Dell Computer sues Paul Dell for using the "Dell" name

Dell has always seemed like a decent company to me, which makes this article I found on BoingBoing somewhat disturbing. I won't repeat all the details, here, but the guy is being sued for" illegally" using the Dell name on his website, dellwebsites.com. I think it's absurd. So absurd that I wrote Dell Computer a letter:

February 20, 2006


Dell, Inc.
One Dell Way
Round Rock, TX 78682

Attn: Legal Affairs

As a long time Dell Computer customer (on my third Dell computer, over 10 years), I must respectfully ask that Dell respect the name of the small website developer, Paul Dell, and stop all legal action against him for using the “Dell” name on his own personal website. In my humble opinion, he is at least as entitled to use of his own name on his website, as is Michael Dell, in naming his computer company and website.

If dellwebsites.com was attempting to compete with Dell Computer either directly or indirectly, then legal action might be warranted. As it stands, though, this situation is nothing more than one very large company using its financial might to harass an individual. I think it is wrong.

Thank you,



John V. Horst

I would ask that all customers of Dell Computer voice their opposition to this action, and both write Dell Computer and donate so that Paul Dell can better defend himself. Feel free to use my letter as a sample, but you would (of course) change the particulars to more closely match your relationship with Dell Computer.

I decided against making any threats, since my $1500-$2000 purchase investment every 3 years doesn't even pay for one of Michael Dell's suits. I also know that Dell is a very large company, and it may be difficult to direct correspondence to the right person. No matter. Invest $.39 and voice your opinion.

CD ripping is not fair use?

Interesting post on BoingBoing referencing an article on EFF.

My only opinion on this is that for any CD* where copying has been permitted in the past (and I refer specifically to copying/format-shifting by me for my own exclusive use), then such copying cannot be subsequently revoked. No one can modify the license agreement on a CD after the CD has been sold. It is absolutely unenforceable, so it is what it is, forever. However, in the future if any CD is to be copy-denied (which the copyright owner can decide to do), then it should be clearly stated on the package, the CD, and in places where it is offered for sale. (I'm thinking of Amazon.com, where I buy almost all my entertainment items.) Then, I simply will not purchase that CD, and everyone will (presumably) be happy.

Let's see how that works out for the record companies. Certainly seems fair, to me.

Update: I seem to be trailing BoingBoing like some kind of repeater newsbot. So be it. Apparently the RIAA website has taken a specific stand on copying/format-shifting for personal use, and they seem to be for it. To wit: "It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail." That's how I use it, and that's how I want to use it. The only place I actually listen to the orginal CD is in my car (why is that?). Everywhere else (and I can only be one place at a time, you know) I listen to MP3s. Winamp is my player of choice. I also have a Pez MP3 player (tres chic!) in the rare event I'm away from a computer.

* And by CD I mean any media: LP, CD, DVD, etc., that may be purchased.

Ever wanted to get it off your chest?

How about SoThere.com? It got me to wondering if there was anyone (or anything) I needed to get off my chest ...

Stay tuned, I'm still thinking.

As far as mouthing hard words goes ...

"A man thinks that by mouthing hard words he understands hard things."
- Herman Melville

Methinks he also gets the hard words wrong, too. Can you say "nuclear"?

Uh, huh. I thought so.

Why Fark.com has a "Kansas" category, among many others

Sexual abuse of minors should be against the law. I'm pretty certain it is. But when it comes to criminalizing "any intimate contact" involving any "pre-adult" (my term), the water becomes considerably more murky.

In as much as 1) society has tried to stop teens from engaging in intimate behavior (and lost), and 2) nearly all of us have engaged in said intimate behavior before the age of 18, the crusade by Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline seems somewhat ... destined for failure.

My own somewhat sarcastic question involves so-called "self-abuse". Is that criminal, as well? Cripes, they even call it abuse, so you can see my dilemma. (And I'm not talking about kids who cut themselves, either--self-injury. This behavior isn't criminal, but it is a problem.)

No one would argue against protecting children from sexual abuse. Regardless of whether we consider a 15 or 16 year old girl a "child", she clearly has the capacity to make some decisions on her own. (At 16 she drives legally--case in point.) Without arguing the wisdom or the efficacy of her decision making skills, there does come a point where you just have to let her begin making her own way through this world. And by using the word "her", I do not intend to exclude young males, either. You can't watch them all the time, or protect them from everything.

No, it is not a crime for two young people to gain sexual experience with each other. We want them to be careful--very careful--and we hope when the time comes they don't do something stupid, but ... sometimes they do. And of course, it's not just the "pre-adults" who do stupid things, either.

Life is hard enough; leave the kids alone.

Oh, and of course I trust the politicians, too!

This brief article from Slate Magazine discusses the difficulty that our elected officials are having getting answers on current wiretapping activities being conducted at the behest of the administration.

"Trust us," they say. "We're professionals and we know what we're doing. The rights of US citizens have not been harmed in the course of our investigations."

I suppose that statement could be true, but of course, that begs the question: "How do we know?" Classified or not, someone has to oversee the actions of government operatives. As far as I know, that's the law. And so far as I can determine, there has been no need to suspend the rule of law.

Personally, I think wiretapping is necessary. But it is only legal if warrants are obtained. Jebus, they could have lied and told us they had warrants* for every wiretap they'd conducted. I mean--who would know any different?

* Reason #5,374 that Bush is an idiot.

You got a mouth, now where is your money?

I found this post interesting. Interesting in that I apparently share a view with many of the "liberal bloggers" that the DNC isn't particularly deserving of our support, right now. Spineless; disorganized; weak. There needs to be someone willing and able to step up and "play the hardball game that conservatives have foisted upon us". (David Neiwert, Orcinus) Baseball metaphors abound: the Repugs are zinging pitches right and left; everyone seems afraid of getting hit. It's time to "take one for the team". Hmm?

I wouldn't necessarily have labeled myself as liberal, but I suppose I am. If "conservative" these days means supporting the administration, then I must be the exact opposite.

I would give my $100 to the local Mid-Ohio FoodBank, and I do. At least there I know we're helping to keep some of our poorest neighbors fed, and that's worth something.

"Think globally, but act locally." Pithy, trite, but applicable.

Maybe us consumers should just go away

... And leave all the big "IP" holders to fight it out with each other. If we stop buying things like iPods, etc., that should sort out the issues right quick.

Of course, not even an idiot like me would believe that this could happen. But, I'm getting damn tired of companies suing everyone and their brother. I mean--The Canadian Red Cross is trying to get video games to stop using the red cross symbol. They also plan to stop first aid kit makers, as well. This kind of action can only hurt their image, not to mention the fact that spending donation money on lawsuits seems ... at odds with their mission. Would you give to a charity that was going to use your money to sue others, instead of helping save lives?

I wouldn't.

Impossible? Not so fast ...

"Men are generally idle, and ready to satisfy themselves, and intimidate the industry of others, by calling that impossible which is only difficult."
- Samuel Johnson

I would add that sometimes we are told things are "impossible" when we've already done them.

This explains some things

As Slashdot reported, the bad news is that there is no travel through time.

The good news is that distance is "an illusion" and we'll be able to travel anywhere, instantly. I don't pretend to understand all of it, but I'm OK with trading time travel for distance travel.

So, to explain why this explains some things: The aliens are here; they have been here a long time. Getting from, say ... Alpha Omega Epsilon Delta IV (or any other star system) ... is not a problem. It's just one we haven't solved. Yet. And the reason there are no really old examples of certain radioactive isotopes that couldn't (shouldn't?) exist before the Atomic Age, is that no one has ever traveled back in time to put them there. Ever. (I owe that last to a PhD friend (nuclear physics) who asserted that as proof of no time travel. You go argue with him; he's lots smarter than I am.)

I guess he was saying that if time travel were possible, then we would have isotopic proof of it, because it would be impossible not to take these decaying buggers back with us, if we went. No funky isotopes, ergo, no funky time travel.

But we can fold space, though. Cool.

There's trouble, I say, trouble in Europe!

Oh, boy. Pat Robertson, global pundit of inestimable value, believes that Jean-Paul Sartre is responsible for the declining birth rate in Europe. While I'm sure he's better known (and better read) there than here (Sartre, that is), I doubt that young people leave high school there with a very well-developed appreciation for the finer points of early 20th century philosophy. Can they even spell existentialism?

Frankly, I'm surprised that Roberston is familiar with Sartre and/or Existentialism, at all. Wouldn't seem to be the kind of thing he'd take to, if you know what I mean.

My suggestion is that the lower birth rate is probably due to our general obsession with ourselves and selfish things (and us Americans are certainly in there, as well). We simply don't think we have the time or want the bother of having kids. Takes away from our weekends of clubbing, skiing, or simply hanging out and getting stoned.

Update: A friend suggests that another explanation might be the cost of raising children in an urban-tech environment. Kids is expensive, so there might be some incentive not to have so damn many.

Furthermore, just the whole slant of Robertson's comments about "racial suicide" implies that there might actually be a European race (something of which I was unaware), and that the real reason the reduction in population might be a "bad thing" from his perspective mostly has to do with a perceived change in the relative balance of races on the planet. This means Pat Robertson is really making a rather racist remark. "White peoples need to have more babies, 'cause the [insert favorite non-white race here] sure are!"

Disgusting.

Here's an interesting logic problem

I subscribe to Jason Kottke's blog, at Kottke.org. He often has interesting things to report, so I tune in via NewGator. This way I get notified everytime there's a new post. Actually, I subscribe to bunches of websites and blogs (news, humor, etc.). It's better than the 6 o'clock news and the newspaper, for keeping abreast of things (heheh, he said "things").

Jason proposes the following problem:

"A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the plane take off?"

Here was my answer (that I posted to his comments block):

Assuming the plane could take off and fly if there were no conveyor belt, the conveyor belt makes no difference at all. Really.

There is no power to the plane's wheels, so contact with the ground is just to hold the thing up. A plane has wheels because skids (unless on water or snow) don't work very well. Of course, other things work less well.

There is another aspect to the problem, as stated. If the conveyor belt is "smart" and always moves the same speed and opposite direction to the plane ... if the plane is standing still relative to the ground, is the conveyor belt moving, at all? Of course, the forces that move the plane forward don't depend on the ground (or the speed relative to the ground, for that matter). The relative ground speed of a plane taking off into a strong wind is measurably slower than the plane's airspeed. That's why they call it "airspeed", because that's what matters.

I thought it was a trick question, but it's really just so simple that it fools you into thinking it must be somehow "harder". Unless the plane's wheels can propel it forward (like the jet in The Jewel of the Nile--you can see the drive mechanism plainly as it taxies around), the conveyor belt will make no difference. It's the air and the air's speed relative to the plane that matters. In a fast-enough wind (at least hypothetically), the plane wouldn't even need a runway. Actually, though, before the plane's thrust could become strong enough to counter a 100+ MPH wind, the plane would be blown backwards rather catastrophically.

In physics we learn that planes move because their propellers or jet engines throw large masses of air backwards at high speeds, and the plane is simply obeying Newton's Third Law. Rockets work the same way, except that they bring their propellent mass with them (since there ain't no air in space, y'know).

Data transfer via Snail?

Ha! Sneakernet has been around forever, and I know it's faster. That said, there is a certain "cute" humor to the idea. And, for those not familiar with the idea of alternate data transfer protocols, there is RFC 1149.

Enjoy. And here is the link to BoingBoing, folks.

Songbird takes wing

Here is something interesting. Basically, Songbird is a music/video player built on the same platform as Firefox, Thunderbird, and others (I recommend Firefox and Thunderbird heartily), that functions "like a specialized browser for music and video".

The preview release, which I have tried out briefly, is pretty limited in functionality. That is, it won't replace Winamp (or any of the other players) anytime soon. Overall, I like the concept, though I couldn't find any way to configure the thing. (Rats!) Specifically, I could not get it to work through the proxy server at work. Stay tuned; I will try it at home and report what I find. It's also not devoid of bugs, as I was able to crash it fairly easily. That said, go easy on these guys: this is release 0.10--what did you expect?

Of course, it does play music, though it took forever to scan the 700 songs on my itty-bitty USB hard drive. (Seagate 5 GB portable hard drive, super cool!) I suspect the speed of the drive (or lack thereof) was a factor, but I note that Winamp scans this drive in a fraction of the time. Regardless; whatever, etc., I'm not complaining.

I really want to try this puppy out at home where I can access the web more ... directly, to see what coolness it adds. Stay tuned.

Followup to my earlier followup: George Deutsch, et all

To read the NY Times article, registration is required. I found this via Slashdot, who also links to World O'Crap for more information on Mr. Deutsch. For completeness, ere is the link to my earlier, followup post, which is mainly a continuing rant about ID.

I have no issue with those that don't finish college, just those that lie about it. IMHO, it's shocking and amazing that someone with Mr. Deustch's "qualifications" could even be put in such a visible, public position. But, in light of events, the man was an utter fool to rock the boat so hard. Did he think they wouldn't find out he'd left school early? Did he think his buds at the WH would protect him? What a Deutsch bag.

Small fish--just throw him back. But actually, he fell out of his own (un)doing.

But, it occurs to me there is a general movement to dilute and undo the role that science and the search for observed truth are playing in American culture. Are we sure this is the right thing to do? I just read an article in the latest Time Magazine this morning. (Requires paid registration to read, unless you're a subscriber. Sorry.) The article, by Michael D. Lemonick, leads in with the following:

... America was a scientific "city on the hill," a place where enormous resources, academic freedom, a tradition of skepticism and a history of excellence lured everyone from astronomers to zoologists from all over the world, and ... many of them never had any interest in leaving.

Sound pretty good, doesn't it? In further reading, the article downplays the negative impact of current administration policy toward--let's face it--reality, and instead blames our problems on three things (emphasis mine):

Some critics have tried to put the blame for the U.S.'s scientific decline on President George W. Bush, citing his hostility to stem-cell research, his downplaying of global warming, his statements in support of "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution, and his Administration's appointment of nonscientists to scientific panels as well as its alleged quashing of dissenting scientists (see story on page 37). Although that record has certainly roiled the scientific community at home, experts in business and academia have been warning for decades that U.S. science was heading for trouble for three simple reasons. The Federal Government, beset by deficits for most of the past three decades, has steadily been cutting back on investment in research and development. Corporations, under increasing pressure from their stockholders for quick profits, have been doing the same and focusing on short-term products. And the quality of education in math and science in elementary and high schools has plummeted, leading to a drop in the number of students majoring in technical fields in college and graduate school.

I agree, but I wouldn't absolve the administration of their role in the first and third reasons. Programs such as "No Child Left Behind" have turned schools from places of education into places of "just make sure they can pass the test so we can get our Federal funding". Now, the focus in public school education has been lowered to the lowest possible common denominator, leaving the brightest and most promising students ignored, bored, and much less likely to continue on a path of excellence.

Foreign students, more motivated and not enamored with the mind-numbing trappings of pop culture (TV, MP3 players, video games, etc.) are dominating in our universities. But, instead of staying and becoming Americans (I do have a coworker from Sri Lanka who got his US citizenship last fall--way to go Ravi!), they're more often returning home to put their expertise to work there. However, I am not saying that the rest of the world should not benefit from having their brightest and best put that mental energy to work at home! This is a great gift to be able to give the world. But, as the overall level of expertise here in America drops, so does America. Eventually, the best will go elsewhere to be educated (and ultimately work).

On the first reason, the Time article discusses the erosion of scientific funding over the past 15 or so years. It cites that since 2001, budgets for "pure" research have been halved because "we're in a war, we need to have a shorter-term focus". I would assert that this view is completely in line with other flawed thinking: that it's somehow safe to mortgage our future for the sake of some short term goals. Unfortunately, it's not just Bush who feels this way--many corporations in America take this view, as well. And it's wrong. Dangerously wrong. Meanwhile, in China and elsewhere, the focus is on things that matter. To sum it up perfectly:

In his book Thomas Friedman puts it another way: "In China today, Bill Gates is Britney Spears. In America today, Britney Spears is Britney Spears--and that is our problem."

We're too self-absorbed, and we need to raise the level of debate in this country. Whether you agree with me, or not, I will succeed if I get you to think about it.

A universe of books online

I found this via BoingBoing, once again.

Reading the article brought back memories of when I was a 4th or 5th grader and had discovered the library in my elementary school. I distinctly remember checking out books--many books, and they weren't all science fiction or fantasy, either. It was where I discovered the works of Andre Norton, and also learned about the parts of an automobile engine. I "researched" all manner of topics of interest to me. And now I think: what if I'd had a tool like the web to help me find books?

It is truly amazing the fundamental change that's been enabled by the web. I was wrong (really wrong) back in 1993 when I said the web was just a fad that would fade. It's clear I didn't understand it, then, because still today I find more and more ways to make it serve me and my life. I am not afraid to change my mind about things.

Change is inevitable. It really is adapt or die. Books are still relevant and indispensable . Most of human knowledge is still stored in books, and I believe that digitizing and making them available on the web will seriously expand their influence, for years to come. Let's face it: the book as a form factor is very convenient--better than the electronic reader. It never runs out of juice, and can quite easily annotated (should you feel so inclined).

Google is working with major libraries to bring their vast collections to the web. Sure, Google plans to make money doing it, but since when is the money motive invalid for spurring creative new development? It seems to me that money is the primary motivator in the world, and the single reason why America has grown to be where it is in the global economy. Money can be used to do evil, but no one is accusing the writers and publishers of being evil just because they want to make money of their books. Why should Google be labeled in this way?

I am a writer (though not as yet published), and the idea that my works could be indexed and made more easily available to a wider audience certainly does appeal to me. In general, the ability to easily find obscure works will do nothing but improve the long tail, and make profitable the companies that are able to cater to a very wide audience of disparate tastes. In my view, it only benefits everyone: reader, writer, publisher, and book seller. With such great benefits, it's a wonder that anyone could be against it.

Update: Here's more about the long tail. Interesting stuff. Seems the web is diversifying us to the detriment of those mega-large, megalithic multinational conglomerates that would have us all watching, reading, and listening to the same stuff. How boring would that be?

If you care about the abuse of executive privilege

This is not the way America was intended to be run by its founders and it is not the interpretation of the Constitution that any of the founders ... would have subscribed to.

The above is a quote from Lawrence B. Wilkerson, who was Chief of Staff at the Department of State from August 2002 to January 2005. He was a long-time aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and a learned and strong critic of the administration.

Read the whole interview. While he admits that interpretation of intelligence is difficult, he also feels he participated in a hoax against the American people, an act he greatly regrets:

It makes me feel terrible. I've said in other places that it was-- constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life.

I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council. How do you think that makes me feel? Thirty-one years in the United States Army and I more or less end my career with that kind of a blot on my record? That's not a very comforting thing.

This was found via Slashdot. Oh, and I'm with Col. Wilkerson: "I'd prefer to see the squabble of democracy to the efficiency of dictators."

Stupid Bowl followup

Normally I am a sports fan, and furthermore, sometimes an NFL fan, as well. I used to follow the Falcons (though it was painful most of the time), and now I follow the Bengals, who are definitely not the joke that they used to be.

If I lived in Seattle, I would be a Seahawks fan, but I only visited there for a year, 9 years ago. I don't like the Steelers, particularly. Er, at all. Call me an intellectual bigot, I just don't like teams whose fan base are mostly blue-collar drunken loudmouths. (Damn, have I just insulted every NFL fan? Probably.)

Let's see what was pathetic/wrong/stupid about this year's "game":

1. ABC did a mini biography about the head referee (the guy with the white hat--a completely mis-used metaphor). WTF? Like, who gives a sh*t?
2. The Sierra Mist commercial that tried to make fun of the TSA. It wasn't funny. It illustrated an abuse of power that simply doesn't seem very humorous, to me. There were other bad commercials, too. I conspicuously avoided watching them, if I could.
3. The pass interference penalty that eliminated the Seahawks' first touchdown. Truth of it is, the defender had no chance whatsoever to catch the ball; it was as light a push-off as I've ever seen. What? Is there no touching allowed, now?
4. The half time "show". It was so bad ... OMG! The Rolling Stones (not my favorite band) just mailed it in, in a ripped and dirty envelope. Technical difficulties, indeed!
5. The holding penalty that eliminated the Seahawks' second touchdown (well, what should have been their second one). Even John Madden couldn't see it. It's plain the defender wasn't held, at all. What? No blocking allowed, now?
6. Hasselbeck's "illegal" block. What? Is there no tackling allowed, now? Surely more than one official was on the field and could have corrected that stupid call. Surely.
7. OK, there was one good thing: that Hasselbeck "fumble" that was reviewed and changed. He's the QB, after all. It don't take much "contact" to convince him to fall down.

I know there were many more examples of how the game was marred in favor of Pittsburgh, but I didn't see every excruciating minute. Unless I actually care about the teams playing, I seriously doubt I'll tune in, next year. It's abundantly obvious to me that it's not my particular demographic they want to appeal to, anyway.

I heard Puppy Bowl II was good. Maybe I'll check it out, next time around. Puppies is cute!

If you are a fan of fantasy novels

... You have probably read some hoary, trite, bad ones. However, if you write fantasy novels, now there's a way to automatically generate titles for your newest escapist sword-and-sorcery glurge-fest, so you won't have to work very hard.

After all, if the ideas inside aren't very original, why should the title be?

Found this via BoingBoing, who always seem to be on top of everything.

Followup to my post about ID

Previouly, I ranted about intelligent design vs evolution. Now I find the belief of ID interfering with the theory of the Big Bang. To wit: I found this via Fark.com, who found this via Cosmic Variance (who found this via Atrios).

I think the level of debate in this country really must be raised. It's difficult enough for scientists to agree on anything. Imagine how much of a ... holy war ... would be engendered if NASA decided to represent just one particular religious viewpoint? What? You mean NASA doesn't believe the cosmos is held up by a giant turtle? Scandalous!

It doesn't matter, religiously speaking, that scientists believe there was a "Big Bang". Who is to say it wasn't part of the creator's "big design"? No one can know, so the point is moot. Since the existence of the creator is unprovable, (though some may say the big bang is unprovable, but they're only just being ignorant), I would posit that the creator is also unobservable. As she should be.

Yes, the Big Bang is "just" a theory, as are most non-trivial scientific "statements of fact". Look it up. Wikipedia says it well, though:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts.

Perhaps the government political flack should have researched the meaning of the word before he opened his mouth and revealed to all his true level of foolishness. But, I'm sure he fits right in with the perspicacity of the current administration.

This is truly scary

Below is a snip from the article. Personally, I'd like to believe it's either 1) incredibly sick humor, or 2) the ravings of a lunatic. Check out his two blogs, here, and here, and make your own call.

I vote: lunatic.

But here is the snip, anyway. (Incidentally, I found this while attempting to research a comment concerning Senator Rick Santorum and his "plan" to ban masturbation.) It's amazing what you find on the web, sometimes. (The emphasis in the paragraph below is mine. I just didn't want you to miss it.)

There is nothing to stop these fornicators from “marrying” and then continuing to fornicate with other people. Similarly there is nothing to prevent marriage amongst Muslims, secular people and practioners of other false religions (including “Christians" who don’t know the Word of God).

God will have no mercy for these satanically inspired individuals come the Day of Judgment, so why should they now be allowed to “marry” and go about their sinful ways with our approval?

The solution to this problem is quite simple. Christians need to stop supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment and start supporting an amendment that would do much more.

We need an amendment that forces all Americans and people living in America to declare whether or not they are a Bible believing and practicing Christian before they begin to have sexual thoughts. Any person who declines to make this declaration should be prevented from ever having sex through castration or female genital mutilation.

We need an amendment that creates a national sodomy law, by which I mean it bans all sex that God doesn’t like. This of course will ban the sexual sin of masturbation. Any sodomite found guilty of sodomy should be executed. (The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Woodhull Freedom Foundation have already pointed out that many states already have excellent laws that criminalize some evil sexual acts. We need to strengthen those laws.)

This amendment should also ban Judges and others from performing marriages. Marriages should only be performed by male ministers (a ban on satanic religions and civil rights and equal protection laws will be accomplished in another amendment) and should only be used to unite a man and a woman, both of whom are alive and have their genitalia. Married couples will “be fruitful and multiply” because all forms contraception will be prohibited and treated the same as sodomy.

Wow. WTF?

I certainly don't want to give the article any more attention or perceived value than it (probably) already has. Let's just say I'm someone who votes in favor of letting all of us make our own way through life (the sodomites and the "Christians" and the Muslims), and who would really like it if we could all get along well enough not to keep killing each other. Life is too short, (as my father's insistence on not abandoning it so easily shows me) and if I need to let you alone so you will let me alone so I can get on with what's important to me ... well then, I guess I'm for that.

Aren't you?

Sure, wouldn't we all want to be in a position to tell everyone else what to do (or what not to do)? But, given that power can be fleeting, I'd think it'd be way too easy to end up on the wrong side of that equation (that is, being the one being told what to do). The author seems to think he's got some kind of god on his side, and that since this god tells him he's right, this means he can be the one carrying out this god's will. I dunno about him, but I'd rather leave vengeance up to this god, and treat others as I would want to be treated.

Seems I've heard of this idea somewhere, before. Don't know where, or when, but it strangely still seems like a pretty good idea, to me.

I get the jump on being meta-ironically hip

From now on, I plan to invoke AYBABTU at every opportunity. That way, when we finally get to 2008 and the saying truly does become "meta-ironically hip", I can say I was hip way back in 2006.

Or does it make me just sad? *sigh*

Hindsight alone is not wisdom: $0

Second-guessing is not a strategy: $0

Going to war when you're not absolutely sure of the reasons: Billions and billions of $$$$

I think he's missing the point. I'd vote in favor of being sure, next time.

One last point: Being a patriotic American means questioning our leaders. Being patriotic really means questioning everything. That's the essence of the First Amendment. It's importance is indicated by its position in the list. (And for the mentally impaired, it's the first amendment to the constitution.) It worries me that once we lose the privilege of questioning the decisions of our leaders, we lose the privilege of governing. After that ... well, after that nothing else matters. Much.

We will have lost.