Saturday, June 29, 2002

GREAT STORY TARNISHED: Check out this fascinating article from ESPN, on the pairing of a Pakistani and an Israeli tennis player. A feel good story, right? Two professionals who can simply look past a needless conflict and play together because they think they can help each other win. No big deal right? Well, it's apparently a big deal to the Pakistani government who are now looking to place Aisamul Haq Qureshi under a ban.

Simply put, this is anti-Semitism if I ever saw it. Maybe if these governments actually desired peace, they would read what the players are saying themselves:

"I didn't even think about Qureshi being a Muslim until I went home and found out it was big news in Israel, that a Jew was playing with a Muslim,'' Hadad said. "I just thought of him as another tennis player, a human being.

"Maybe if we get far here we'll do some good because people will see Muslims and Jews can be friends.''

"I don't care what people think about it," Hadad told the BBC. "As long as we enjoy playing together we will continue. When we agreed to get together it was all about doing well here, making some money and improving our doubles ranking. If we win here then I would dedicate the victory to my family and to peace.

"It would be good for those doubters to see that even though we are from different religions it is possible for us to work together and have some fun. A Jew and a Muslim playing together is not the end of the world. We are all human beings. We have the same blood, the same skin."

And from Qureshi:

"I am surprised at the fuss being made over my partnership," Qureshi said. "I would like to be talked about for my tennis rather than politics.

"If we can change people's minds then that would be a good thing."

Wouldn't you know? They couldn't care less where the other was from, they simply wanted to "have some fun."

Friday, June 28, 2002

MY FIRST FISKING: For those who couldn't tell (and you must be rather ignorant if this is the case), I loooove sarcasm. And I love "Fisking". What is Fisking you ask? It stemmed from what is possibly the most outrageous article ever written by one, David Fisk. Just take a look, it's a real hoot. Of course, Mr. Fisk was repeatedly made fun of for such moronic statements, and his article was dissected line by line to show its inaccuracies and idiocies. And so, the Fisking began. Here's my first one, from an article by Charley Reese from the Saudi Arabian government- sponsored newspaper:

President George Bush continues to act as if he were a ventriloquist's dummy sitting on the lap of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Really? I would say he looked more like a sock puppet, but to each his own, right?

Sharon says he doesn't like Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

You heard right.

Bush says, I don't like Arafat.

Not after Arafat keeps bullshiting that he is a man of peace, but only days later, an intelligence report lands on Bush's desk clearly showing that Arafat has allocated more funds to the Al-Aqsa Brigades, a known terrorist organization.

Sharon says he won't talk peace. Bush says, It's not time to talk peace. And so on and so forth.

And your point is...?

Most Americans don't give a hoot about the Middle East one way or the other, just as they don't give a hoot about Asia, Africa or Latin America.

Most Americans don't even know who the Vice President is. Seriously. Go look it up.

Americans should understand, however, that as long as the U.S. government assists the Israelis in brutalizing the Palestinians, denying them the protection of international law and denying them their basic human rights, then the supply of terrorist recruits will be infinite.

Actually, I think they should learn who the Vice-President is first. Then, they can find out the truth about the Palestinian Authority and its links with terror. And the school systems brainwashing kids to become martyrs and promote death. By the way sir, are you aware that Palestinians who live peacefully among Israelis (we call those "civilized people" down here in the states) are given more of the "human rights" you bitch about, in Israel, than they do in Arab states?

Why American presidents are so willing to risk American lives, to jeopardize America's national interests, to give away American taxpayers' money by the billions in order to cater to the Israelis and their powerful American lobby will no doubt fascinate future historians.

I'm guessing it's because we prefer living to blowing ourselves up.

In the meantime, Bush is proving to be totally incompetent in the conduct of American foreign policy.

Really? How so?

His ignorance of the world at large is astounding. Apparently, he was not kidding when he joked about never reading any books. He probably demands that his staff give him one-paragraph summaries of complex issues with multiple-choice options.

Heheh, good one.

His entire policy, if you can call it that, about the Middle East seems to be dictated by the Israelis and their American agents.

In other words, those evil people who prefer living to blowing shit up.

The entire Arab world at last is willing to make peace with Israel, and Sharon and Bush are flatly turning their backs on the opportunity.

If funding terrorism and blowing up buses if "making peace", then they're doing a mighty fine job.

Sharon is doing so because he has no intention of ever making peace with the Palestinians and says so frequently.

Got any proof? Examples maybe?

Bush is doing it because he does whatever Sharon tells him to do.

Any proof?...

In doing that, Bush is sending a clear signal to the Arab world that he looks upon it with the same racist, colonialist attitude of Sharon.

Still no proof...

Arab suggestions and advice count for nothing.

And the proof for this theory is...

Bush seems to think he can always bully and/or bribe the Arab countries into going along with whatever Sharon decides to do.

This guy really doesn't like proof!

That is an extremely dangerous assumption.

Yeah, those were some really "dangerous" assumptions. But you had a plural amount of assumptions, so you should phrase your sentence like so: "These are some extremely dangerous (stupid?) assumptions."

Among the many subjects Bush never bothered to study is general semantics, and its most important lesson is that today is not yesterday.

Wow, that's deep stuff.

The Middle East in 2002 is not the Middle East in 1948. The United States in 2002 is not the United States in 1991. The age of the Western stooge is coming to an end in the Arab world. A new generation of Arab leaders is in the wings. Mr. Bush is, vis-?-vis the Middle East, like the old segregationists in the 1960s who refused to recognize that American blacks had finally said, "Enough is enough."

Exactly right. Except African Americans didn't try to blow up buses to get people's attention. They boycotted 'em. And America listened.

America's (and Israel's) military superiority rests entirely on its high-technology Air Force.

Yeah, technology is cool. You guys should try it sometime.

It is only a matter of time before the Chinese or the Russians make an air-defense breakthrough that will erase that superiority.

I would argue they already have. It's too bad they're our allies though. They don't teach much current events down there in Saudi Arabia, do they?

And once we have to go man to man, tank to tank, without domination of the sky and ground by air power, Americans will learn that we are not the superpower our politicians claim we are. The day will come when we will not be able to bomb defenseless people with impunity, and on that day, Americans will wish they had relied more on diplomacy than on force.

Umm, I believe we did. They were called the Camp David Accords. Remember those? They took place at Camp David. IN AMERICA. Remember how Arafat responded? Oh, that's right, he turned them down, proposed no counteroffer, and responded with the 2nd Intifada. So much for diplomacy.

George Washington's farewell address is the greatest statement that was ever made about what America's foreign and domestic policy should be. He warned against "passionate attachment" to another nation, which, he said, produces a variety of evils — the illusion of common interests where no real common interests exist; adopting the enmities of the other; and participation in the quarrels and wars of the other without any justification. Still another evil is that such a passionate attachment gives to "ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens the facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country."

When all else fails, quote a smart guy I guess. I think he used the wrong quote though, because it seems that George Washington would have supported Bush's tactics. We are not fighting a war for Israel, we are merely defending a democratic nation whose ideals are similar to those of our own. And we still often disagree with them, but remain true allies. I bet this guy wouldn't mind if we dropped in American UN peacekeepers into the region. You know, we probably shouldn't get involved and stuff, but that would be ok. But talking bad about Arafat. That's a no-no.

Too bad Bush isn't a reader.

Heheh, damn this guy is good.

MORE PA LIES: According to the Palestinian Authority, the baby bomber picture is a fake.

Of course, we should all know by now how trusthworthy the PA is. Like how the spirtual leader of Hamas was placed under house arrest and yet, only 6 days later, he is free to roam the streets and attend hate-filled rallies. Or how a family member has already confirmed that the photo IS real.

So why do some leftists still believe anything Yasser Arafat has to say?

Reader and fellow fraternity brother, Alan Neff, doesn't like his computer job and thinks we should return to the days of stone tablets and foot powered cars.

I have spent more time in front of silly computers fixing silly problems that
would not be a problem if we didn’t A) have stupid people operating these
things, or B) didn’t have them at all. I don’t know if that’s all good or
whatever, but who knows. We could still use stone tablets like in the comic BC.
Chisels and stone, FOOT DRIVEN CARS, yeah we’d all be in great shape, none of
this millions of obese people, except that Fred was kinda fat and he worked in a
stone quarry and had Pebbles AND DINO. Geez, that man must have eaten a lot…
wait he did.

I wholeheartedly agree. Stone tablets were awesome!

MOUSSAOUI UPDATE: Zacharias Moussaoui is mad as hell, and he's not gonna take it anymore.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?
PARENTS PLAYING DRESS UP: Once again, I won't comment. I'll just let the pictures speak for themselves.
FUN WITH FRUIT: The EU can no longer regulate the sale of, shall we say, irregular fruit. Such regulation is now "unenforceable."

Or just really stupid.
SAT CHANGES: The SAT's are going to be amended soon. Analogies are out, essays are in. My roomate, Josh Kraushaar doesn't appear to be a fan, but I think I like the policy. Essays are a good measure of intelligence in my opinion. Don't you just hate it when someone spells "you are" as "your" instead of the appropriate contraction, "you're"? Grrrr.

Thursday, June 27, 2002

UNINTENTIONAL COMEDY: I can always use a good laugh so I was happy to discover this. Charles Johnson gives a royal "Fisking" to this budding comedian...except the guy isn't aware he's telling jokes. We'll have to let him know later.

I particularly like the whole, "We're not against the Jews", but "Actually we are against the Jews because they take interests on loans" scenario.

4. We are not against the Jews as a collective. In fact throughout our history, we have given refuge and peace to the Jews. When the crusaders were killing the Jews, the Muslims provided security to the Jews. There has always been a small indigenous Jewish community in Palestine which has lived in peace with the Palestinians, Muslims and Christians.

4a. We are against the Jews because they have usurped Palestine and they take interest on loans and have built up the exploitative economic structure of economy (World Bank/IMF) built on interest-bearing loans.

They take interest on loans? Interest on loans!?! Those bastards! Kill them all!

I can't believe these people take themselves seriously...

Wednesday, June 26, 2002

PLEDGE RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL: I found this federal appeals court decision particularly interesting because it ruled on an issue that had been brought up in our "Justice, Law and the Constitution" class only months before. Under the Establishment Clause of the United States Consitution, and by way of precedent in earlier trials, the US government is not allowed to promote one religion above another. The item in dispute was the Pledge of Allegiance's reference to "under God."

I think it actually can be construed rather loosely. For instance, I believe Allah is Arabic for "God", and hence the application fits here. For polytheistic religions, "under God" does not necessarily have to refer to a singular God so the application fits here as well. However, some groups don't recognize the existence of any God, (atheists for instance), and the government must respect this ideology as well. Hence, the Pledge is in fact unconstitutional. But what will the Supreme Court say?
ARAFAT EXPOSED: Proof once again that he's nothing but a lying scumbag. Hate to say I told you so.
WHY SWEATSHOPS ARE GOOD: Here's a great op-ed piece from Nicholas Kristof from the New York Times of all places. I think the article says what needed to be said: stop trying to tell people where they should work, because the alternative for them is often nothing.

While I never considered myself to be an advocate of sweatshops, I have always been an advocate of globalization. I'm somewhat of an expert in the field through my courses in economics, and to sum up, well, it's good. So to those holier than though assholes who think they can help the world by eliminating all companies (including sweatshops), that don't pay what these "human rights" advocates deem is a "living wage", why don't you actually speak to the people you're supposedly trying to "help"?

Ahmed, who dropped out of school in the second grade, earns $2 a day hunched over the loom, laboring over a rug that will adorn some American's living room. It is a pittance, but the American campaign against sweatshops could make his life much more wretched by inadvertently encouraging mechanization that could cost him his job.

"Carpet-making is much better than farm work," Ahmed said, mulling alternatives if he loses his job as hundreds of others have over the last year. "This makes much more money and is more comfortable."

However, these human rights people don't even bother to notice these things. They're too busy patting themselves on the back for trying to help others, while failing miserably. Sure the employers are greedy. Sure the employees are payed very poorly. But when the alternative is unemployment, in countries that don't have welfare, they'll do just fine without your "support", thank you very much.

Tuesday, June 25, 2002

BUSH SPEECH: Excellent analysis of the foreign policy speech recently delivered by Bush on the Middle East conflict by Steven Den Beste. I like what I hear, and it seems like a realistic means of achieving eventual peace. Of course, it will take time, and the administration concedes that.

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit had this to add:

I think that the United States' strategy will be to let the Israelis run wild, while telling other Arab nations that this is what happens to people who take the wrong side in the terror war -- and while pointing out that the Israelis are constrained in ways that the United States is not.

In other words, the administration is saying don't fuck with U.S.

MONEY WELL SPENT: I'm sure most people won't be too happy to hear this, but I certainly am. The United States army, of all people, is releasing a new first person simulation shooter, set in "realistic" combat simulations. You can check out the above web site to get yourself a copy for free, and there are no gimmicks as far as I can tell. I'm sure there's plenty of propaganda to get you to join the army, but hey, it's a free game. Oh and get this, it only cost 7 million dollars to make.

So this is where our tax dollars are going...

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?: Sorry for the limited posting lately, but I've been real busy this past week and will continue to be. I'm now working a full time 9 to 5 job at an auditing firm and I've joined a gym, where I'm working out regularly. But I'll try to keep posting as much as I can. Enjoy.

Monday, June 24, 2002

PROOF THAT ALCOHOL KILLS BRAIN CELLS: So my esteemed college roomate, Josh Kraushaar and his good friend, Eugene, saw Minority Report as well the other day. And well, take a look.

Bordick790: so i saw minority report
RunJohnny5: and....
Bordick790: very very good
RunJohnny5: did you "get it"?
Bordick790: it left some room open for thought -- whether the "pre-crime" unit was infallible
Bordick790: eugene hated it
RunJohnny5: hated it?
Bordick790: eugene was such an idiot, he fell asleep at the beginning
Bordick790: and then he kept on saying "this sucks"
Bordick790: he had drunk like 6-7 beers
Bordick790: before we saw the movie, so that might explain it
RunJohnny5: lol, like 6-7 ?
Bordick790: yeah we went to this UVA barbeque
Bordick790: and eugene drank like 90% of the beer there
Bordick790: no one else drank
RunJohnny5: yeah
RunJohnny5: that'll do it

Note to self: Don't see complicated movies after getting plastered.

Sunday, June 23, 2002

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG: I don't like to use images of dead or impoverished children as propaganda or to prove a point as some groups tend to do. (cough "human rights" groups cough). I even wrote an article to my school's newspaper denouncing such acts.

With that said, the following image depicts neither of the above said tragedies. Nevertheless, I will simply link the image and let the comments speak for themselves and let the readers believe whatever they want to.

I know what side I'm on though.

I caught Steven Spielberg's masterpiece, Minority Report last night and can safely say that it was easily the best plot in any movie I have ever seen. (And yes, I have seen the Matrix.) But don't take my word for it. Here's a bunch of reviews, and almost all of them are very favorable. Roger Ebert went as far as to claim it "justified" his life choice to become a movie critic.

I was a little worried about Spielberg after seeing the abysmal A.I., but he really pulls no punches here, and delivers an amazing story. I've heard conflicting reports on who actually wrote the script. Anyone care to comment on who did? The comments section isn't seeing use right now so I might have to drop it until school starts. But feel free to leave any comments until that happens.