OK, I'm sorry, this is the conservative critc coming out in me, but I think I'm allowed---I haven't made fun of any liberals since Kerry tried to please both sides of everything last fall. So here goes...
The liberals are always accusing Bush of covering up the dirt of Iraq (which they call the "truth") and trying to present only the happy stuff (which somehow isn't the "truth"). In their defesne, I think the Bush administration has tried to make things look better than they are in Iraq, but you certainly can't make the case that the media hasn't tried to make things look worse than they are. So it almost balances out. The truth is, there are good and bad things happening over there.
Anyway, Hillary Clinton said... well, let me just quote the opening sentence of this article from the Associated Press: "As 55 people died in Iraq on Saturday, the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious calendar, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that much of Iraq was 'functioning quite well' and that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency of failing." What?? Let's even ignore the strange logic of that last phrase. If Bush had said that, the liberals would be jumping all over him, accusing him of trying to make the war look good and hiding the truth.
Maybe all politicans like to try to hide things. Maybe things are just going better in Iraq than the liberals want to admit. But whatever it is, liberals, don't accuse Bush of doing something when Hillary does the same thing! In my following post, I say that one thing I can't stand is irrationality. Well, there's two things. The second is a double standard, which is actually a special breed of irrationality.
Give Bush a break. Don't turn into mini-Kerrys.
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Sports: NASCAR, I Do Not Understand
Football season is over. Baseball season is about to begin. Hockey season was cancelled, and few people really cared anyway. So what's left to watch besides basketball? Oh, yeah, that thing called NASCAR. I think the Daytona 500 was today or something. I don't really know. I don't really care. You know why? I don't understand it at all.
I'm an analytical person, and irrational things confuse and scare me, especially when lots of people don't seem to mind. And NASCAR is definitely falling into the irrational category. This is not like track, where you train to exhaustion to test your strength, speed, and stamina against those of other individuals. This is where you drive a fast car around and around in a circle a couple hundred times.
I don't get it!! Where's the skill? It all depends on luck and the speed of your pit stop crew! How can one driver be better than another? If you ran the same race the next day, the final positions compared to the day before would look like a deck of cards that's been shuffled. Hardly a matter of skill!
And this is a popular sport! People get into this thing! According to Sportscenter, Dale Earnhardt, Jr. is one of the most popular sports figures after Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods---who obviously have or had plenty of skill and talent at their game. But what makes Dale so good? Does he drive his car better than Rusty or Jeff? How? Why? I don't get it!!
If someone understands and can coherently explain where the skill of stock car racing comes in, I will gladly renounce my position and explain to the world how driving around in circles for hours can prove who's the best at driving around in circles. But until that day comes---I just don't get it!!
Edmond the Hun
I'm an analytical person, and irrational things confuse and scare me, especially when lots of people don't seem to mind. And NASCAR is definitely falling into the irrational category. This is not like track, where you train to exhaustion to test your strength, speed, and stamina against those of other individuals. This is where you drive a fast car around and around in a circle a couple hundred times.
I don't get it!! Where's the skill? It all depends on luck and the speed of your pit stop crew! How can one driver be better than another? If you ran the same race the next day, the final positions compared to the day before would look like a deck of cards that's been shuffled. Hardly a matter of skill!
And this is a popular sport! People get into this thing! According to Sportscenter, Dale Earnhardt, Jr. is one of the most popular sports figures after Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods---who obviously have or had plenty of skill and talent at their game. But what makes Dale so good? Does he drive his car better than Rusty or Jeff? How? Why? I don't get it!!
If someone understands and can coherently explain where the skill of stock car racing comes in, I will gladly renounce my position and explain to the world how driving around in circles for hours can prove who's the best at driving around in circles. But until that day comes---I just don't get it!!
Edmond the Hun
Current Events: Chinese Mindless Mine Disaster
Last week, there was a mining explosion in China that killed over two hundred people. That's horrible in itself. But that is the fourth Chinese mining explosion in the past three years, each one killing over a hundred people, and each one killing more than the one before, totaling over six hundred deaths in these four accidents alone.
This clearly elucidates the government process of China. If this had happened in America, people would be bouncing off the walls. Unions would have a hey-day! Miners all over would go on strike. It's not a safe work environment. They would demand more safety and better circumstances. And all this would have happened long before the fourth one.
The Chinese government surely doesn't allow that kind of dissent. Last time I checked, they were communist. I don't know what's gone on in the last couple of decades, but I sure know they're not a democracy. They certainly don't care about a few hundred deaths. Maybe they figure they've got enough to spare? I don't know. But if they cared, why would they let this go on without urging reform?
Even if there's no public outcry, I'm certain that Chinese miners are getting scared. How many more disasters will it take before there's some kind of clash with the government? Or will they just start recruiting Tibetans?
Edmond the Hun
This clearly elucidates the government process of China. If this had happened in America, people would be bouncing off the walls. Unions would have a hey-day! Miners all over would go on strike. It's not a safe work environment. They would demand more safety and better circumstances. And all this would have happened long before the fourth one.
The Chinese government surely doesn't allow that kind of dissent. Last time I checked, they were communist. I don't know what's gone on in the last couple of decades, but I sure know they're not a democracy. They certainly don't care about a few hundred deaths. Maybe they figure they've got enough to spare? I don't know. But if they cared, why would they let this go on without urging reform?
Even if there's no public outcry, I'm certain that Chinese miners are getting scared. How many more disasters will it take before there's some kind of clash with the government? Or will they just start recruiting Tibetans?
Edmond the Hun
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
The Plight of the Tibetans
Somebody needs to write a novel about the Tibetans---something to bring this to world attention. The timing's not right---the war in Iraq and the nuclear capabilities of North Korea and Iran are stealing the show, but the Tibetans are a cry that deserves to be heard.
They were first brought to my attention in Dershowitz's book, The Case For Israel, and they were only used as an indirect comparison. Dershowitz explained that there are other stateless groups (besides the Palestinians) who are even more deserving of freedom than the Palestinians are, and who have not resorted to terrorsim, either. The Tibetans were one of these groups, oppressed by the Chinese. Intrigued, I did a little Internet research. Although I still know practically nothing, it is more than I did before.
In 1959, the Chinese attacked the Tibetans and subjected them to their control. That's how they've lived for the past forty-five years, along with innumerable murderous injustices, the specifics of which I am unlearned. The point is---these people are oppressed, and no one cares.
Then, in Saturday's paper, there was an article about an escaped Tibetan family living in Seattle. They are part of an unbroken line of crown princes almost a millenium old, and they are sending their five year old back to Tibet to learn to be a Buddhist leader something or other, having the potential to one day lead the oppressed Tibetans.
I'm not Buddhist, of course, but the plight of these people is definitely interesting. If they can wait a few more years---maybe Iraq will create a steady democracy, Iran and North Korea will be at least somewhat resolved, the impossibility of Middle East will be realized---if they can wait a few more years until these events pass by and we have time and resources and energy to direct somewhere else, perhaps, somehow, some way, we can get people to learn about these oppressed Tibetans, and something can be done. For now, www.tibet.org has some history and other interesting facts about the Tibetans and their Chinese oppression.
In the name of justice,
Edmond the Hun
They were first brought to my attention in Dershowitz's book, The Case For Israel, and they were only used as an indirect comparison. Dershowitz explained that there are other stateless groups (besides the Palestinians) who are even more deserving of freedom than the Palestinians are, and who have not resorted to terrorsim, either. The Tibetans were one of these groups, oppressed by the Chinese. Intrigued, I did a little Internet research. Although I still know practically nothing, it is more than I did before.
In 1959, the Chinese attacked the Tibetans and subjected them to their control. That's how they've lived for the past forty-five years, along with innumerable murderous injustices, the specifics of which I am unlearned. The point is---these people are oppressed, and no one cares.
Then, in Saturday's paper, there was an article about an escaped Tibetan family living in Seattle. They are part of an unbroken line of crown princes almost a millenium old, and they are sending their five year old back to Tibet to learn to be a Buddhist leader something or other, having the potential to one day lead the oppressed Tibetans.
I'm not Buddhist, of course, but the plight of these people is definitely interesting. If they can wait a few more years---maybe Iraq will create a steady democracy, Iran and North Korea will be at least somewhat resolved, the impossibility of Middle East will be realized---if they can wait a few more years until these events pass by and we have time and resources and energy to direct somewhere else, perhaps, somehow, some way, we can get people to learn about these oppressed Tibetans, and something can be done. For now, www.tibet.org has some history and other interesting facts about the Tibetans and their Chinese oppression.
In the name of justice,
Edmond the Hun
Friday, February 11, 2005
It's An Oddball World: Infant Driver
It's An Oddball World: Infant Driver
It's only February, but I think we may be looking at the 2005 Oddball Story of the Year Award here. Just listen to this...
got his video games taken away as a punishment. So, in the middle of the night, he put on a coat, got in the car, and drove to the video store. It was closed, so he drove home. Oh, yeah, the kid's four years old.
That's right, four years old! Some police noticed a slow-moving car coasting erratically, weaving around snowbanks and whatnot. They were afraid it was a drunk. The car wouldn't stop, so they put a car on each side of it and finally realized that the driver was only four years old.
Now, let's fill in some details to explain how this could possibly happen. The mother had let the kid steer before, and he knew how to work the gear stuff. He had tried to drive the car before but his mom stopped him. He couldn't reach the pedal and steer at the same time, of course, but he apparently pressed the gas pedal and then just coasted the rest of the way. Now it's at least somewhat believable.
This is amazing! A four-year-old who knows how to drive a car! To what other regions does this kid's remarkable skills of observation and learning reach? Another thing I'd like to know is, how do they know he actually went to the video store and was coming back? Maybe the police watched the car for that long. But if he really did all that, that's pretty amazing for a four-year-old---on top of being able to start the car---to know how to get to the video store! Even if the details are exaggerated or not entirely true, though, this is still an incredible story!
I don't really have any deep comments about this---I'm just rather overwhelmed at the capacity of this little guy! I wouldn't be surprised if he could jump two-and-a-half feet, either.
Edmond the Hun
It's only February, but I think we may be looking at the 2005 Oddball Story of the Year Award here. Just listen to this...
got his video games taken away as a punishment. So, in the middle of the night, he put on a coat, got in the car, and drove to the video store. It was closed, so he drove home. Oh, yeah, the kid's four years old.
That's right, four years old! Some police noticed a slow-moving car coasting erratically, weaving around snowbanks and whatnot. They were afraid it was a drunk. The car wouldn't stop, so they put a car on each side of it and finally realized that the driver was only four years old.
Now, let's fill in some details to explain how this could possibly happen. The mother had let the kid steer before, and he knew how to work the gear stuff. He had tried to drive the car before but his mom stopped him. He couldn't reach the pedal and steer at the same time, of course, but he apparently pressed the gas pedal and then just coasted the rest of the way. Now it's at least somewhat believable.
This is amazing! A four-year-old who knows how to drive a car! To what other regions does this kid's remarkable skills of observation and learning reach? Another thing I'd like to know is, how do they know he actually went to the video store and was coming back? Maybe the police watched the car for that long. But if he really did all that, that's pretty amazing for a four-year-old---on top of being able to start the car---to know how to get to the video store! Even if the details are exaggerated or not entirely true, though, this is still an incredible story!
I don't really have any deep comments about this---I'm just rather overwhelmed at the capacity of this little guy! I wouldn't be surprised if he could jump two-and-a-half feet, either.
Edmond the Hun
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Iraq Politics: A Successful Election
I'm calling the Iraqi elections a success. There were still insurgent attacks, yes, but nothing surprising. And the Iraqis went to the polls in huge numbers. Not as many in the Sunni minority section, but more than expected. The media (reporting positive things from Iraq, for once) flooded us with stories of courageous and brave Iraqis risking their lives to go to the polls, determined to vote no matter what.
What happened Sunday was not Iraqis choosing one candidate over another. What happened Sunday was Iraqis choosing freedom over tyranny. By coming out to vote in huge numbers, the Iraqi people expressed a desire, an acceptance, and an appreciation for democracy and this new way of life. These people are free, and they like it that way. If you still have any doubts to as to whether this war was worth it---look at the numbers or read the stories of all the Iraqi citizens who went out and voted, despite dangerous threats on their lives. A success story if I ever heard one.
A few notes:
1) How will this affect the on-going war in Iraq? Now that they're starting to establish some sort of official government, will they be able to play a bigger role in quenching the insurgency? Or will it be incompetent?
2) I haven't seen official statistics, but I'm pretty sure that percantage-wise more Iraqis than Americans voted in their most recent elections. It is true that the Americans hadn't been under a dictatorship for decades, finally having their first chance to participate in a democracy. But it's also true that they weren't being threatened with death merely for voting. Does this shed any light on the ignorance and apathy in America today?
3) I found it an interesting practice that they inked the index fingers of voters to insure that they only voted once. I mean, it makes sense that they wouldn't have an official census and all that, but still... it's like a death warrant for the terrorists that you voted! It just reinforces the tenacity of the Iraqi people.
4) Notice how we're getting all excited just about the voting, not about who got elected. I don't even know the name of a single candidate who was running for anything. But I guess that's not what's important. They're mainly just drafting a constituion at this stage, anyway.
I don't think all these people went out and voted for the sake of electing their favorite candidate. I don't think most of them even knew who was a better person for the job. I think most of them went out and voted just for the sake of voting, to make a statement to the terrorists and to the world that, "Hey, we're free now, and we're gonna make sure it stays that way!" Congrats to the brave Iraqi citizens. You are my heroes.
Edmond the Hun
What happened Sunday was not Iraqis choosing one candidate over another. What happened Sunday was Iraqis choosing freedom over tyranny. By coming out to vote in huge numbers, the Iraqi people expressed a desire, an acceptance, and an appreciation for democracy and this new way of life. These people are free, and they like it that way. If you still have any doubts to as to whether this war was worth it---look at the numbers or read the stories of all the Iraqi citizens who went out and voted, despite dangerous threats on their lives. A success story if I ever heard one.
A few notes:
1) How will this affect the on-going war in Iraq? Now that they're starting to establish some sort of official government, will they be able to play a bigger role in quenching the insurgency? Or will it be incompetent?
2) I haven't seen official statistics, but I'm pretty sure that percantage-wise more Iraqis than Americans voted in their most recent elections. It is true that the Americans hadn't been under a dictatorship for decades, finally having their first chance to participate in a democracy. But it's also true that they weren't being threatened with death merely for voting. Does this shed any light on the ignorance and apathy in America today?
3) I found it an interesting practice that they inked the index fingers of voters to insure that they only voted once. I mean, it makes sense that they wouldn't have an official census and all that, but still... it's like a death warrant for the terrorists that you voted! It just reinforces the tenacity of the Iraqi people.
4) Notice how we're getting all excited just about the voting, not about who got elected. I don't even know the name of a single candidate who was running for anything. But I guess that's not what's important. They're mainly just drafting a constituion at this stage, anyway.
I don't think all these people went out and voted for the sake of electing their favorite candidate. I don't think most of them even knew who was a better person for the job. I think most of them went out and voted just for the sake of voting, to make a statement to the terrorists and to the world that, "Hey, we're free now, and we're gonna make sure it stays that way!" Congrats to the brave Iraqi citizens. You are my heroes.
Edmond the Hun
Current Events: When Is Life Not Life?
Michael Schavio's having trouble with the in-laws. His wife suffered brain damage from an eating disorder about fifteen years ago, and she's been on various life supports and basically a vegetable ever since (although opposing sides debate on the extent of her vegetable-ness). Anyway, there's a huge court battle that's been raging for about seven years between Michael and his wife's parents. Michael wants to pull the plug and let her die, claiming that his wife said she'd rather die than live in a vegetable state for years and years. The in-laws don't want her to die, claiming she's still alive and functional.
I don't care too much about the logistics of the court battle - it's all complicated back-and-forth mush anyway. What's more interesting is the greater question this case provokes: What is life, and when is it not life?
If someone has suffered severe brain damage, and they're going to be a hooked-up vegetable for the rest of their life... well, what do you do? Practically, it makes more sense to just pull the plug. They'll never be able to do anything, and by keeping them alive, probably in pain, for several years, you're just wasting lots and lots of money, and the result would be the same whether they die now or a few years down the road. Why waste the money to accomplish nothing?
But it's not that easy. It just doesn't feel right to play God. If you pull the plug on someone's life, you're basically saying that they're worthless. Can we do that? And the problem with that line of thinking is that if you start to expound on it, you have all these arguments for euthanasia and abortion---let's just kill old people when they get too old, let's abort retarded kids, and all this stuff, because at this point they're just taking up space on the earth and they won't do anything. That's obviously not right!
But at the same time... does it make sense to spend thousands and thousands of dollars for several years to keep a relative breathing if they're barely cognizant, will be on life support for the rest of their life, and will never be able to do anything until they die? What is all that time, effort, and money going to accomplish in that situation? Nothing. Whether the person dies now, or in fifteen years, their situation won't change a bit. Is it worth it to keep them "alive"?
I don't think it is. But it's not that easy. When is life not worth sustaining? When is life not life? It's a hard question. And I don't know the answer.
Edmond the Hun
I don't care too much about the logistics of the court battle - it's all complicated back-and-forth mush anyway. What's more interesting is the greater question this case provokes: What is life, and when is it not life?
If someone has suffered severe brain damage, and they're going to be a hooked-up vegetable for the rest of their life... well, what do you do? Practically, it makes more sense to just pull the plug. They'll never be able to do anything, and by keeping them alive, probably in pain, for several years, you're just wasting lots and lots of money, and the result would be the same whether they die now or a few years down the road. Why waste the money to accomplish nothing?
But it's not that easy. It just doesn't feel right to play God. If you pull the plug on someone's life, you're basically saying that they're worthless. Can we do that? And the problem with that line of thinking is that if you start to expound on it, you have all these arguments for euthanasia and abortion---let's just kill old people when they get too old, let's abort retarded kids, and all this stuff, because at this point they're just taking up space on the earth and they won't do anything. That's obviously not right!
But at the same time... does it make sense to spend thousands and thousands of dollars for several years to keep a relative breathing if they're barely cognizant, will be on life support for the rest of their life, and will never be able to do anything until they die? What is all that time, effort, and money going to accomplish in that situation? Nothing. Whether the person dies now, or in fifteen years, their situation won't change a bit. Is it worth it to keep them "alive"?
I don't think it is. But it's not that easy. When is life not worth sustaining? When is life not life? It's a hard question. And I don't know the answer.
Edmond the Hun
Current Events: Fidgeting Weight Loss?
This is just intriguing. After long convincing research (see links for details), Mayo Clinic, led by Dr. Jim Levine, has determined that fidgety, restless people burn more calories than those who sit still, enough to make a difference of over 300 burnt calories a day, or 30 to 40 pounds lost in a year. The study suggests that whether you are restless or not is something biological, something genetic.
Think about this! It's just... intriguing! Lazy people who can't sit still aren't as fat as lazy people who can sit still! I mean, it really does make sense. Activity burns calories, and restlessness is activity, albeit not as much activity as formal exercise. I eat a lot, and I mean a whole lot, but I'm nowhere near obesity. I always attributed it to a high metabolism. But I am very restless---always tapping my foot or hand to a song or whatever. So maybe that has something to do with it.
And we always thought that not being able to sit still was a bad thing. But apparently it's good for you.
The big question here is if it really is something genetic, that you're either born restless or not born restless. The way that can be a bad thing is if people try to deny responsibility for their actions, akin to some homosexuals and alcholics---"It's not my fault I'm fat. I was born that way. Don't blame me; I can't help it." Even if you happen to be born less fidgety than other people, that's no excuse for getting fat. It's still your responsibility to exercise and take care of that. But until people start claiming things like that, I think this is a very intriguing, interesting study.
So, if you can't sit still in class, don't worry: you're not getting fat!
(Sources: www.healthtalk.ca; www.nytimes.com)
Edmond the Hun
Think about this! It's just... intriguing! Lazy people who can't sit still aren't as fat as lazy people who can sit still! I mean, it really does make sense. Activity burns calories, and restlessness is activity, albeit not as much activity as formal exercise. I eat a lot, and I mean a whole lot, but I'm nowhere near obesity. I always attributed it to a high metabolism. But I am very restless---always tapping my foot or hand to a song or whatever. So maybe that has something to do with it.
And we always thought that not being able to sit still was a bad thing. But apparently it's good for you.
The big question here is if it really is something genetic, that you're either born restless or not born restless. The way that can be a bad thing is if people try to deny responsibility for their actions, akin to some homosexuals and alcholics---"It's not my fault I'm fat. I was born that way. Don't blame me; I can't help it." Even if you happen to be born less fidgety than other people, that's no excuse for getting fat. It's still your responsibility to exercise and take care of that. But until people start claiming things like that, I think this is a very intriguing, interesting study.
So, if you can't sit still in class, don't worry: you're not getting fat!
(Sources: www.healthtalk.ca; www.nytimes.com)
Edmond the Hun
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)