Nejad, the ultra-conservative, "won" Iran's election

Voter turnout appears to be around 0%.

This is bad. Very, very bad. Europe's strategy with Iran and its nuclear program has just backfired. Now, Europe will face an Iranian president who is little different from the Supreme Leader. Additionally, the Iranian people are probably furious; they know the election was a fraud, and almost none of them voted. In this 4-year term, there is ample time for a revolution. However, such a revolution will almost certainly be horrifically brutal and cost Iran much of its best and brightest, if it occours.

Regime Change Iran naturally is on top of this.
Publius Pundit also has some excellent reporting.

Those things which matter, part 2

Supreme Court rules that private land can be seized and turned over to private developers. The 5-4 ruling, which is deeply controversial and will be subject to incredible debate, was against a group of New London, Connecticut, homeowners who refused to sell their homes so an office building, riverfront hotel, and other commercial structures. The court ruled that, just as government can force the sale of private property to make way for public (government) projects, private developers can also force the sale of property if the project serves a "public good". Interestingly, it was the left-leaning portion of the court that determined private property can be subject to eminent domain-like laws, while the right wind opposed.

Of course, (Justice Stevens) wrote, the city would be barred from taking one's property and transferring it to another private owner strictly for the latter's benefit.
…
In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

source.
my take: I have long held the belief that individuals and companies (or, more accurately, executives acting on behalf of companies) should have comparable rights. This system no longer exists, because one man who has a company in his name now has rights over his neighbor.
This decision reeks of private interest and the unjust confiscation of private property from the now-defenseless for the benefit of the rich. There are few, if any, cases where a private developer's plans can be said to not be for the public good. Also, private developers do not always achieve, or even follow, their plans. There is no recourse if the developer lies about its intentions; at least, any recourse is buried in the law and analysts have yet to find it. The corruption and theft made possible by this ruling is easy for me to see: a land developer realizes that an area will increase significantly in value over the next several years, so it forces homeowners in the area to sell their land at its current (and low) price. After spending little on the land, which has increased in value due to outside influences, the developer can sell the land for a notable profit. Thus, the homeowners are cheated out of the increase in land value.
However, there is an important possibility that the court has ignored. Citizens, either individually or as a group, cannot force a developer to give up land, even if that developer is destroying the land (in which case kicking the developer out is in the public interest). I believe that the political split, with the left favoring big business and the right favoring the poor, private citizen (literally, in this case) is incredibly revealing. Most liberals, when reading O'Connor's comments, would swear that republicans decided to favor big business.
I predict that the majority of Americans will disagree, quite strongly, with the court's decision. As a result, democrats in congress may be forced to yield and allow more of Bush's nominees to pass. With any luck, Congress will pass a constitutional amendment that cancels the court's decision.


House approves anti-flag burning amendment.

The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.
…
Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.
"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."
But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."
…
By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.

The amendment has been attempted several times in the past, but could not pass both houses. Congress first attempted to outlaw flag desecration after a Supreme Court ruling in 1989 (5 justices for, 4 justices against) which determined flag desecration is a form of free speech. After the ruling, and Congress's federal ban on flag desecration, nearly 1000 American flags were burnt in Washington, DC, as a protest. Among the protestors was the man who won the original Supreme Court case; several of the participants were arrested, and the Supreme Court again overturned the federal law. The Supreme Court is not able to overturn any part of the Constitution, so passage of this amendment will be final – unless another amendment removes it.
Republicans may use this amendment, and their support of it, as a show of patriotism and to claim opponents are anti-American. Democrats may claim that republicans are destroying a freedom of expression to garner political support, and that the freedom which the flag represents is more important that the preservation of the physical flag.
source.
My take: sadly, this issue will be clouded with politics. Some may claim that flag burning is similar to cross burning because it is reminiscent of terroristism like cross burning references the Klan. 9/11, to republicans, appears to be the perfect reason that this measure should pass now where it failed years ago.
However, democrats are exactly right – at least thus far. 9/11 did not teach Americans that the flag is sacred. Rather, it taught us that our freedom is sacred, while our symbols are expendable. Further, from our observations of the Muslim world, we see how veneration for a symbol or belief can cause us to destroy our own freedoms and, by extension, our way of life. Democrats will be shocked to find themselves in the majority, and with some of the most ardent and right-thinking conservatives backing them up. I can not wait to see the horror on a few republicans' faces.
Democrats may argue that flag burning, though stupid, is a freedom, and stupidity is not illegal in America. Americans reluctantly cherish their ability to protest in any fashion they want, and are determined to keep those freedoms for the minor chance that they must be used. America maintains a huge military for the same reason; we do not need such incredible power, but we have it 'just in case'. The left's arguments will be especially influential with conservatives, who have often claimed "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it".


Personal note: I cannot describe how much I care about this issue. I fear that a blind, unthinking search for patriotism may result in the passage of this amendment. I wrote this letter to my congressman:

Dear sir,

I have long followed the slogan "I disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it". However, I believe the proposed constitutional amendment banning desecration of the flag attacks this critical part of America. I value my rights, and though I never plan to use them to their furthest extent, I wish to preserve them "just in case".
I believe the majority of my fellow Americans will be glad to abandon partisan differences to defend this right because it exemplifies our tolerance for that with which we disagree. Contrary to popular belief, 9/11 did not teach us to be nationalist or to venerate the flag. Rather, it forced us to examine the middle east, where we saw the horrors caused by abandoning freedoms in favor of an ideology.

Sir, you may believe that banning flag desecration may be a way to support America's troops. I am sorry to inform you that this belief is tragic. America's troops are not fighting for the flag, they are fighting for freedom. Banning flag desecration would kill in the homeland what our troops are fighting for in the front lines.

Please, seek to understand that freedom is the basis of the American way of life. Reduction of any freedom destroys a part of this way of life, and no claim of patriotism will ever serve as an excuse.

Please carefully consider the issue and tell your congressmen what you think. It is imperative that America's politicians see how the American people understand this issue.


By the way, the Republicans' easy way out of this fiasco: non-flammable flags.

Those things that matter; June 23rd, 2005:

The majority of Americans think Gitmo is fine. 36% claim prisoners are being treated "better than they deserve" (45% of republicans, 28% of democrats), another 34% say treatment is "about right". 20 percent of the US thinks that prisoners are treated unfairly (7% of republicans, 30% of democrats, and 22% unregistered). Additionally, 14% agree that prisoner treatment is similar to nazi tactics. 69% disagree with Durbin's comments.
source.
Possible bias: ordering of the questions and differences in numbers of registered republicans and democrats could tilt the poll either way. This is probably contained within the 3% margin of error.

A US U2 spyplane crashed in the United Arab Emirates, killing the pilot. The exact location of the airplane is not being released, possibly because the US does not want to risk the capture of any advanced technologies.
source.

Iraq will officially restore relations with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.
source.
my notes: it is extremely unlikely that all relations between Iraq and its neighbors were entirely ended. Rather, the embassies continued operations, but the head ambassador was removed as a sign of disapproval. Continued embassy operations allows for routine communication and emergencies, so it is a common practice to continue diplomatic operations, despite the absence of the head ambassador. Thus, this restoration may be mostly symbolic.

A police officer was beaten to death, or died of a heart attack influenced by being beaten, by anti-genetically modified food protestors and "we want to skateboard in this park" protestors in Philadelphia. The officer was a 17-year veteran of the force, and fell during a tussle with the protestors. While on the ground, the officer was either kicked to death or kicked while dying from a heart attack, or some other medical problem that was set off by being beaten. A few of the protestors expressed remorse, but many only complained that they are being called cop killers. The officer was black (I will explain why I mention this later).
No national news paper has reported this; Fox News gave it a brief mention once (to the best of my knowledge). The story was reported only in the Metro or Local section of a Philadelphia newspaper. Radio host Glenn Beck spoke about the story for a notable portion of his 3-hour talkshow and read an email from a police officer who described the death. Major news networks in Philadelphia have a tape of the beating and death, but refuse to show it, nor even mention the story.
My notes: If a black man was beaten by a white officer, on tape, the story would cover the national news for days. I can prove it. Do you remember the name Donovan Jackson? Well, CNN keeps an article, which should bring back memories of a black teen being slammed against the hood of a police car and punched in the face. In that case, the teen did not die – he didn't have any permanent injuries, in fact. The story developed over the national news for at least a week, and caused an uproar on both sides of the political isle. The left claimed brutality, the right claimed the cops were set-up by the teen and the man who filmed the incident, who was allegedly a friend of the beaten teen. My thanks to CNN for using the server space to keep articles that are nearly three years old. Records of daily news events are, in truth, rare, and most services charge a subscription for access to old articles.
The media should play fair and report this story. However, because protestors committed the crime, the much of the media refuses. I know first-hand that the media loves left-wing protests, but will ignore right-wing protests like the plague, no matter the size nor subject. This is despicable. The news media exists to report what is happening in the world; its job is to give the facts to the public, with as little distortion or interference as possible. From there, the public can use analysts' opinions or conclusions, or develop their own beliefs with similar access to the facts as the analyst. Thus, the public reaches the best conclusions that it can, because it can pick from a wide range of opinions and the basic understanding of events is accurate.


Those are the important stories, to the best of my limited knowledge, of today. Additional reports will be added in later posts, if possible.

terrorists killing each other, for a change

From the New York Times:

Marines patrolling this desert region near the Syrian border have for months been seeing a strange new trend in the already complex Iraqi insurgency. Insurgents, they say, have been fighting each other in towns along the Euphrates from Husayba, on the border, to Qaim, farther west. The observations offer a new clue in the hidden world of the insurgency and suggest that there may have been, as American commanders suggest, a split between Islamic militants and local rebels.
A United Nations official who served in Iraq last year and who consulted widely with militant groups said in a telephone interview that there has been a split for some time.
"There is a rift," said the official, who requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the talks he had held. "I'm certain that the nationalist Iraqi part of the insurgency is very much fed up with the Jihadists grabbing the headlines and carrying out the sort of violence that they don't want against innocent civilians."
The nationalist insurgent groups, "are giving a lot of signals implying that there should be a settlement with the Americans," while the Jihadists have a purely ideological agenda, he added.
The insurgency is largely hidden, making such trends difficult to discern. But marines in this western outpost have noticed a change. For Matthew Orth, a Marine sniper, the difference came this spring, when his unit was conducting an operation in Husayba. Mortar shells flew over the unit, hitting a different target.
"The thought was, "They're coming for us. But then we saw they were fighting each other," he recalled during a break in Monday's operation. "We were kind of wondering what happened. We were getting mortared twice a day, and then all of a sudden it stopped."

Disagreement between Iraqi rebels and insurgent jihadists started not long after the US took Baghdad, but the differences were relatively minor. It was solved in large part, perhaps, by the two groups not working together. However, the jihadist's new tactic of executing random, innocent civilians has infuriated the Iraqi rebels. In short, the insurgent's targeting of civilians is causing their own downfall, for an abundance of reasons. Amir Taheri, by far my favorite analyst, has a wonderful article on the debate of tattarrus - the justification of killing innocents, including Muslims. As you probably know, Zarqawi has come out in favor of killing just about anyone, but more sane people have concluded that reckless murder is morally wrong in many ways. The later seems to be winning the debate by virtue of not having its greatest supporters blow themselves up, and because the average civilian tends to not like the threat of being murdered by lunatics.

So, a hattip to the minds who helped create this in-fighting amongst the terrorists, or at least to those who work to preserve Iraq until the terrorists kill each other or themselves out.
I wonder if the terrorists may qualify for the first group-wide Darwin Award.

Iran's Election

It is difficult to pick between 7 identical candidates, especially when you hoped to pick one of the thousand disqualified by Iran's clergy. As a result, many have decided to not pick a candidate at all – by not voting – in order to drive down voter turnout.
The Iranian media is showing video from last year's election and Iranian officials are forcing or bribing people to vote in the few locations that the western media is allowed to cover – every reporter is followed by a thug who ensures that the journalist, like the Iranian people, is thoroughly intimidated. To make up for dismal turnout, Iran has likely printed millions of pre-filled ballots. And, the winners were announced before the election ended – even though all ballot boxes were locked and exit polls most likely didn't exist because voters would say whatever they were told to say by Iran's thugs.
No matter who wins, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, will still control Iran. Khatami, the outgoing president, saw his reforms crushed by the Council of Guardians, a hardline group of unelected religious leaders, and Khamenei. It is the knowledge of the fallacy of Iranian democracy and the exploitation of the turnout last election that has largely prevented voters from leaving their homes this time.

Unelected Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, among the first to vote, told Iranians they would be endorsing not just their chosen candidate, but their country’s Islamic system.
“Whoever you vote for among those seven candidates, it’s a vote for him, the Islamic republic and the constitution,” he said after using a special ballot box at his official residence.

For this reason, most are avoiding the election (hattip to Publius Punbdit).

The leaders in credible coverage are, naturally, blogs: Regime Change Iran, Publius Pundit, and Willisms. The later two cover polling stations placed in the US, another of Iran's efforts to make the election appear more credible. A .pdf of the 40 polling stations in the US is here. Willisms has photos and the story of how he almost got arrested by the thugs around one ballot box stationed in the US. Personally, I am awaiting responses from the two hotels that hosted sites in Ohio. The Word Unheard also has notable comments. Update: Willisms has his video here and Publius Pundit does a wonderful job describing his interview of an election monitor

Turnout at the US-based locations is dismally low, just as it is low in Iran – at least in the voting stations that are not surrounded by western reporters. An account of what Iranians are seeing of elections is here. Iran has claimed 65% turnout, which is a blatant lie. President Bush's attack on the election as undemocratic appears well in line with the thoughts of the many Iranians who refused to vote.

Canada realizes that capitalist medicine has some perks - like availability

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Quebec law banning private medical insurance in a decision that represents an acute blow to the publicly financed national health care system.
…
The Canadian health care system provides free doctor's services that are paid for by taxes. The system has generally been strongly supported by the public, and is broadly identified with the Canadian national character. Canada is the only industrialized county that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services.
But in recent years patients have been forced to wait longer for diagnostic tests and elective surgery, while the wealthy and well connected either sought care in the United States or used influence to jump medical lines.

(NY Times)

Although the unanimous ruling applies only to Quebec, it is sure to bring similar cases in other Canadian provinces and give impetus to a growing movement pushing for public and private care.
Government leaders rushed to defend the current system, and Medicare supporters voiced fears the ruling will bring a two-tiered system favoring those with money and possibly hurting care for the poor. Proponents of change say it will improve care by offering more choices and cut waiting times for treatment.
The Supreme Court said Quebec's prohibition violated the province's charter of rights by threatening the lives of patients, and the justices noted other countries have successfully combined private and public care.
"The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health-care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.
"The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital health care result in physical and psychological suffering ... ."

(Yahoo! News)
Thanks to the NY Times for nailing this story properly.

Canada's Prime Minister, Paul Martin, uses an illegal private "clinic" for his own medical needs. Such actions are very illegal, but Canadian officials have taken little action against such clinics, because rich and powerful Canadians intend to use them. Despite Paul Martin's preaching against a two-tier system, Canada already has such a system; the dying, and the lawbreaking.

Now, the lawbreaking, at least in Quebec, don't have to sneak into their clinics. Alberta will probably follow suit soon, along with some of the other less-insane-liberal provinces. And, those pesky Canadians can no longer brag about the oh-so-glorious medicare system which they pretend to love. On the downside, the US economy may wince, because thousands of Canadians have come to the US to use our healthcare system without having to wait 20 or more weeks.

Stupid congressperson of the month: Cynthia McKinney (D-Conspiracy)

From here; the link will probably close soon, so I'll copy the entire story:

A Member of Congress is expressing “grave concerns” over NASA’s Project Prometheus nuclear rocket program.
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, representing the 4th District of Georgia, is spearheading an effort to find like-minded lawmakers to question the building and deployment of “a nuclear propulsion rocket” – and to protect the public “from the potential of a catastrophic nuclear accident posed by the Prometheus Project.”
In a “Dear Colleague” letter dated May 5 to other members of Congress, Representative McKinney is seeking the support of Members of Congress “for shifting Federal funding from the development of nuclear propulsion systems to research and development for solar and other alternative energy systems that can support our space program.”
McKinney has also prepared a letter for co-signing by her colleagues addressed to new NASA chief, Michael Griffin. “If NASA insists on pursuing this dangerous idea,” the correspondence requests that the Environmental Impact Statement for Project Prometheus also address the military application of the nuclear space work.

Damn, this is a retarded congresswoman (D-Conspiracy) (nice article). First off, the Prometheus Project has no intention of using "nuclear power" in the way that most people understand "nuclear power". Rather, the Project has simply determined that placing a few ounces of something radioactive on a spaceship – and not doing anything to that radioactive substance – can provide a wonderful amount of energy, because radioactive substances decay naturally (they release energy when they decay). There will be no nuclear reactor on any spaceship, despite what Stupidia McCrackhead claims.
But, lets follow McCrackhead's beliefs for a bit, and see where we get. First off, if some 'nuclear disaster' actually releases radiation into space, astronauts may be required to wear protective suits. Can you imagine the horror? Astronauts required to wear suits to protect them from the dangers of being in space! Oh wait, they already have those, something to do with a complete lack of atmosphere and death from decompression. Still, the currently-existing suits would need some protection from radiation, wouldn't they? Actually, they already have that, because the sun emits radiation – visible light is a type of radiation, in fact. Ironically, Stupidia thinks solar energy would be non-radioactive, and thus safe. In truth, such methods only use the radiation that is provided by the sun. Because earth and the sun are some 95ish million miles away, solar panels can't collect that much energy. A block of a radioactive element can provide similar types of energy in much greater abundance, and with the same efficiency no matter how far the craft is from the sun.
Since radiation in space may be harmful, as Chucklewit here suggests, humanity should undertake a project to stop all that radiation that the sun emits. Don't worry about the fact that Earth will go dark and the solar system will be completely devoid of energy and all life on earth will die either of extreme cold (-400 or so degrees farenheit) or starvation because all plants die without some source of light. No, what's far more important is stopping the sun's Rays-O-Death. Humanity will rejoice in the hypothermia and desolateness of a solar system without the radiation that is the source of all energy on this planet.

Yes, my fellow humans, we must seek self-extinction in order to protect ourselves from the catastrophic radiation that is emanating from the sun.

Where the US government has failed

The US government, with minor exception for the White House, has failed its international responsibilities. Congress and the House are espousing isolationist economic policies and threatening China – especially risky is their opposition to China's military spending. The US goal should be to peacefully cooperate with China and the rest of Asia to build a prosperous foundation for the trans-Pacific relations that will soon become the most important in the world. However, America's self-serving politicians have sown hostility into the relations; hostility that will be very difficult to overcome as US-Asia economic competition intensifies.
Further, every branch of government has effectively ignored Sudan's genocide. A few words about 'peaceful resolutions' and 'disarmaments' are insults, not eulogies, to the 300,000 who have died thus far. A recent Zogby poll found that the great majority of Americans desire involvement, and 40% of Americans want US combat troops on the ground, despite the need for manpower in Iraq.
Regarding Iraq, some congressmen have claimed that the US plan must be overhauled. Those people do not have an iota of understanding of the conflict in Iraq. I can accurately declare that those congressmen each have two braincells left, and even those are fighting to the death. For each Iraqi civilian who is killed by insurgents and rebels, the US moves closer to its goals, because the terrorism only destroys the credibility of anti-US forces, which have already condemned themselves by refusing to participate in the democratic process. The US must show that it will stick the conflict out until the end, and that the US knows its purpose in this conflict is to ensure the peaceful and successful democratization of Iraq.
Uzbek troops recently killed hundreds of protestors in cold blood, yet Uzbekistan is called a US "ally" in the war on terror and spread of democracy. This is a farce, an insult to the dead (whom the government classifies as "terrorists"), and is treachery to the very ideas that America claims to be supporting around the world. The Uzbek government should not receive a cent from America as it is irreparably corrupt and has thus far capitalized on 9/11 to receive US backing for increased repression of its own people.
The US government has refused to either officially open or actually close the US-Mexico border, and it has done nothing to eliminate the archaic quota system. The authority of the US Border Patrol is either incompetent, corrupt, or follows its own political desires regardless of what is right for the country. The US Border Patrol, as a result, is impotent, despite the heroic efforts of the many who do the real work to secure America's borders. American borders should either be open or closed, but they should not be called "closed" when it is in fact not. Such false labels prevent internal security organizations like the FBI from effectively monitoring those who cross the border and spread ignorance of the real problem. Further, the archaic quota system should be abolished, and immigrants should be accepted based on their abilities. This would provide several million more working-age Americans per year (who happen to be incredibly productive – they have my thanks for attempting the American Dream), which would considerably balance the Social Security "crisis" by augmenting the number of people who pay into the system without withdrawing.
The US drug war has failed because politicians have failed to understand that police officers are humans. No police offer will arrest a 17-year-old for smoking a joint when that kid will have a felony on his record and his life will be ruined. The punishment comes nowhere near fitting the crime, so cops will refuse to enforce the law. With the current laws, cops will only arrest dealers and producers; as a result, that has become something of a national policy. As a result, it is effectively illegal to distribute drugs but not to use them. Public support for the drug war was obtained only by portraying the average drug dealer as a millionaire who profited from the vice and despair of others. That stereotype is disgustingly false – the average drug dealer can make about $3.50 per hour selling drugs, and may have an 8% chance of dying on the job per year (significantly higher chance of dying than they would have on death row, actually). That is why so many drug dealers still live with their moms. The US should significantly weaken punishments for carrying or using drugs; that way, police officers will actually arrest drug users, and potential drug users will be scared away because they fear being caught.


These are simply a few of the places where the US government has horribly failed. I believe my outrage at this incompetence is reasonable.
Comments and emails, as always, are welcomed and beloved.

AlphaPatriot: Pools 100 Times More Dangerous than Guns

Pools 100 Times More Dangerous than Guns
The "post a comment" stuff does not seem to work, so I might as well make a blog post.

Here's a story you won't see printed in the NY Times or a Hearst paper:
A child is 100 times more likely to drown in a pool than be killed by a gun
They're pulled from backyard pools and bathtubs each year, tiny limp bodies, blue and not breathing.

A young life can vanish quickly under water. A survivor can endure a lifetime of disabilities. Either way, families are torn apart by an almost always preventable tragedy. ...

Levitt analyzed child deaths from residential swimming pools and guns and found one child under 10 drowns annually for every 11,000 pools. By comparison, one child under 10 each year is killed by a gun for every 1 million guns, according to his research, outlined in a new book "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side to Everything," which he co-wrote with journalist Stephen J. Dubner.

Freakonomics is on the NYT bestseller list. A colleague is reading it and highly recommends it (even though he is a flaming liberal).

Actually, that was in the August 3rd, 2003 edition of The New York Times Magazine. The relevant part of the quote is on page 146 of Freakonomics - the last sentence of the quote, in fact.
I, as a flaming neo-conservative, also recommend the book. I finished within two days. The 'child death' portion compares the effect of popular outrage compared to the actual hazard, which often seem to have an inverse relationship. You know those safety drawstrings on children's clothing? They save about two lives per year. And all that obsessive child resistant packaging? Saves around 50 children per year. I bet more people die per year because they cannot get through the packaging when their life depends on it. And, apparently, those $200 car seats don't really provide much more safety. The only real effect they have is preventing the baby from riding shotgun, in which case the child can become a projectile – if I understand the book right.

Are you tired of politics?

(note: everything after the first paragraph is devoted to comedy)
Is anyone else sick of politics? I know I am, but that may have something to do with the International Politics class I am taking at a college (though I'll be a highschool senior in a few months). Mind you, the professor is on the left – far left, extremely far left, an the overpriced textbook is a piece of crap. The only source the book cites that I have heard of is the professor (now you know why we are using that book), and the vast majority of the examples it provides attack Bush. So, if you have a politics class and the textbook is by a person named Rourke, you are now warned that you will go through the psychological form of castration.

Time for me to share some of my favorite comedy links.
First, an unlikely source, is the Slogans section of Bomis.com, here
Then, we have The People's Cube (hint: the name comes from a Rubik's Cube that is entirely red)
Another unlikely comes from the wonderful reviews of an armored car at Amazon.com, here. That link should take you to the first hilarious review, most of the chronologically later/top of the list reviews are mild.
In the musical section, we have I Am The Very Model Of A Microsoft Executive(lyrics only). You can find a clip of I Am The Very Model of a Modern Major General by Gilbert & Sullivan for the music.
And, to close the list with a blog – as is proper – we have PointFive. The Stephen Hawking impressions are just short of those on Glenn Beck's radio show, but Glenn requires a subscription to access his audio archive.


URGENT UPDATE on Natalee Holloway: no one cares! For the love of god, more than one person dies in a week, and Aruba's tourism industry should not be ruined by this one incident. As a result of this media frenzy, people are going to cancel trips to Aruba and go to Jamaica because they think it is safer, when Jamaica actually has one of the highest murder rates in the world. By the way, do not try to buy drugs in Jamaica, because more often than not the 'dealer' is an undercover cop, and Jamaica doesn't know of things like "entrapment" or "inconclusive evidence".