One of the more difficult things about this whole blogging venture is deciding on which issues and news stories to share my views. The pace of the Internet and the Media dictates that one person cannot parse and 'opinionize' all the information that's unveiled every day (unless you are Glenn Reynolds - and even he doesn't get it all). It's just impossible. So a blogger, if he or she is in the business of commenting on the political and social, must make a decision or two about what to post.
I'm the type of person, however, that doesn't like to leave things unsaid. So this leaves me in a peculiar situation. I post on what I feel should be said immediately, or what is at the forefront of my mind, but I also am loathe to allow everything I read to go by without any sort of acknowledgement. As a direct result, I have a list two pages long of topics to cover in the 'Musings On Truth' category that I keep delaying in favor of other stuff I deem more immediate. I also have a bookmark folder full of links to various stories that I haven't used yet, because (again), I found other topics to be more important, or more concerning.
So, like my post below on Michael Moore, all this information starts churning up inside (not to mention that it bugs me having a cluttered bookmarks folder) until it just explodes. Then one of two things happens. Either 1) I post all the links I have and let you sort them out, or 2) I shut down and don't post anything for a while. At the current impasse, I'm not sure which will happen. I have so much to write about (including an idea about 'lying' and 'listening' that's been bouncing around in my head for about two months now) that I hate to leave it all to mere linking, but I don't see how I can possibly get it all done, unless I just devote a solid day to posting (which I also cannot do).
This is where I am at the current moment: hoping something comes along to break up the logjam that is my brain. Look for another post later.
In October I wrote about the Communist Chinese government's plan to excavate the moon's "riches for the benefit of humanity" (National Post has rotated the story off of the Web). I questioned the sanity of such a proposal.
President Bush wants to send Americans back to the moon - and may leave a permanent presence there - in a bold new vision for space exploration, administration officials said yesterday.Peeve Farm and TMLutas' Flit have already made some humorous and interesting points (respectively) about the idea. And I'd like to point out that the U.S. has no plans to reduce the moon's density (whew!).
Last month, I wrote about a Mark Steyn piece on the widening rifts between Europe and America, and made reference (as Steyn also mentioned) to the fact that the European populations are becoming more and more demographically Muslim as immigrants flood into the continent. I worried about the fundamentalist movement taking hold in Europe and enforcing Islamic Sharia laws upon the populace, in, say, two or three decades from now.
Well, there's more: here are Lorenzo Vidino & Erick Stakelbeck on Sharia and Europe. It seems the problem is worse than I had previously feared.
I was in Indigo this afternoon after class, picking up the latest issue of MacAddict (yes, I'm a Macintosh man), and as I was in line waiting for the checkout, I realized that I was in the middle of a bookstore that was very much geared toward Southern Ontario. Take, for instance, the books that were arrayed to greet visitors as they entered from the street:
Michael Moore's Dude, Where's My Country?
Michael Moore's Stupid White Men
Al Franken's Lying Liars...
And several displays of Canadiana, and staff picks.
Funny, no? The first thing that greets you as you walk into the largest Canadian bookstore are displays of Americans disparaging the country they are from. I was actually behind a guy purchasing Stupid White Men, and wanted to lean over and whisper a warning to him. "Make sure you go and look up all the sources that Moore uses yourself...I've heard he tends to stretch the truth."
But I didn't. Why? Heck, because I'm not going to change that guy's mind. And besides, it's rather rude. He wasn't asking me to comment on his purchase, just as I'm not asking him to comment on mine. If we were in a discussion group, or a classroom, or anywhere else that normal conversation takes place, then sure, I would've chatted with him about Mr. Moore's indiscretions.
But as a result of bottling this up inside, I've got a fomenting unease about this whole issue. I've written before on what I think of Mr. Moore's tendency to "speak for all Americans." But there's more to it than just his presumption. There's also the fact that, quite frequently, he's wrong. And not only is he frequently wrong in his opinions (for what can you be if you disagree with me, but wrong?), he is even more frequently wrong about his facts.
I don't speak this out of a vacuum. I have done quite a bit of research into this issue (put so eloquently by Al Franken: "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them"). I don't want it to go for naught, so I'll drop a few links here for you to follow. Just to ease my own mind, understand. I don't really expect things to change - they won't. But at least this way, I can feel better because I told someone about what I've seen.
So without further ado:
There are several sites that 'watch' Mr. Moore, trying to follow his tracks and clean up after he makes a mess of the facts: MooreWatch, MooreLies and Bowling For Truth are three that I find enlightening.
There are also a quite a number of sites that aren't devoted solely to the correction of Mr. Moore, but do run pieces on him from time to time. Spinsanity has several essays (here, here, here, here, and here), as does David T. Harvey (here and here), and heck, even Salon (a left-wing publication) has written on the issue.
Some take a more humorous approach. But he's even been taken apart by the more traditional (ie. magazine rack) publications. City Journal, American Prospect, and Front Page Magazine have all done spots criticizing him.
I've got more in my list of links, but I think that's enough for the moment. Certainly enough for me to have reasonable doubt about his accuracy and motives. Certainly enough for me to avoid his material, as I do that by Noam Chomsky (which is a whole OTHER issue, along with a whole other list of links!).
Whew! I still feel the need to rant, but that helped ease the immediate need to spout off. I'll keep doing more research and grabbing more links, but at least now someone knows about it.
I have gone the people say.
They do not believe that I am here.
I am unseen
invisible to you but I am there.
You can't touch me but i am there.
Do you hear the wind? That is me.
I am whispering in the trees,
I'm racing the wind;
I howl a long, lonely cry for you.
I miss you because you won't talk or listen to me.
I rustle the leaves with impatience
I give some air to keep you there.
Altough I'm impatient, I know it isn't time for you to come to me.
It will be a long time until you're ready to come,
So I wait.
My spirit will soar when you join me.
I am not patient but i will try.
For now I'll protect you,
I'll be there.
You won't see or hear me
But you'll know
ps.was that a little more normal?
Well...that was rather dark and brooding. How about something a bit less so?
I'm trapped inside my skin,
Locked in a cell in my mind.
No one to free me,
No one to hear my screams.
I'm a virus
needing to spread my disease.
I'm a danger to the world around me,
but i don't care.
Too long have I waited,
Too long I've controlled myself.
Set me free
and watch your world fall apart.
The present administration in Washington has been invariably supportive of Israel and the well-being of the Palestinian people has been ignored or relegated to secondary importance...There is no doubt that the lack of real effort to resolve the Palestinian issue is a primary source of anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East and a major incentive for terrorist activity.So let me get this straight...when Arafat rejected the American-sponsored Oslo Peace Accords (which were jaw-dropping in their acquiescence to Palestinian demands); when Arafat ushered in his current reign of terror, human bombs, and anti-Jewism; when he used his own people (and allowed them to be used by others) to further his political agenda - when Arafat did all of that, America was to blame? And not just America, but the Bush Administration specifically? That's where we are today, after all - Israel and the Palestinians are suffering the terror inflicted by Arafat's PLO that was directly brought about by his rejecting our offer of everything we thought he wanted. And then, at Camp David, we offered peace to him again, and still he refused and reneged. This is a despicable man, at the head of a despicable and corrupt 'government.' Why is he accorded the support of former American Presidents? Shameful!
Reminded that the former president is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and as a result enjoys wide spread international recognition and standing, the [Israeli] official said, "Arafat also received the prize, what does it mean?"'Nuff said.
One final post, and then we'll move on, okay?
At home, I do several things. First, and foremost, I vent all my frustrations that have accumulated from the past week. Second, I air new ideas I've been tossing around, run them through the family filter, and find out what I really think. And thirdly, I use a dry and sarcastic humor that those in listening range know is just that - humor. So what you hear at home isn't really what my positions are.
See, Mom and Dad are really very intelligent. (Heck, Dad went to MIT and UTexas, and Mom taught us all in school for years - subjects including Calculus!). They can spot holes in arguments from a mile away. So when I come home with some new idea, I want to discuss and debate it with them, to see if the concept 'holds water.' Usually it doesn't, or requires some modifications, so I make those changes, and keep working out the kinks. But because my mind works the way it does (and Mom says Dad is like this, too), I have to speak before I really understand what it is that I think. Understandably, this has led to some rather large problems and embarassing situations, so I've learned to first run things by those people I trust, and who understand what I'm doing.
So now that that's aside, what does all this mean? It means, dear sister, that what I say at home, in private, isn't what I truly and finally think. Rather, it's what raw emotion, or rudimentary consideration, has brought to the front of my mind at the moment, and so I play with it for a while until it resolves into a reasonable whole. Then, and only then, do I talk about it outside my 'safe zone.' Yes, this means that you can ignore what I say at home (unless I'm babysitting), because most likely, I don't believe it.
So now...what about some of that poetry?
Well Austin I'm not talking about just on this. I'm talking about at home. You come home with complaints about canadians (eg. canadian reporters, canadian newspaper, etc.) so you are right I won't be able to find a lot on you bashing canadians, BUT I can say that you do complain about them at home. Even ask Evan or Eric.
So i do admit that you don't do it a lot on this website but i will not say that you still don't bash them, as you put it.
ps. So is my writing better than you thought before? Like with periods and capitals?
Okay, Laurie. Perhaps you are right. Maybe I don't give enough time to the good things there are to say about Canadians. Perhaps. But I'd like you to do something for me.
I'd like you to read through the archives of this website (they are in the right-hand column) and point out specific posts where I single out Canadians and disparage them. After all, if I'm always harping on the poorer characteristics of our neighbors, then it's going to be there, right?
Please point out where I've done this. If you can show me a recurring theme of "Canada-bashing" on this blog, then I'll grant you your point. Thing is, though, I don't think you can. Because I don't bash Canadians, and I never have, nor will. Not because I think they are "The World's Best Humans," but because I think that they are human, period; and as such, they deserve the same respect I accord any other human being.
Now, those that I do 'bash' (and that's really an ugly mischaracterization of what I do), I come down on as individuals. I've made comments, for example, about Hillary Clinton, a former friend of mine, and I've discussed the inability of one country to fully appreciate the pain of another, no matter the proximity - but I've never said "This Race" or "That Nationality" or "This Gender" and then equated those terms with behavior one way or another; not in a serious discussion.
ok wait a second austin, take a deep breath. ok you used a lot of big words well not really A LOT but anyway there are some things in there that just seem so.....OLD. I mean by old that an elderly person would say that. You have to admit you do say canadians are stupid. And as you told me before what "Mr. Positive" said about not all canadians being "stupid" on the whole. And never ONCE did you say not all of them are. I'm sorry Austin but I must take sides with Mr. Positive about you. Maybe you need to look on the GOOD sides of canadians. Well, of course there are some extremely frusturating things about them BUT there are some extremly frusturating things about americans. As you can see nobody is perfect, so as a true American you should give a good example to the ones around us and not be so negative.
First, Laurie, I have never called Canadians on the whole 'stupid.' I have referred to a few individuals who happened to be Canadian as possessing lower intelligence than the norm, but I've also done that with Americans. And Brits. And Germans. And French. Etc.
I'm glad you think I'm smart, and I'm glad you find my statements to be truthful, but please don't say that I characterize people in general based on their nationality, or race, or gender. It's not true - after all, one of my highest ideals is that of individual responsibility. And we can't be individually responsible if we're always looking at the larger group, now can we?
some people just make me mad. Take austin for instance he's always complaining about how stupid canadians are. Of course I have to stick up for them because a lot of them are my friends but what makes me mad is that almost all of the things he said are true! I'm mad because austin is so smart :(
By now, everyone knows of the amazing events that took place on Thursday. Likewise, many of you may know that another US politician is in Iraq - Hillary Clinton.
I think it's safe to say that Bush upstaged the junior senator from New York, but I want to bring to your attention something that may be passed over too briefly. Ms. Clinton has insisted that the UN become more involved in Iraq:
"I'm a big believer that we ought to internationalize this, but it will take a big change in our administration's thinking," said Clinton, a Democrat from New York. "I don't see that it's forthcoming."Ummm...Ms. Clinton? The UN has been in Iraq. They actually left, even though we didn't want them to do so.
As I wrote before I'm right in the middle of a ton of work (one last essay, and several end of term tests), so my posts will be rather spread out. Once the rush is over, though, I should be rather consistent through Christmas, but then my family is going on its annual trip back to Texas, and as a result, I'll be separated from the Internet. Posting will probably die off until after New Years, or so. But, again, it's just a bit of a break, and I'll be posting up a storm soon enough.
The site, however, will by no means be dead. Laurie seems to have taken to posting regularly (and yes, Laurie, I'm certain everyone would enjoy reading some of your work - here's a preemptive copyright statement, even: original creative work posted under Laurie's name is © 2003 Laurie Fusilier). Goodness knows we all want to hear more from Evan (humorous or otherwise). Speaking of my family members, actually, I'd like to take this time to do something that just occurred to me. Eric - I offer you the position of resident Music News informant for the TransplantedTexan. You've got that autoblog link in your toolbar, feel free to post new groups you discover, old groups you enjoy, opinions on music, or whatever else.
Alright, that pretty much covers it, I think, so I'll get back to finishing up my last essay. I'll be around, but who knows how regularly.
I like to write poems! i have some of them out but yeah and if you wanna hear some of them just reply this and tell me so :D
Well, folks, this blog was set up for a number of reasons. First and foremost, to give me an outlet for my creative urges. Secondly, to allow me to vent my intellectual turmoil - hoping for a resulting order. Thirdly, to allow me to make my views on the political, the educational, the emotional, and whatever-else clear to those who read.
Well, I've certainly attempted both the second and third categories. The one thing I haven't done yet is the first. But now that's gonna change (all original content © 2003 Austin Fusilier):
"Snow On Maple"
The crisp, clean air
With it's wafting white flakes
Over this field of crimson leaves, fallen;
Those old English buildings
And their ivy-covered stone
Vacant 'round the autumn field, wall'd in.
Seated on the edge
Of this low flat rock,
I watch the silvery crystals float
And wonder at the gray sky,
The ground of solid scarlet,
And the painting twixt them both
Until the west wind mars it.
Shall the politic talk never end? I always come back and check on things I don't understand what the hooha you're talking about. WHO CARES about polictics. Well I kinda do but anyways I mean isn't there anything ELSE to talk about? Like how your own life is doing and not the life of others. SOOOOOO what is up in your lives???
Well, it happened. Global Warming has failed me yet again - there's snow on the rooftops, there's snow on the ground. Snow in the trees. Snow on the tails of the now-puzzled squirrels in Queen's Park ("Is it time to hibernate already?"). Heck, there's even snow on my jacket.
Fortunately, after it snowed last night, the sun came up and warmed the ground - so most of the flakes are gone (the houses across the street are still partially covered, though). Everything's back to dry and not-so-white. But it's supposed to snow again by Friday. And this time, they're predicting accumulation. Ah well - winter weather is here, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
This is probably the one of the most important pieces I've read on the war in Iraq:
The following letter was written by a 14 year old daughter of one of our troops who was killed when the convoy he was in was attacked with an improvised explosive device and rocket-propelled grenades in Samarra, Iraq, on October 1, 2003...Again, something everyone needs to read. So go.
I saw a kid yesterday wearing a shirt that had a picture of Dubya with the caption, "International Terrorist" safety-pinned on his black shirt, black jacket, and black tight pants equipped with more safety pins gripping anarchy patches and the like (I wonder if he knows he's conforming?). I thought to myself, "I wonder if he sympathizes with the Iraqi people he's supporting," and quickly answered, "no, of course not." I looked on the I-net (which is what I now call the internet because I'm awesome), and realized that first, he had to order the large patch from one of many websites with a credit card, and secondly that the patch costs upwards of $35 Canadian (differing from site to site).
Being a Texan, and an American, I of course asked what reason the guy had for calling Dubya a terrorist. To answer my question he said something about how he didn't agree with the killing of all the innocent and poor people living in Iraq. Now I understand why he wouldn't "agree" with killing innocent people, but after seeing only the cost of the patch he was wearing, I find it hard to believe that he knows or even cares about what the Iraqi people are going through. Apparently they're not "going through" too much, seeing as how most of the people in Iraq want the US to stay (thank you Steyn). I concluded that he was just spouting lines from somebody else who wanted to be shocking.
My conclusion brought me to another question: Do protesters care about the countries they support? Are they protesting because they hate the US, or because they have nothing better to do? Riddle me that.
I came across this BlogRoll addition via James Lileks' Bleat, and I must say, it's certainly worth the addition. There are several others like it out there, but I like this particular soldier's writing.
And besides, if I'm going to support him in his duty, I'd better know what it is he's doing. So there it is, taking up another space in my right-hand column: Iraq Now. Go get acquainted.
Steyn nails it again. Let me get this straight - America is...
Too Christian, too Godless, too isolationist, too imperialist, too seductive, too cretinous, America is George Orwell's Room 101: whatever your bugbear, you will find it therein - for the Continentals, excessive religiosity; for the Muslims, excessive decadence...Why is it that the protestors can't see the inherent logical problems in their positions? These aren't stupid people - I don't know them, per se, but I do know people who are otherwise rather intelligent, but still can't see the contradictions inherent in their irrational anti-Americanism. The fact that no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise makes this a wonder for the ages, right up there with humanity's simultaneous love/hatred for Truth.
Heh. Well, it would appear "a few hours" means "a few days," at least when I've got three papers due over the weekend! So yeah, it took a little longer than I thought; but I'm still gonna write a piece on this whole 'Free Speech' controversy. And ya know what? I'm gonna do it right now.
The links are below, and hopefully you've done your 'homework' already, but just in case, I'll repost them to make sure:
Philadelphia -- This is the one that first got my attention. You know, there's not much to say about the issue at large that hasn't already been discussed by these articles. Obviously (given my occupation - student - and my desired vocation - writer) I have a vested interest in securing the right of free speech. But I'm not going to talk about that, exactly, because everything's really been said already (if not about this specific situation then about others), and it really seems like a no-brainer decision on the behalf of the universities - overturn the rules. What does strike me as 'post-worthy,' however, is the series of events that led us to this point.
It seems to me that we started out well enough, in that the purpose of the 'Free Speech Pavillion' (and other locations like it) was originally intended to protect the freedom of speech. And in actuality, it still does, at the expense of making every other area of the campus a de facto 'Free Speech' null zone. When you combine this kind of limitation with a codified expression of Political Correctness (a blight upon culture if ever there was one), things get out of hand, and the errors inherent in the original decision become glaringly apparent (as evidenced by the recent rulings in cases like Harrisburg's Shippensburg University).
So what's wrong with wanting to protect people from slur-filled speech? Or desiring that everyone be able to go through campus life in a comfortable, non-offensive environment? Well, nothing. These are all good and desirable things. But they are not the 'highest' good. The 'highest' good arises when we uphold the ideals set out in our Constitution - freedom of speech (no matter what is said, who is saying it, or why it is being said), freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom of the press (which, by the way, we all are, in the 'new world' of the Internet blog), etc.
It's been said before, but I'll say it again. There are rights that we have, and rights that we don't. I have the right to speak my mind. You have the right to disagree and speak yours. Part and parcel with that, however, comes a right that neither of us have: the right to go through life un-offended. If we disagree, then I may very well be offended by your opinions (heck, Canadians have practically made it a sport -- for more information read either of these books). To that I say: "Tough." It's not a right we have, nor is it one we want to have - not really.
If you think about it, the 'right' to be un-offended is a 'right' to live an unstimulated life. A life where nothing you ever read or see causes you to rethink your positions and opinions. A life of rather bland prospects, at least intellectualy. I know that if I had the right to be un-offended, then I certainly wouldn't change my mind (and we all know how disastrous that would be), because I wouldn't be presented with alternate opinions. There are even facts that offend me - the fact that people don't view communism in the same family as naziism offends me, for example (and yes, for those of you who don't know, Evan's post is a joke - it's rather obvious).
I had a discussion last night, during the weekly small group I attend, that moved into the realm of 'hate crime' and 'hate speech.' It will soon be illegal here in Canada (and it already is in British Columbia), just as it is in Sweden. On the topic, a friend of mine said something that I very much agree with:
"I think the government does have a responsibilty to protect those individuals who are in a position of weakness, or are threatened by others."However, I don't think that classifying 'hate speech' a crime is the right way to go about doing that (anyone see the movie Equilibrium?) As has been stated before, by people like Mark Steyn and others (yes, I work at plugging him every chance I get, what of it?), the basis of 'hate crime' legislation is the judgement of your mental processes by a government body. It's frighteningly close to telling us what we can and cannot think. I may not like it that people hate, but I certainly can't claim to be without that feeling myself. Am I to be condemned, then, because my brothers are really making me angry? Are politicians to be condemned for 'hating' their opponents? Are anti-war protestors to be condemned for 'hating' President Bush? Are Iraqi citizens to be condemned for 'hating' Saddam Hussein (hmm...perhaps!)? How about Jewish people and Hitler? The list goes on and on.
This deserves a long post, and I don't really have the time right now - so I'll revist the issue in a few hours. But you can start reading up on the events taking place in:
and Lubbock (among others.)
Our foreign policy debate right now pits radicals against conservatives. Republicans are the radicals. Democrats are the conservatives.
That jarring but shrewd perspective, offered by Anthony Lake, President Clinton's former national security adviser, explains much that is strange in our national discussion. And while Lake is critical of President Bush's policies, he does not use the word 'radical' to make a partisan point. He is also critical of his party's newly discovered conservatism.
Democrats have been in a box since the Iraq debate began because they have always identified with the emphasis on spreading democracy that is at the heart of Bush's rhetoric, but are deeply uneasy with the use of military force to impose new regimes, even democratic ones, on other nations. They want to preserve alliances and the old institutions of international cooperation.
All this, says Lake, now a professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, is why Democrats are today's conservatives.
In this time of turmoil, tact, and textiles, there is an apparent lack of leadership in the form of government. What this world needs is something new; something that takes a fresh perspective on the social well-being of society in general. The solution can only come by combining the two most opposite types of ideologies: fascism, and communism (with a lowercase 'c'). One cannot find this in the dictionary or encyclopedia, unless it is seen under "oxymorons," but soon everything will change once this short explanation is complete.
In the western world, where politicians are elected, there must be a revolution. Democracy has begun to deteriorate, and with the deterioration comes civil unrest. A change is needed before the rot forms mildew on all the edges of the Electoral college. The wave that will sweep the nations is "Fascist-Communism," or the eloquently coined: "Communazism." Skeptics have been up to their norms, calling Communazism "Stupid," "Dumb," and some even go so far as to say "Gastric," but their weak stomachs will not be able to handle what is to come, and they should probably be sent to an island somewhere. Now to the meat.
Communazism is the movement defined by the union of a class system, and the absence of a class system; a paradox. Although a paradox has never been so explicable. Communazism consists of a two class system, a ruling class, and a non-ruling class. There are no subclasses in these two classes, therefore succesfully constructing the classless class system. The ruling class, consisting totally of whole-hearted "Communazis" will rule the non-ruling class, or "Communotsees," in the most socialist way possible. The "Communazis" will share all the money and power amongst themselves in order to better control the "Communotsees," which will be in a constant state of confused uproar. The well-being of the "Communotsees" will be top priority to the "Communazis" of course, because the "Communazis" will always be in threat of being overthrown. The "Communazis" will appease the non-ruling class by throwing money at the problems, and eventually the "Communotsees" will revolt again, continuing the unending cycle; thus forming an equalibrium of society, and achieving happiness to all. The "Communazis" will have all the money and power they want, and the "Communotsees" will be able to whine, and complain for anything they want; a perfect world.
Communazism will take western culture by the ears, and ram its revolutinary knee into the face of democracy; creating a shockwave that will emanate the voice of reason to the four corners of the world. Oh how the world will be a better place for all.
Well, it would appear that several more people are getting onto the 'blogwagon.' I'm a little late with this, obviously - it appears to have been up for quite a while now - but I think this is a definite indicator of where things are going in the near future.
Folks, if you're not wired now, it'll be a big disadvantage to you in the coming decade. Information's digital, news is going digital, politics is looking into it, and it doesn't look like any of them will be going back.
As interesting as this whole 'Presidential Blog' is, I think it would be even better if The Man himself were to write a message or so per day...but given the choice, yes, I'd rather have him running the country. ;-)
Wow...the U.S. really is undergoing a political shift!
Last summer, pollster Mark Penn found that just 32 percent of voters called themselves Democrats, which led Penn to conclude that, at least on the party-ID issue, "the Democratic party is currently in its weakest position since the dawn of the New Deal."Go find out.
Now a new study by the Pew Research Center pegs the Democratic number at 31 percent, versus 30 percent who call themselves Republicans.
That's very bad news - if you're a Democrat - but what does it actually mean?
...there was snow. Ach! It's not even American Thanksgiving yet - there can't be snow! Man...
I like snow. It's very pretty, and clean, and white, and nice if you're warm by a fire with the ground outside blanketed in a carpet of crystal; but in REALITY, snow is 'neat' for around 30 seconds - then you have to go stomp through it, slushing your way to class or the car or on errands or to the gym, muddying your boots and tennis shoes, soaking your slacks (or worse, your jeans, which take forever to dry), drenching your supposedly 'waterproof' coat, wetting yourself to the bone, arriving at the cluttered entrance to your home to find it tracked with sludge, and feeling like a miserable puppy who just got beaten around by a large cat and dunked into the almost-freezing water of the local river - no I don't like snow (and yes, this is the longest sentence in all of recorded history).
But it's not sticking yet (though that's sure to happen soon), and that's at least one positive thing I can take from this weather catastrophe. Heck, if humanity is affecting global warming, then I've only got one thing to say: step it up!
Ugh. I'm so bogged down with work, it's nearly unreal. I've got upwards of 12,000 words due in various classes over the next week and a few. To top this all off, my creative side is firing on all cylinders, too - I've just topped 16 pages of notes for one of my current story ideas, and I've had inspiration hit for a second, as well (it's coming up on four pages now). So much writing, so little time.
Plus, I've got to read to stay up with class discussions! Ah well...this is what I signed up for, I suppose. You, on the other hand, signed up for nothing, as far as this site goes - and while you've received something for nothing so far, keep in mind that the amount of work I have is inversely proportional to the amount of blogging I'm going to have time to do. I'll try and get out a post per day (as has been the pattern for a few days now), but, again, I can't guarantee anything; but hey, what do you care? You aren't paying for this anyway!
Oh, and just so you know, there's so much going on in the political blogsphere of late that I'm moving into a near-shellshocked state. I'm just too overwhelmed with work and writing in general to give you many of my own opinions. That's not to say I don't have these opinions (my family and friends can tell you this is certainly not true - I've got too many opinions for my own good), just that I can't really sort through them at the current time. So you'll have to go elsewhere for your information. Any of the links in my BlogRoll (on the right side of the website) will take you to interesting commentary and news - note that I don't vouch for ANY of it, make up your own mind. As far as one specifically, I'll give you two:
Instapundit is the granddaddy of blogs (he's even got an Internet phenomenon named after him).
James Lileks' Bleat is something you should read every day.
And, of course, we all know how much I enjoy Mark Steyn. (Oh, so it's three...who's counting?)
The willingness of some Texas pro-lifers to mix their personal views with their everyday professional lives has blocked the construction of a $6.2 million abortion clinic in Austin.I never thought this kind of thing would happen, not even in Texas. I'm awed, and my hat's off to them.
San Antonio-based Browning construction, one of the largest such firms in the state, pulled out of the contract recently after a key contractors balked at the project because it was going to house a Planned Parenthood clinic where abortions were going to be performed.
Latest Music On iTunes