Axis of Ego

I'm never going to Canada. EVER.

2008-08-01T14:13:18Z

If there ever was an argument for the legalization of firearms, this would be it. Sorry, Canada, but all those restrictions you placed on handguns? Well, they don't make too much sense now, do they?

Man Decapitates fellow passenger on Canadian Greyhound bus, then eats flesh of dead victim.

People may think that now isn't the best time to raise that issue, but I happen to think this is the perfect time. Good, law-abiding people shouldn't have to worry about machete-wielding madmen. If one of these people on the bus was armed, this might not have happened. I can understand some people's hesitancy to embrace firearms, but if used for strictly self-defense purposes, they are legitimate. And they could have saved this young man's life.

UPDATE

Here is the victim of the attack, and here is the perpetrator.
Liveleak.com has a purported audio recording of the police chatter, if you're interested, but I don't know if it's legit or not.

The Daily Rock

2008-08-01T01:53:23Z

Don't Speak,
by Eagles of Death Metal

Here's the cd version.

A disgrace at the Justice Department

2008-08-01T01:48:44Z

I'm a lawyer, almost. Next Friday, I need to pass this annoying little exam known as the MPRE. I should have passed it the first few times I took it, but I was never able (for various reasons) to devote the necessary attention to it so I could pass it.

While I'm a rookie in regards to the law, I know enough about the legal field to understand that the behavior of some government attorneys at the Justice Department was disgraceful. Monica Goodling and her fellow members of the Hitler Youth were choosing for non-partisan jobs at the Justice Department based on their political leanings. Goodling was blatantly asking candidates, 'What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?'

Are you kidding me? Lawyers at Justice are there to do the work of the American people by serving the Constitution, not George W. Bush. This little ferret apparently didn't know the difference. You have seen this time after time with the Bush Administration. They appoint people to government positions based on their political ideology instead of their ability and competence. They have little regard for the institutions and traditiion of American government, and simply ignores many of the safeguards that have been built into our Constitutional Republic.

Stop me if you've heard this one before: Christian Evangelical takes prominent role in federal government, thanks to the Bush Administration. Said individual then manages to completely ignore many of the rules and regulations of the job, to further their own sort of radical theocratic ideology. The result is a complete mess and a disgrace to the country.

Seriously, though. It's so disappointing to see stuff like this happen. This woman let all of her power go to her head, and simply believed that she and she alone could make decisions. Goodling is a religious extremist, plain and simple. Nothing is sacred to people like this. They're allowed to do anything they want, since God is on their side.

Now, don't get me wrong. There certain times and places within government that an Administration is not just allowed, but encouraged, to pick candidates based on their political leanings. Every administration does this. But what Goodling did was different. The law is supposed to be impartial. The jobs at Justice were to be filled by the most qualified candidates; not the people who most closely fit Ms. Goodlings narrow ideology.

As Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post says,

Every victorious administration enjoys the legitimate spoils of government. The president is entitled to bring in his people -- those who have voted for him, written checks to him and back his policies. Every administration has its Goodlings, inexperienced punks who flaunt their authority as conspicuously as a West Wing badge.

Most administrations find ways to keep the Goodlings under control and the grown-ups in charge. The trouble with this one is that it is riddled with Goodlings Gone Wild, incapable of or unwilling to distinguish between the proper pursuit of political aims and the responsible administration of government.

Marcus is dead on here. Our capital city is filled with plenty of little shits, Democrats and Republicans alike, who believe that their proximity to Capitol Hill and the White House gives them the power and influence. It doesn't, of course. And even if it did, the various administrations in charge reign them in. But apparently not the Bush administration. Noooo, they couldn't do that, now, could they! It would be professional, and as we all know, this is perhaps one of the most unprofessional administrations in U.S. history!

Marcus goes on,

Monica Goodling was not the problem. She was the symptom of an administration so certain of the correctness of its worldview that it never pauses to reconsider.

You know what? She's right. Our system of law is one of the few, basic things that gives order to our society. It's the thin barrier between our civilized society and one of barbarism. So it's a shame to see when mindless little hacks such as Goodling so gladly try to tear it apart.

Rock Opera

2007-12-06T14:28:43Z

Best campaign ad so far.

2007-11-19T22:26:03Z

Mike Huckabee does not sleep.

He waits.

USAF

2007-11-18T17:02:53Z

Let's give it up to men and women of the USAF midair refuelers. I know that's not their actual title, but I want to give them props anyway.

This takes skill. Lots and lots of skill. And patience.

Obama just locked up the Democratic Nomiation

2007-11-12T22:46:12Z

I'm back!

This speech gives me goosebumps, just like the speech that I saw back in Chicago a few years ago. Wow. You can hear a little Bobby, Jack, and even Martin in the speech, especially at the end.

God

2007-10-02T21:42:21Z

The Daily Rock

2007-09-27T00:43:25Z

Bullet the Blue Sky, by U2

Steve Downie

2007-09-26T15:33:03Z

Please pick up the white courtesy phone, because your days in the NHL are done. Or at least they should be. Mr. Downie laid out Dead McAmmond on a violent hit in last nights preseason game between the Flyers and Senators. This is one of the worst hits I've ever seen, and Downie needs to be kicked out of the league. At least for a while.

I hate this. It reduces this beautiful sport to thuggery on skates. The league needs to kill this, and kill it now.

NHL Network coming to DirecTV?

2007-09-26T02:47:21Z

Could be.

Right now, DirecTV is testing out it's new HD channels, which are set to roll out sometime by the end of the month. The company has fired up a few new satellites into space, and apparently the company has been testing them to prepare for the rollout.

What is quite intriguing is that the NHL Network is supposed to be one of the test channels. Now, I don't know if this is the SD channel, or even the HD one. But I'll take either.

As I write this, I'm watching one of the two D* test channels, number 9300. (Apparently 9301 was supposed to be the preliminary NHL Nets test channel.) Anyway, D*is certainly preparing for something, because I'm watching the NFL Network in HD at the moment. This, of course, is supposed to be one of the new channels. What is confusing however, is that a giant NHL logo is plastered in the lower right hand of the screen.

So either someone at D* is drunk and playing with the controls, or the company is just testing in preparation of releasing both channels soon. Maybe the engineers are busy preparing a bunch of new sports channels, and this overlay allows them to do two things at once.

Either way, it's exciting. I've waited for both the NFL and NHL networks for years (our friends to the north have had the latter for a while), and it looks like we are just about to get both of them.

In the immortal words of Vince Lombardi, 'What the hell is going on out there?!'

Hunted

2007-09-26T00:35:49Z

My personal favorite.

Believe

2007-09-26T00:16:06Z

Official 90 second spot

Here's the John 117 Monument used in the commercial. Very cool, if you ask me.

Believe 2

2007-09-25T21:46:13Z

Believe

2007-09-25T19:08:07Z

How I feel

2007-09-24T19:40:10Z

Sums it up...

Percocet is happy times.

2007-09-22T15:45:17Z

So my arthroscopic surgery went well. I had a few tears on my miniscus, so something definitely had to be done to my knee to get it working again. I am now comfortable resting at home, with Mr. Percocet to help me out. I'm now getting around with the help of a cane (damn, I hate crutches). Unfortunately, Mr. Percocet taketh and giveth away. You see, Percocet makes you constipated. So, my pipes have been backed-up for a few days.

I am anticipating giving birth later this afternoon. Whoopee!!

No. No. Fuck no.

2007-09-20T02:59:56Z

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has asked for permission from the United States to visit Ground Zero up in New York. Mr. Ahmadinejad, a fundamentalist Shiite Muslim, wants to lay a wreath at what is modern-day Holy Ground in New York City while he's here in town at the United Nations.

Now, this is bound to strike up a whole bunch of indignation among many people tomorrow, much of it with good reason. I'm certain the talking heads will trip over themselves tomorrow to denounce Mr. Ahmadinejad. It should be quite a site to see.

Nevertheless, Mr. Ahmadinejad has no business visiting Ground Zero for a few reasons. First, while he may indeed feel sorry for the victims of 9/11 -- Iran was one of only 2 Middle Eastern countries that staged impromptu vigils for the victims right after 9/11 -- this act seems to be nothing more than a political stunt meant to embarrass the U.S.. Ground Zero is still one of the most sacred places in the country. 9/11 has been used and used by so many people over the years for various reasons that it's easy to sometimes forget that thousands died horribly there that day, as well as in Pennsylvania and Virginia. (Might I add that I get furious when people say that D.C. was hit on 9/11. No, Virginia was. Arlington was. It was Arlington Fire Department that led the rescue that day, not D.C.. Get it right.) So a narrow-minded, simplistic man such as Mr. Ahmadinejad has no business going there. You've got to figure that this guy is really impressed with himself. He actually thinks we would let him visit the site? How dumb does he think we are?

Second, he's the public head of a repressive Shiite theocracy. Yeah, I know, he doesn't lift a finger without the approval of this man, Supreme ~~Pizza~~ Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei does. But still. This presumes Mr. Ahmadinejad is there with the support and approval of the Supreme Leader. Some think the current President of Iran helped create the 'elite' Al Quds force. It may be possible that he had something to do with the lethal EFP's that are now killing many of our troops in Iraq. He's probably got the blood of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians on his hands. Now he wants to visit Ground Zero? I don't think so.

We're supposed to be fighting terrorism. Iran is one of the largest state sponsors in the world. Iran probably is helping add to the anarchy of Iraq. If the country stabilized and moderated, who knows? Maybe it would help quell much of the extremism in the reagion. But this won't be possible as long as guys like this, who call for the destruction of Israel, support terror groups, and work on nuclear weapons when they shouldn't, keep interfering.

If I'm a relative of one of the firefighters who died on 9/11, there is absolutely no way this man gets anywhere near the site. No, Mr. Ahmadinejad, you're not welcome at Ground Zero.

Where are the MRAP's?

2007-09-19T14:21:32Z

It looks like our troops in Iraq won't be seeing as many of the MRAP vehicles as first though. The number of vehicles to be delivered to troops has been slashed by over half.

Defense officials say fewer than half of the new blast-resistant vehicles being built this year to give troops better protection from roadside bombs will be delivered to Iraq by year’s end.
At least 1,500 will be in Iraq by Dec. 31, according to Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. But the figure is less than half of the 3,900 an official previously said would be delivered.

It takes 35 days to get the MRAP from the factory to the front lines. I suppose that's somewhat fast, but the fact the troops still aren't getting enough of the vehicles is depressing.

Whatever MRAP's are produced, they are probably going to have to be version 2.0. And this is when the first version fo the truck has barely even made it over to Iraq!

The new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles will not provide protection against explosively-formed projectiles (EFP), the roadside bombs that fire a high-velocity metal slug. So contractors are already working on MRAP II, which will provide a much higher level of protection against this sort of attack. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's 'game over' for EFPs.

Insurgents may yet build bigger and better EFP's, but I hope our engineers can create something that stops these little bastards in their tracks.

Navistar has just been awarded $71.5 million dollars for this new batch of Marine MRAP's. Teh company needs to get on it and deliver these trucks, because our troops need them. Every day that goes by without the trucks puts some of our soldiers in mortal danger.

Hail to the Redskins.....no, really.

2007-09-18T14:02:22Z

As I sit here just outside of Washington, D.C., I notice a few things. The sun shines a little brighter. The air is a little crisper. People walk with a bounce in their step. The reason? Because the Redskins won their Monday Night Match-up with the Iggles last night, 20-12.

A win such as this one is quite rare around these parts. The Skins had lost 9 out of their last 11 trips to Philadelphia. I lost count of the number of times the team ventured up I-95 with high hopes, only to return home a loser. It's great to see this team actually do well for a change, because the last 15 years have been utter disappointment.

I think Tony Kornheiser mentioned on last night's telecast that the Redskins have had only 2 playoff seasons since 1992. That's not bad. That's God-awful. 23 starting quarterbacks since the early 90's. A coaching carousel that would make anything Barnum and Bailey had pale in comparison. A noticeable lack of young talent(somewhat NSFW).

So, any time the Redskins can escape Philadelphia with a 'W' is a good day. Jason Campbell was a man last night. He has one heck of an arm, makes great decisions, and looked like a veteran back there. His TD pass to Chris Cooley was great last night. It was good to see Mr. Cooley catch the pass for a TD, since he had dropped 32 passes just before that.

I'm still troubled by the fact the Redskins seem to trade away all of their important draft picks for established players, but at least it worked last night. The team is 2-0 going into Sunday's crucial matchup against the 0-2 New York Giants. If the Skins can go to 3-0 and put their bitter division rival to 0-3, we may soon see the most rare of occurances here in the D.C. area- a Redskins playoff spot. If you think things are looking up aroudn here, you ain't seen nothing yet.

I am absolutely an HD snob.

2007-09-17T18:45:35Z

I'm sorry. I can't help it. But I am. I simply cannot watch standard definition television anymore.

Just under two years ago, I purchased my first HDTV. It was a Samsung LCD flat-screen, similar to this model here. Shortly after purchasing the television, I hooked up my Sony Receiver to it. To top it off, I upgraded my sat box to make it HD capable. So with 5.1 surround sound and HD programming, I was living the high life.

Over the last year, I have upgraded my receiver, purchased a few more HD channels, and finally upgraded my tv to this one. It's 46 inches of pure bliss. It has 1080P capability, as well as a short refresh time (so moving objects don't blur that much). It's simply an outstanding piece of hardware. Thank you, Korea! Samsung has tried a great deal the last few years to improve their products so they are on the level of Sony. I think Samsung has actually surpassed Sony in terms of quality.

Anyway, back to my story. This past weekend, dad and I watched DirecTV's NFL Superfan. Not only do you get every NFL game playing that day, but you also get every game in High Definition, plus a channel called Red Zone HD. On this channel, it switches between games depending on which team is in the Red Zone. It's a frenzied way to watch football, but it's great how the channel switches back and forth for you. Finally, there is the NFL game mix, that has 8 games on the screen at once (sadly, all SD).

The point of all my ranting is that watching a game in High Definition is unparalleled. The clarity of picture is top notch. You have an excellent view of the game. For instance, I was watching most of the Vikings/Lions game yesterday. (What am I, stupid? I actually watched Lions football?!) It was quite enjoyable to see such a clear picture. It's almost 3-D in a way. I felt like Jon Kitna and Charles Johnson were actually in my living room. The game itself was a mess. The Vikings and Lions had,10 turnovers between them. But it was still a blast to have the option to watch all the games at once. By the way, do you realize that the Lions and Texans are both 2-0? The NFL allows this?

A game or two normally aren't broadcast in HD every Sunday, though. CBS, for example, is the one major network that doesn't send AND HD truck to all of its football games. Fox (I think some of their signals may be upconverted-SD, actually), ABC, and NBC know enough to make everythiNG HD. But CBS still the lone holdout. Why they'd do this, I don't know. They must be really cheap. This meant that yesterdays Browns/Bengals game was still in Standard Def.

You might not have thought so, but this was one hell of a game. Cleveland won the shootout with Cincy (There's a phrase you don't hear too often) 51-45. But what should have been an exciting game to watch was tempered by the fact that the broadcast was SD. Now, to the non-converted, you may think 'Big Deal'.

It really was a big deal. The picture of the game just looked awful. It had a brownish tint to it, and this wasn't a result of the Browns' jerseys. The viewing angle was much narrower, and the players were terribly out-of-focus. It was absolute crap and I don't know how I managed to watch football all those years with SD. Shame on CBS for ruining what was an otherwise great game with a shitty picture. I just cannot watch SD anymore, not that I've been exposed to the HD bug.

Thankfully, the Redskins game tonight will be broadcast in HD. I can't wait to see the veins on Joe Gibbs' face pop out of his forehead when Jason Campbell throws the inevitable interception against a superb Philly defense.

Is the war worth it?

2007-09-17T03:14:57Z

Last week saw Washington abuzz with the eagerly awaited testimony of both General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. There has been such a political spin put on the testimony by those two men that it makes my head spin. Lost among all this political posturing (from both sides, no less) is the very serious matter of whether or not we should continue to stay in Iraq.

I would answer that it doesn't matter what we want, necessarily. We're going to be there for a while. Even if we wanted all of our troops out now, it would take at least a year to bring everyone home safely. So nothing is going to happen immediately.

What I do know is that American soldiers and Iraqi civilians die while Iraqi politicians haggle. It's hard to tell if any real progress is being made over there. I'm sure that in certain situations, tactically, our troops have made certain areas safer. But the more important question is whether that means anything? Does that make Iraq any closer to a peaceful state? I'm not so sure at the moment, for right now, Iraq looks like a failed state.

It's quite evident that American popular support for the war has dropped considerably. Give the American people credit. They have a decent sense of whether or not it's worth it to keep sending our young men and women into harms way. I actually think that the American people are much more likely to support a war of necessity for the long term, as opposed to a war of choice. Whether we like it or not, democracies make the engagement of the country in a prolonged conflict difficult; after a while, people simply get tired of fighting if they see no tangible benefit from the war.

Case in point is recent paragraph from George Will:

A democracy, wrote the diplomat and scholar George Kennan, "fights for the very reason that it was forced to go to war. It fights to punish the power that was rash enough and hostile enough to provoke it -- to teach that power a lesson it will not forget, to prevent the thing from happening again. Such a war must be carried to the bitter end." Which is why "unconditional surrender" was a natural U.S. goal in World War II and why Americans were so uncomfortable with three "wars of choice" since then -- in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.
What "forced" America to go to war in 2003 -- the "gathering danger" of weapons of mass destruction -- was fictitious. That is one reason this war will not be fought, at least not by Americans, to the bitter end. The end of the war will, however, be bitter for Americans, partly because the president's decision to visit Iraq without visiting its capital confirmed the flimsiness of the fallback rationale for the war -- the creation of a unified, pluralist Iraq.

Great points all. I don't really blame Americans for tiring of this war, for they have to offer up their sons and daughters for sacrifice at the alter of who knows what.

When Bush gave his speech last week, I was absolutely appalled. He kept speaking of life returning to normal in Iraq. I wish that was the case, but seriously, is he in denial? Iraq is a failed state. It's perhaps the most dangerous place in the world. I'm not so sure things are necessarily returning to normal. I increasingly feel like this country is being held hostage in a war it doesn't want by a man who is increasingly out of touch with reality. We're fighting this mainly because of the 'faith' and stubbornness of George Bush, and little more. That's unacceptable.

At least people such as Senator Lindsay Graham seek to be realistic when it comes to Iraq. You have a small cadre of die-hard Republicans who seek to stay in Iraq for as long as possible. On the other side, you have some Democrats who unreasonably demand to withdraw all our forces now. In the middle? Someone such as Graham:

"The point I'm trying to make is, to anybody who's watched this, this government is in a dysfunctional state. The point I'm trying to make, there's a difference between still trying and not trying."
When I talked with Graham on Thursday, he said he had asked those questions because "I am sick and tired of people posing choices between the two extremes; I want reality-based policy. [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid is as bad as Rumsfeld was in rejecting reality. He said in April that the war is lost, and he refuses to accept anything else."

He's right. Harry Reid can be just as unreasonable as our President, in regards to this war. Are there any sensible people still out there? Perhaps Fareed Zakaria is one of them:

One point the president made last week was fresh and important. We have strategic, political and moral reasons to remain involved—as long as the Iraqis request it. The most significant way we can help Iraq is to be there for the long haul, assisting it economically and politically, but maintaining a much smaller, more enduring military presence. That is a far more strategic role for U.S. troops than policing the streets of Baghdad. Making clear that we aren't going to disappear entirely will change the calculus of all those groups in Iraq that are keeping their "post-American" options open.

Here, Mr. Zakaria hits the nail on the head. There still may be legitimate reasons to remain in Iraq, but any continued presence must be smaller than it is now. It's ridiculous for us to have such a large force over there that seems to accomplish so relatively little. We don't have enough of the troops necessary to do the job. In light of that, we should draw down our forces significantly. If they Iraqis can't solve their own problems, fine. We shouldn't spill anymore American blood while Iraqis refuse to compromise. We should at least begin withdrawing our troops from combat zones in the near future.

What few people want to admit is that perhaps one of the only ways for detente be established if for the continuation of the partitioning of Iraq. This is already occurring as we speak. If the three sides can balance each other, maybe that would create some sort of stability. We may have to see much more bloodshed before some state of equilibrium is reached, because right now, losing troops each week is ridiculous. This sounds terribly harsh, but honestly. What else can we do? The United States has made so many errors in Iraq. But the violence is the fault of the Iraqis. They want glory more than they want peace. As Tom Friedman says, when will they learn to love their children more than they hate each other? Until that day comes, the bloodshed will continue.

Finally, I come to Andrew's question as to whether the war makes us safer. To be fair, that's somewhat of a hard question to answer. In the immediate future, it hasn't made us safer. How many more jihadis are being created as a result of the war. How many more young Muslim men buy into the bullshit Al Qaeda is selling? However, what about the long term prospects?

I still vehemently believe that free and (more importantly) stable societies are the cure for extremism. Ideally, a democratic, tolerant regime in the Arab world would probably do a great deal of good in combating the ideas of extremism and hate. Isn't that what this War on Terror essentially is? A battle of ideas?

The problem is, a free, democratic, pluralistic Iraq is a bridge too far. It won't occur, at least as long as how Iraq is presently constituted. A country has to be ready for democracy, in many ways. You need a stable middle class, constitutional liberalism, an independent judiciary, protection of minority rights, independent institutions to have a decent shot at the creation of a functioning democracy. Of course, these things don't guarantee democracy. But they make it more likely. Sadly, for many reasons, Iraq had and has none of these. Elections alone don't make democracy, as we are finding out in Iraq.

Nevertheless, I still hope we see a democracy one day. I hear so much about battling Al Qaeda. Well, you can't just fight Al Qaeda on a tactical level, for you'll only be reacting to the movement. In other words, you're treating the symptom, but never the disease. The disease is an ideology of barbarism, xenophobia, religious extremism, and hate. And I do believe free societies combat these ideas effectively. But unlike the neo-cons, I'm not naive enough to thing a war is the way you can instill democracy. It must come organically, and it hasn't yet.

It's clear things were screwed up in the Middle East for decades before the Iraq war. They've been screwed up after as well. But nevertheless, there is a problem of Islamic extremism that must be combated. How do we do this? What can we do? The world can't just abandon that part of the world, this much I know. But this war isn't working too well, either.

Finish the Fight!

2007-09-14T18:18:44Z

Soon. Very soon.

The Pwn3d life

2007-09-14T18:17:03Z

This 13 minute video accurately summarizes online gaming. For those of you who have 'jumped in', it's hilarious.

OMGTFZ!

So true

2007-09-13T16:20:39Z