Weekened Wrap-up 4-29-2007

Wow! A whole week went just like that! Had a busy week, folks, which is why I hadn't posted anything all week. Well, let's get caught up, shall we?

Democratic presidential candidates debate
I watched for it, and when the day came, I couldn't find it on any of the regular channels. Why wouldn't they air it, I thought? So what I'm commenting on is based on the news reports of the debate. And judging from what I've read, there's very little to nothing that I didn't expect. No one candidate really stood out from the others. One headline even said that the candidates were largely cordial.

And that led to my question of why. Why were they cordial? I'm not saying that they needed to be rude or crass with each other, but they are running to be the president of the United States, not president of the glee club. If your name isn't Hillary or Obama, then you are already working under a handicap, and it is not to your benefit to be cordial to Hill and Obie. And really, these debates are a waste of time. Let's see - the Democratic candidate for office is going to be anti-Bush, he or she will favor tax increases for the rich (which I don't object to, actually), and they'll be pro-choice, pro-Kyoto treaty, will want to pull out of Iraq damn-the-consequences, and they'll favor socialized medicine and other delicacies offered at the Left Wing Food Bar. And then they'll depend on the utter bungling and stupidity of the GOP in order to win - which, given the current state of the GOP, is getting more and more likely to happen.

I had hoped that the Dems would crash and burn in the '06 mid-term elections so that they would realize that they need to change. Instead, the GOP ended up bungling the election so badly that the people voted for the only other main party of our country - which happens to be the Dems. So now the Dems think that the people have given them a mandate, and now they're going to be resistant to change for the foreseeable future. In other words, the Dems are going to stay solidly entrenched in the left wing of the politcal spectrum for several more years. SIGH.

Rap music's day of reckoning coming soon?
This article relates a recent gathering in Chicago over the rap industry's frequent usage of offensive terms of women in their songs. According to the article, over 400 attended, which indicates that the issue brought forth by Don Imus hasn't died out. Bully for those people. I hope they keep this issue on the burner, because it needs to be addressed. And more importantly, keep the pressure on Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to keep addressing this issue instead of waiting for white guys to hoist themselves up by their own petards. Or to see this another way, if the rappers can stop referring to women as "bitches and hos", then it would put pressure on the rest of the men to do so as well. In other words, everyone would be a winner. Maybe the women who usually appear in rap videos can stand up and stop appearing in rap videos until rappers learn to clean up their mouths and their attitudes towards women. I would love to see something like that happen.

Sports
Brief recaps of how the local teams are doing. The Texas Rangers are back, and they are back to old form of the starting pitching giving up games. Even with an offense that can produce at least 5 to 6 runs nearly every game, it's a bit difficult to win when the starting pitching gives up about 6 to 7 runs nearly every game. The new manager Ron Washington is going to have the challenge of his career trying to get this bunch to change from its old and established ways.

So far, the Dallas Mavericks ain't lookin' like the top seed in the conference against the lowly Golden State Warriors. I think the Mavs have Nellie-itis, and they need to let him go. He's not their coach anymore, and they don't owe him any loyalty. I think that the Mavs' problem is largely mental, and the sooner they get over it, the sooner they'll get back to their regular selves. Where does a whole team go to for psychological evaluations?

My birthday...
...was on Friday. I just turned 24. Really! Doesn't it look like I'm 24 on my profile pic? Okay, I only act like I'm still 24. I'm actually a little older than that...

give or take a decade...

or two...

Let's move on, shall we...??

Googling "Araujo Arts"

If you go to Google and put "araujo arts" into the search bar (be sure to have the quotation marks), my blog is the first thing that pops up. This is significant because there are people who PAY to have Google pop up their site. Well, there have been enough of you good readers of my blog that Google already registers it for searches for my blog. For that, I have you good folks to thank, so I say wholeheartedly - Thank You. I hope to continue to be worthy of your time and energy that you spend to read my humble little corner of cyberspace. This kinda thing can humble a guy, yanno?

Have a great week, folks!

Weekend Wrapup 4-21-2007

This wrap-up is related to the Virginia Tech shootings, which dominated the news this week.

The gunman
Seung-Hui Cho is a name that's going to be linked forever to the Ted Bundys and the Timothy McVeighs of this morbid branch of our nation's history. I really don't know what to say about Cho. Granted, it wasn't easy to grow up as he did, but judging by what I've heard so far, it sounds like he made himself his own worst enemy. Many of us go through difficult times growing up, but the vast majority of us don't wind up on a killing spree. Maybe a lot of people failed him, but we've all had that as well. I have no explanation for how someone can allow themselves to allow such a deep hatred to fester in their souls. People who go on killing sprees like this almost always kill themselves in the end. It's a coward's way of escaping punishment for their crimes. Well, he's in God's hands now - and The Maker is someone whose judgment you can't escape.

The family of the gunman
I suppose it shouldn't surprise me, but the opening sentence of this article did just that. Here's what it said:

"The family of the Virginia Tech gunman has finally spoken up. "

The first thought that popped in my head was: "What the heck were they supposed to say??"

What CAN they say? Aren't they going through enough hell without the media prodding them constantly to get their reaction? HAVE a little DECENCY, people! In the article the family gave their response, and it was an apology for the actions of Cho. I felt sorry for them that they were compelled to speak up. I wouldn't have blamed them one bit if they never spoke on the issue, but today's media just had to keep prodding them until they spoke. Well, now they spoke, so leave them alone! They'll have enough to deal with for the rest of their lives without the media poking thier noses into it.

Comments from my previous blog entry on this topic
The first comment was a question that I asked:

"How could a loving God allow this to happen?"
In theological circles, this is called "The question of evil". I'm going to ask another blogger to tackle this question in a little more detail, because he has a knack for tackling such questions, but my own response is thus: God does not allow evil, we do. God gives us so much free will that we are free to reject him. And that rejection can take many forms. It can go to the extent that our actions can harm or even kill others. But the lesson to draw from this is that free will is not free. There is a price for that freedom, and the mature person will come to realize it. Then will be able to understand better how a loving God can allow such evil acts to occur.

The next comment:
"The predictable reactions of various political groups to use this tragedy to further their political agendas."
The gun controls activists came out in droves with such statements as "What part of 'assault' in 'assault weapon' do you not understand?" and the counters from gun owners of "Guns don't kill people - people with guns kill people." There was also blame laid on the entertainment industry that glorifies such violence as well as video games such as the "Vice City" series. Surprisingly (at least for many people), the most reasoned response came from Rush Limbaugh, who basically said that there are many gun owners and many movie watchers and many video game players that can partake in all that without being inspired to violence. The blame, he said, lays solely on the killers. And that's what I think as well. Trying to make Cho a victim of something is a way of trying to absolve him of his crime, and he doesn't deserve being cut any slack whatsoever.

Last comment:
"What can be done to prevent further tragedies like this from happening again."
I'm still working on that, but I don't know that we can ever prevent it from happening again, even if we made our society an Orwellian dystopia. Those determined enough to kill will find ways to do so, even if it's just with their bare hands. Understand, though, that just because I don't think we could ever fully prevent another VT tragedy doesn't mean that we shouldn't even try. On the contrary, we should do all we can to prevent it, short of turning our society into the aforementioned Orwellian dystopia. We can't allow ourselves to become that dystopia, because that would mean that we are living in fear, which is how the Chos and the McVeighs would want us to live. We should not give them their heart's desire.

As of this weekend, the flags are still at half mast. Everywhere you go are these reminders of that tragedy at VT. However, those flags will go back up, just as they did after 9/11. That's human nature. We set aside time to mourn and grieve, but after that, our lives go on. That human tendency all but guarantees that the mad dreams of the Chos and the McVeighs will never be realized.

Strip from The Quigmans

Here's a strip from the comic, The Quigmans that, for some reason, I find funny. I don't know why, because I don't have anything against environmentalists. However, it might have been even funnier with Al Gore in there. ;-)

Virginia Tech massacre

There's very little that I could say here that hasn't been said already in news reports and commentaries. The only thing that I can say now is that I will be praying for the Virginia Tech community and the families of the victims - living and dead. Reports and information are still coming in, and I'll just wait until probably the weekend before I make any further comments.

Some things I may comment on - either in one entry or split up into different entries:

* The question of "How could a loving God allow this to happen?"
* The predictable reactions of various political groups to use this tragedy to further their political agendas.
* What can be done to prevent further tragedies like this from happening again.

There are other things as well, but those ideas are not as formulated yet. Again, I'll be watching what develops and comment later. In the meantime, I ask that you offer your thoughts and prayers for the victims of this tragedy.

God bless.

Weekend Wrap-up 4-14-2007

It's been at least a month since I did one of these, and here's why: To prepare for weekend wrap-ups, I usually send news stories to myself by e-mail over the course of the week. I choose most topics if they got a lot of attention during the week, or if it was just an interesting story, or if there were something else about the story that would qualify it for the Weekend Wrap-up. Well, lately I've gotten out of that habit, and that's put me out of the loop on what's going on in the news. As an opinionator, I just can't have that, so I'm going to try to get back into that habit as of now. But for today, I'll post some comments based on a scan of the Yahoo! News website.

Don Imus
I didn't have to scan the Yahoo! News site to know that this was discussed all week. I won't go into the details of why Imus got fired because it's been repeated ad nauseum all week. However, I do want to say that the reason Imus was fired was NOT because of his comments but because the advertisers for his show were dropping like Bush's poll ratings. In other words, CBS didn't fire him out of any sense of moral outrage, but because Imus was no longer profitable. In yet other words, it was all about money. Had it been a sense of moral outrage, they would have fired him outright instead of just suspending him for two weeks like they had done at first.

And then there's the matter of all those rappers who say much worse than "nappy-headed hos" and get away with it time after time. Many members of the black community have been speaking out on this for years to no avail. So long as there are consumers of such music, their protests will fall on deaf ears (because the sound of the cash register is drowning them out). If CBS is so morally outraged over Imus' comments, they should also take on the rap industry.

Critics now turn to rap
Since Imus is out of a job and now has nothing to lose, he should take his current public visibility and point out the hypocritical acceptance of rap music's usage of negative racial terminology. In fact, in this article, some critics are indeed trying to capitalize on the visibility of this issue "while the iron is hot." The article mentions that the last time that they were able to get their views heard was when Michael Richards had gone on his "n-word" rant last year. Why does it take white guys saying things like this before the media takes notice? In other words, why do they let the rappers slide with saying much worse? If the "n-word" is ugly for some people to use, then it should be ugly for all people to use. Allowing even blacks to use the "n-word" (and others) bares a hypocrisy that everyone will notice - even if they don't mention it. The "n-word" won't die out until EVERYONE gives up using it.

Abstinence programs
This news story talks about a study that says that students who take abstinence classes are just about as likely to have sex as those who didn't take those classes. No doubt that opponents of abstinence classes are going to use this whenever the issue is brought up again by the Bush administration. I'm not understanding something here, though. Diseases like AIDS are spread through casual sexual contact. Even condoms aren't 100% proof against AIDS. Only abstinence is 100% effective. So what's wrong with teaching teens to wait until later to have sex? It won't kill them - in fact, it might save them by preventing them from getting AIDS (among other sexually transmitted diseases).

AIDS is still a bad disease to get, right? So why object to an action that is 100% proof against getting it? Before someone e-mails me to tell me this: Yes, people can still get AIDS through blood transfusions and sharing infected needles - but those are separate issues. The issue here is the best means of preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted disease in teenagers (and everyone else, for that matter). Perhaps the word "abstinence" is being confused with the word "celibate", which is the foregoing of sex for life. "Abstinence" simply means "forestalling sex for another time" - it does NOT mean giving up on sex forever. But that's not what's taught for the most part. In fact, it wasn't until the spread of AIDS and the fact that currently there's no cure for it before "health classes" even mentioned abstinence as an option.

The reason that many teens - even those who went to abstinence classes - are still having sex is because pretty much, that's all they're taught from their friends and from the entertainment industry. "Cool people have sex. Only nerds and geeks don't have sex. You'll lose your boyfriend/girlfriend if you don't give them what they want" and other such arguments. They're being made to feel that they have everything to gain and nothing to lose if they give in. It's actually the reverse that's closer to the truth.

I don't want to come off as a prude by suggesting that sex is dirty and nasty. Far from it - sex can be a beautiful and wonderful thing - in the right context. But can two teenagers in lust truly understand what the right context for sex is? Wouldn't it be better for them to wait until they are mature enough to understand what the right context is? So what's the rush? There's still college to meet and greet other people - and even after college. Most college graduates are still in their early 20's. That's plenty of time to get to know not just others, but especially yourself. That's the best path to responsible sex.

Obama returns campaign contributions from lobbyists - sort of
In this article, we see that Barack Obama returned the money that had come from lobbyists. His reason is that he wants to set the example for Washington to clean up corruption. However, further down that article, you see this notation:

"While shunning lobbyists money, the Obama campaign still has relied on political and policy advice from Washington lobbyists and does accept donations from lobbyists spouses."

Uh huh. Yeaaaahhhhh.......

You see the problem here, right? Okay, Obie isn't taking money from Mr. Lobbyist, but he'll take it from Mrs. Lobbyist. So....

... this cleans up corruption how?

Granted, technically, Obie isn't taking money from a lobbyist - but c'mon! What possible incentive is there for a politician to clean up their act if accepting donations from the spouses of lobbyists isn't seen as a backdoor way of donating campaign funds? Obie is relying on the stupidity of a lot of people in order to get away with that.

Giuliani in drag
Yep, you read that right. Here is an article about Rudy Giuliani in drag. The article is questioning whether Giuliani should be doing stuff like that since he's running as a candidate for president. As a Republican, no less. Not only that, he's dressed in drag before. I say that he shouldn't do that anymore. It just ain't proper. Not only that - and I hope that Giuliani doesn't take offense at this - he makes an ugly broad.

Have a great week, folks!

The puzzling silence of the unborn human community

This news story is about a man who had hired a hit man to injure his pregnant girlfriend to the point that she miscarried. Fortunately, the hit man was actually an undercover cop. The man was found guilty of solicitation to commit manslaughter and sentenced to 76 months in jail. In the state of Washington, a "viable fetus" counts in such a charge. In other words, the state recognized the humanity of the unborn human in this instance. This story brings up something that occurs to me from time to time, and that is the lack of outrage from the unborn human community over these kinds of stories that recognize their humanity in one instance, but then ignores it in another instance.

The unborn human community (UHC from here on) suffers an image problem in our day and age. The very definition of their humanity is subject to the whims of the state and to their mothers like no one else in our society. Can you imagine any other group or community tolerating having their humanity being defined so arbitrarily? Why doesn't the UHC do something about this? Why don't they rally to have their rights recognized? With so many victims groups out there, you'd think that the UHC would have organized something by now.

For instance, the UHC could contest that the arbitrary nature of their rights are largely based on their location - namely, in their mothers' wombs. This necessity of human reproduction is totally beyond their control. If they could pick and choose which womb they could grow in, don't you think that they'd pick the womb of someone who would be willing to carry them to term? Thus, why are they being made to feel disenfranchised over something that they have no control over?

Another thing that the UHC could protest is the death sentences that are carried out against them by their mothers (and often other people responsible or otherwise connected to their existence), and often for the most arbitrary of reasons. For instance, they're not the gender that the parents want. Or they MIGHT have some sort of medical condition (diagnoses HAVE been wrong, even for those made of the born community). Or, their birth would complicate their mother's or father's life in some form or fashion. Or the mother might not be able to "handle" giving birth. In other words, all reasons that the member of the UHC had no control over, and yet is being made to pay the ultimate price for it. Their only crime? An inconvenient existence.
Boy, I'm starting to feel really outraged over the lack of response from the UHC. Injustices are being levied against them all around, and yet not a peep from them.

Now let's look at the issue of embryonic stem cell research and the lack of reaction from the UHC over this controversial issue. Here the very young members of the UHC are being sacrificed much like guinea pigs for the sake of scientific research. An embryo, the youngest of the UHC, is destroyed in the process of doing this form of stem cell research. The UHC should be in an uproar, because it's not just the rights of these very young members that are being violated, they're also being exploited and executed all for the sake of science! The UHC should be bringing up the fact that there are alternatives available to the usage of embryos in stem cell research, and none of them are fatal to them.

Adult stem cells, for instance. Also, the placentas that remain after one of the members of the UHC leaves their ranks. Both of these forms of stem cells actually work while the embryonic stem cells are yet to work at all, despite the promise that they'll be so adaptable that they can become any cell that is necessary. Thus, the UHC should be all over this like flies to honey so as to protect the members of their own community from the scientists' instruments.

But no, the UHC is still stone silent. How big an outrage is it going to take, one has to wonder, for the UHC to say something - anything - over the many violations that are being put against them? If these threats to their rights and to their very lives isn't enough to rouse them, then nothing will.

By now you've caught on to the point that I've been making: The UHC does not say anything because it can't. The UHC is years away from even forming basic sentences, much less grasping concepts such as rights and violations and outrages. The UHC, in other words, is wholly dependent upon the ranks of the already-born. Hopefully you've seen what an unenviable position that the unborn are in: Their existences - and their very lives - hinge on the whims of those whom they should be able to fully depend on.

If those they depend on fail to live up to their responsibilities, then it is the UHC that pays the price. During their 9-month existences, the UHC lives silently, and they can die silently, without a word or whimper of protest over events that they have absolutely no control over. If that realization doesn't break your heart, I don't know what will.

The UHC, then, is totally helpless and totally at the mercy of others who may or may not have their best interests at heart. Imagine belonging to any other group in which your humanity was defined so casually that it could be turned off and on like a light switch. Wouldn't this arbitrary definition of your humanity scare the hell out of you?

For the supporters of legalized abortion, the heart of their argument is the "right to choose" - that is, the mother must have the full right to choose whether she wants to carry her pregnancy to term or to end it. That's it. There are no exceptions to this, and the humanity of the unborn is irrelevant to the question; so irrelevant in fact that the unborn are usually defined as a "fetus" so as to dehumanize it in such a way that making this "choice" doesn't look so unpleasant.

For opponents of legalized abortion, the heart of their argument is the humanity of the unborn. They recognize that if they don't constantly remind others of the humanity of the unborn, then very few will. For them, the issue regarding abortion is not so much "choosing", but making the right choice.

A pregnant woman can indeed choose to have an abortion. Just like someone can choose to set a building on fire, or can choose to "cook the books" so as to embezzle from a company. Yes, people can choose to do these things. However, merely having the option to do something does not mean that they should do it. The issue of the humanity of the unborn can - and MUST - be discussed.

But the UHC is not in a position to discuss the issue. By the time they are able to discuss the issue, they will have been born for many years, which would makes their pleas to be born a moot point. No, only the rest of us can discuss the issue of legalized abortion for the unborn when they are still unborn. Many a brave soul fought for the humanity and the rights of slaves, of women, of immigrants, and many other groups that were greatly wronged, and their bravery is recognized and rewarded today. Now new brave souls must rise to the occasion today for the unborn, a group that won't be able to thank them for many years. They must be the voice for the ultimate group of the voiceless. History judges the civilizations of the past by how they treat the powerless among them. How will history judge us?

Easter

Easter has in common with Christmas in that there are a lot of secular stuff attached to it that is in no way related to the real reason for the holiday. In other words, the Easter Bunny and egg hunts have as much to do with Christ's resurrection like Santa Claus and reindeer do with Christ's birth.

And yet, when these holidays roll around, what's plastered on the ads for Easter and Christmas? Those secular images. I suppose that it's easier to use those secular symbols for their sales than using actual Christian symbols. As well, I'm not sure that I'd want the folks who come up with those ads (sometimes referred to as "Madison Avenue") to put their creativity into using the true Christmas and Easter images in their ads. Most likely, they'd come up with something that would come off as disrespectful at the least and outright blasphemous at the worst.

So it's probably for the best that those ads stick to secular symbols. We will have to rely on our churches instead to tell us "the reasons for the seasons" - which is how it should be anyway. So... what IS Easter about anyway? I'll touch a little bit on it with this blog entry - at least from a Catholic perspective.

Easter actually is the end of the season of Lent, which began on Ash Wednesday. During the period of Lent, Catholics are to reflect on their lives and how they live it, and it is customary to give up something as a way for us to better our lives, which is sometimes referred to as a sacrifice. For Americans, that generally means giving up something like chocolate or other sweets - which reflects a lack of understanding of the term "sacrifice". Giving up chocolate is not a sacrifice. It might feel like it to a group of people who are accustomed to living in overabundance, but in truth, it's not a sacrifice.

A sacrifice would be something like giving up smoking or alcohol, or giving up watching television. Hopefully with such a sacrifice, the Lenten observer would be inspired to give up smoking entirely, or he (or she) will develop the strength to curtail drinking or viewing habits. Anyway, this customary sacrifice is supposed to provide for us a taste of what it was like for Christ to spend the 40 days in the desert.

A priest that used to be at my parish had a term for our human weaknesses: "sin-affected humanity" - that is, sin taints our efforts to lead good and wholesome lives. Before I continue, something needs to be explained about the term "sin". In our society, sin is often viewed as synonymous with "breaking rules". But sinning isn't necessarily about "rule breaking"; rather it's about falling short of the good that we are capable of doing. For example, we could lead productive lives, which is a good, or we can lead lazy, slothful lives. Or, in the case of someone wronging us, we can either find the strength to forgive them, or we can plot our revenge against them.

Basically (and I'm really cutting a lot of corners here in order to keep this blog entry from running too long), sinning is about making wrong choices in our lives that lead us away from the potential for good that we could be living. Since we frequently make a lot of wrong choices, this accumulates in our psyches in such a way that, if we aren't making ourselves aware of when we're doing wrong, we can lose our ability to tell right from wrong. This is why Catholicism concentrates so much on sin and developing habits that help us to strengthen our souls against such temptations. Catholicism is also aware that we are indeed human, which is why Catholicism has confession.

Okay, with that, let's move on. Catholicism teaches that, with our sin-affected humanity, we aren't capable of reaching heaven, for nothing tainted with sin can enter heaven. We also can't earn our way there. No, the only way the path to heaven can be cleared is for someone without sin to offer himself up for our sake by taking our sins upon himself. Catholicism teaches that this person is Jesus Christ. We (that is, Catholics) believe that Jesus was born without sin, and that by dying for our sins, he made it possible for us to enter heaven.

In fact, Jesus' whole life was a series of lessons of how we should live our own lives. The teachings, parables, and examples that he provided were meant to be teaching tools for us. His life was lived for us, so that we may learn how to live lives that are pleasing in the eyes of God. The closer we get to living Christ-like lives, the more we understand not only what is pleasing to God, but also why it is pleasing to God. Most of us think of Jesus as a hippie-ish, "let's all get along" huggy-feely type, but he actually was viewed as a rabble rouser by the authorities at that time. They were so concerned about him that they had him executed. Can you see a hippie-ish "let's all get along" huggy-feely type today being willing to die for someone else - especially in so public a way, and especially for a people who largely would not appreciate their sacrifice?

And yet, dying for us is precisely what Jesus did. Even after all these centuries, it's still something that prophets and scholars meditate upon. But there's only so many ways that you can examine Jesus' death on a cross; to truly understand how much love it took for him to be willing to die for us, we have to try to see the world through his eyes. And here's the rub: we can't start seeing the world through his eyes until we try to live like him, and to live like him is to live in a way that is inconsistent (to say the least) with the thinking of the world today. Our day and age is largely selfish and self-serving. Such a mindset is far, far from understanding Jesus' act of loving sacrifice.

It is the mindset of such people that can see giving up chocolate as a genuine sacrifice for Lent. Let's face it: We in America live in a world of overabundance, so much so that even those of us who try to live loving spiritual lives are often swayed by that overabundance. There's simply so much to easily distract us. We are the proverbial bird living in a gilded cage; that is, we are so blinded by the glitter that we can't see that we are trapped by our wants.

Our overabundance can and most likely does block the view of the road to heaven for many of us. Thus, the loving example of that Nazarene of long ago is still needed and relevant to today. For those of us living in overabundance today, we'd have to let go of all of that in order to better understand why Jesus did what he did. And it would take much more than giving up chocolate.

So this Easter, go ahead and take the kids to the egg hunts. Eat those Peeps - and yes, have the chocolate. But try to set aside some time for the "reason for the season". Meditate upon Christ's death and resurrection, and see if there's some way that you can put yourself on the path toward seeing the world through Christ's eyes. Then you'd be putting yourself on the path to seeing that you're living in a gilded cage, which is the step before getting out of that gilded cage. And once out, you'll have a better understanding of the kind of love it took for Christ to sacrifice himself on that cross. And then you will finally learn the real meaning of Easter.

God bless.

Editorial Statement for April 2007: No War in Iran

In the weeks and months before Iran had taken the British sailors hostage, the Bush administration had seemed to show signs of wanting to take the war on terror to Iran. Right here and right now, I say "Don't do it!"

The main reason: We aren't finished in Iraq. Why start a new trouble spot when we aren't done with the old trouble spot?

Look at a map of Iraq and Iran (source):















See how much bigger Iran is than Iraq? Think of all the problems that we've had so far in Iraq. Now triple it. That's how much more of a problem that a stay in Iran would be than Iraq. If we're lucky, it would only be triple the trouble. I'm only making that guess based on the fact that Iran looks to be at least 3 times as big. Actually, imagine us trying to manage BOTH Iraq and Iran. You forsee a long, long stay, don't you? If we go into Iran, then my grandkids would probably still be serving there, and I don't even have kids yet.

So Mr. Bush, don't do it. There are other, better, and more effective ways of dealing with the terrorists than going into yet another Middle Eastern country when we haven't finished with the Middle Eastern country that we started in. The main problem with our war in Iraq is that we have largely put all of our anti-terrorist eggs in one basket when the terrorists are located in more areas of the world than just Iraq. What good would it do to expand the basket that we are putting our anti-terrorist eggs into when the terrorists are still located elsewhere?

One more Gore comment

I'll mention one more Gore comment, and then I'll leave it alone (unless Gore does something else).

Someone commented to me that, while Gore may be making "green purchases" to "offset his carbon footprints" made by his energy inefficient house, imagine how many more of his carbon footprints that he would be erasing if he still made those green purchases AND had the energy efficient home that George Bush has. As I said the other day, the example that he'd be setting would bring him an endless amount of praise from the non-biased media. So from Gore's standpoint, this is all win-win. The only sacrifice he'd be making is what he expects the rest of us to do.

However, if even the prophet of global warming can't be bothered to make his own home energy efficient, then why should the rest of us bother? The scandal here is not just that Gore is not setting a good example, but that the members of the media aren't making a bigger deal out of this. The hypocrisy is so thick that you can cut it with a knife - that's how bad it is.