Something very apropos

"What I would like to do is use the time that is coming now to talk about some things that have come in mind. We're ini such a hurry most of the time we never get much chance to talk. The result is a kind of endless day-to-day shallowness, a monotony that leaves a person wondering years later where all the time went and sorry that it's all gone. Now that we do have some time, and know it, I would like to use the time to talk in some depth about things that seem important...

...Perhaps because of these changes the stream of national consciousness moves faster now, and is broader, but seems to run less deep. The old channels cannot contain it and in its search for new ones there seems to be growing havoc and destruction along its banks...."

-Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig 1974

How's that for a pertinent observation? In 1974 our modern era was moving quite a bit faster than it had been. In fact in 1974 our modern era was beginning to move and since then it has increased it's speed in a geometric fashion. In 1974 our communication was limited to telephone, mailed letters, books, and of course conversation. We had time for sunday drives, walks through the park. Children didn't have play-dates. You didn't send an "E-mail card" for someone's birthday. People didn't have "Instant Message" friends, computer databases, the world wide web, or PDA's. There weren't CD's, MP3s, MPGs.

Thank you Robert Pirsig.

An interesting development...

An interesting development in the process of freedom has been made known to me. As I suspected the price of "freedom" is beginning to grow. A newly passed bill will allow the "nationalization" of ID cards. Think this is good? Wrong. It will divert countless resources towards the tracking of supposedly "free" Americans. Thank you Mr. Bush! I hear that next year we begin building walls that seperate us from Mexico and Canada. Report immediately following.

Congressman Ron Paul Denounces New National ID BillThe U.S. House and Senate have passed a sweeping new intelligence bill that contains provisions for a de facto national ID card. Congress passed the bill despite having only a few hours to read the 3,000-plus pages final version.During the House debate, libertarian U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) rose to the floor to denounce the bill, particularly the national ID provisions.“National ID cards are not proper in a free society,” Paul declared. “This is America, not Soviet Russia. The federal government should never be allowed to demand papers from American citizens, and it certainly has no constitutional authority to do so.“A national identification card, in whatever form it may take, will allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every American,” Paul continued. “History shows that governments inevitably use such power in harmful ways. The 9-11 commission, whose recommendations underlie this bill, has called for *internal* screening points where identification will be demanded. Domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free nations. It is just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane.“Nationalizing standards for drivers licenses and birth certificates, and linking them together via a national database, creates a national ID system pure and simple. Proponents of the national ID understand that the public remains wary of the scheme, so they attempt to claim they’re merely creating new standards for existing state IDs. Nonsense! This legislation imposes federal standards in a federal bill, and it creates a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your state.“Those who are willing to allow the government to establish a Soviet-style internal passport system because they think it will make us safer are terribly mistaken,” Paul concluded. “Subjecting every citizen to surveillance and screening points actually will make us less safe, not in the least because it will divert resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists and deploy them against innocent Americans! Every conservative who believes in constitutional restraints on government should reject the authoritarian national ID card and the nonsensical intelligence bill itself.”Unfortunately, Republicans and Democrats alike failed to heed Paul’s warning. The bill was passed by the House 336-75 with 67 of the dissenters Republicans defying strong pressure from President Bush. The bill then passed the Senate 89-2. It could be signed by the president by week's end.Interestingly, just one day before the U.S. House vote, the British government also announced plans to introduce biometric national ID card starting in 2008. According to Prime Minister Tony Blair: "With terrorism, illegal immigration and organized crime operating with so much greater sophistication, identity cards in my judgment are long overdue."Opponents say the battle against a national ID, and the fast-growing national security state that supports such tyranny, will continue.

The SUV conundrum

Why do people drive SUVs when a car might suffice? Is it possibly due to the fact that affordable midsize and compact cars no longer have frames? I would think that is a distinct possibility. Frames make a vehicle a bit stronger but they also add mass to a vehicle. A vehicle with less mass gets better mileage and costs less to manufacture. SUVs are, for the most part, built or based upon truck chassis which have a higher mass, are more rugged and of course with the larger mass are inherently safer to drive. Yes they use more fuel, but what are you going to sacrifice more willingly: the safety of your family or fuel economy?

Also most of the SUVs these days are built with ride quality in mind, not off-roading capabilities. So these vehicles ride more smoothly due to the engineering and the longer wheelbase. They may be a bit more cumbersome but they are more pleasant to drive.

Yet another reason is that Americans like to spread out; simply put they like their space.

Maybe this will answer the question of the SUV.

nuclear, biological and CHEMICAL weapons of mass destruction

There are those that say "there never were any 'WMD's' in Iraq." There are those who say that there was never any proof that they even existed. I decided to do a really quick search to see what google could come up with for it's first 10 hits. Check out these sites:

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0830-07.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1214-01.htm

http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan3/4-7-04-poison-victims-demand-death-saddam.htm

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html (an entire page dedicated to those who were slaughtered at Halabja)

http://www.genocidewatch.org/A%20Kurdish%20view%20for%20peace.htm

And this from our esteemed government: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm

I want to quote a bit from that page as I find it particularly expositional concerning the Baath Party regime led by one Sadaam Hussein.

Al-Anfal

Halabja was neither an aberration nor a desperate act of a regime caught in a grinding, stalemated war. Instead, it was one event in a deliberate, large-scale campaign called Al-Anfal to kill and displace the predominately Kurdish inhabitants of northern Iraq. In an exhaustive study published in 1994, Human Rights Watch concluded that the 1988 Anfal campaign amounted to an extermination campaign against the Kurds of Iraq, resulting in the deaths of at least 50,000 and perhaps as many as 100,000 persons, many of them women and children.

Baghdad launched about 40 gas attacks against Iraqi Kurdish targets in 1987-88, with thousands killed. But many also perished through the regime's traditional methods: nighttime raids by troops who abducted men and boys who were later executed and dumped in mass graves. Other family members — women, children, the elderly — were arrested for arbitrary periods under conditions of extreme hardship, or forcibly removed from their homes and sent to barren resettlement camps. As Human Rights Watch details, Iraqi forces demolished entire villages — houses, schools, shops, mosques, farms, power stations — everything to ensure the destruction of entire communities.

I just think that it's important to have an historical basis before one says "there never were any WMD's." It's also important to have a perspective upon a regime that set about the systematical destruction and genocide of an entire race for no other real reason than that race's very existence and proximal location. The last few times there were such attempts at genocide we sat aside and watched; The European Jews, The Ukrainians under Stalin, The Cambodian People under Pol Pot. The saddest part of this latest genocide is that we didn't even pay attention.

If given free reign would Sadaam have used his chemical weapons, if there were any remaining, again? The answer is probably yes. Sadly, until 9/11 happened most of the citizens of the USA didn't really care what happened in the Persian Gulf/Middle East area.

So where do we go from here? Our troops are mired in a war which is being waged by politicians, we've forgiven Iraq it's outstanding loans, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

We, the American peoples, must realize that the democratic republic that we cherish is not the best form of government for everyone in the world. But we must also stand up to those countries that would threaten other countries for the sake of their own gain. And we must support the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are fighting whether we agree with or disagree with the "why" that has caused them to be there.

Apology

I've been thinking about some stuff that has happened in my life, and in doing so I realized that I have probably hurt many more people in my life than I have helped. I know that the chances of them seeing this entry are quite small but I feel the need to apologize to them all. I'm sorry for all the wrongs that I have done, I am sorry to have hurt you. I am sorry. I cannot promise that I will not commit any new wrongs. But I will try not to commit any more than I already have. I can only hope that you will see that the past years of my life, while successful, haven't been that enjoyable. Again I am sorry.

Requested

A friend of mine suggested that I add this to my blog. I've done so even though this blog is generally not a political site, nor a site for bashing anyone. I had to think about it for a short while due to the fact that I don't know in what context to present it. In the pretense of context I will offer this: This is from a message board in which I occasionally participate, it is a response to a person that I respect despite the fact that he holds opinions which are the polar opposite of my own.I have my opinions, you have yours; both are valid. Here it is:

I do not doubt that soldiers and others told Kerry of horrible things that had happened in Vietnam. I do not doubt that horrible things occurred in Vietnam. I do not doubt that Kerry felt quite badly about those things, nor that he felt compelled to do something about it.

I think it was best said by General Sherman (not too sure but you seem to be a quite capable "fact" checker) when he said "War is Hell." Do you think, or more appropriately did Kerry think that the things that happened in Vietnam were first times that they had ever occurred? Ask any veteran of the "Island Hopping Campaign" of WWII how things were on Bougainville. Ask a survivor of Iwo Jima. Ask one of the few that survived Guadacanal. Do it soon because they're dying at an alarming rate. Ask them what they saw. Ask them if they knew some of their fellow soldiers had necklaces made of ears. Ask them if they knew anyone collecting skulls of their enemies. Ask them if they knew anyone that participated in rape. Ask a survivor of almost any war.

War sucks. War creates criminals. War time situations are deplorable and loathsome. The only thing you can rely on in a war situation is your fellow warrior. John Kerry was a fellow warrior. And instead of keeping the faith with others he broke that faith. Whether compelled by a few shocked conscripts, a few disgusted officers or the "make love not war" crowd, he broke that faith. If you don't feel that way, go to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and ask a few of the guys that work at the wall how they felt when they came home after the war, and were greeted not with "welcome back" signs, but with banners proclaiming them to be "baby killers." They weren't welcomed home with hugs and well wishes, but instead were spat upon. John Kerry was a poster child for the "free love" and "Hippie" movement. He broke the faith and turned upon his fellow soldiers, sailors and Marines.

Kerry destroyed his fellow warriors credibility when he lied about his experiences in Vietnam. He threw away their comradery and respect when he tossed his medals aside. He spat upon them when he testified about war crimes being the rule rather than the exception. He disrespected them when he united with "Hanoi Jane Fonda." And he disowned them when he met with Viet Cong leaders in Paris.

So talk to me about your "facts" and you'll read them one way and swear it's the correct interpretation and I'll read them my way and swear it's correct. But don't ever think for one minute that Kerry didn't break the faith of the men with whom he served. Because there, you'd be dead fucking wrong.

Comments are encouraged and will not be deleted unless they contain profanity or vulgarity.

Quoted

Martin Niemoller:

“In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

I think that this quote is quite powerful and quite an example of the naivete of humanity in general. It ranks up there with Orwell's "All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others."

I guess that there are times when we need to speak up for other's rights because the consquences of not doing so outweigh the possible benefits of doing.