I placed my order on Tuesday, March 11. My order was confirmed and I wrote and mailed my check on Wednesday, March 12. First thing in the morning on Thursday, March 20, the payment was finally received. On the eigth businessday hence, my check was finally cleared this morning and my payment was applied. The laptop "should ship this evening", so I should have my computer, at the latest, by Friday! That's not altogether bad, since the move is Thursday.

If they don't count the full day on Thursday, March 20, as one of the businessdays to allow for my check to clear, then they just barely met their "5-7 business day" limit. I'll be a good sport if it gets here in pristine order and never gives me a problem! (In more ways than one, the delay has probably been a good thing. If nothing else, the new computer hasn't been a distraction this week, most hellious of all weeks this semester...)

UPDATE 2003.04.01 @ 08:35: I don't know if I am reading my tracking information correctly, but if I am, it tells that my package arrived in Macon this morning but will not be delivered to me until next Monday. That can't be right....?

Fox News reviews Bush's performance with the Gulf War since March 19. Not only is it a positive criticism of Bush's performance, but a negative criticism of those who suggest that the Bush administration should spread its resources thin and address the North Korea situation now. (Reason: handling two Middle Eastern problems, Afghanistan and Iraq, is much more logical than trying to spread resources between the Middle East and Far East.)

The report says it's too early to decide Bush's place in history among the other wartime presidents -- I disagree. Based on performance alone, I believe Bush has been one of the best Presidents we've had. Considering that I'm highly critical of anyone and everyone that does something I disagree with regardless of political affiliation, I think that's saying something for Bush, even if I am a little biased (which I do not deny). Regardless of such bias, though, I'm willing to bet that history will agree with me; Bush will go down as one of the greatest presidents this country has known.

Consortium News disagrees, but a very poor case is made (in my opinion). It relies on emotive rhetoric rather than substantive information, but they are just as qualified to share their opinion as anyone else. Infinitely more disturbing is that Time appears to favor Saddam over Bush, and Time is supposedly one of America's best magazines for "quality" analysis and detailed reports. Not that any of the information in Time's article is incorrect, but it is badly taken out of context and is not matched by the overwhelmingly damning evidence against Iraq.

It has been a grueling offseason for me. I needed the distraction of baseball more than ever this offseason, and I believe I followed offseason news and transactions more than ever before this winter, but that no longer matters -- it's spring, and it's time to play ball!

As is customary for the final Sunday before 750 of the world's best baseball players take to fifteen baseball fields, I shall offer my predictions for the season's turnout. Despite that this activity is pragmatically wasteful, it is fun to make predictions and even more fun to discover how wrong (and, even better, how right!) I am by season's end!

I always start with the National League because it is the senior league (determined by age), and with the East division in the league because it the Eastern US came first. The NL East gets the most attention because I'm biased.

FYI, all predictions assume that injuries are kept to a minimum (injuries occur randomly and their effects are impossible to predict). So, without further delay:

The Atlanta Braves have won eleven straight division titles, and last year's team only included two players -- Tom Glavine and John Smoltz -- from the original worst-to-first Braves team of 1991. After season's end, however, the Braves went through their most significant shakeup since the winter of 1990-91 -- not only did they lose two of the league's best pitchers, but they lost them to division rivals. Still, as Chipper Jones has said, "we didn't exactly bring in schmucks to replace them". Robert Fick adds some pop in the lineup, and pitchers Russ Ortiz, Paul Byrd, and Kevin Hamption were picked up to make up for losses.

The Philadelphia Phillies, who's new ace pitcher Kevin Millwood was the Braves number-three starter, also picked up slugger Jim Thome to go with an already dangerous lineup. If their lineup is as good as it looks on paper, they'll probably make the playoffs. Then again, the Braves lineup for the past several years has been stacked on paper but hasn't come through as it arguable should have. If Braves' bats break out, the Braves can't be touched, because no pitching staff under Leo Mazzone is going to be giving too many games away.

Bringing up the rear are three teams, the Montreal Expos, New York Mets, and Florida Marlins, each of which are very capable of upsetting the two that presumably should win in 2003. The Mets added career-Brave Tom Glavine to their picthing arsenal and Cliff Floyd to their outfield; they are a solid team if they perform well. The Marlins and Expos, on the other hand, are both stacked with high-risk potential; either team could surprise everyone and win 80+ games, or either could lose 90. Both teams are stacked with young talent that's probably a couple of years from realizing its potential. I still pick the Expos to win 85 games for an easy ride into third place.

The offseason's moves are going to make the NL East a run for anyone's money. Despite my faith in my team, all bets are off this year. Too much has been shaken up to make any calls with any kind of confidence. There is no single key to the Braves protecting their title run -- everything has to fall into place. The pitching must be adequate and the bats must wake up. Rafael Furcal must adjust to the leadoff role, Andruw Jones must realize his superstar potential, and Gary Sheffield must become Gary Sheffield once again. I expect a close race between the Braves and Phillies.

I am stepping out onto a long, shaky limb with the NL Central, but I think this is the year of the Cubs. They may not go all the way, but they're going to take their first serious crack at it in decades. The starters always get all the credit, but the Cubs' bench and bullpen are going to be the glue holding them together. The Cardinals made few changes and will again be a strong contender. A good rotation and a potentially killer lineup could spell big things for St. Louis. The Astros have an excellent team for 2003, but I will base their overall performance on Jeff Bagwell and Jeff Kent -- if those two perform well, so will the Astros.

In Cincinnati, a healthy Ken Griffey is going to return to MVP form and a handful of young talent will make things interesting, but pitching and inexperience will keep the Reds from contending. Keep an eye on Brandon Larson; he's my pick for Rookie of the Year if they let him play. The Pirates have lots of potential but too many question marks; expect surges and streaks and anything but consistency. Good, but not near good enough. The Brewers need help; hopefully former Braves coach Ned Yost can manage his first major league team well. I expect the Brewers representative at the All-Star Game will be there not because he earned it, but because every team is required to have at least one.

San Francisco probably experienced the second-most significant offseason shakeup behind the Atlanta Braves, but like the Braves, I think the Giants are a better team on the other side. The keys to Giant success are getting Bonds good pitches; a real leadoff hitter in Ray Durham probably has new manager Felipe Alou drooling at the RBI potential. The Diamondbacks are once again going to be in top form, but at some point their arsenal of veteran power (including their one-two punch on the mound) has to slow down. If Byung-Hung Kim is as good a starter as he was a closer, though, the Diamondbacks will be tough to beat.

The Dodgers need big things from a handful of former superstars who seem to have slowed down. If Kevin Brown regains his old firm or if Fred McGriff, Brian Jordan, and Shawn Green produce as we know they can, enemies beware. Those things considered, the key to Dodger success will be starting piching: Dodger fans have to believe that the 2002 performances of Odalis Perez and Hideo Nomo weren't flukes. Speaking of pitching, the Rockies and Padres aren't going anywhere with their respective rotations. 'Nuff said.

Why mess with a winning combination? The AL East has resulted in this configuration by the end of each of the last five seasons; no other division in any major sport in history has been so consistent for only its top two teams. Then again, we are dealing with the best and worst in the league here. The Yankees unfortunately can not be stopped, and the Devil Rays unfortunately can not be started. Between them are great but not great enough, mediocre, and bad but not that bad in the Red Sox, Blue Jays, and Orioles. I pray for Yankee-beating greatness out of the Red Sox every year to no avail, and even better things for the Orioles simply because Cal Ripken played for them -- again, to no avail. Maybe this year?

Despite their age, the Yankees pitching rotation is still top notch. Their lineup should probably hit 300 home runs, especially if newcomer Hideki Matsui from Japan hits even near as well as he did across the Pacific. I hate it for baseball fans everywhere, but it looks like the Yankees can't be stopped. (Just so you know, if I ever sound like a socialist, it's because of the Yankees. I would never, could never justify socialism with any example other than the Yankees. Yankees need to lose.)

If the Red Sox stay healthy, however, their lineup's potential is about equal to the Yankees, and their bench is nearly as deep. This could be their year, and I wish it would be. What a great year for baseball 2003 would be if it landed the Red Sox and Cubs in the World Series: one of them would have to win, regardless of the curses against them! But I could do without that if only the Red Sox could merely keep the Yankees from the playoffs. I don't care who wins if the Yankees lose!

The Blue Jays have decent pitching and a decent lineup, but nothing exciting. They seem comfortable in their three-hole in the AL East. The Orioles have once again made offseason deals that would make any other team worse (such as adding B.J. Surhoff as their DH), but may have actually helped them. If Rodrigo Lopez leads a good pitching year for the Orioles, they might displace the Blue Jays, though that wouldn't really do anyone any good. The Devil Rays, sad to say, simply need a miracle. I don't even know half of the names on their roster; that's bad.

Probably the worst division in the majors, the AL Central is plagued by bad pitching. The Twins are stacked with young talent, and I expect something similar to last year. The White Sox have improved, however, leaving their lineup virtually untouched and adding ace Bartolo Colon to the rotation. If Frank Thomas finds his .300 batting stroke again, the White Sox could come out on top in 2003.

The bottom of the division means very little to me. I expect the Indians to fall just short of .500, the Royals to fall just short of that, and the Tigers to fall just short of being worse than the Devil Rays. The Indians have potential on the mound and rookies on the corners, so this is probably not their year. The Royals and Tigers both need a lot of help; if either loses fewer than 90 games, I will be surprised.

The smallest division in the big leagues might again be the most exciting to watch, but those on the east coast might find the Phillies and Braves rivalry more entertaining. The Athletics have changed very little, and I expect them to remain on top fairly easily. Their killer rotation, MVP Miguel Tejada, and slugger Eric Chavez should be adequate protection from the Angels and Mariners.

The Angels will rely on consistency to the third degree to defend their World Series championship; indeed, their entire lineup and rotation is coming back for the sequel. A very good, but not great, pitching rotation and a well-rounded lineup lacking superstars reminds me of the Braves in the early '90s. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The Angels are still the team to beat, but I think the Athletics will beat them.

The Mariners are my AL favorites, but they've lost steam. I also don't know whether to congratulate them or give them a dirty look for taking Tampa Bay's only 2002 All-Star -- but I guess Randy Winn had to go somewhere, and he is a very nice fit into an already potent lineup. If Ichiro and Winn can get on base and Edgar Martinez can regain his .300+ form, the Mariners are instantly a contender. Bret Boone and Mike Cameron are borderline stars, and the pitching staff is nothing to scoff at. I hope for a World Series with the Mariners' name on it every year, but it never amounts to anything.

Finally, the team that just doesn't make any sense: the Texas Rangers. You would think that Alex Rodriguez, Rafael Palmeiro, and Juan Gonzalez would lead the Rangers straight into the playoffs, and with Gonzalez finally healthy again, this could be their year. Still, many unknowns on the pitching side of things keeps me skeptical. I expect a good run from the Rangers if their big three stay healthy and pitching is decent, or more of the same from them if anything goes wrong. Either way, I expect every AL West team to win at least 80 games this year.

Now for the fun part... the playoffs and awards! Playoff predictions are short and sweet because the teams will not look exactly the same in October as they do now, and I can't predict how the division series matchups will form.

I hope for better things for the Braves, but even last year I was happy for the Giants to knock the Braves out of the playoffs. Barry Bonds deserves a World Series ring, and I think it would be fitting for him to get one in Yankee Stadium, even if I would rather the Yankees not be in the playoffs in the first place. As I mentioned earlier, I would love to see a Red Sox/Cubs matchup, and for either of those teams to win would be a wonderful event for Major League Baseball. Of course, I am always rooting for the Braves and Mariners, so if either team gets close in the end, my bias will swing my opinion in their favor.

Now for the awards. This is the most difficult process, because it is difficult to predict which few of 750 players is going to have the best season, but speculation is fun, especially when you get one right! I'll start with the Cy Young Award because pitchers are fewer in number, and the great ones are generally consistent. In the NL, Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling are always the ones to beat, but an eye must be kept on Matt Morris in St. Louis, Greg Maddux in Atlanta, and even Kevin Millwood in Philadelphia. Talent is everywhere, and a young star can come out of nowhere to have a brilliant year, or an aging veteran can regain his old form for a year. In the NL, a better-safe-than-sorry prediction would go with Johnson or Schilling, bit I'm going to step out on a limb and pick Roy Oswalt of the Astros -- he's due. Keep an eye on the Cubs' Mark Prior, too.

In the American League, there are only a handful of pitchers from whom a brilliant pitching performance can be expected: Pedro Martinez, Barry Zito, Tim Hudson, and maybe Bartolo Colon or Mark Mulder. I wouldn't count out Roger Clemens just yet, Rodrigo Lopez of the Orioles strikes me as a young gun with potential, and wildcards like Roy Halladay and Jarod Washburn could sneak in there. Still, a healthy Pedro Martinez can not be stopped, and if he stays healthy, I think the award can not go to anyone else. If, on the other hand, he gets hurt again, I'm going with Tim Hudson.

The second-most impossible award (of the big three) to predict in either league is MVP. There are simply too many players with too much potential for good or bad things. So I'll keep things short and sweet: Gary Sheffield in the NL, because his fiery bat will be Atlanta's saving grace, and Manny Ramirez in the AL, especially if his hitting lifts the Red Sox over the Yankees. Another difficult trophy to predict is the Comeback Player of the Year, but the potentials are usually on a short list. This year, Ken Griffey seems healthy -- he blazed through Spring Training -- and I can't imagine him having anything less than a Griffey-esque year. Even if he only bats .280 with 30 homers, that will destroy the comeback competition.

If you have any comments or corrections, please share them. The season last months, and I will periodically remind you of these predictions depending on how accurate they are or are not.

p.s.-- anyone who reads all of that deserves a medal.

The epidemic of a strange new form of pneumonia has claimed the life of the scientist who helped to discover it. Carlo Urbani, an Italian epidemiologist at the World Health Organization's office in Hanoi (capital of Vietnam), discovered the first clue that a dangerous new microbe was beginning to spread around the globe. The pneumonia, which is only sometimes fatal, is now being called SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), and US officials are advising travelers to avoid Hanoi, Singapore, Hong Kong, and all of China. Efforts to contain the epidemic are slowly taking effect, hopefully successfully.

This epidemic and others in Africa have raised concerns recently that a new super-epidemic could actually affect a high percentage of people in the world. I am not concerned about it at the moment -- complacency isn't hard to come by from my comfortable life in middle Georgia -- but the idea of dying due to severe illness is a frightening one. Being ill beyond my control is one of few things that scares me, mostly because I like to think that I am mostly in control of my life. I try to live a healthy life, and the idea that there are things out there that can not be controlled, helped, or stopped could make my efforts moot. That's not something I like to think about!

Google News provides hundreds of links with gobs of information on SARS, if you're interested.

For all the baseball fans out there, Diana also pointed me to a (humorous? serious?) article about how to get your girl to like baseball. Really, my wanting to buy an extra ticket to Monday's opening day game in Atlanta was my idea first. I had no idea someone else had already thought of it for an article on MSN. I wonder if Zach ever even bought those tickets. I suppose he would have let me know by now...

If you're interested, I plan to make my annual baseball season predictions in the next 36 hours. If you miss it, it will be in the archive! Quick picks: Braves, Yankees, Athletics tops in their divisions. Griffey makes a huge comeback. And Larson is NL Rookie of the Year. We'll see...

The Sharp Mebius PC-MM1, a notebook originally intended for use in Japan but installed with an English OS, 'achieves B5-size (10.4" XGA TFT, 17mm keypitch), but it only weighs 2.09 pounds' (specs) -- and when charging in its cradle, you can plug it into your desktop via USB (1.1 or 2.0) and the desktop can read the MM1's hard drive. With a Transmeta Crusoe TM5800 processor at 1 GHz, battery life is outstanding. At $2100 ($1500 open box), I only wonder how fragile this machine is. (Thanks to Diana for the first link.)

In case you're wondering, my new laptop should weigh just less than eight pounds (specs), but it's bigger, faster, and cheaper -- and it's lighter than the laptop I have now. The only problem is that my check that was received eleven days ago still has not been cleared; the policy said to allow five-to-seven business days, and Monday will make eight. I am beginning to move toward the end of the impatience stage. What next?!

Several weeks ago, I asked you to tell me the difference(s) between education and indoctrination. I received several responses, and a few of them are posted below. Overall, I got about what I expected. (In the future, I hope to set up a comments script so you can easily post your responses to my questions to my web site immediately. Remind me to do that.)

FYI, if your response was left out, it simply wasn't what I was looking for. You understand. Also, I discriminated based on a single factor to determine the arrangement of the responses. It's my web site and I can do that.

As you can see, the answers were largely what I expected, with a few token quips and one clever reply that I don't understand, but I laughed so it stays. Otherwise, each response appears to be a variation on a theme. Thanks to those who responded! (To whom it may concern [i.e., no one]: none of these replies were coached, though replies were encouraged.)

It needs to be made clear very loudly that this war in Iraq is not a new war! The reason why our government has had plans to rebuild Iraq for several years is because the ceasefire agreement was only temporary as long as Saddam Hussein refused to disarm. If he had complied with UN resolutions, such plans would never have been necessary. But Saddam did not disarm, so we developed our plans to resume the fighting in the SAME Gulf War from 1991 that never ended. This is NOT a new war. This is resumed combat in a war that paused for twelve years because we decided half-way through to give Saddam Hussein a chance to prove himself worthy of leadership on an international stage. He failed to comply. He dared us to resume fighting. We did.

I only mention this because Iraq's ambassador to the UN has accused the US of trying to exterminate the Iraqi people, citing these several-year-old war plans. After sitting through several minutes of this, the American ambassador left (I don't blame him).

[There were] more than 80 speakers at the first open Security Council debate on Iraq since the war began last week. About a dozen countries that are not on the council supported the U.S. position, but the vast majority opposed the war and expressed regret that Iraq's disarmament could not be achieved peacefully.

For the Iraqi ambassador to suggest that this "war of extermination...will kill everything and destroy everything" suggests to me that Iraq is prepared to, well, kill everything and destroy everything. I certainly know that that is not the goals of the American or British militaries.

It saddens me that so many people in this world do not understand the American position. It saddens me that so many people do not understand that this is not a new war. It saddens me even more that our media understands this and chooses not to say anything about it.

Now more than ever I can recognize the liberal media bias. They are not opposing our troops because they are not against our troops. They are also intelligent, which means they know what they are doing. But they never give our President's administration the benefit of the doubt, when that's all they did five years ago when the last president pursued this same course of action and then backed down at the last minute and even allowed UN inspectors to be kicked out of Iraq. Gotta love double standards, especially when applied by the people who are responsible for reporting the world's information. Can you say indoctrination?

I laughed when I first read this, but only because it's in Iraq and not in the United States: the Iraqi airfield that Coalition forces secured recently has been officially dubbed Bush International Airport.

The sprawling base is located four miles from Nasiriyah... The airfield, second in size only to Saddam International Airport in Baghdad, had been out of use since the establishment of the no-fly zone following the 1991 Gulf War.

Audrey pointed me to a mural at an Iraqi military building in Nasiriyah. If you notice, it's an image of a plane crashing and exploding into a very tall building with another tall building not too far behind it. Why is this image on a wall in Iraq?

It is a rare occasion when someone can appeal to logic to allow me to reconsider my faith. I understand very well that I can not disprove the existence of God, but nor can I prove his existence. I simply believe he is there because I do not believe it is possible that a world as perfect as this (so perfect, even, that it supports life! *gasp*) without something to have designed it. Science alone can not explain how time began or how all this stuff became in the first place. In short: I know that the only logical position (on anything, not just God) is agnosticism ... until proof comes along.

Being agnostic, I accept both that (1) God may be our creator, Jesus may be our Lord and savior, and even that Muhammad may have been a prophet intended to correct the fouled word of God some six hundred years after the time of Christ; and (2) that none of this may be true -- that we could live in a world that evolved on its own, with entropy as its only guide. I accept that neither creation nor evolution can be scientifically proven, so I choose to accept each as legitimate as the other. But as I previously explained, I lean toward creation at least on the most basic of levels: something had to have been designed; something had to have catalyzed this process we call life. Where did it all come from?

Getting to the point: My beef with religion has always been the fallibleness of man. Church is not the representation of God, but our best representation of it given our separation from him. The Bible is not the word of God, but our best representation of it given our translation and retranslation over many centuries. Thus I have deduced that absolute adherence to every instruction of the church and/or of the Bible (or any other religious text -- not to limit this to Christianity) may be a mistake, as I have deduced that, if the Bible ever had truly been intended to be the word of God, it has likely been muddled since then.

Enter Diana. She asks: how many kinds of plants are there on this planet? how many kinds of animals? elements? bacteria (culture!)? means of communication (language, etc.)? Think about that for a second....... Now, if God can keep up with all of that, she asks, then how difficult must it be for him to keep up with one little book?

People that make me think get bonus points. Diana gets mega-bonus points, so she currently outranks most of you. Care to challenge my ideas? I'd love to hear it. Bring it on!

About fifteen months ago -- way back on December 30, 2001 -- I reported that India and Pakistan were potentially on the brink of nuclear war, test-firing nuclear-capable weapons and blaming each other for terrorist attacks, raising tensions on both sides. (I had actually commented on the India-Pakistan conflict for several days up to that point.) I commented that, due to rising tensions all over the world during that time, September 11 may have been the start of World War III. By the end of January 2002, however, threats of nuclear war ceased, and the United States media basically stopped reporting on the conflict.

Enter present. India and Pakistan both test-fired nuclear-capable missiles today, again raising tensions and concern over nuclear war. India and Pakistan have gone to war three times since 1947 and have been pushed to the brink on several other occasions. The political unrest in the region probably isn't helped by war on Iraq, but that is only my speculation. Here is a timeline of nuclear development for both countries, and here is a list of links and resources on the history of conflict between the two nations. Finally, the best chronology I can find regarding their recent history. If you're interested, enjoy the information, and send me anything you find to be useful!

In a semi-related story, India tells the United States that the war on terror can't have double standards. The complaint is that some threats have been met with "military means" and others with "calls for restraint and dialogue". My thoughts: there is no such thing as a "double standard" if one operates on a case-by-case basis, which is certainly the case when considering war. There is no standard operating procedure to follow that leads to or avoids war.

Forget the e-bomb. We bombed the Iraqi television station about three hours ago. Meanwhile, North Korea just cut off talks with us. At least the Kurds are helping us -- well, some of them.

I hope my cable going out has nothing to do with Iraqi TV being bombed. :-)

In a controversial but overdue move, we knocked out Iraqi TV today with an experimental, officially nonexistent "e-bomb". Apparently, our general in charge of the operations in Iraq, Tommy Franks, knew "nothing about it". Hah, right. I say kudos to knocking out Iraqi television, even if they came back with a much weaker signal several hours later. (Just knock that one out too...)

It's time I mentioned Russia. Rumor has it that Russia has supplied Iraq with "deadly military equipment" such as jamming devices. Russia, of course, flatly denies this. Tonight I heard the phrase "supplied by Russia and North Korea" on one of the major networks. Regardless of Russia's alleged collusion with Iraq, we should be very careful about lumping them together with our tacitly stated enemies like North Korea, especially before there is undeniable proof. Even the slightest hint of belligerence might trigger highly undesirable effects. I certainly do not appreciate Russia's defense of Iraq (if that is the case) or their opposition to our military action, but it is understandable given their business interests -- I only hope that's all there is to it. This article even suggests that the rumored equipment trades might be intentional propaganda. But why? Distraction? Justification? Whatever the cause, we should be very careful not to engender distrust and dislike for Russia when, to this point, their interests have not been shown to oppose ours. If this weapons trade turns out to be a bad assumption by the media, you can bet I will mention it again.

Of course, it is also worth mentioning that US forces destroyed at least one of the GPS-jamming devices with the specific type of GPS bomb against which it was intended to defend. Air Force Major General Victor Renuart incorrectly labeled this as irony, assuming, I guess, that Americans believe this isn't the way it logically should have been. Not irony, my friends, but an illustration of our military and technological superiority.

p.s.-- I've seen the video of the fallen American soldiers that the American press doesn't want you to see. It is not a pretty sight. It is graphic, and is probably not something most of us should see. It is not particularly gruesome, but it is certainly the opposite of heartwarming. It is an accurate illustration of the harsh reality that war can bring. If you present good reason, I might be persuaded to share the video with you on a personal basis. I hope not to receive many requests, though.

If you're looking for brief updates on the war, the Financial Times of Britain has a very short and sweet page for updates on the war. Beginning at the bottom, you can read through the major events of the war chronologically if you like. It's a good way to make sure there isn't anything you've missed. I have to rely on sites like this, being absent from television and Internet for ten hours at a time...

If you also see my "Iraq" links to the right, you'll notice a link to the Financial Times Iraq Special front, links to the Analysis, Military, Reaction, and Diplomacy sections of the Nando Times Iraq coverage, links to Radio Free Europe's Iraq Crisis, daily update, and weekly Iraq Report pages, and Time's Iraq-story web portal (something like the Drudge Report or Google News, found below) and their main Iraq War page. There have been other war links in that space, and there may be more later, but for now these are the main four that I check repeatedly, along with Google World News and the Drudge Report for off-the-wall or critical stories.

Wow. Even Time blasted Michael Moore for his anti-war speech at the Oscars. Of course, unlike most celebrities, Time says that Moore had every qualification to make his speech, for he is "nothing if he is not a professional commentator". So actually speaking out wasn't stupid. His stupid mistake, says Time, was lumping together his anti-war grievances with election 2000, which is likely what alienated him from what may otherwise have been a friendly audience to such a speech.

I part with Time when the writer suggests that Americans are hypocrites because we don't allow celebrities to share their opinions on politics. No, that isn't it at all. I don't mind when someone like Chris Cooper says he just wants peace, or even when Adrien Brody gives his long speech at the Oscars perhaps the way Moore's should have been done. I even didn't mind Sean Penn's trip and return to Baghdad, only because he made two things very clear: (1) that he actually thinks about politics, and (2) that he had real, substantive questions to which he wanted answers, rather than typical political rhetoric. I don't mind honest, intelligent political thoughts. But they have to be honest and intelligent, not misleading or didactic.

Celebrities do not have the right to assume the role of parents of the world's children. Certainly, they may feel a certain responsibility for their words and actions given their constant criticism, but they should understand that as long as people are paying attention, it doesn't matter what's being said. The attention is your career, no matter how it sounds.

The latest from the experts: 12,000 Coalition troops could die in a siege on Baghdad -- and no, that isn't a deterring figure. We're going in hard and strong, and the Iraqi Republican Guard is going to put up a "proper fight". This report says it could be as early as tonight. This is going to be the test of American resolve: how well will public opinion hold together as the liberal media exploits more and more the number of expected casualties in order to trash the President's image? I hope the media has better sense than that, but I've already lost my confidence in them.

The attack on Baghdad is in its beggining stages. B52s are leveling the southern approach for Coalition troops, setting up for the ground invasion. The only other headlines that seems worth mentioning here is that Iraq might use chemical weapons on American troops in Baghdad. That's no reason to slow down now, but it's a good reason to be ready for what otherwise may be unthinkable. Certainly, no nuclear bombs will be dropped, but I can nearly guarantee you that a powerful response will follow the use of weapons of mass destruction. We weren't developing the MOAB for nothing.

Below are a few of yesterday's and today's commentary highlights as I've seen them so far, not counting those that I've already mentioned. I won't have time for much else today, so hopefully this gets my message across. If nothing else, it should make you think!

p.s.-- Watch for the results of the differences between indoctrination and education at the bottom of this page. I will not include every answer submitted, so don't be bothered if yours isn't among them. I'm sure you understand.

I stopped watching the Academy Awards ceremony about an hour in because I got tired of Chicago, and I was disappointed that none of my favorites were winning. Then again, out of 25 awards, five of them went my way (The Two Towers won for sound editing and visual effects; Road to Perdition won for cinematography; "Lose Yourself" from 8 Mile won for best music/song; and my favorite: the "Chubbchubbs!" won for best animated short!).

Overall, I was pleased with what I saw. Steve Martin was very corny, but about what the Oscars needed given the situation everywhere else in the world. I enjoyed the subdued political atmosphere until Michael Moore ranted like a lunatic and nearly got booed off the stage; that can't be good for the speaker when a liberal crowd boos his anti-Bush, anti-War speech (my respect for Hollywood rose a notch -- it's at three out of 100 now).

And now, to watch the Chubbchubbs! I'm glad I downloaded this. :-)

I hate to offend anyone over this, but it looks like Neal Boortz was right: racial profiling may be a necessary evil if we are to defeat the terrorist enemy. I say this only because the soldier suspected of tossing the grenade into a tent at the military command center in Kuwait is a Muslim of Arab descent. Sergeant Asan Akbar has not yet been charged with any crime, but he fears persecution and is the only soldier being questioned in the incident. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now: perhaps his being questioned has a lot to do with his ethnicity. But if he is innocent, then he certainly understands why he is in the position he is currently in, and he will cooperate. That is, assuming his "fellow" patriots don't jump the gun and prematurely attack him in retaliation.

Regarding the American troops who were so inhumanely murdered in Iraq, I can say it no better than Dave. I will not link to any of the images I have seen, but the Washington Post describes them, as well as the skirmish that led their capture and brutal murder.

Meanwhile, US troops have secured a 100-acre facility that some suspect may be a huge chemical or biological weapons development plant. If this turns out to be true, this will be the smoking gun that we had been looking for, and it will be all the justification we need for this war. Any criticism from France or elsewhere about America's prior knowledge of this facility, whether true or not, would be irrelevant -- it was not America's job to point inspectors to the weapons to avoid war; that was Iraq's job. The inspectors job was to prove that Iraq was or was not complying with that charge; they were shown not to be complying. We attacked. Given Iraq's last thirteen years, the attack is entirely justified.

Also, if you're wondering why some commentators give the impression that this war might be a bit more costly, in terms of American and Coalition lives lost, than the Persian Gulf War of 1991, consider that Iraqis were fighting far from home in neighboring Kuwait then. This time they are defending their homeland. Ordinary citizens can become de facto military units should they feel so motivated, and otherwise our forces are somewhat responsible for their lives. If they are remaining peacefully in their homes, we must try to preserve their lives. Of course, with hundreds of explosions rocking Baghdad daily, to lose only a few hundred citizens would be amazing. That is, from a realistic perspective, I expect a few hundred Iraqi citizens to lose their lives. (The liberal media will feast on that later.)

I bet those same Iraqi citizens were deeply hurt when 3015 (mostly) American lives were lost on September 11, too. Err, sarcasm aside, we should sympathize for the Iraqi people who will unnecessarily lose their lives or otherwise be harmed, but that it is a small price to pay for ridding the world of one of the worst tyrants since Adolf Hitler.

p.s.-- Sleep is overrated.

Michael Moore, upon accepting his Oscar for best documentary feature, Bowling for Columbine, had this to say:

We live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you.

Moore was "surrounded onstage by his fellow nominees in a show of solidarity". Steve Martin, host for the evening, later joked, "It was so sweet backstage. The teamsters are helping Michael Moore into the trunk of his limo." As well they should.

Backstage, Moore went on to criticize the idea that "violence is an acceptable means to resolve a conflict". Apparently, he has never had his life or a loved one's live physically threatened by another human being. Violence is not a happy thing, but it is acceptable when it prevents worse things. And, let me tell you, violence is not the worst thing man has to offer. (I'd like to argue that Michael Moore is evidence of this.)

I don't believe in boycotting people for their opinions, but upon reading this article further and delving into what Michael Moore is all about, including the subject matter of some of his previous works, I think I'll add him to my "to be avoided" list. Thanks for identifying yourself, Mr. Moore. You have just made it that much easier for millions of Americans to educate their children properly by blacklisting yourself.

UPDATE 04:45: See an expanded version of this post here, where I open the door on idiot war protestors and French-bashers. I stopped short of listing the "dishonor roll" of Congressmen who voted against supporting our troops last week, but only because the article was already running very long for my school's newspaper.

A 25-year-old software engineer hit paydirt Friday at a slot machine in Las Vegas. He had "put in about $100 when he turned his head away for an instant. When he looked back, the winning symbols had lined up and he was $39,713,982.25 richer." "His uncle had told him about the Megabucks machine, which can pay out $5,000 for a $1 bet. If you play for $3 a pull, the winnings increase dramatically." With a curve like that, I think I'd be betting $3 per pull every time.

Meanwhile, a woman won $1,242,327 on a 15¢ bet on a slot machine in Mississippi. (Imagine if she had bet three dollars! But alas, the maximum bet was fifteen cents...) Once again, it was a MegaJackpots slot machine, which makes me wonder if somebody wasn't pressing some buttons behind the scenes on Friday. Two big winners in one day? Seems conspicuous...

Once again, did we get him? British intelligence thinks so. The latest rumors suggest that Saddam Hussein was so badly hurt when his bunker was bombed about three days ago that he needed a blood transfusion. Another rumor is that his eldest son, Uday (who is not allowed to possess a weapon in Saddam's presence), may have been killed.

It makes little sense to change the game plan based on these rumors or assumptions, but the speculation is fun. I would still like to know more about the occasional Saddam "sightings" though. Who are we seeing on television? Who is in control of Iraq? To these questions I have not found satisfactory answers, and I might not find them for quite some time. That's reason in itself to keep bombing until resistance dries up and we have Hussein on a silver platter.

This brings up an interesting question: how would you like your dictator served -- dead or alive? If dead, then it's over and done with, and there can be no "diplomatic" efforts to reign him in legally, and no potential for France to do anything stupid (well...) like try to reinstate him. On the other hand, trying him for war crimes might be incredibly tempting.

My opinion: kill him, his sons, his most ardent supporters, and anyone else who continues to fight for Iraq. Spare us the trouble of dealing with them "politely". They aren't worth the trouble, although I would find it quite humorous to read of Jacques Chirac's daily efforts to make Saddam more comfortable.

If you are worried of a tendency for your favorite news reporters to interpret the facts a little bit too much, perhaps you should check out the Media Research Center. The MRC is an organization that consumes its time by scouring media reports for biased statements, factual or other blunders, and anything else of similar interest. Particulary useful currently are its Media War Watch and Celebrity Spotlight for, well, obvious reasons. It's CyberAlerts are daily rundowns of all the day's bias -- a good place to start.

Another excellent web site that challenges its contributors to debunk false or misleading reporting across all mediums is AIM: Accuracy In Media. I first discovered this web site a couple of years ago, and it has been one of my favorites ever sense. Their analysis is not as expansive as the MRC's, but it is just as deep, and its presentation is more succinct, which I like.

A few Coalition troops have fallen, mostly due to chopper accidents. Several have been injured in combat, only a tiny few killed, and several injured when one of our own troops tossed a grenade into a tent. That, my friends, is treason, and Jim "Baghdad" McDermott is an American hero when compared to this parasite. If it can be proven that he was the one who did it, I say forget the court of law: the eighth amendment does not apply in Iraq. You screwed up, buddy.

From Congressional Quarterly's CQ Daily email:

A package of military tax breaks that was delayed a week by the temporary addition of unrelated tax provisions was passed by the House today [Thursday] on a 422-0 vote. The latest, stripped-down version of the military tax legislation (HR 1307) was debated on the House floor yesterday. The Senate version of the bill (S 351) has yet to be scheduled for a floor vote in that chamber. The military tax relief measure would cost $835 million over 11 years, and provide tax breaks on home sales, travel expenses and death benefits. The original version of the bill capped a travel expense deduction for reservists at $500 a year, at a cost of $189 million. Reservist groups groused it was too stingy, especially compared with the Senate version the Finance Committee approved Feb. 5, which would place no ceiling on the travel deduction. This week, House leaders raised the travel deduction limit in the House bill to $1,500 a year, increasing the cost of the provision to $549 million over 11 years.

So, let me get this straight: Democrats like this (expensive? discriminatory?) tax cut because it's for the military, but not any other, yet so many of them are fervently against the war (in speech), yet not a single one of them votes against this bill?

Hey, I'm all in favor of this bill passing, but I'm just wondering where the consistency is. If nothing else, I just wanted you to know it passed.

Amy asks in an email. See, we don't talk only about war...

I have an advantage here. I've been asked this several times in the last few days, so I've already given it some thought. First, I'll start by naming a few celebrities that I find more attractive than the rest: Eliza Dushku, Kirsten Dunst, Rachel Leigh Cook, Liz Hurley, Neve Campbell. There are certainly others. Two that do NOT make my list are Jennifer Lopez and, heh, Catherine Zeta Jones (who's blind?). Oh, and um, Jennifer Garner. She can not be forgotten. My god she can not be forgotten... Errr, Anyway.

The physical characteristics I look for are sexy, lean legs, generally smooth skin, a nice belly, and an attractive face. No individual area of a woman's body needs to be anything particularly special -- it all has to look good as a package or I don't care for it. Then again, physical beauty only means so much to me. If I'll never know you, then it's pretty much all I care about, because it's all I know about you. But if a girl can't hold a conversation, her physical attributes don't hold her up. If a girl self-deprecates to the point that even I can't put her in a good mood -- and I have a reputation for being able to cheer people up -- then I don't want to be around her. For people I know personally, good looks might encourage me to walk up to you, but I'm much more likely to walk up to the average girl with a smile on her face engaged in healthy conversation, just because I think I'm more likely to enjoy myself with her.

And people I've known for a long while fascinate me. The longer I know you, the more interesting you become, because it's like I've watched you evolve. It's a fascinating thing, and it's a beautiful process. That, I've discovered, weighs heavily on me. It might also be the fact that there is some history (whatever it may be), so there's more to talk about.

So what makes a woman beautiful? Accepting herself as who she is, not expecting more than she's willing to work for (but hoping for it is fine), a healthy attitude and look (healthy can mean a lot of things -- depends on the girl), and a willingness to discuss things. Communication is key... I can't fall in love with a brick.

I've noticed that I try to surround myself with beautiful women, but I have more fun when I'm just trying to relax and be myself. Everyone has some quirks that they need to get over before the maturation process is complete, and I know I've got a little ways to go yet. I am in no hurry to settle down, but I am not willing to pass up any golden opportunities either. And, well, hey... you asked.

Baghdad is falling apart. That Saddam was injured at the very least is almost certain. Senior Iraqi officials are reportedly leaving the country, some headed to Syria. We should take Baghdad by some time tomorrow. I don't mean to sound like a pessimist, but there's no way it could be this easy...

For most of my years, I have disliked rap music for the most part. But I have always tolerated the best of the worst, picking up a couple of hip hop and rap tracks here and there when the music or lyrics warranted such action. Artists such as Eminem and Dr. Dre come to mind.

I am also reminded of a particular song that was Mike Farinelli's and my bowling theme song during our senior year in high school: "Bombs Over Baghdad" by Outkast. "Bombs Over Baghdad" is just an energetic song that woke us up in the morning and hyped us up before bowling on any given Saturday night. It's a great song, and it's fun to be listening to it again! [Note: I just checked Dave's site for the first time in days, and coincidentally, he's posted the lyrics to "Bombs Over Baghdad". Good choice, Dave! He makes a good point, though: just what the hell is this song about?]

Speaking of bombs over Baghdad, the capital city of Iraq got hammered today. Check any of the links under the "Iraq" links on the right -- all of them have excellent recaps, and some of them a few pictures, of Baghdad going boom. The "shock and awe" attack began early this afternoon (shortly before dawn in Iraq?), and, of course, I missed it. Just as I missed the only ten-minute barrage on Baghdad yesterday while at school, I missed it today while at work. And I fully intend to miss it again tomorrow, again because of work. Even if I weren't at work, there's this whole yard sale thing that would be taking my time, so it looks like I'm just destined to miss all the good war stuff.

Still, my boss understands the need to check Internet headlines about every thirty seconds, so I kept up with what was happening for the most part. I was fascinated that, after a war-support resolution passed the Senate by a 99-0 vote, eleven Representatives -- all Democrats -- voted against a similar resolution in the House. This, in my opinion, is as anti-American as anyone can get. I mean, they are free to hold any opinion they wish, but to vote against supporting our troops when they are out there fighting to protect your sorry ass... to call such action an insult would be an insult to insult. The number-one, underlying duty of elected officials is to serve and protect American interests. Voting against our troops in a time of war is exactly the worst thing any Congressman can do.

I challenge my fellow Americans to get these anti-American, horrible excuses for representatives of American democracy out of Congress:

Freedom of speech is perfectly acceptable. I value everyone's equal right to open their big, fat, stupid mouths and share any nonsense they wish to share, because I want that same freedom when people disagree with me. But to oppose American interests as an elected representative in America's senior lawmaking body is inexcusable. Get these people out of Congress. We need Americans in there.

Amy, an apparently devoted reader, is sick and tired of the anti-war crowd. She seems to think a bit like me. They were tolerable before the war started, because they have just as much right to blab anti-war stuff as we have a right to blab our justification for war. But once it's started, preaching against the war comes off as anti-American. Sedition, anyone?

Amy's thoughts:

My husband's still here, but my cousin is scheduled to go out there in May. 'Course, they may move that up now that war's started. That's why it's so infuriating to me when all of these people are so hateful in their protests. They have every right to their opinions, but does it occur to them that it won't only be innocent Iraqis dying? Innocent Americans will be dying, and they believe enough in the cause to stand up and do so. If all you have the balls to do is bitch on a message board or in a newspaper column, then maybe you don't need to be talking at all.

Amy should send that to her local newspaper.

By the way, for those of you, like me, who are tired of Hollywood actors flexing their celebrity muscle and preaching anti-Bush and anti-war messages (but conspicuously not anti-Saddam messages), you'll be pleased with an organization called Grassfire. They have put up a huge billboard outside the Kodak Theatre, where the Academy Awards ceremony will be held on Sunday, that reads: Dear Hollywood... Get The Picture! America Supports Bush!" Very nice.

Somebody in Washington really thinks we got Saddam on Thursday, and they think we might have gotten his sons too. "The preponderance of the evidence is he was there when the building blew up", one official said. Another suggests that "he didn't get out".

I wonder about the costs and benefits of telling it either way. If we let the world know we got him, then in many minds around the world, that pulls the plug on the legitimacy of our fight. So, naturally, whether we've gotten him or not, we won't slow up until we're sure of the fact. Of course, if we haven't gotten him, how many braindead critics are going to suggest American failure because we didn't kill Saddam in our first try?

Naturally, there are countless other observations and interpretations to be made. This is all I can muster before 9:00am.

This article appears at the Political State Report. You may read or post comments on this story. This might be a good time for you to offer your opinion on whether Governor Perdue or Lieutenant Governor Taylor are doing good jobs or not.

Not much local news making it to the masses in the last twenty-four hours, but Sonny Perdue stays in the fray by encouraging us all to support our President.

The first Republican Governor of Georgia since the 1870s said:

Today as citizens of this great country we must commit our unconditional support to President Bush. After months of prayerful reflection and sustained counsel, President Bush has reached the decision that we have no choice but to disarm Saddam Hussein. Now as Americans, we must rally behind him, our leaders and our men and women in uniform. Our purpose is just, our commitment is absolute, and our prayers continuous for those involved. We must go forward and live up to our bedrock conviction that liberty and justice are truly for all.

Meanwhile, Governor Perdue and Attorney General Baker continue to disagree over who should controls "legal direction of the state". Legal filings have proven that "no middle ground exists". Baker's argument is essentially based on an interpretive, emotively appealing argument, while Perdue's is essentially based on state law and precedence.

The difficulty, however, is deciding whether or not the law in the past should continue to apply, and whether Baker's appeal is strong enough to set a new precedent. That is the purpose of the court, and I have confidence that the court will come to the only correct decision (which, obviously, is whichever one it comes to). This suggestion is based on the fact that it is the court's duty to interpret the law and make decisions upon it, and therefore whatever they say is correct under the law, whether I agree with it or not.

Finally, in potentially real election news (which is what this site is intended to be about, I gather), Lt. Governor Mark Taylor has been accused of "playing politics" instead of leading the Senate. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Eric Johnson (R-Savannah) says, "I'm disappointed in the lack of leadership. We're facing a serious budget crisis, and he's playing politics. He's failing to use what power he has to lead." Other Senate Republicans accuse Taylor of being "more partisan than ever", though more "muted" after his loss of power following the 2002 election.

Taylor, presumably a future Democrat candidate for governor, is defended by fellow Democrats. Steve Thompson of Powder Springs says, "he's come into his own more than I've ever seen". Indeed, despite his adversity, one of Taylor's bills has passed the Senate and is now before the (Democrat-led) House. However, nothing else on his agenda seems to be getting anywhere.

Taylor remains quiet about his potential gubernatorial candidate for the 2006 election, but supporters and opponents alike believe him to be a likely candidate.

I have discovered my two most significant flaws. Both are glaring now that I've discovered them, but only if you catch me in the act. I know two were discovered, but I can only remember one. Thanks to Clarissa, Rachel, and Diana for bringing these things to my attention. Feel free to guess what they are -- this gives you the chance to take a free shot. Complain and see if you hit my flaw!

Well, what do think? Is he or isn't he? My thoughts: Clark Kent? Superman! Clark Kent? Superman! ... but really, I don't think that's him, but I can't tell either. (Thanks for the link, Audrey.)

I always miss the good stuff. I was taking an international relations midterm (coincidence?) when we bombarded Iraq for about ten minutes at noon (8:00pm in Iraq). And looking at my previous post, we still are not sure whether or not we got Saddam last night. Some "senior officials" are saying we got him. But I'm certain that they're still assuming we haven't for practical reasons -- this is a good idea.

If you're wondering what North Korea is up to, so is Japan. There is perhaps good reason to worry that North Korea might do something now that the US has engaged Iraq, but Japanese Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba suggests otherwise (for now):

I have not received information that North Korea will do anything beyond exercises but...we are always gathering information and making every effort to ensure that an unexpected situation does not arise, and we want to be even more careful.

Real Clear Politics has several links to headline war news, including commentary, on both its main page and its media coverage page. RFERL's (Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty) Iraq Crisis sub-site is keeping an eye on the war from a Middle Eastern perspective. I'm keeping an eye on the Middle East Media Research Institute for analysis of the Arab press.

I'll offer comments of my own when I have something on which to comment. For now, I'm just keeping up with the action. There isn't much to talk about while the fighting is going on. People generally support the troops once they're in harm's way; criticism, warranted or not, comes later. I'll continue to point out anything I find worth knowing, especially if it doesn't appear to be mainstream knowledge.

Make suggestions -- including your own thoughts or opinions, links to various hard-hitting or first-hand accounts or news organizations, or demands that I not quote from Lord of the Rings in my subtitles -- via email!

We had a bead on Saddam, and we attacked around 9:30pm (5:30am in Iraq). We are not sure that he's alive or dead, but we have no reason to assume either, so we act as though he is alive and still running things. He "spoke" at 12:30am (8:30am in Iraq), supposedly live. Going straight for the top dog is an interesting way to kick off an invasion...

NASA found the Columbia's flight recorder. This could be the most valuable discovery yet that could help to determine what happened to the space shuttle on the morning of February 1.

Jonah Goldberg tells us who's helping, who's not, and what he thinks it means. On the positive side, Tony Blair presented his case to the House of Commons yesterday and won an overwhelming majority in support of him and the United States. On the negative side, some in our own country (almost all liberals and/or Democrats -- see today's Wall Street Journal editorial page) are taking the French position and still trying to undermine the President. As I pointed out last night, such efforts (here and abroad) are failing, and the coalition of the willing is leaving the unwilling to rot in its own politically tarnished dust.

This time tomorrow, or perhaps within twelve hours, the war may start. Maybe the sooner that's started and finished, the easier it will be to report on something else ... like how difficult school is trying to be for me right now.

The Times of London reports (this is about one third of the entire article):

The first shots of the war have been fired, killing at least one Iraqi during a suspected operation to mine the waters off Kuwait. But that opening skirmish is about to be dwarfed by the most formidable military assault in modern warfare: 250,000 British and American troops -- backed by more than 1,000 aircraft, 400 tanks and a 110-strong armada -- are poised to unleash their awesome power on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq the moment the order is given.

In other big news, Tony Blair won big in Parliament: "In a 412 to 149 vote, Blair staved off a major revolt by members of Parliament unhappy about British involvement in Iraq without backing from a second United Nations resolution." Someone with whom I work told me last week that Blair was going to back down and abandon the United States; I said, in much calmer language, there's no way in hell that he would do that! My reasoning, which she did not stay to hear, was simple: British politics is much different than American politics. A leader that changes his mind is a leader that is thrown out. That, and as I suspected, the British came around when it came down to it. We owe much to our mother country.

Here are results of the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. The results are easy to read if you want to skip my selective summary.

In the eight days between March 8 and March 17, approval of George W. Bush's policy toward Iraq has jumped from 55% to 64%, and disapproval has dropped from 38% to 29%. Separate from this improved rating, 71% support the US going to war with Iraq; 27% disapprove. (Interestingly, even more approved and less disapproved of war if Saddam and sons do not leave the coutnry within 48 hours as demanded.) Finally, 72% believe the United States has done enough to try to win support from other countries for going to war to Iraq; 25% disagree. Only 20% approve of the way the United Nations has handling Iraq; 75% disapprove.

Last word on polls: A poll at the Weekly Standard asks its viewers what they think will happen to Saddam. An overwhelming majority believes that the President of Iraq will not survive this conflict. View and vote to see the numbers...

Below are some of today's best op-eds. Asterisks mark must-reads. But first, check out this analysis of several editorials in the Arab press put together by the Middle East Media Research Institute. It's a good way to get what they're saying, and you can take or leave MEMRI's analysis.

Senator John McCain, one of four moderate Republicans working with moderate Democrats to scale back the President's tax-cut plan, spoke these words today. He is right in that geopolitical tensions create economic uncertainty. The free market economy is an economy of expectations, and geopolitical confusion has muddled our outlook so as to prevent any coherent expectations. Still, given the nature of the macroeconomy as I understand it, I can see no reason to doubt that the President's plan can do exactly what it needs to do to get the economy on the road to fixing many of its traditional problems.

Either way, I agree for now. Let the tax cut plan sit idle for a few days, let the war end successfully, and as soon as the economy shows strong tendencies, push it through! The next big task: major budget spending cuts. Look for that to happen shortly before the moon crashes into the earth.

I very much like this New York Times editorial. Its conclusion is succinct and a fair representation of the article's legitimate argument:

The result is a war for a legitimate international goal against an execrable tyranny, but one fought almost alone. At a time when America most needs the world to see its actions in the best possible light, they will probably be seen in the worst. This result was neither foreordained nor inevitable.

Let me clarify: liking an article does not automatically imply full agreement. I am much less concerned than the writer of this article is, but I understand that there is certainly room for concern. However, for reasons I have expressed here and elsewhere, I believe the United States is fully capable of handling this situation as it needs to be handled. Further, I believe opinion of America in general will improve where many would probably consider improvement least likely -- in the Middle East. France may not like us very much, and Germany may feel a bit peeved, but overall, I believe the world supports the United States. The only real opposition was in going to war so "soon" -- you know, after warning of serious consequences for twelve years during a war that never officially ended.

The full speech lasted about fourteen minutes -- succinct, sufficient, super. Now I shall point you to two to Instapundit posts. First, to Glenn's critique of Bush's speech -- it's fair and insightful, and it even links to other reviews already up in the blogosphere. Second, a post from earlier in the day, in which Glenn points out that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan knows who the real enemy is. Good for Annan. Good for the UN. I stand by my previous post.

p.s.-- If you speak French, you'll like this: does anyone recall the UN authorizing this? And a quote from Saddam: "Oh, those weapons of mass destruction... (credit Glenn Reynolds entirely for this postscript)

I believe that's it. I believe we are going to war. We will likely wake up every morning beginning on Thursday to immediately check the news to see if the strike has begun. I believe it will have begun before the weekend is out. My guess: we'll wake up to it on Friday morning, so the maximum amount of Americans can be glued to their televisions for the weekend! Okay, that's not why. Friday morning just seems like as good a day as any.

I am a bit perplexed by the duplicity of Senate Democrat leader Tom Daschle, though. Following Bush's speech tonight, Daschle said, "I'm saddened that the president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war", but he still stood by his vote in support of military action of Iraq six months ago. How can one be opposed to being forced to war so quickly (waiting twelve years) yet still support it on the Senate floor?

Daschle is also "saddened" because we will most likely lose American lives, and "to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort" is unscrupulous -- according to what Mr. Daschle said (but does he really believe that having voted for war in the first place and still standing by that vote?). Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) disagrees with Daschle, asserting that any loss of American lives is the fault of UN "intransigence" and the "delays caused by France", but that putting it on a personal basis like Daschle did to Bush is "unconscionable".

I agree with Mr. Roberts. The assault on international security has gone on long enough. Peacemongers ask how we can prove that he even has weapons of mass destruction. Try this: twelve years ago we knew that he had them. We had seen them in action, and he hadn't bothered to hide them yet. We ordered him to get rid of them, and further, to prove that that was what he was doing. UN instructions were perfectly clear. Any failure to prove the destruction of such weapons, with the situation Saddam was in, is only evidence to support that he was unwilling to cooperate. If he doesn't have the weapons now, then where did they go? If he did not sell them to terrorists, that is. Why would he hide them? Why would a tyrannical dictator and invader blatantly hide what he had done with the some of the world's most destructive devices? The answer, I think, is more ghastly than you can imagine.

Saddam Hussein had a responsibility to follow instructions from the beginning. There is no such thing as getting off on "good behavior" when dealing with weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has failed to comply with international law set by the United Nations, and according to that law, he must now face consequences. Even the UN is faltering on its responsibility to enforce its resolutions, shifting the burden to the United States and its coalition. The UN has put the promise of international security in jeopardy by telling the world that, in order to avoid war, it will not punish those who have trampled on the natural rights of man and the laws set by the United Nations.

Any one with a keen business sense knows that you can't keep your interests secure by playing friendly to everyone. It is a competition. If you allow some to break the rules without penalizing them properly, that is an invitation for everyone to exploit the rules, and for the most daring to escalate these exploitations in baby steps. How long does such a process take to destroy the establishment and bring about anarchy?

The only logic I can use to justify France's stance is obvious: war is bad. But to thwart the UN's duty to protect its member nations and to allow a tyrant even more time to gather even more strength over a nation that has suffered enough is, well, unconscionable. The UN does not want anarchy in the international system; indeed, the UN was created for one purpose above all others: to provide an established order to protect collective international security. This does not require agreement among all its members, but it does require that those nations bearing the responsibility of veto power on the Security Council must be willing to uphold the law as established by the United Nations.

France has proven unwilling to do that. France is losing steam. France is the nation that helped to being liberty to America. France, in many ways, is responsible for the world in which we live today. But France's power appears to be waning. It's time as a permanent member on the Security Council is coming to an end.

Good Lord! I hate repeating myself. Look, it's possible to disagree with the French, and it's possible to be right and for them to be wrong, without eliminating every thing good in your life that comes from France. To be American and right is not to hate the French! This stupid idea of a boycott on France and French goods is only strong evidence of our own stubbornness, and a major factor in why so many nations can so easily assume an opposing position to us -- rather than try to embrace their culture and learn about why we disagree, we choose instead to treat them like the enemy and blacklist their culture. Why?! Don't you see that it is silly crap like this that creates rifts so deep as to lead to majorly catastrophic events?

A question: what have the French done for you, besides be the only American ally responsible for holding back the British and thus allowing America to become a free nation in the first place? Other than that, what have they actually done? I can answer that: little or nothing, because since its establishment, our government has provided everything that we ourselves could not. We have not needed anyone's help, including the French, but that is never a reason to hate them. It is all the more reason to respect them. They indirectly helped to fight for our freedom, no questions asked, and have never demanded anything in return for the greatest favor any nation has done for America. Are these the types of allies that we need to turn against? The ones who don't keep score like schoolchildren?

That said, America is going to war, regardless of the opposition. France is wrong on this issue, but that's only my perspective. Disagreement is the worst reason to hate; it spawns ignorance, which magnifies the hatred through a lack of understanding as the divide quickly amplifies itself... Why are you so afraid of the French? Give it up, actually listen to what they say, and then dismiss it as incorrect if they are actually wrong. But only if you know what you're talking about!

This story sickens me, but only because underneath it lies either a gross misconception or a blatant lie. The difference between us and them is that the majority of us are not hostile toward them; they are hostile toward us. They hate us because we are a symbol of freedom, opportunity, and wealth. And as a natural result of the world's pessimism, rather than believe that anyone, including themselves or us, could ever bring the same to them, they would rather bring us down -- it's so much simpler.

So which is it going to be? Take the difficult path of doing a little harm for the greatest good? Or doing a little good for the greatest harm? Take your pick.

I toyed with the XHTML and CSS of the site last night, minimalizing the code required to do the same thing it always does. Then I decided that I don't like the fixed-resolution design rendering optimally only for an 800x600 or 1024x768 resolution, so I adjusted it ever-so-slightly to render across the resolution spectrum, so theoretically this web site now looks just as decent in 640x480 as it does in 1600x1200, except for really big monitors with really small text (or, worse, really small monitors with really big text -- yikes!).

If you use a good browser like Opera 7 or Netscape 7 (or Internet Explorer 6 only in Windows XP), then you'll see the page perfectly, as it is meant to be displayed. If you use Internet Explorer 6, like I do, in Windows Me, then you might notice a very slight problem with inconsistent widths of the header graphic and the main body of the web site; this is because IE6 in WinMe adds border-widths onto the width of the division, rather than including it in the already prescribed width.

No big deal. My new laptop will have Windows XP, so I will only have to see this minor glitch on the desktop. The laptop should be here by the end of this week or the beginning of the next...

It isn't a good sign when the supposed economics experts are doing the wrong thing for the economy. Christopher Farrell generally pleases me with his writing, but if his anecdotal story is true, then he screwed up -- especially if he is in no danger of losing his job, and he isn't. The fact that a net of 308,000 jobs were lost between January and February is discouraging, yes, but that Farrell used that as an excuse to forego a significant economic investment instead of encouraging it is exactly backwards. He should have bought the vehicle. It is times like these when we need to invest, buy, incur and pay debt. It is most important to keep money moving! It is not how much we make as a whole, or even how many people don't have jobs. Most important is to keep the money moving constantly, and that creates money and creates jobs.

It is only a guess -- because of the press that it is receiving -- that the "Saddam Tower" is among the most beautiful architectural achievements in Iraq. No one seems too concerned about the plain, square buildings that are bent on demolition. The introduction to this story is well written:

The view from Saddam Tower is something to behold, if only for posterity. It is a view whose days appear numbered. Rebuilt to twice the original height after it was toppled by a missile in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the stout concrete communications spear looms a full 203 metres [672 feet] over this city of imposing presidential monoliths.

This article covers Iraq's impending doom pretty well. Near the end, the author writes of the few non-Iraqis still left in Iraq. The embassies have all but emptied, and those left appear ready to jump ship at a moment's notice. Simultaneous from their departure, the three hundred or so United Nations inspectors remaining in Iraq will also depart. Is anyone up for an Iraqi "weather report"?

For trivia buffs, the tower is officially named the Challenge Tower, but no one really calls it that except those who work there, who probably don't speak English anyway. An interesting article about the tower can be found here, and another brief article here. Finally, this article adds an intriguing bit of information: "The needle of the Saddam Tower, with its revolving restaurant, offers an unparalled view of the city -- and a nearby palace."

Not for long.

A fish in New York told two Jews that the world is coming to an end. Really.

I have tried to ignore Rush Limbaugh's repeated charge that Reuters is an anti-American news organization. I like to think that Reuters, as an international news agency, is simply more centrist on the whole of global politics, and therefore leftist to the ultra-capitalist Limbaugh. But, as I said, I have only tried.

This article says that a defeat of the currently proposed Iraq resolution would be humiliating for the American side of the argument. There is no factual defense of this assertion; it is the opinion of Reuters issued as fact, indoctrinating the average reader into believing that the US, UK, Spain, Bulgaria, and other supporters are to be "humiliated" if their resolution does not pass. (Never mind that humiliation is supposedly a virtue.)

Further, I would suggest that the humiliation, yes, will be all ours -- that is, it will belong to America and its supporters. And, with great humiliation, we will win the war against Iraq, prove Saddam's deceptions, and embarrass the hell out of France and its supporters in the process. Yes, we will be humiliated, but humiliated only in the sense that we accept that the global community did not recognize the correct path. Our resolve will not be compromised, and we will not be embarrassed as the rest of the world shall be.

What should be done will be done. I predict it will begin within two weeks.

This is a very nicely done article on America's policy toward North Korea, but I have an alternate suggestion: it's none of our business until they make it our business. Don't "let" them do anything stupid, but if they do, wipe them out and give them back to South Korea! A unified Korea would look good on a map, don't you think?

Igor Ivanov, Russia's foreign minister (Colin Powell's counterpart for Russia), has issued a written statement in which he clarifies that, despite occasional disagreement over methods, all world leaders generally seek the same goal -- international freedom and security. Ivanov writes,

The value of partners and allies is not that they automatically agree with one another but that they search together for solutions to solve problems in common interests. We have irreversibly abandoned the Cold War formula (the worse things were for the United States, the better for us). We are convinced that striving for a political solution to the Iraqi crisis is in the best interests of Russia, the United States, and the rest of the world. Regardless of what happens with Iraq, Russia hopes that Moscow and Washington will allow their actions to be guided by the spirit of Russian-American cooperation, which is defined in the joint declaration signed in May by Presidents Putin and Bush in Moscow.

This, among other things, is why Russia's stance on stalling the war effort does not bother me. Despite disagreement, we understand each other. The French simply want to thwart our foreign policy goals.

p.s.-- I was going to comment on this article about the rift between the United States and France/Europe, but I stopped immediately when the author mentioned that the French hadn't put up any francs for the cause. The franc has not been the official currency in France for about fifteen months; they use euros now. This was big news following the transition and remains big news because the euro gains on the dollar every day. The writer lost his credibility with me... Anyone else? (I wouldn't judge so harshly and quickly, but I have a lot of reading to do. People who miss basic facts in this arena can't be regarded as legitimate... what else are they missing?)

Here is Thomas Ewald's story of how he became a "human shield" for the Iraqis in 1991 -- not by choice, and not to protect Iraqi citizens, but because the Iraqi "secret police" held him "hostage" to protect the Iraqi war machine. This statement alone sums up my feelings toward today's human shields in Iraq: "Instead of stopping the war, they're running the risk of prolonging it and the agony of the people living under Saddam Hussein, as well as increasing the risk to the allied armed forces." Read the article for his (very brief) story of his stay in Iraq twelve years ago.

Upon finding an anti-war sign in Seth Goldberg's bag at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, an airport security person left a note that read, "Don't like your anti-American attitude!"... "written on the standard notice the transportation-security agency places inside all the bags that screeners open."

I don't agree with this practice, but I can not find any legitimate grounds to negatively criticize it. I find the story humorous.

Comments for the Martha Burk vs. Augusta National story have been very good so far, and to this point there are only seven eight of them. I made a change to the Polstate version of the article that I didn't make here, simply because I don't like alterring my posts once I've posted something else after it. (I only fix mistakes, like spelling, grammar, or factual blunders. By the way, Thanks, Tony, for pointing out that I had put the Aegaeans and Trojans on the wrong side of the battle in my analogy yesterday. WHOOPS!)

The group of commentators seems to agree with me on the subject, but several interesting, potential-slippery-slope arguments have been made. In response to some of their points, this is my latest comment, which I put here because it's my site and I can do that, and because it's something worth thinking about:

I want your thoughts! You can email them to me, but I would prefer you to join the discussion. (I have long thought about setting up a comment section on my web site. I don't know if I have enough visitors yet, but I think the my "interaction rating" [an imaginary attribute that I can not measure accurately] would skyrocket if I did. I wish I had gotten on the ball and really studied PHP to learn how to do that!)

Mixing descriptive, normative, and legal statements, Representatives Ciro D. Rodriguez and Charles Gonzalez, San Antonio Democrats and members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), have expressed why they are not yet satisfied with Miguel Estrada. (Or, for all we know, they have expressed what they want us to believe about their reasons. For all we know, these two Democrat members of the CHC could be opposed to Estrada for various partisan reasons.)

Rodriguez and Gonzalez state that Estrada, "by refusing to answer commonly posed questions by US senators... is undermining the Senate's constitutional duty to 'advise and consent'." I am compelled to remind you again that the White House recently offered, working with and for Estrada, to have Estrada answer any and every question asked of them. Several days passed. No questions were asked. So now I must ask the question, is it really about answers? Or is that just the Democrats' excuse? Certainly, if they really wanted the answers, they would have asked the questions and shifted the burden to the White House, which had all but promised answers.

Rodriguez and Gonzalez suggest that "we should expect more from a federal judicial nominee, and we should not set a precedent that would allow future presidents and nominees to act without regard for the Senate's role in a system of checks and balances." What Democrats are suggesting instead is that nominees, at least the ones they don't like, should be forced to answer questions that compromise their impartiality and disqualify them anyway. This way no judges they don't like can be legitimately confirmed.

But here's the hammer:

Our opposition to his nomination was based on his refusal to answer basic questions that are routinely answered by judicial nominees, his inability to demonstrate an understanding of the historical role courts have played in cases that have a great impact on our community, and his lack of commitment to equal justice and advancement opportunities for Latinos.

At first glance, this appears to be legitimate, but let's look deeper. The first reason needs clarification: what questions, and what judges were asked, and who opposed them and why? Without clarifying the questions he has not answered, or how they were acceptably or not acceptably answered in the past, you are not answering the very same type of questions that Estrada won't answer, except Estrada has an honest responsibility to preserve his impartiality. You, on the other hand, have the responsibility of letting the facts about Estrada be known, and so far there is zero factual evidence that Estrada should not be appointed to this court.

The second reason is so specific that it should disqualify itself as a legitimate reason to oppose Estrada. His "inability to demonstrate an understanding of the historical role [of the] courts", in general, would be a good reason to further examine his understanding. But by clarifying that you only question is understanding of "cases that have a great impact on our community", you set up the restriction to be something entirely interpretive. There is no set-in-stone definition of community. Who's community? Who is involved in this community? Just the twenty members of the CHC? The entire country? The community under the jurisdiction of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to which Estrada is nominated? Who speaks for this community?

Finally, the last reason for the CHC's opposition of Estrada is only proves the CHC's partisan bias. There is no question that Estrada is in favor of equal justice and opportunities for all Americans. That he should ensure advanced opportunities for any group, Hispanic or other, is un-American. What the CHC is saying is that if you are Hispanic and do not support affirmative action, then you are not one of us, and we don't want you making decisions that count. This is what I call stacking the courts -- that is, denying those who think even slightly differently, especially when they have exceptionally good reason for it, to ensure that those friendly to your interests are the only ones that have power. This is an exceptionally dangerous policy for the branch of government that is supposed to interpret every aspect of the law.

The point is this: Miguel Estrada is probably the best qualified nominee to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in a long time, and liberals are stalling his nomination because he isn't liberal like them. They believe that all courts should be entirely liberal. Even one potentially conservative opinion on the court is wrong to them. The promotion of a fair and balanced court system is wrong to them. They only want their opinions to be represented by the law. If the liberals in Washington are allowed to succeed with this charade, I fear that it could lead to a law in this country that no longer serves me. My very opinions are of the type that these contemptuous creeps are trying to suppress. Suppress!

What ever happened to "equal" treatment under the law? Last I checked, that everyone included those you don't agree with. The Democratic Party, the "pillar of equitable treatment" (feel the sarcasm), has forgotten that to champion the common man and his equal rights is to include even those with which the common man, even a Democrat, disagrees.

[This post is also published at the Political State Report!]

Women's rights activists have complained that the private, all-male-membership Augusta National Golf Club is a slap in the face to women's rights, while supporters of the club suggest that private institutions and clubs can set their membership rules any way they please. Burk this week had her request to protest at the gate of the club during next month's Masters tournament denied by Sheriff Ronald Strength. Strength's chief concern was safety; he worried that the protest at the gate and across Washington Road would create a safety hazard for the thousands of fans on the sidewalks.

The ACLU is suing on Burk's behalf, though I am unsure on what grounds. According to Augusta ordinance, a protest must be requested 20 days prior to an event, and the Sheriff has the power to approve, deny, or stipulate the request. Burk met the protest-request deadline, and there is no evidence (that I've found) that she her right to peaceful assembly is denied -- she just simply may not trespass on private property and harass the customers of a legitimate business organization.

The Center for Individual Freedom believes Martha Burk has gone overboard. The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, according to the Supreme Court, grants all private clubs and institutions the freedom to associate with anyone for any reason. The Supreme Court has ruled, "freedom of association receives [constitutional] protection as a fundamental element of personal liberty" and "freedom of association therefore plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate." Accordingly, the CFIF opines:

Martha Burk and her media-starved gang of women's rights activists are not based upon the law, but on a politically correct crusade to force the private club into accepting women members out of so-called "moral obligation."

CFIF raises a good question: if Martha Burk's and the ACLU's efforts to force their way into a private club are successful, then what could stop every ethnic, racial, or other minority from demanding the same equal representation in every private institution in America? Where does it end? The CFIF asserts its own opinion: "If special interest groups get to dictate the internal policies of private clubs based on their own moral litmus tests, the value of the Founding Fathers' carefully crafted right of free association will be forever lost."

For those who may be interested (for protest or support), Mark Harman is collecting names who disagree with Burk's assault on Augusta National at TheBurkStopsHere.com. (One of his previous slogans: "It takes balls to be a member.") This web site obviously has an anti-Burk protest bias, but it also has quite a bit of (selective) information on Burk's "constituents" and other resources.