Saturday, December 02, 2006

Moving

Just days after declaring I would revamp this site, I've decided to make the switch to blogger Beta and start a new site on a clean slate. I can't promise it'll be anything like this one :) Find me at Slydexic Fingers.

Posted by Anonymous at 1:20 AM : (0) comments

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Sherem: Non-Lehite?

I thought I'd write bout this, since I think I have things to say that haven't been noted by others.

A recent attack on the validity of the Book of Mormon is the argument that the DNA of Native Americans does not reflect Jewish populations, but looks more like Asian stock. There's a bundle of objections that could be raised to that argument, but I'm gonna focus on one. That is, that the Nephites and Lamanites were not alone in the Americas.

The earliest evidence for this theory is the story of Sherem, the first anti-Christ to come into view in the narrative. His story is at the end of the Book of Jacob.

Jacob 7
1 And now it came to pass after some years had passed away, there came a man among the people of Nephi, whose name was Sherem.
...
6 And it came to pass that he came unto me, and on this wise did he speak unto me, saying: Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you; for I have heard and also know that thou goest about much, preaching that which ye call the gospel, or the doctrine of Christ.

A man came among the people of Nephi. He was not a Nephite. He didn't grow up with them, he came later. He seeks an audience with Jacob and talks to him as a stranger, meeting for the first time. Not possible in a tiny community representing at most 5 generations descended from two families.
So he's not a Nephite. Is he a Lamanite though? The text doesn't say so, which seems odd. But there is this, his next line to Jacob:

7 And ye have led away much of this people that they pervert the right way of God, and akeep not the law of Moses which is the right way; and convert the law of Moses into the worship of a being which ye say shall come many hundred years hence.
...
10 And I said unto him: Believest thou the scriptures? And he said, Yea.

Why would a non-Lehite speak of the Law of Moses? Why does he believe the scriptures? Here's the weakest point in the argument that Sherem was an "other." There's evidence elsewhere (for example during Jacob's beratement of the Nephites for being worse than the Lamanites in their treatment of women) that the Lamanites continued for some time to live the Law of Moses - that Laman and Lemuel were learned and practitioners of the Jewish faith, and that these practices were passed on.

So how can that be explained in a theory of others besides the Lehites? The answer is that when the Lehites arrived, they integrated themselves into existing communities and thaught them their religion (it helps explain the growth rate, that a "People" that could sustain a King can exist so soon). The Law of Moses spread through the local area as the true faith - but a split developed between the high priests of the new faith: Nephi and Jacob on one side, and Laman and Lemuel on the other. In this theory Sherem is a missionary with the zeal of the convert come to save the heretical Nephites.

Other phrases used are consistent with (but don't prove) this theory. Sherem "was learned, that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people." (v. 4) Maybe this means Jacob wasn't quite so learned or perfect in the language? How does someone in a community of no more than a few hundred (maximum with the Lehites alone theory) become "learned," or gain such a great distinction as perfect knowledge of the language? You don't - you adopt the speech forms of your community.

The alternative is there were cities or centers of learning already in existence, where Sherem could go to learn big words and flattering speech. That Jacob hadn't had that opportunity, but had gained sway simply through the power of the Spirit.

So anyways those are my thoguhts. Most accounts I see of it don't mention Sherem's apparant belief in the Law of Moses, so I figure that's my contribution.

As a final note, some of this pattern is repeated later in the case of the Zoramites. Alma, who had been Chief Judge, is suprised at the practices of the Zoramites when he goes on his mission there. It seems Zarahemla never had an especially tight hold on the Zoramites. When Alma speaks of why they should go on a mission there he says "and many of them are our brethren." Many means not all. Were they a Nephite/Lamanite mix? Possible. But very frequently elsewhere in Alma and the Book of Mormon the Lamanites are described with the term brethren, and why not here? "They are all our brothers!" seems more persuasive than "many of them are our brethren." But again the Zoramites have a religion derived from the Lehite faith - they mention not being decieved by their parents religious deviations (meaning the teachings of Christ), again mirroring Sherem's quest.

EDIT: Recently reread that section, and the Zoramites were included with the Nephites previously and dissented, and their apostasy came after their separation. I was also incorrect on when Alma said what he did. It was actually part of his prayer after his missionary force arrived. But that end makes it stronger - when speaking about the Lamanites in a religious context in particular they're always refered to as brethren. For example, on their way to their mission among the Lamanites, the sons of Mosiah prayed to the Lord for assistance, and He responded: "Go forth among the Lamanites, thy brethren, and establish my word" (Alma 17:11).

Final final word. If Lehi's party arrived in the Americas and found an existing civilization that they integrated themselves with and spread their religion in, even if Lehi found his way into the family trees of every inhabitant of the Western Hemisphere (also possible) it wouldn't even be a blip in their genetic code.

Posted by Anonymous at 11:10 PM : (2) comments

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Trying again.

I think I may actually have some more stuff to say as I sort out my life. First things first though - I've decided I dislike my current color scheme. Look for major site design improvements.

Posted by Anonymous at 10:16 AM : (0) comments

Friday, March 24, 2006

Have I mentioned?

Homestar Runner is the best thing on the internet?

Posted by Anonymous at 11:15 PM : (0) comments

Romney maybe not so hot

I was really warming up to a Romney campaign, especially with his great showing at the SRLC, but this site has thrown some water on that. We've of course heard that Romney's been soft on social issues. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he was simply spinning his actually conservative thoughts for Massachusetts, acceptable since as governor of a state he couldn't really do anything about abortion anyway with Roe in the way. But when we look at the ontheissues profile, we see several tidbits. The ones from his 1994 campaign against Ted Kennedy are more often the more egregious.

Abortion-

* Endorsed legalization of RU-486. (Mar 2002)
* Personally against abortion, but pro-choice as governor. (Mar 2002)
* For safe, legal abortion since relative's death from illegal. (Oct 1994)

I do of course feel sympathy regarding his relative's death. I have never had a close relative die, so I don't know how it feels. However, I've always thought the "safe and legal" line of reasoning was flawed. You don't permit people to do a bad thing just because they're going to do it anyway and you should make sure they don't die doing it - you instead convince them not to do it. Encourage adoption, etc. RU-486 is pretty bad too - no better way to encourage abortion on demand than to reduce it to a pill.

Moving on, we see good stuff about the budget, and then...

"Civil Rights" -

* Every child deserves a mother and a father. (Sep 2004)
* Supports benefits for gay partners, but not gay marriage. (Sep 2002)
* Sexual orientation should not preclude being a Scout. (Oct 1994)

First one is part of his stump speech, seen by pundits as what got him his good showing at SRLC. Second one came about after the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, amounted to damage control, was ok. Last one, from the '94 campaign, not so good. The Church would withdraw its support from Boy Scouts if they reneged on that policy.

Proceeding, more solid stuff on crime and education, I don't mind responsible environmentalism so that's ok, line-item veto, good good OH WAIT A SECOND!

Gun Control -

* Will support assault weapons bill and Brady Bill. (Aug 1994)

That's not good at all. The "assault" weapons "ban" was a poorly concieved, bad implementation of a stupid position. This was '94, when it was being debated. If the bill hadn't been so awful, maybe I would give Romney a pass (he was, after all, running against Ted), but it really was awful and its a good thing it's dead.

The rest however, is clear of wrong. But these 3 things cast doubt on my previous assesment he was meerly conceeding lost causes in Massachussetts. Will have to keep watching.

Posted by Anonymous at 5:49 PM : (1) comments

Monday, March 20, 2006

Tucker

I thought I liked Tucker Carlson. Now I've decided he's far too libertarian... plus when he wasted 10 minutes of airtime watching a stripper.... nah, that's no good man. You're smart, smooth, and manage to cut through the party line, but the hit-you-in-the-face libertarianism is too much.

Earlier in the show he argued trading $1 a month rent in a high-rise condo for sex wasn't bad. He did make the point well that advocates of pushing gay marriage through the courts can't make a legal or logical argument that doesn't also apply equally to polygamy though.

Posted by Anonymous at 9:31 PM : (1) comments

Friday, March 17, 2006

Spring Break

Spent the first part of the break in DC with some friends who came from Washington to "lobby" (read: use student funds and spend a few hours chatting up congressional staffers as cover to spend 4 days in the capital of the most powerful county on earth). That was fun, but I spent more time there than intented, and have wasted a lot of time on this end of the week just playing games and cruising the net. Oh well.

Posted by Anonymous at 11:42 AM : (0) comments

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Romney pulls suprise 2nd place at SLRC

Score. Romney now officially has some play in the South after coming in second (14%) to Frist (the home state favorite who got 48%). If you add the write-ins for Bush (10%) to the actual McCain votes, McCain did slightly pass Romney, but still a suprising showing for Romeny who normally doesn't do very well in these polls. Now there will be curiosity about him and he can build some name recognition. I also decided I like him better than McCain... if for no better reason at this point than that McCain is the frontrunner and Romeny the underdog.

Posted by Anonymous at 6:31 PM : (0) comments

Posted by Anonymous at 9:40 AM : (0) comments

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Mormon Hip Hop

This guy, by the name of Antidote, wants to jump-start a Mormon hip-hop music movement. Check him out if you like that kinda stuff. Not much of a hip-hop fan myself, but I'm sure others are. It's a MySpace page, so if you're not familiar when them it could be confusing, but the music should be near the top on the right hand side.

Posted by Anonymous at 11:46 PM : (0) comments

Republicans* are stupid

*by Republicans I mean the geniuses in the congressional leadership. I really don't know why they made such a big deal about the ports thing. I suppose it was just to free themselves from the President, proclaim his lame-duckery to the world. That may be a good move on their part, because now they can go back to their districts and distance themselves from his dropping poll numbers. But it's not good for the party, or good for the country.

Sure, the party's break with the President was fairly inevitable, but they should have waited just 8 more months to break free of the administration's skillful but fairly draconian influence. Now the ugly faultlines in the Republican coalition are showing themselves at maybe the worst moment. Now allow me to back-peddle. The break was going to happen, and maybe its better to let it happen now and get some of the vitriole out and remap the common ground before we head into the 2008 cycle, maybe get a healthier relationship between the wings.

But couldn't they have picked something else to do it over? The ports deal was the worst thing to go head-to-head with the President on. Dubai and the UAE as a whole are some of our best buddies in the Middle-east, and among the freest to boot. We recently moved most of our Saudi Arabian assests there, and our naval base there is the biggest outside the US (and its run by the same guys Cognress just forced out). Just heard on Fox that Dubai might now be reconsidering how many Navy ships it will allow in that port.

Posted by Anonymous at 10:35 PM : (0) comments

Kickoff election 2008

Sure, they've all been laying the groundwork for months, but, as MSNBC takes pains to remind me, the game really begins Friday at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Memphis. Everyone* will be there, and MSNBC will be doing a straw poll, a poll Bush won in '98. But now Bush has been a lame duck for about 6 months, with the congressional leadership wandering further every day. So now I must decide who I want for President in '08. In no particular order:

Choice 1:
John McCain

Fresh look, depsite being old. War vet. Pro-war. Pro-more war. Pro-life. Pretty conservative. Pro-no talking 30 days before the general election, therfore appearing moderate and independant.

Choice 2:
Mitt Romney

Mormon. Good businessman. Good speaker. Charismatic. Playing the outside reformer card, daring to question Bush even before it was popular in GOP circles. Saying the right things now on the social stuff, but seemed a little squishy when having to contend with the realities of Massachusetts politics. Squeaky-clean.

Choice 3:
Rudy Giuliani

The man of the hour after 9/11. Appeared to clean up New York (maybe just coincidence). Pro-choice. Pro-gay marriage. Already exposed the skeleton in closet so no suprises.

Choice 4:
George Allen

Camera loves him. Young. Appears to be the establishment/Christian Right candidate. Don't know much more than that, hoping to learn more.


And the winner is......... either McCain or Romney at this point, unless someone else really impresses me. Giuliani is too liberal, doens't appear to have a broad moral grounding (Law and Order is great, but it's not everything). Allen (from what I've seen) parrots the Religious Right talking points which bothers me both because he's not thinking for himself and because I'm routinely astonished by some Religious Right viewpoints (more on that later).

I really don't like the McCain-Feingold bill, but McCain seems OK on most other things (suprise me). Romney hasn't always talked the talk when he had to get elected by Massachusetts, and seems a little too opportunistic, but seems preferable to McCain on many issues.

*by everyone I mean everyone important, meaning no Democrats.

Posted by Anonymous at 12:15 AM : (0) comments

Monday, October 31, 2005

And Alito makes Five

David Bernstein (who spoke at our school for FedSoc once last year) has a post over at The Volokh Conspiracy noting that if Alito is confirmed that would make a majority of the Court Catholic. Very interesting, seeing as how not that long ago everyone was scared JFK would be taking orders from the Vatican. Even more interesting, ALL FIVE would make up the conservative end, from Kennedy in the middle to Scalia/Thomas on the right. So almost every time a 5-4 decision is right, it will be 5 Catholics v 2 Protestants and 2 Jews. So it seems the mostly Protestant Christian Right has made it's peace with Catholicism. Maybe Mormons are next? Orrin Hatch should get Stevens seat. =P

Posted by Anonymous at 11:12 AM : (2) comments

Secret Mormon Plans!

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I am breaking my long silence to bring you some breaking news! Sobek over at Sobekpundit has gotten his hands on our leaders' secret plans for reshaping the world! As you of course are aware, we mormons have long publicly acknowledged our intentions to take over the world in the power vacuum brought on by the imminent collapse of society. But, why, pray tell, would we want such power? Sobek reveals all!

Posted by Anonymous at 10:53 AM : (3) comments

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

just poppin in

Hi

Posted by Anonymous at 3:57 PM : (1) comments

Thursday, April 07, 2005

Al Gore Invents Internet TV

Al Gore announced plans to strike back at the digital brown-shirts by creating a new cable-news service that will allow viewers to submit their own segments. By fusing the power of the 24-hour cable news service with the potential of the internet, Gore hopes to guide Current TV on an exploration of the sweet mysteries of life. Said the former-vice-president-almost-elected-president-but-cursed-with-nightmares-of-hanging-chads, "24 hour news has done the country an invaluable public service the last few months in keeping the American public constantly updated on the subtly shifting shadows on the exterior walls of the Courthouse where the Michael Jackson trial is being held. The internet has engaged young people in a way we old fogey's never could have imagined, which is why I invented it, and has even helped fund the failure of Howard Deans candidacy. I want to bring these great achievements together in one medium, and let the people have their say."

When queried regarding any political motivations, and whether his network would try to do to Fox News what Air America has done to Limbaugh, or whether he could manage to be even less effective, Gore was defensive. "We have no intention of being a TV version of Air America. I didn't invent radio, so why would I use it? I invented the internet, so of course we really seek to be a TV version of Democratic Underground. We want every young progressive to expose *bushitler lies to the American people with witty yet logically deficient home-made videos."

(Precision Guided Humor)

Posted by Anonymous at 9:20 PM : (3) comments

Monday, March 28, 2005

Testing...

Bleh, long time 'gone, " "but just' testing something with quotation marks. Check out this place.

Posted by Anonymous at 6:26 AM : (0) comments

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?

YOU ARE RULE 11!

You were designed to make sure that attorneys in
federal cases make reasonable inquiries into
fact and law before submitting pleadings,
motions, or other papers. You were a real
hardass in 1983, when you snuffed out all legal
creativity from federal proceedings and
embarassed well-meaning but overzealous
attorneys. You loosened up a bit in 1993, when
you began allowing plaintiffs to make
allegations in their complaints that are likely
to have evidenciary support after discovery,
and when you allowed a 21 day period for the
erring attorney to withdraw the errant motion.
Sure, you certainly won't get any brownie
points for being outgoing, but you keep things
on the up and up. It's pretty clear that the
whole operation would fall apart without you
around.


Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Posted by Anonymous at 7:59 AM : (1) comments

Tuesday, January 04, 2005

Wierd Song

Random tricentennial post: I just heard this crazy song "Glomd" by a group called "Koop". Several times it plays a sythesized flute sound I swear is directly ripped from a theme from the old Playstation RPG "Beyond the Beyond," the only RPG I've actually owned, and helped convince me I'd never own another one. The rest of the song incorporated elements of the flute riff into the melody. I smell a copyright infringment action... except both the game and the song are so obscure nobody probably cares.

Posted by Anonymous at 4:22 PM : (0) comments

Sunday, November 28, 2004

War on Drugs

I'm very torn over this issue, on several levels. And the case Raich v. Ashcroft brings all of those conflicts to the fore. On the one hand, my religious beliefs have shapped my view on the power of government generally, overpowering some of my libertarian leanings. That is, I believe government morally can and should regulate and/or ban recreational drugs. Whether "medical" marijuana can be confined to just medical purposes remains to be seen, but it seems to me that general medical acceptance would naturally result in substantial spillover to supply for the high demand recreational use.

But then my view on general governmental practice comes into direct conflict with my ideals of Federalism. That is what this case, which will be argued today by Randy Barnett of Volokh.com, is really about. I heavily lean towards the view that the Constitution does not grant the Federal Government the extensive powers it now exercises in the name of regulating interstate commerce. This applies to a great extent to the Drug War as well. After all, we recognized we needed a Constitutional Amendment to pass Prohibition. It couldn't be done with just a regular old statute. Would I be betraying my religion by supporting an interpretation that would reduce the ability to eliminate recreational drugs?

Historically, the ways those in charge have interpreted Federalism have been detrimental to Mormons. First, in Missouri, the brutal treatment of those at Independance, Far West, Haun's Mill, and Nauvoo was protected under an overexpansive view of State's Rights that allowed the states to treat anyone within their borders with as much malice as they pleased. Joseph Smith's pleas to the Federal Government against prejudicial state militias went unheeded. That shield was eliminated by the Fourteenth Amendment, explicitly granting the Federal Gov't the power to enforce equal protection. However, other principles of Federalism had been undermined over the years, especially through the medium of the Commerce clause, to empower the Federal Government to persecute us again on our way to becoming a state, banning plural marriage nation-wide and forcing our leaders into hiding. Until recently, we had a very mixed history with any Government other than our own, state or federal.

So what to do? I guess I have to come down on the side of getting the Federal Gov't out of the Drug War. It's not in their job description. But let's move against the various state measures to try an limit the spread. I hope this position is not as intellectually dishonest as the New York Times' opinion, which basicaly holds because marijuana is good, the patients should win, but make sure it doesn't affect any other part of the federal nanny state. That's basicaly saying that judges should ignore the Constitution and simply make their decisions based entirely on policy, socialy liberal policy at that.

Posted by Anonymous at 10:49 PM : (2) comments

Saturday, November 20, 2004

Always with the procrastinating

As I've mentioned before, when I procrastinate I do really dumb stuff to waste my time. Instead of doing my work I'll midlessly surf or whatever, not do things even half way constructive like post here. I've got a week now that I'll be hanging out at home studying so maybe I'll get around to doing something here. I've got pics from NY, Election night (Woohoo!), and the FedSoc convention in DC (Scalia rocks). I'll hopefully give my much belated analysis of what's going on, but at least I have the benefit of some distance from Election Night to give some perspective.

Posted by Anonymous at 1:31 AM : (0) comments

Friday, October 29, 2004

So I was Wrong

So sue me.

Posted by Anonymous at 3:34 PM : (0) comments

John Kerry killed my Torts teacher!

Dean Pahtlett is riding 'is bike as a young lahd in his native Austrahlia. For a bit 'o' fun, he grahbs onto the bumper of a passing truck. Now, he is cleahrly contributoraly negligent in his actions as regards the truck. If the truck were to suddenly stop, and he fell under it and was squahshed, he would have no recovery because of his own negligence.

But if there was a hunter in the field, by the nahme of John Kerry, and, being a bad shot, he hit Pahtlett while he was holding the truck, Kerry could not claim no liability because Pahtlett was negligent. Pahtlett's negligence must be a proximate cause of his injury in order for defendant to claim the defense of contributory negligence. Pahtlett's juvenile behavior is not related to John Kerry's errant shot, therefore Kerry is liable. =D

Posted by Anonymous at 6:05 AM : (0) comments

Thursday, October 28, 2004

It was bound to happen

2004 - 1918 = 86
2004 - 1986 = 18

How do you break a curse? Numerology, of course.

Posted by Anonymous at 7:45 AM : (2) comments

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Crazy Lefties Abound

Quick story about how crazy some people can be. One of my professors spent a couple weeks in Iraq this last month helping to establish the rule of law, Western style. She's a Dem herself, but I admire her willingness. Anyways, after class the day she got back several students stayed around to talk about her trip.

She told a story about some of the other coalition lawyers there who said something to the effect of "Bush already has Osama in a jail cell and is going to whip him out for an October suprise." She, although a Dem, is quite rational, so she said (again, paraphrasing) that the Admin wouldn't be able to keep something like that a secret. Some soldier or other person involved would spill the beans.

One of the Brits responded by saying the admin would simply tell all the soldiers that the Government knows where they live and knows where their family lives. My prof., a little appalled, asked if he seriously thought the gov't would threaten a soldier like that. He responded "No, they would kill him."

Upon querrying some of the students whether they thought this would happen, one person actually said "I wouldn't put it past the Republican Party to kill for political gain."

Alright, let me first analyze these statements from a completely cynical standpoint. First, Osama is clearly either dead or captured. He's too egotistical to not tout his continued survival on air, but we haven't heard from him on air for months.

Second, if he is captured, why haven't we heard about it? There are two possible explainations for keeping such a thing secret. 1) the proposition advanced by the Brit/Aussie lawyers in Iraq and Democrats, namely, that he is being held for an October suprise to give Bush a boost in the polls. Now, here we are a week before the election, and Osama's mug has yet to be dragged onto TV. If I were Karl Rove, I would have dragged him out in the middle of one of the debates. Kerry would say "Bush diverted resource from the war on terror to Iraq. We have abandoned the hunt for Osama for a hunt for phantom WMDs" or some such thing, and Bush would reply "Um, excuse me, I'd like to announce we captured Osama bin Laden 5 months ago. My press agents are standing by with video of him in an American holding cell." This didn't happen, and we are coming far too close to election day to deliver maximum political effect. Thousands have already filed provisional or absentee ballots. This is clearly not the answer.

Which leads to the second reason Osama's capture may be hid from us, permamently or at least extreemly long-term. 2) National Security. We are fighting religious zealots, and we all know how they love a martyr. Announcing we have Osama in captivity would spur instant terrorist action to try and gain his release. Osama also has a widespread appeal in the Middle-east, even among many who don't personaly advocate or practice terror. His capture would also galvanize them into action, either violent or political. Not wise. So if he is captured, we wouldn't tell.

Ditto if we know for a fact he's dead. Again, the martyr factor. There would be mass marches, renewed demands to push Israel into the sea, and attacks on the West in the name of Allah, the Prophet, and His Holy Martyr. And no one would be safe, because Afganistan was the "good war" that got the support of Old Europe, Russia, and China.

The current situation, where Bin Laden isn't actively encouraging people or his capture or death stirring them into a frenzy, is much better. Even if people suspect he has suffered one fate or the other, they can't prove it so it can't stir their emotions. It's a muddled, squishy state of the unkown, and we like it that way.

So, if the Admin has Bin Laden captured or know he's dead, they won't want to tell us, ever. At least, they wouldn't if they're doing their jobs right.

Now, on to how they're keeping us from finding out. There are two options, one more likely if he's captured and one if he's dead. If he is captured, then maybe the ideas postulated above may indeed be accurate, to an extent. Containing Osama would require using far more people than the Admin could be sure they could trust. They may indeed threaten or even kill those who would expose his capture. So I ask, is that a bad thing? They aren't using his capture for political gain, evidenced by the fact they haven't trotted him out yet*, so it must be for the national security reasons I've outlined above. What is the boundary for preventing the above from happening? What line shouldn't be crossed? I don't have the answer to that.

There is another alternative for how we have been kept in the dark about Osama: he's dead. He was either killed by a bomb, a special forces unit, or a regular army unit during the action in Tora Bora. If by a bomb, we may not even know where his body is. Ditto a regualr army unit, which doesn't necissarily identify all the corpses of mujahadeen they kill. A Special forces unit may have been aware of the nature of the target, but as a smaller more heavily trained group they would be easier to keep quite than the several dozen people needed to contain Osama.

Now I allow my optimisim to leak in. I find the possibility that he is dead far more likely as a matter of Occam's Razor. Then they don't need to threaten any American.

*Also, I make reference to Nixon. The tapes reveal that at times the kidnapping or murder of political dissidents was openly discussed, but ultimately vetoed. If Nixon, the definition of an Imperial President, wasn't willing to do it, why would Bush & Co.?

Posted by Anonymous at 11:59 AM : (1) comments

Monday, October 25, 2004

Bleh

Sorry haven't been posting. I'll have an update eventually, chonicalling my trip to NY two weeks ago, but now it is time to procrastinate my open memo.

Posted by Anonymous at 1:03 PM : (0) comments

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Belated debate commentary

I didn't think Bush did that bad. True, I missed the first half hour, but take for example all the buzz in the media, left and right, that he "looked angry". That's preposturous. You look at those cut-away shots and he just looks normal. Nothing like Gore and his constant sighing and shaking his head. The real mistakes he made mostly regarded not being agressive enough when Kerry opened himself up for it, and agreeing with him on nuclear proliferation as the most important issue. The first was probably simply some bad advice on the part of his handlers, the second was his own fault. He should have said "hunting down terrorists and killing them."

Posted by Anonymous at 11:54 AM : (0) comments