture, oppression of women and minority groups, the use of chemical weaponry for genocide, wars of aggression, and murder in order to keep political power (Wikipedia, Human Rights). Horrific mass graves are being unearthed in Iraq and to this day Iraqi citizens are still missing (Dunn). But, most of these violations occurred up to twenty years ago and often times when the United States was supporting Saddam Hussein's regime. It wasn't until they went after our oil by invading Kuwait that he was looked upon unfavorably. Now if we really went in to Iraq to free these people from Saddam Hussein, why is it that the argument was an afterthought until we discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction or ties to al Qaeda? Paul Wolfowitz admitted in a May 2003 interview with Vanity Fair (before both arguments were proved false) that “[T]here have always been three fundamental concerns (with Saddam Hussein's Iraq). One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people... The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.” If America were really concerned about the conditions of human rights in the world, then we would have focused on other nations where rights are in a much worse condition than that of Iraq before we invaded. African countries such as Sudan, Congo and Zimbabwe see human rights violations on a much larger scale than Iraq every day. (Human Rights Watch) China and other parts of Asia are worse off than Iraq. The U.S. State Department even admitted that North Korea's human rights were worse than Iraq's. (BBC News) Now, if we don't consider it a blunder that we invaded even after learning that there were no weapons of mass destruction and no ties to al Qaeda, then we could launch a full-scale invasion of every country or region I just listed. It would be hypocritical not to. These people are worse of than the people of Iraq were. What makes Iraqi citizens better than the aforementioned? The United States itself is guilty of providing Saddam Hussein's regime with the chemical weaponry he used to commit genocide on the northern Kurds and southern Shi'ites just a few years earlier. Members of the current administration saw Saddam as an ally as he committed genocide and waged a chemical war (Battle). Now we use it as justification for invasion. The United States did not oust Saddam Hussein for human rights violations.

The reason presented to the rest of the world as justification for this war was Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction. We're told by journalists, radio personalities, congressmen, op-ed writers and opinionated persons that agree with this president that, in hindsight, everything is 20/20. That it is unfair to judge the president's decision based on the information we now know. I agree. This is why I won't be using a piece of information gathered after we invaded Iraq for the following section...

We began officially trying to convince the world that invasion was our only option on February 5, 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell made a presentation to the United Nations. Just two years earlier when Secretary Powell was in Cairo he was singing the praises of U.N. Sanctions. He said “(Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” (BuzzFlash). I find it highly unlikely that between 2001 and 2002, that Saddam was able to conjure up weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. Weapons Inspector stated in January 2003, two months before invasion, that there was no solid evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. He said that weapons inspectors were able to find aluminum tubes and documents, some twelve years old.(BBC Radio) No other concrete evidence was presented. David Albright, former weapons inspector and analyst, said that the aluminum tubes found in Iraq were proven to be incapable of being used as gas centrifuges for a uranium-enrichment program, which is what the United States had claimed they were for, which was all the solid evidence provided. The rest was either speculative – such as the inferences that since Iraqi scientists weren't allowed to testify unmonitored, nuclear weapons were in Iraq; questionable – such as the grainy satellite photos presented to the United Nations of trucks and trailers that were said to be mobile biological weapons labs; downright false – such as the claim that Iraq tried to buy Uranium from Niger; or a case of us trusting foreign intelligence. If we really were concerned with nuclear proliferation, then countries that were more of a threat would have been targeted. Nations like North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, Libya (A.C.A.) and Southern Africa (Wikipedia, Nuclear Proliferation). But instead Iraq, a nation that did not pose a threat as large as the aforementioned nations, was targeted by the United States. If we would have given more time to weapons inspectors, applied more pressure on Iraq, given the rest of the world time to review the evidence and reviewed the intelligence ourselves that we and the rest of the world had concerning Iraq's weapons programs, we never would have invaded Iraq.

The final major reason given for the invasion of Iraq was that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda, the terrorist organization headed by Usama bin Laden. Logically, this seems impossible. Usama bin Laden had declared war on “the west”; Saddam Hussein modeled Iraq after western nations and in a very secular fashion (Wikipedia, Saddam). Saddam didn't follow the traditional Muslim laws that every other country in the Persian Gulf did, this would make Saddam Hussein an “infidel” in bin Laden's eyes. But still, President Bush pressed on that Saddam and al Qaeda collaborated. Until the 9/11 Commission said otherwise. It stated in its final report that there was no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." It also said "contacts" between al Qaeda and Iraq "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,” putting any ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein to rest using evidence readily available before we invaded in March 2003. (FactCheck.org) Other nations had much more prevalent ties with al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission said that Iran aided al Qaeda, and Saudi Arabia turned a blind eye to the al Qaeda’s goings-on in its own country. (Klein) Iraq and al Qaeda were at odds with one another.

After review all of this evidence, more questions arise. Why, after knowing what we now know, does President Bush insist that he was still right in his declaring war? Why was there such a rush to war when the CIA knew that Iraq posed no real threat to the United States? Why did Donald Rumsfeld write "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden]" in his notes after the 9/11 attacks? Why did Paul O’Neil, former tresury secretary to Presdient Bush, testify that this administration had been planning an invasion of Iraq since inaguration? (Wikipedia, Invasion) Why did we invade Iraq?

Works Cited
“2003 Invasion of Iraq”. Wikipedia. 16 Dec. 2004
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Iraq>.

“Africa”. Human Rights Watch. 16 Dec, 2004.
<http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=africa>.

Battle, Joyce. “Shaking Hands With Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward
Iraq, 1980-1984.” National Security Archive. 25 Feb 2003 <http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/>.

Blix, Hans. "Documents Are Not Weapons Of Mass Destruction". 19 Jan 2003.
BBC Radio <http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/38712000/rm/_38712081_iraq09_blix.ram>.

“Bush Contradicted on Iraq & al Qaeda? Or not?” FactCheck.org. 22 June,
2004 .

Bush, President George W. “President Bush Addresses the Nation on 19
March, 2003”. WhiteHouse.gov 19 March, 2003 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/

releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html>.

“Did Colin Powell Lie to the U.S. and the U.N.?” Buzzflash. 24 Sep 2003
<http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/09/24_powell.html>.

Dunn, Andrew. “Saddam's Human Rights Violations Inexcusable”. The
Triangle. 22 Oct, 2004 <http://www.thetriangle.org/news/

2004/10/22/EdOp/Saddams.Human.Rights.

Violations.Inexcuseable-777417.shtml?page=1>.

“Human Rights in Saddam's Iraq”. Wikipedia. 16 Dec. 2004
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_situation_in_Saddam%27s_Iraq>.

Klein, Joseph and Adam Zagorin. “9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-
Qaeda and Iran.” TIME.com. 16 Jul. 2004. .

“N. Korea Rights ' Worse Than Iraq”. BBC News. 3 April 2003
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2905941.stm>.

“Nuclear Proliferation.” Wikipedia. 16 Dec. 2004
.

“Saddam Hussein” Wikipedia. 26 Dec. 2004
.

“The State of Nuclear Proliferation 2001”. Arms Control Association.
<http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/statefct.asp>.

“Timeline: Iraq.” BBC News. 16 Nov, 2004
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/737483.stm>.

I'll post a downloadable version soon so you can see it in Word or OpenOffice where it's a helluva lost easier to read.

One Wide Brush

2004-12-06T21:10:00.000-06:00

Something bothered me today at school. I told myself when I started this new blog that I wouldn't talk about my personal life here, but some things warrant the bending of rules...

We had an analysis of persuasive essays in my College Compisition class. It was piss-poor and there wasn't any actual structured debate, but we talked a little amongst ourselves after the presentation. It was over whether or not homosexual couples had the right to adopt children. I wasn't shocked that the kid I sit next to thought that they shouldn't be able to. He's one of those bible-thumping Lutherans and even though we disagree on most everything, we have a sort of mutual respect for one another. He's one of the few people in my class that I can have an intelligent political discussion with.

Anyway, it wasn't anything that he said, it was something that a group of people - well - went along with. A kid (we'll call him Phil for the sake of avoid a confusing jumble of pronouns) stated that he "hated gay people" rather nonchalantly after the end of the presentation. The another kid (Hale) spoke up quickly in agreeance. The two talked for a little under a minute about why they did hate gays (such as: they're always trying to hit on me and they're such flamers) before someone reluctantly interjected. I expected to hear a "you guys are a bunch of bigots" or the like, but instead I heard a "yeah" and a nod of the head. Unexpectedly, a small group seemed to agree. Now, I have a good sense of humor about this stuff and will openly admit that I make gay jokes all the time, but these kids seriously loathed them, as it sounded to me.

I hate to admit that I wasn't shocked. I don't want to paint a picture of rampant homophobia at the all-boys private school that I attend and I don't necessarily believe that it's because the school is Catholic. In all honesty, most of my religion teachers are rather liberal - so is the president, who happens to be a priest as well (but don't tell Archbishop Burke, he might condemn us to hell). It's just a stupid phase that some boys grow into, and some never really grow out of.

Five years ago at the high school I now attend a student came out of the closet during his senior year. I've heard from some of my friends who were around when he did that his reception was less than warm and the school still bears the scars in the form of graffiti on the bathroom stalls. It's nothing unexpected. If you want to read about one goes in a situation like this, read this article from the Democratic Underground. You need to put up a macho guise when you attend an all-boys high school and any defense of homosexuality automatically makes you one as well, at least in the eyes of the severly immature which - I can say with confindence - no high school is lacking. And in all fairness there are a rather large handful of right-minded individuals when it comes to this. I am often times not alone in my defense of gay marriage when we hold classroom debates, although very much in the minority. Let's just say there's a "bigotry is cool" attitude among many of the students. But let's be honest, it takes a rather large set of testicles (or ovaries) to come out of the closet at a same sex school.

I'm not saying that all those who oppose gay marriage, gay adoption rights, etc. are all bigots. The bible-thumper - and I say that with all due respect - that sits next to me respects gay people, although he does seem a little misguided when it comes to what homosexuality is. He, and what many other people need to come to terms with, is that you can't legislate morality. Just because his church doesn't support gay marriage - which is perfectly fine - doesn't mean he can make it a law. Now that there is more and more scientific evidence that homosexuals are in large part not that way by choice, it is even more bigoted and illegal for the government to deny the right of two consenting adults - regardless of their gender - the right to marry, much less the rights to have the same benifits given to heterosexual couples.

December 7th's Good Reads:
JesusLand by Max Gordon
Oops! by David Shuster

Four More Years... What Now?

2004-11-22T17:26:00.000-06:00

Now that George W. Bush has been re-elected, it's relatively unclear where he'll take us in the next four years. With the strengthening of the republican majority in the house and senate and what Dick Cheney called a "clear mandate from the American people," some argue that Bush can go as hard right as he wants; especially when his political strategy focused on charging up the morally conservative (or fundamentalist) vote rather than appealing to the moderates. The privatizing of social security, funding faith-based initiatives, limiting abortion rights, another attempt at a federal gay marriage/civil union ban, a flat national tax or national sales tax, rolling back patient's rights in favor of big medicine and/or the degradation of the separation of church and state are all things we can expect if he does take the more radical route. And, with all the "political currency" he received with 50 - 52% of the nation voting for him I wouldn't be surprised if he does make a hard right turn. Not to mention he no longer has to worry about running for re-election and he'll receive little opposition during the traditional six month honeymoon after a president is re-elected. It seems painfully obvious what Dubya and his Good Ol' Boy Congress will do with America's next four years.

But, in his acceptance speech President Bush did say he'd work to bring America together, so there is hope, right? What did I say about you guessing in my last entry? He made the same promises just four years ago and America is as divided as ever. If, in the unlikely event that he were to hold true to that promise, he might bend on a few issues or maybe even - as crazy as it sounds - endorse some democratic ideas such as reforming social security without necessarily privatized it, taking some power away from the Patriot Act or not allowing big, bad corporations to rape and pillage our Earth with disregard to humanity's well-being (Ok. But I can dream, can't I?). Regardless, something will have to give between major tax cuts, funding an international "War on Terror", the war in Iraq and big government spending not seen since the days of Lyndon B. Johnson. I know this man is all gung-ho on making his mark in the history books, but the deficit is ballooning out of control and now congress passed a bill allowing the federal debt ceiling to be raised another eight hundred billion dollars. And to top it all off, this President has his Master of Business Administration degree from Harvard University. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the economic classes there. But, I digress. Back to the four year outlook.

The cabinet seems to be shifting into nothing unexpected. The dissention is being swept out the door as Mr. President looks to surround himself with more and more yes-men. His dearest Condoleeza "Condi" Rice is taking the place of Colin Powell as Secretary of State and token cabinet black. While she is a bright gal (and I say that with all due respect) she doesn't seem to have the same experience or respect that Mr. Powell had. Nor, so it seems, does she have any conflicting viewpoints with the president. Rather, it looks like she was the one who architected the invasion of Iraq, if not Bush's entire embarassing foreign policy. Speaking of irreverent disregard for the United States Constitution, John Ashcroft decided to throw in the towel after four years. I guess that means no more "Let The Eagle Soar" karaoke nights on capital hill... Damn. But we can still look forward to staunch support of the Patriot Act from Alberto Gonzalez; the softer, gentler Ashcroft. At first glance I percieved him to be moderate, but that's what make him all the more dangerous, he's not. He just isn't the Al Goreish figure that Ashcroft was. He's just as hell-bent on centralizing all power to the executive branch and using 1984 as a guidebook for national security. Since he is so much more personable it's highly likely that he could get more done than the cold John Ashcroft, even though Johnny was one charming serenader. Watch out, Alberto looks to be a snake in the grass.

So it seems we have more of the same to look forward to in the next four years. Good times... And now for some good reads:

Relax About Ohio, Relax About The Guy Tailing Me by Keith Olbermann

The Top Ten Conservative Idiots by The Democratic Underground

Learnin' Them Good

2004-11-21T14:33:00.000-06:00

Am I the only liberal to not have lost his or her respective mind? Hillary in 2008? Hell no. John Kerry was proported to be the most liberal senator in the senate by Karl Rove (which was a questionable claim in the first place). Although he did recieve 48-49% of the vote, there is no way for the democratic party to win the White House without a southern or midwestern candidate. Let me repeat that: THERE IS NO WAY THE DEMOCRATS WILL WIN THE WHITE HOUSE WITHOUT A SOUTHERN OR MIDWESTERN CANDIDATE. It's rather simple when you break things down. Bill Clinton? Governor from Arkansas. Jimmy Carter? Governor of Georgia. Lyndon B. Johnson? Congressman from Texas. John F. Kennedy? Sure he was from that infamous state of Massachussets, but he had something that Kerry didn't (but we'll discuss that another time). So, logically, unless we have another JFK - and not just in initials - we'll have to stay in middle america, and Hillary Clinton is no JFK.

But she comes from Arkansas so she should have no problems in the south, right? Wrong. Why do you think she had to move to New York in order to run for senate. Just think of the attack ads and wild claims from republican political strategists. They're practically foaming at the mouth at the thought of a Clinton '08 ticket. It's the eqivalent of a, well, a Bush '04 ticket. So... the logical choice seems to be Edwards, so long as he gets something done without his senate seat, right? No, god dammit! He's too young, too inexperienced. Just stop guessing - you seem to be really bad at it today - and read these two articles from The New Republic:

Stop Loss by Michelle Cottle
Honorable Mentions by Reihan Salam

U.S. Marine Shoots Unarmed Soldier

2004-11-17T18:53:00.000-06:00

A United States Marine is in trouble for shooting a wounded, unarmed soldier. I can see why he's in trouble. It certianly is an ethical dilemma, but the entire ordeal needs to be put into perspective. And, although I don't agree with this war, I don't think that this soldier should be prosecuted. It's easy to say that what he did is outrageous when you're not in a war zone. When you're walking into a darkened, demolished mosque and see your enemy faking death, what goes through your mind? Especially if you nearly died the day before, such as this man was when he was shot in the face. You're thinking "it's either him or me" and maybe it looked like he was reaching for a weapon. Maybe it didn't, but when people are openly trying to kill you by any means necessary your judgement may seem a little clouded, but you can't prosecute a man for that. We're not talking about burning villages or killing civilians in a stable setting for a body count.

I know it's harped on today, but you should never associate the warrior with the war. We saw the mess it caused in the 1960s. Soldiers don't need to be condemned in regards to this war, but the politicians that sent them off to die for, well, we've really yet to be given a straight reason as to why we fought this war. I think this soldier had every right in the world to defend himself in the way that he did and those condemning him have no right to do so until they've faught for their life in combat. The blood isn't on his hands, but the hands of the chickenhawks in Washington who rushed us to war.

November 17, 2004 - Good Reads:
The Winning Label by Bennet Kelley (Democratic Underground)