I'm not normally a stickler for grammar, but I can't stand it when somebody says "I could care less". I think what pisses me off about it is the fact that the moron is saying the exact opposite of what he means to say. If you could care less, that means that conceivably a situation might arise where you would care less than you do right now. The correct version is "I could not care less". This makes perfect sense. It means that you care so little, you could not possibly care any less. I don't see what's so hard about this, but the error is becoming so widespread that "I could care less" may take the place of the correct version. Even otherwise intelligent people make this mistake. I've even seen it done in magazine articles, for crying out loud! Let's stop this before it gets out of control.

I used to collect comic books quite a bit. A good comic book is worth its weight in gold. They can tell stories like no other literary medium. I basically stopped collecting when I went to college, but recently I’ve picked it back up again a little. The newest thing I’m reading is a series called Preacher. The series originally ran during the mid to late nineties, right after I stopped collecting. I really missed out. This is one of the best comics I have ever read. It is also one of the most disturbing works of art I’ve ever seen. The fact that it is so good and so disturbing at the same time really bothers me. Should I be liking this comic? Is it healthy?

Let me explain what I mean by disturbing. The “hero” of the comic, if you can call him that, is a Texas preacher who has lost his faith. This preacher is possessed by a spirit named Genesis. I won’t give the whole story, but basically Genesis is the spawn of an angel and demon who got together. Anyhoo, Genesis gives this preacher an amazing ability. He can tell you to do something and you’ll do it, even against your will. The comic calls this power his “word”. In one story, the preacher runs afoul of a redneck Texas Sheriff. Using the Word, the preacher tells the sheriff to “go fuck yourself”. The sheriff, whether he wants to or not, must carry out this order to the letter. What does the sheriff do? He rips off his own you-know-what and sticks it you-know-where. Do you find that disturbing? I sure as hell do. You might be wondering at this point why in God’s name I would read such garbage. Well, if I told you about a disturbing part in The Sopranos, would you still want to watch it?(assuming you'd never seen it before). Probably not. This got me thinking. A work of art that’s considered “pop” can have shock value and still be good. This is so difficult to do, however, that few artists can pull it off. But I’m inclined to think that shock value can make a book or movie even better, provided it’s used a certain way. The Sopranos does this superbly. So does Preacher. I don’t really feel like a sicko anymore for enjoying this stuff. Do you think I should?

Conservatives like to tag Ted Rall as an America-hating leftist. There may be some truth to that, but his writing on Iraq and Afghanistan has been some of the best. Take a look at this and see if you can find a single factual error.

Take a look at this quote from a piece by one Max Boot, neoconservative extraordinaire:

"Many have suggested that the September 11 attack on America was payback for U.S. imperialism. If only we had not gone around sticking our noses where they did not belong, perhaps we would not now be contemplating a crater in lower Manhattan. The solution is obvious: The United States must become a kinder, gentler nation, must eschew quixotic missions abroad, must become, in Pat Buchanan's phrase, 'a republic, not an empire.' In fact this analysis is exactly backward: The September 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition; the solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their implementation."

How self-deluded do you have to be to think that Sept. 11 was the result of not enough intervention throughout the world? Has this man read history? Is he aware of a single society that was able to sustain a vast empire without paying horrible prices?

To me it makes perfect sense; terrorists are here because we are over there. Why can't we just mind our own business?

Check out this piece in an Oregon newspaper about a man's very bad experience in the airport. The situation was first written about on lewrockwell.com. The author of this article, though, is actually defending the airport! Read the account and judge for yourself whether the airport security workers did anything wrong. But this quote I really loved:

If Monahan was randomly searched and his wife's privacy violated, noted Bob Applegate, the senior manager for government and media relations at the Port, "That happens to thousands of people a day at Portland International Airport. Thousands of people go through the same process every day and don't get upset enough to get arrested."

Why can't you be like all the other sheep Mr. Monahan? What a jerk. This guy had a right to be upset. You know, I still haven't had to fly since Sept. 11. I'm not looking forward to it.

Reason online has a good piece today about the situation in Chechnya. Russia, now apparently our friends, is using the war on terrorism as an excuse to further humiliate and abuse the Chechens, even claiming that they are affiliated with Al Qaeda. Since Chechens are predominantly Muslim, it's working great. Cathy Young's article sheds some light on the situation, but she still buys into the idea that Russia is facing a terrorist threat. Chechens are not terrorists. Some of them resort to terrorist methods sometimes, but what do you expect? These people have been shit on (pardon the language) for decades. Many of their civilians have been killed and continue to be killed by the Russian army. While I never, under any circumstances, condone the killing of innocent civilians, I can understand why the Chechens might resort to this. It gets them attention, and that's their only hope of being saved. The people who claim that Russia is fighting it's own 'war on terrorism', just like us, make me sick. I can solve the Russian 'terrorist' problem in one easy step: get the hell out of Chechnya!

If you've ever doubted the stupidity of liberal economics, take a look at this. In his blog post, the guy tackles Republican arguments about tax cuts for the wealthy. Here's a beut:

* We need to give corporations money to invest so working folks will have jobs. Cuts in business taxes that go along with deficits have no net impact, since whatever businesses obtain to invest is sucked out of capital markets by higher Federal government borrowing.

So in other words, it doesn't help businesses to cut their taxes because the State will just find another way to get the money. It never occurs to liberals that maybe we could cut spending a little bit. Maybe not every government program is worth keeping. Then we could get some meaningful tax cuts. Republicans, of course, cut taxes but never cut spending, either. Then the Democrats can argue that Republicans are hurting the economy by driving up deficits. Since government spending is considered a constant by both parties, the Democrats get the upper hand in economic arguments. That's why Republicans are the useful idiots of Democrats.

As a side note, I'm always amused when I see democrats like this guy using economics to advance their politics. Note to Democrats: Economics is not on your side. Economics favors the free market, not wealth redistribution. Go read a textbook.

One of the arguments that keeps popping up in conservative commentary is that people who oppose the war against Iraq are de facto supporters of violence and mass murder. This argument is a very interesting use of newspeak. If you're in favor of a war, the last thing you want is an organized anti-war croud with reasonable arguments. If you can somehow show that they aren't really pro-peace, you can eliminate the threat. Here's what Andrew Sullivan has to say:

Once Saddam gets a nuke for sure, we're completely screwed. We'd have to allow him to bask in the glory of being the only Arab leader with this capacity, using his impregnable territory to foment terrorism, more weapons of mass destruction, and the like. When he uses this power to set off chemical or biological weapons in America, we will have to initiate a nuclear war to defend ourselves. This, of course, is exactly the scenario the so-called peace agenda will make inevitable. Which is why it isn't in any meaningful sense about peace.

What he's doing here is imagining a scenario, presenting it as fact, and then making the claim that if you are anti-war, you will be responsible for this doomsday scenario. What he's really trying to convey, but not say explicitly, is that violence is inevitable. There is no peace. Either they get stomped or we get stomped.

What warmongers like Sullivan can't seem to understand is that it's their attitude that keeps us in wars year after year. They see a "let's mind our own business" mind-set as naive. But no wonder when the only alternatives they can come up with in their heads are Death to Iraq or Death to the U.S. Opposing war is not about hating America or apologizing for terrorism. It's about correcting injustices of the past and ending this endless cycle of foreign wars. Alright, now I'm getting all high and mighty. Let me take a breather...

There, that's better. Anyway, what I'm really trying to say is, don't let people like Sullivan tell you that peace is not an alternative. That's a load of huey. They are the people who like war. Don't be like them.

Shameless Begging

You know what I really can't stand? People who run personal blogs and ask for donations to keep their site running. I can understand sites that have a purpose, like www.antiwar.com, asking for donations. But your personal blog? Why should I give you money to post your own opinions on the web? Pay for it yourself, damn it! I don't like it when people like Andrew Sullivan ask for donations, and he's a professional writer. If I won't give money to him, I'm sure as hell not giving money to this guy or this guy.

Well, I figured I'd go ahead and start a blog since everybody else is doing it. Actually, I find blogs pretty entertaining. They're a good way to see what your old friends are up to without having to call them. Plus, it might allow me to practice my writing skills a bit.