Pass the Popcorn

Two movies: one critically acclaimed, one highly regarded by my friends. I had high expectations for both Million Dollar Baby and The Exorcism of Emily Rose. And after one long day of sitting on my butt, chugging Pepsi and staring at my beautiful laptop's beautiful screen, I have something to say...


.....................................blah.....................................

Million Dollar Baby
This movie had some huge potential; Clint Eastwood was, of course, his usual badass self, and Morgan Freeman is one of my favorite actors. And 3/4 of the movie lived up to my expectations. But the final 30 minutes made me feel like I'd OD'd on Nyquil. Not to spoil the movie or ruin either for you, but as big a fan of breaking stereotypes as I am, the way the movie ended, although shocking, really pissed me off. It really felt like I was watching two different movies, in fact. First, there was this great boxing show, an inspiring tale of a young lady trying to overcome her upbringing and achieve her dreams. The second was a slower story involving a father-daughter type relationship, and the absolute tradegy they have to overcome. Sounds all nice and shiny on paper, but the two combine about as well as oil and water. They don't even try; the movie is basically broken down into half-hour segments; one part boxing, one part mushy. One part boxing, one part mushy. It was like a bad relationship; I really tried to make it work, but in the end it just didn't work.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose
Another movie I had great expectations for; a bunch of my friends said it was very good, and I LOVE LOVE LOVE horror movies. Unfortunately, this reminded me too much of Gothica, another movie I thought would be great. But it turns out the previews were misleading for that one as well. And although the concept was even better in-movie than the preview led me to believe, the horror elements just didn't deliver, and it turned into a bunch of contradictory flashbacks with another less-than-satisfying ending. Call me picky, I just didn't really feel compelled by the plot; it seemed kinda bland. I almost felt like, "Oh, another exorcism movie" but without any of the scary elements. Actually, every scary scene in the movie was shown in the previews, so there wasn't really any suprise to it.

All in all, both movies were solid, and worth the $3 to rent, I'm just glad I didn't purchase them; there are far better movies out there to spend your hard-earned cash on. If you want a good horror movie, go buy House on Haunted Hill or the Sixth Sense; those are probably the two best I've ever seen. And as for dramas...well, I really don't know; I don't really watch them unless they are too highly hyped to pass up. Which is how I felt about both of those; hyped just a little to far, and not living up to those expectations. Disappointing, to be sure. Sorry to burst your bubbles.

Christmas has come early

At least as far as the constitution is concerned. In yet another brilliant decision made over the past week, U.S. District Judge John Jones has ruled against Intelligent Design being taught in the classroom, saying it violated the seperation of church and state.
A few thoughts. For starters, the Judge in this case analyzed the entire situation perfectly; as he said,"
To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions"
Correct. To teach an untestable, religiously-based idea in a science class misrepresents the entire meaning of the word "science". The Judge not only saw the constitutional illegality of the matter, but also the motives behind it, and for that I applaude him. Very impressive indead.

Oh, and DICK Chaney is an idiot. As is administration stooge Attorney General Gonzales. His justification for illegally wiretapping domestic phonecalls and bypassing our system of checks and balances?
"We also believe that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following the attacks of September 11, constituted additional authorization for the president to engage in this kind of signal intelligence."

The authorization to use force in the wake of 9/11 was passed to allow the military to invade Afghanistan, which was believed to be harboring the al-quida terrorists. It was NOT passed to allow the president to violate our civil rights. Anyone who thinks that the authorization of the use of force includes spying on american citizens is an idiot. Just think about it..."The use of Force", not "The use of espionage on american citizens". It's just ridiculous to believe that congress allowing the president to attack Afghanistan also allowed him to spy on ordinary citizens. And as Dick Cheney has said;
"If we had been able to do that before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two of the hijackers who were in San Diego in touch overseas with al Qaeda," Cheney said during a tour of earthquake damage in Pakistan."It's good, solid, sound policy," the vice president added. "It's the right thing to do."
I'm sorry, all I heard was, "Violating your civil rights MIGHT have let us intercept a few of the terrorists". Sacraficing our rights as Americans is NOT, NOT, NOT solid, sound policy, it is the sign of a power-hungry, arrogant administration attempting to corrode the only thing that prevents us from being slaves to our own government.
President Clinton was impeached for recieving oral sex and lying about it. Now, we have proof that a president violated our constitutional rights with no legal backing; and I can almost guaruntee that he will NOT be indicted, because both the Senate and the House are controlled by his party. It's amazing how much worse bush's trespass was, yet he will avoid prosecution because of partisan politics. There are a few republican senators I have been impressed with for their impartiality, but for the most part it seems like most senators in general are just tools for their party. Depressing.

Here's a Thought... If president bush is found to have violated the constitution in allowing unsupervised wiretaps, he must be impreached. I realize it is a severe punishment, but if stripping the people of america of their rights does not warrant it, then nothing does, and we ALL might as well head out to our new cotton fields.

I see London, I see France...I'm also wiretapping your phone

One other piece of political news has really caught fire as of late. The New York Times finally printed an article detailing the fact that the president has, for the last 4 years, been authorizing a secret program that allows the NSA to wiretap domestic phonecalls without being subject to judicial or legislative review. Before I tear the administration a new one for their latest violation of due process AND the Constitution, I'd like to say something about the NYT; DO YOUR FREAKIN JOBS! You had this information in your posession for A WHOLE YEAR and didn't print it? I realize the president told you that it would jeopordize national security. But ya know what? That isn't your concern, it is his. YOUR JOB is to inform the masses on the actions of the government. The president has not shown a strong ability to make good decisions about anything, yet you held this story for a whole year based on his opinion? Absolutely absurd. As if it were'nt obvious that he has a conflict of interest in having you hold this story, I'm sure a reasonable person could realize that this nation cannot be safe if its people are not free from oppression from their own government, which is exactly what allowing the executive branch to breach the Bill of Rights is creating. And your silent acceptance is just further evidence that our system of government MUST be held in check, because the leaders of this nation already have too much power in their hands. The people of the United States have to hold their leaders accountable for their actions, and we can only do that if we have all the information. NYT withholding this information borders on reckless endangerment of the Constitution.

The other thing I wanted to say was congradulations to Congress. After what seems like forever, you have finally located your balls and re-attatched them. Although there are still some puppets of teh executive branch hiding in your hallowed halls, it seems that the House and the Senate are finally going to hold the president accountable for his actions. Only a day after this scandal broke, both parties have called for investigations into the illegal wiretaps. Here's a few quotes from a Yahoo.com article that demonstrate some reactions to this information:
"The president has, I think, made up a law that we never passed," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.
"They talk about constitutional authority," Arlen Specter, R-Penn said. "There are limits as to what the president can do."
"The president can't pass the buck on this one. This is his program," Harry Reid, D-Nevada said on "Fox News Sunday." "He's commander in chief. But commander in chief does not trump the Bill of Rights."
"If Bush is allowed to decide unilaterally who the potential terrorists are, he in essense becomes the court, "Graham said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

In case it isnt clear, president bush has been secretly authorizing wiretaps on domestic communications. Normally, the NSA is only allowed to place wiretaps on international phonecalls, to prevent terrorists from communicating within our borders. However, using wiretaps on domestic calls is a very tricky process, since clear evidence has to be given pertaining to a threat to our security as a nation to allow the NSA to bypass the Constitution, which is does by monitoring domestic calls with no actual evidence of wrongdoing. As CNN says;

While the NSA is barred from domestic spying, it can get warrants issued with the permission of a special judicial body called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court. Bush's action eliminated the need to get a warrant from the court.

Asked why the president authorized skipping the FISA court, Rice said the war on terrorism was a "different type of war" that gives the commander in chief "additional authorities."

OMG, that part is so infuriatingly stupid, where do I begin? How about here; assuming you accept the premise that we are at war, which I don't, who's idea was it that the president gets additional powers? Who decides what that additional authority is? Apparently, the current administration has decided that they get to just make new law whenever it suits them in the name of an ideological war. Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice's statement is absolutely stupid; Please, Condy, show us the clause in the Constitution that says, "During UNDECLARED wars against a faceless enemy, the president may bypass federal law and the Bill of Rights without being subject to any of the checks and balances previously outlined. Oh, and he can also threaten and intimidate the press into not publishing stories of said new powers, because that would jeopordize the new dictatorship that will inevitably form from his new collection of powers." Can't find it? Wierd. Probably because no such clause exists. The current administration is just making all this up as they go, breaking the law and violating our rights, and then attempting to justify it when they get busted. It is proposterous to believe that the president can just bypass our current legal system and 250 years of judicial and legislative president because he started a war he can't finish. Call me a "Defeatist", I don't care; attacking those who question your judgement and authority only serves to belittle you in the eyes of those you were elected to serve.
Two more points I'd like to make. The first is the president's justification for ignoring the process already in place that would allow the NSA to tap domestic phone lines; he is apparently under the impression that there WAS no such process, since he believes going behind the back of Congress was the only way to accomplish this goal. "He said the authorizations have made it 'more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time, and the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.'" We already has this abilitym it was just the incompetence of those in office at the time that prevented us from intercepting those communications, not the process itself. The checks and balances are there to protect the freedoms of the American people, and regardless of how careful the president claims he has been in authorizing these illegal wiretaps, he has sacraficed OUR RIGHTS every time he signs one. And in the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve NEITHER freedom nor security."
Thing is, regardless of whether he claims the Attorney General assured him it was legal and consitutional to do so, he realized that what he did was wrong; otherwise, he would have acknowledged his activities when he was first asked about them, not sent his stupid mouthpiece out to neither confirm nor deny it. If he knew he was within his rights as the president to do so, he would have proudly said so from the start. Instead, he and his lackies dodged the question untill they came up with a good rationalization for violating our rights...again*cough*Patriot Act*cough*.
Speaking fo the Patriot Act, I may die of shock if it gets renewed in light of these new events. Obviously the president has no qualms about abusing powers he has, and making up new ones as he goes. The Senators have now seen this and, regardless of political affiliation, will not allow him the opportunity to do so again by giving him such broad-ranging authority that the Patriot Act granted before. It is a great day for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the citizens of the United States; In times when our system of democracy works, and the branches of government work indipendent of each other and maintain a balance of power, representation and protection of the American people is attainable, and the american dream can truly be realized.

Oh, and Here's a Thought... About 2-3 weeks ago, I detailed how nominating Harriet Miers was just a brilliant ploy to get a radical conservative judge onto the Supreme Court. Then a few days ago, The Colbert Report on Comedy Central basically rips off my analysis word-for-word. And you know what?
I'm glad. At least someone is talking about it, and realizing that the entire nomination was just a stunt. Just glad to do my part, and I hope I continue to be helpful and informative for all the people in this country that want to make it a better place for them and their families.

You're rubber, I'm glue....wait, switch that

El Presidente made a speech pertaining to the occupation of Iraq today, and it has been very interesting to note the change in his vocabulary regarding it over the past year. Since we have arrived there, he's been preaching this constant line of "Mission Accomplished!" and "Victory this, victory that". Now, however, some of the blood he's so willingly spilled is perhaps showing on his hands, and a more somber president has arrived. Well, at least a more somber political strategy.
What irritates me the most about the president, I think, is that his whole mantra seems to be "Right or wrong, whether you agree with me or not, it is my decision to make and I stand by it." Last time i checked, "stubborn" wasn't on the list of the seven virtues. Making a bad, poorly-informed decision and backing it with even worse actions IS NOT the sign of a good leader. Yes, some politicians change their mind a lot, but most of the time it is because they want to make a good decision based on the best information. "Staying the course" is only a good thing when the decision was a sound one.
One more thing. I HATE that most politicians have speech writers. Seriously, can they not speak their own minds? We know that the president is a terrible public speaker, but come on, own it; you don't get better by having someone else do the hard part for you. Especially when they throw in souch catchy little soundbites such as this that then flow from the prez's mouth.

"Defeatism may have its partisan uses," he said, "but it is not justified by the facts."

It's catchy all right, but what does that even mean? If his writer is trying to say, "Yes, leaving Iraq now would save lives, but could we count that as a victory?" then I would respond with a simple, "Yes it would." We catpured their tyrranical leader, the people of Iraq have held democratic elections with excellent turnouts multiple times, and the infastructure to support a growing nation is now being built; how is that not victory? Well, according to Bush, if we left now we would be "handing the country over to our enemies." That is just a huge pile of BS that everyone just accepts as fact, and it's ridiculous. We would be handing the country over to its democratically elected congress. Last time i checked, the terrorists were NOT a well-organized army that could re-conquer Iraq. The only reason they even make their attacks is because WE ARE STILL OCCUPYING THEM! Remeber when they bombed the hotel a few months back, and apologized for killing innocent Iraquis? They don't want to kill civilians, they want to hurt us. If we withdrew, they would leave the Iraquis alone. This is where Bush's "We are fighting them abroad so we don't have to fight them at home" rhetoric comes into play, his fallback. I say, fighting our enemies in a foreign nation so we don't have to fight them here is completely irresponsible on our part. IF the only reason we are staying in Iraq is to avoid having our enemies attack us here, then we are endangering innocent Iraquis to save ourselves. That isn't noble OR heroic. It's cowardly and manipulative, which ARE the attributes our president has displayed throughout his life. I think a little quote from Shadow of the Hegemon sums up most of our current politicians.
"Your country is led by men without honor. And yet they are sustained in power by men of honor like you. Who, then betrays his country?" I keep that in mind everytime I hear the current administration or the GOP taking shots at anyone who questions their actions, or encourages alternate lines of thought. Or, as President and author of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson said "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Disagreeing with whoever is in charge shows interest in the system and the welfair or your fellow countrymen, and questioning every decision of anyone in power encourages debate and defense of those thoughts and actions, instead of blind acceptance. THAT is true patriotism, despite the "mindless sheep who should just agree with everything we say," definition the current party in power would like to impose on us.

The USA Today

Lots of fun stuff going on today. But first, I'd like to do a little victory dance over something that happened in the Senate...

THE PATRIOT ACT CAN SUCK IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know, I DO feel better after that. The Patriot act, which gave the government the ability to bypass the checks and balances used to protect the Bill of Rights, was voted down 52-47 today. It officially expires Dec. 31, so the GOP/executive branch have about 2 weeks to try to muster up the support and votes they need to renew this atrocity.

Problem is, with all the fuss about civil rights and shady, black-ops stuff the executive branch has authorized and been exposed for the last few months, they may find it impossible to do so without even larger backlash.

President Bush stood down on his opposition to the McCain ammendment to ban torture. I love what a tool Attorney General Gonzales is; after attacking the ammendment for months, wanting to see it demolished, he is now behind it, saying(and i paraphrase," We only wanted to make sure that it didn't limit our ability to attain information. Torture is bad." Torture is bad, period, smart guy. Even if you get information from it, it doesnt change the fact that it is unconstitutional. And the information isn't reliable either, as we now know from the invasion of Iraq based on "intelligence" tortured out of a detainee. WMDs, anyone? Didn't think so.

In news of leaders from OTHER nations saying really stupid things, the president of Iran said this a few days ago;

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets," Ahmadinejad said in the speech to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan, according to a report from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.

"The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets," he said. "(It) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet."

The myth of the Holocaust? Apparently Iran's definition of myth is "anything that is backed by photo evidence, as well as testimony from thousands of victims and assailants alike, anything accepted as fact by the majority of sane, reasonable people in the world". Just amazing. And then this idiot has the nerve to say he was misunderstood, and that he didnt mean to bring up this issue, Of course he wanted to bring it up, he was just hoping it wouldn't pull up this kind of negative publicity. I'd like to commend the European Union in their firm and swift stance they've taken, even talking about imposing sanctions on Iran. My favorite part of the speach however, was when this moron called for Isreal to be "wiped off the map." Throughout its history, Isreal has proven itself to be the most formidable army, man for man, since the ancient Spartans; That is one country I would NOT want to piss off if I were already being sanctioned by the USA, being threatened with sanctions by all of Europe, and have no realy allies to speak of. Isreal could do the entire world a favor in wiping Iran off the map; their government is one of the most oppressive in the world, a century behind the US in civil rights, and the real ruler wasn't voted into office in the first place. They obviously bear great animosity towards Isreal, and having offended most of the free world, an invasion of Iran could be justified very easily. And if you recall, there was a lot of speculation as to whether the USA would invade Iran after we finished up with Iraq, and with the America being the closest ally of Israel, Iran would be facing off against the most powerful military force since WW2.

Here's a Thought...Don't piss off countries with military forces far superior to yours, especially when their biggest ally is the greatest nation in the history of the world. Also, calling the Holocaust a myth isnt a very good way to gain position in the bilateral nuclear weapons talks currently being conducted by yourself and the people you offended by saying 6 million of their family members were not, in fact, incinerated, gassed, and tortured in such fashion as to make Saddam look like a humanitarian.

(Insert lawyer joke here)

I don't know if I've mentioned this, but I will be an attorney someday. So lately I've been reading articles on a bunch of law sites, doing research and starting to aclimate myself to the situation as early as possible. I stumbled across an article on law.com about how 99% of Law school professors are liberals, and why someone thinks that is bad, and I'd like to provide my own insight.

Article here

The article is moderately long, so I'll keep my response short. Basically, the author says that having so many liberal law school professors is a bad thing, since they are only passing on one point of view: a liberal one. Conservative professors are highly outnumbered, and this is a bad thing since only one set of views is being presented.

Let's take a look at the definitions of liberal and conservative, shall we?

Liberal:

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Conservative:

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.

So the author believes that there should be less professors who are open to new ideas or tolerant of other's ideas, and more who oppose change and are restrained in style. The problem is, the law is a living thing; it is constanly changing, evolving, and being re-interpreted by various courts. Also, one of the best attributes for an attorney is the ability to interpret and adapt laws from one area and stretch them into whatever new case they are working on. These 2 abilities naturally lend themselves to a liberal point of view, since liberals have no qualms with looking at a set of facts and changing their view. A conservative, by definition, would be opposed to such change and wouldn't adapt themselves to the ever-changing law environment. So hiring more conservative minded professors wouldn't give students more points of view, it would give them less, and theoretically worsen their preperation for the future.

Sleight of Mind

Ehem...

Fifty-eight percent of those polled said Bush doesn't have a clear plan on Iraq, compared to 38 percent who said they believe Bush does have a plan for victory.

At the same time, the poll found that 63 percent of the respondents believe Iraqis have made real progress toward establishing a democratic state over the past two years. Thirty-four percent said they don't believe Iraq has made real democratic strides.

Just some interesting information from CNN.com Every time I read stories like this, and all those irritating "Mission Accomplished" banners, i begin to feel ill. Can we please just keep in mind that our reason for invading Iraq wasn't to create a democracy, nor to overthrow a dictator; we went there to find weapons of mass destruction. Did we find any? Well then,

MISSION FAILED!

Here's a Thought... We didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, and the intelligence was bad to begin with. Personally, I don't think accomplishing an alternative goal you set after you couldn't accomplish your primary one makes up for your first failure. Yes, overthrowing a genocidal dictator is good, and yes, giving the people of Iraq democracy is nice, but keep in mind that wasn't what we went there for in the first place. Also, was the price we payed in blood worth it? Think about it.

This is a day that will forever live in Infamy

So over the past few weeks, there has been a lot going on in DC as far as the invasion of Iraq and Senator McCains No Torture amendments. But first;

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday he expects some 20,000 U.S. troops to return home from Iraq after next week's elections, and he suggested that some of the remaining 137,000 forces could pull out next year. If conditions permit, we could go below that," he said in the latest administration hint of at least a modest reduction next year

Now at first glance this may seem like good news. Untill you look a little deeper, that is. You see, i didn't read the word "Will" anywhere in the statements, only the circumstancial, "expects" and "could". So we could pull 20,000 troops out of Iraq next week; we could also send 20,000 more in. There were no promises made, and untill we actually SEE our troops coming back home and staying here, I'm going to remain skeptical, especially of an administration that hasn't really met any of its goals this year.

Speaking of promises, Condy Rice made one today.
"Will there be abuses of policy? That's entirely possible," Rice said at a NATO news conference. "Just because you're a democracy it doesn't mean that you're perfect."
"That is the only promise we can make,"
She said we aren't perfect, and that's newsworthy? Pointing out that this administration isn't perfect IS NOT a promise, it's pointing out the obvious. Maybe if we set our goals correctly and said," We will make sure our military will never torture another detainee again," and actually enforced it, it wouldn't happen. I've been called an Idealist on numerous occasions, and you know what? I absolutely am. I believe that if something is wrong you should fix it, period, and that includes the torture of defenseless prisoners. I don't believe in compromise when it comes to cruel treatment of human beings; the old Christian saying "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is one I truly try to live by, and since i wouldn't like to be stripped, have objects shoved up my butt, and have photos taken of it all, how could I ever condone it for use on another person? Since the president seems to think that torture is okay in some situations, perhaps he should try it sometime. Then, perhaps, he wouldn't have such disdain for the well-being of others. Also, I love the double-talk we are being presented; on one hand, we are told "We dont condone torture, and we don't believe in it," and on the other hand the president and the tools around him(known as his cabinet) oppose an anti-torture ammendment. "We need to keep our options open." WHICH IS IT!!!!!!
Either torture is immoral and unconstitutional, and we should do everything in our power to prevent it, or we use it and invite retalliation in kind when terrorists abduct our reporters and troops. Presidential Candidate Santos on the West Wing said," We are fighting terrorists with terror...so what does that make us?" and he was absolutely correct. When we start using torture, even keeping it open as an option, we become the very thing we have sworn to fight, and lose whatever moral high-ground we once stood on. A little fact I've thought about recently that ties into my "Do unto others" mantra is that the Constitution declares that all men are created equal. Not just all Americans, ALL MEN(men being a universal pronoun). If we can universally agree that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the self-evident rights of all people, then why should we just ignore them when dealing with foreigners? Last I checked, cruel and unusual punishment was still banned under the constitution, as well as the right to a fair and speedy trial, yet we only hold ourselves to these standards when dealing with other Americans. It makes no sense; if we are to believe that all men are created equal, and that the rights provided for are self-evident, then we should hold ourselves to the same standard, under the Bill of Rights, when dealing with a foreigner that we do when dealing with an American. Do we allow the torture of Americans? Do we allow them to be shipped off around the world to secret "Black site" prisons? The purpose of the Bill of Rights should not only be to protect the people, but also as a standard as to how we should treat the rest of the world.
In other news, I've decided most celebrities should be forced to wear muzzles unless they are actually acting in their crappy movies or singing their crappy songs. This is a quote from Gwyneth Paltrow
American actress Gwyneth Paltrow has praised Londoners for their resilience after the British capital's transport network was attacked by suicide bombers on 7 July (05).

The Shakespeare in Love beauty, who lives in London with her rock star husband Chris Martin and daughter Apple, admits she is amazed by the locals' courage in the face of adversity.

She says, "I find the English amazing how they got over 7/7. There were no multiple memorials with people sobbing as they would have been in America. There, they are constantly scaring people but at the same time, people think nothing of going to see a therapist."

Who does she think she is? Apparently, an educated woman, considering you can't compare the two actions, or the circumstances surrounding them. For starters, 9/11 was the first attack of it's kind, and the devastation and recording of it were both unique. Subway attack? Tokyo ring a bell? Hardly the first of its kind. Also, Britain is used to losing fights; hell, we stopped keeping track of how many times we trashed them(at least 3). We Americans, on the other hand, have never, EVER lost a war; we simply weren't used to this kind of loss. Losing 3000 people and a cultural landmark to an absolutely unique form of attack and instilling the fear of flying into otherwise sane people is slightly different than what happened in London. No disrespect, the London attack was terrible as well, but nothing on the scale of 9/11. Why don't we just compare it to Pearl Harbor. I'm sure Gwyenth would have said FDR was just over-reacting and needed to grow a pair when he gave his amazing speech afterwards. Celebrities just shouldn't be allowed to speek; most aren't college educated, and have spent so much time being the center of attention in their little society of egomaniacal money-whores that they actually think they can produce an intelligent opinion on something. Don't EVER compare anything to 9/11, and if you don't like how we mourned the biggest tragedy in America in 60 years, GET THE FUCK OUT! We don't need you, we won't miss you, adios.

Here's a Thought...It's finals week, so I'm saving them for tests. Sorry, go do some thinking for yourselves. Trust me, it's good for you and doesn't cost a thing. Unless, or course, you're an idiot celebrity, in which case it's only your reputation and dignity you should forfeit when you open your mouth.

Pride and Preoccupation

I'm ready to say it. All this time, we've assumed that, based on his public speaking skills(of lack there-of), and complete inability to plan for the future, that the president was an idiot. No exit plan for Iraq, a non-existant solution to social security, and then the attempted appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court were all just reinforcement of our presumptions, right?

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's a show I loved for the one season it was on called "Jack and Bobby". The premise of this show revolved around two brothers, one of which becomes president in the future. Each episode is based around an issue that "President" Bobby had to deal with, and how he learned to deal with it when he was younger. Now in one of these episodes, Bobby nominates a golfing buddy of his for an opening in the Supreme Court. However, the opposing party to his jumps on this and eventually gets his nominee to resign, since he had no real qualifications other than being the president's friend.

Do you see a connection here?

Of course, this was all part of a brilliant political strategy by Bobby and his party to get their REAL candidate elected. See, if he'd have been nominated first, the opposition would have ruthlessly gone after him. But by nominating someone else first, someone obviously not qualified, and getting them removed, it paved the way for his REAL nominee. And the opposition couldn’t be nearly as strong against the second nominee, because it would look like he was being opposed simply because he had different views, since, like Samuel Alito, he was more than qualified. The only possible reason the opposition could muster to fight the nominee would be one that would be seen as weak, argumentative, and politically motivated. That is exactly what has happened here. Whether it was bush(nearly impossible), Cheney(likely), or the evil puppeteer Rove, someone made a brilliant maneuver to get an extremely conservative judicial candidate moved to the front of the line and past the majority of opposition that could have been used against him because now it would seem like interparty bickering to oppose a qualified candidate. The primary reason that Miers was forced to resign was because she wasn’t qualified, but in scoring this victory, the Democratic party made the entire nomination process focus on whether or not a candidate was qualified. Alito clearly is qualified, and is the perfect candidate to be nominated by bush and his uber-conservative party(and i dont mean the Republicans). By nominating Miers first and shining a spotlight on her most obvious flaw, her lack of experience, the entire nomination and confirmation process is now focused on whether of not the candidate is experienced and qualified for the job, not that persons personal views. Alito is, and Harriet Miers was the martyr they sacrificed to change the focus from his radical right-wing views to his qualifications as being the primary reason he should get the job. The problem with pulling a brilliant strategic maneuver like this is that it can only be used once; after that, everyone should wise up and it won't work again. Using it to get their perfect candidate nominated to the Supreme Court where he can begin to institute his well-documented plan to obliterate Roe v Wade from the legal landscape is probably the best use they could have found for it though, so congratulations to the neo-conservative party.

Of course, with half of their party either indicted on felony charges or already on the way to prison, the party won't possibly last long enough to do permanent damage to this beautiful experiment of ours.

So Here's a Thought... We all got played. Period. Sorry, but I can't come up with anything witty or sarcastic to say about it, since this is awfully embarrassing. There's a lot we can learn here though. Me personally, I've learned to never underestimate a person, because you can never really, truly know them. And if you can never actually know someone else, you can't know their true potential. The people who are the very least likely could very well surprise you. Einstein failed high-school math and Michael Jordan got cut from his high-school basketball team, after all.