« October 2006 | Main | December 2006 »
I don't normally blog about my children (err, or child and child-to-be). But the CozyWife and I are in the usual "let's ponder a lot of baby names while we still have a few months" mode, and she found us this wonderful font of advice. Caution: Do not consume beverages while perusing their advice.
Hey, SoccerDad, I hope you weren't one of their examples!
(well, okay, except for Ask a Ninja)
Just caught Orson Scott Card on the Glenn and Helen Show. Such an amazing man, who gets it. If you consider yourself a moderate, this is a must hear podcast. It's long - about 40 minutes, but well worth it.
I was going to rant about the officiating, but we won. So who cares? But really, how many challenges does the booth get? I understand why the teams are limited - for time - but why isn't the booth limited to three challenges? It wouldn't have mattered here, but I was starting to worry. And what was up with those PI calls? Oh wait, I wasn't going to rant.
Hats off to the Bears defense - those guys really played an amazing game. Aside from watching Urlacher get smoked by the slowest guy in the NFL, I was hard pressed to find them making serious faults. The Bears offense reminds me a lot of the PAtriots - really good, but at times, they reach - and cause mistakes.
Like that Patriot double reverse. A single reverse had open field; the double reverse created a 9 yard loss. Oops.
And for those of you who noticed that I didn't blog on the Packers/Patriots game - what game? Green Bay is only playing to get Favre past Marino's record - Dan the Man owes Bruschi and Banta-Cain a cold one for putting the smackdown on Brett.
Just wanted to send a big thank you to all the men and women serving in the military today, and let you know that your sacrifice is appreciated.
You're going to start hearing a lot about re-instituting the draft in this country. Let me just say a few things about this. First off, almost every argument you will hear in favor of the draft is completely and utterly wrong. Second off, the American military, today, is the most professional and disciplined fighting force on the planet. It's also one of the few all-volunteer militaries. Correlation?
Let's look at some of the arguments.
The military is a trap for the economically disadvantaged and undereducated. When was the last time you actually saw a study that supported this contention? If you'd like counterevidence, take a look at the Heritage Institute analysis.
The people who run the country aren't impacted by war deaths, so they'll make better decisions if their children are also at risk. Let's look at the numbers first. There are about 300 million Americans today. Using the Census Projections, about 80 million are too young to have served, and about 100 million are between 20-44 - let's use that as the estimate for people who could be on active duty. According to the VA, there are about 25 million veterans currently alive; there are about 1.4 million people on active duty. Given the approximately 2 children per couple birthrate, there are an estimated 200 children of Senators in the 100 million people who could serve; to match the demographic, we'd expect to find 2 to 3 of them in service. Jimmy McCain. Brooks Johnson. Hmmm, close enough, especially when you consider that many of the Senators either have children to young to have served.
As for veterans, we appear to be about 10 percent of the of-age population. Are there ten veterans in the Senate? According to their official bios: Akaka. Burns. Carper. Cochran. Graham. Hagel. Harkin. Inouye. Jeffords. Kerry. Lautenberg. McCain. Reed. Roberts. Stevens. Thomas. Warner. National Guard or Reserve: Isakson. Kohl. That makes seventeen, plus two if you count Guard and Reserves. Several more had been in the Peace Corps, if that tickles your fancy. But clearly, the Senate has a disproportionately high number of veterans.
But that's only part of the story. The argument that they aren't impacted is bogus. How many Senators have relatives making minimum wage? Who have no health insurance? Yet on these topics, we allow them to govern. The argument from impact is just another recycling of the old "chickenhawk" canard, which isn't worth dignifying.
The draft can also be used for national service. I understand the desire to permit the opt-out for those unwilling or unable to defend their country. And in cases like Israel, which has a 100% conscription rate, it's even understandable. But let's be clear: the draft is a form of institutionalized slavery. Does it matter that you're getting shot at or changing bedpans? In fact, yes. A draft for the survival of the nation is morally defensible. A draft for the purpose of creating a labor force to be applied to politician's pet projects? Morally reprehensible.
There are sure to be other arguments. Remember this, though: the draft is a bogeyman used by politicians who are opposed to the use of military options. That alone is a clear argument against it. The politicians in favor of the draft are not advocating it for national defense, or improvement of the military. They are advocating it to weaken our military and our political will. Don't let that happen.
Update: Gus Van Horn notes that
a nation cannot defend itself without an army. But what good is such a "defense" if said country denies the rights of its own citizens to decide for themselves whether to risk combat?
Via Armed Liberal over at Winds Of Change, we are directed to this 'positive' approach to peace in the Middle East, courtesy of Aziz at Eteraz:
And it isn't as if peace is an intractable solution. In fact it is quite simple: resolution of the conflict requires genuine sacrifice by both parties. The ideal framework would be along the lines of the Taba accords and the King Abdullah proposal. It will require that the Palestinians abandon the right of return, and accept some form of financial recompense in its stead to only those displaced families whose property claims can be verified. It will require that Israel dismantle all settlements in the West Bank, and relocate the settlers. It will require that a administrative body with authority over joint issues such as water rights and transportation be established. It will require NATO security guarantees of Jerusalem as a open city, the capital of both nations. It will require peace through diplomacy with Syria, with Damascus granted economic trade rights, security guarantees, and teh return of the Golan Heights in return for total cessation of military and financial support for Hizbollah. It will require bilateral normalization of diplomatic relations with every Arab country. It woudl require Israel to eventually be invited to join the Arab League and begin to interact with its neighbors as a neighbor and member of the regional identity, not a Western satellite. It will require Arab nations to carry Israeli satellite television as part of their media feeds and absolute sanitzation of all anti-Semitic rhetoric in their educational systems.In short, it will require that both sides accept as an axiom the humanity of the other, build a regional identity, and foster economic and cultural links.
Before I start, I'll note that Ali and Aziz are among the more moderate, truly peace-seeking Muslims you'll find; and Aziz started this essay with this:
I have become a hardliner in recent years. What moral righeousness the Palestinians had, they have squandered in their support for desperation acts of violence against the innocents in Israel.
But where is the hard line in the peace proposal? Israel has to pay the Palestinians for their land - but what about the displaced Jews from the West Bank? Israel to sacrifice the sovereignty of its capital to foreign countries (Hey, take a look at how well those foreign countries are doing on the northern border...). In exchange for not funding terrorists (something which Syria denies half the time anyway), Israel will concede a lot to Syria - land, trade rights, and security guarantees (of course, none of those for Israel!). Of course, Israel should give up its alliance with the US, so it can join the Arab League. About the only new piece of the proposal is the cleanup of the Arab school system, an unlikely proposition, sadly.
Aziz, I have a better proposal for you. The Arab League should unilaterally renounce violence, terrorism, and the support thereof against Israel. Its member nations should normalize relations with Israel. They should quash terrorists within their borders, and cease to export terrorists or munitions to terrorists. The Arab nations should cease to pervert the UN into an anti-semitic body, and instead focus on the true atrocities around the world. The Arab nations should take action to aid peaceful Palestinian activities, and thwart self-defeating terrorist acts. And the Arab nations and Muslim world should do this without any requirement from the Israelis or Western World. Why?
Only when there is a peaceful partner in the Palestinians will there be a just resolution.
Only when the threat of annihilation has been removed should Israel negotiate with those who vow to destroy her.
As for Taba, remember that the Palestinians were supposed to do very simple things. Renounce the mission of the destruction of Israel. Preserve specific Jewish holy sites. Have a police force, not an army.
Hmmm, 0-for-3. That's a strikeout.
Last year after 28 storms formed in the Atlantic and two of them wreaked devastation on the Gulf states, experts crowed that the increased activity proved the global warming theories that have been floated over the last two decades. (Before that, scientists insisted we were heading into another ice age.) Experts and partisans insisted that we had turned a dangerous corner, and that we would see a continuing increase in violent weather from the Atlantic, a price for having ignored their warnings about greenhouse-gas emissions.Even the Colorado team didn't go that far last year. They predicted a more modest storm season; 17 storms, nine of which would develop into hurricanes. Even that didn't materialize. Only nine tropical storms formed at all, five of which became hurricanes -- none of which hit American shores.
So if Katrina and her siblings were evidence of global warming, is this year evidence against global warming? The answer, of course, is neither -- but I bet that's a rare argument.
Betsy Newmark notes the return of the Copperheads:
Guess which party the South was pulling for in every election held during the War? The Copperhead Democrats never seemed to feel qualms about being the party supported by the Confederates. They were so sure that they were right and that Lincoln was inutterably wrong in everything he did during the war.
Sound familiar?
Appeals to Google notwithstanding, today we pause to remember those who have served before us. Some of us were fortunate to serve in times of near peace, but others have not. To those who have given of themselves to secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the rest of the country, I salute you.
For those of you still giving, a toast that you may have many Veteran's Days to come.
I'll be honest, I wasn't in the camp expecting the Dems to pick up this many seats.
To the Republicans: You lost because you betrayed the people who elected you. You were a coalition party, and you forgot about fiscal restraint, and I think that this is your punishment. I don't think this was a referendum on Iraq, although you certainly haven't made an aggressive position there.
To the Democrats: Now that you're in power, we can watch you take advantage of the culture of corruption. Of course, now that Nancy Pelosi is going to be Speaker, we can see if you have an actual agenda, other than raise taxes, betray the Iraqi people, and increase entitlement spending. I hope you do, since we're stuck with you. It's still possible you'll sort of end up with the Senate, but only with Joe Lieberman. That's going to make the anti-Iraq agenda hard, especially since Chafee is out, who was the Republican switch-hitter.
In local news, mob fascism successfully defeated the free market. Licenses to sell alcohol - wine specifically - will remain locked up in the hands of a small number of enterprises. The police scare tactics won this one.
Well, it's going to be an interesting two years.
Gus van Horn is far more brutal on the Republicans for their failure to aggressively fight Islamic fascism. He's oh-so-right.
Having a bluetooth-enabled car has a nice feature: when you leave your cellphone on your nightstand, the car tells you before you get very far.
On annoying news, I walked back in the house as Bill Barabino, candidate for Councillor, had his automated phone system wardial our house. Predictably, this woke our 8-month old, who had just gone back down after her morning changing and feeding.
Bill - and, heck, every single individual who thinks that being exempt from the Do Not Call list gives them some special justification to call - we are on that list for a reason. You were going to get my vote, simply because I like voting against the Democrats in Massachusetts. Fortunately for me, there are two independents in your race, one of whom will get my vote.
If for some reason, you think you need to call me, even though I've asked not to be called, at least have the courtesy of wasting some other human's time, and not pit me against a machine. You are, in fact, nothing but a telemarketer.
Oh my goodness.
First off, let me just say that this was some of the most aggressive officiating I've seen all year. It went against both sides, and really detracted from the game.
Kudos to Troy Brown, who not only became the Patriots' most productive receiver ever, but did it on a game where he also played defense. What a guy.
The Patriots have to learn to not get rattled by Indy, the turnovers were the killers tonight. If not for those - well, if wishes were fishes, I guess John Kerry would be president now, so thank goodness they're not.
Okay, a few days late again. And if you read the sporting news, maybe you caught this article:
Last night the Patriots taught the Minnesota Vikings the difference between Division 1 and Division 1-AA football, NFL-style.
In the NFC, the Vikings are a playoff contender. Against the AFC, they are cannon fodder. In the NFC, they are a physical team that can run over you with a massive offensive line or shut down yours with a massive defensive line. Against the AFC, they are no more than an annoyance.
