Into The Light

I was going to talk about WMD, but I got distracted by the bouncing ball. So, baseball it is.

- Memo to my hometeam Houston Astros: Big ups for keeping the faith with Tim Redding. You can't crucify a guy on three bad starts. Last year's AL Cy Young Winner, Roy Holladay, sucked his first couple of times out too. So don't listen to the sports jocks who wanted Jeriome "How To Win 15 Games While Sucking" Robertson to be the 5th starter. You made the right call. Let it ride out.

If we're still talking about this in mid-May, however, all bets are off.

Your more pressing issue is Jimy Williams starting Mike Lamb, career mediocrity and he of the career 21 HR, ahead of a guy who hit 25 HR in 3/5 of a season worth of playing time last year, one Morgan Ensberg. In short, knock it off Jimy. You cost us the division title with this exact same nonsense last year. If you mess this year up too, we will call for your head.

- To the Arizona Diamondbacks, my surrogate home team: Thanks for sending a promising young starter away to get a reliever. I'm sure the Giants appreciate it.

But hey, calling up Chad Tracy and letting him play is a lot better than giving Shea Hillenbrand all the time at third, so props for that.

Now if you'd only trade prospects for a right fielder who can rake, rather than for relievers to shore up an already awesome pen, you can perhaps prevent my head from exploding.

- Finally, to the San Francisco Giants, just because they're going to be fun to mock this year: THIRTEEN PITCHERS?! Dear god, WHY? On a team that sees a decent rotation "backed" by a lineup that features such "hitters" as Edgardo Alfonzo (inconsistent as hell from year to year), J.T. Snow ("harmless" is not a characteristic you want at 1B, a position your big power hitter is supposed to occupy.) Michael Tucker (has no business playing a corner outfield spot everyday with his weak bat), Neifi Perez (hits like a 7 year old girl), and Marquis Grissom (an embarrassment: your #3 hitter is supposed to be your best hitter, not your best black hole of suck), exactly what is the point of having three mop-up men on your staff? Considering that mop-up men only pitch in blowouts, and considering that the Giants are not going to get blown out three times a week with their solid rotation in the pitcher-friendly PacBell Park, why not use the roster spots for someone who can HIT THE DAMN BALL?! Unless you plan to design 8 disguises for Barry Bonds so he can hit in all of the Giants's at-bats, at some point you're going to have to find someone who can put runs on the board. Carrying not one, but TWO pointless relievers does nothing to help this cause.

If this is your last, best shot to get Bonds a championship, just trade him to Oakland already. At least they've got a shot to win something this year.

Why do so many people complain when Israel kills terrorists?

If you haven't heard, Israel killed the new Hamas leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi with a missile. All across the world, nations have gathered to condemn the attacks.

We've got Egypt....

"Egypt strongly condemns the new crime Israel has committed."

"This assassination raises questions about the reality of its (Israel's) aims and confirms that it exploits opportunities to try to deceive the world, kill off the chances for peace (and) push the region to the edge of the abyss."

Japan....

"The killing...was a thoughtless and unjustifiable act, giving no consideration of its consequences..."

"I...condemn this act of Israel. I urge the Israeli government to exercise maximum self-restraint.'

The Arab League, of course....

"We are condemning this. It is state terrorism and this is clear proof that Israel cannot live in a climate of stability. They do not want a climate of stability. They need a climate of tension and violence."

And for some reason, Britain....

"The British government has made it repeatedly clear that so-called 'targeted assassinations' of this kind are unlawful, unjustified and counter-productive."


Note the words used. The action was "unjustified". It was "unlawful". Everybody "condemns" the attack.

Here's my problem with that: exactly what is the difference between Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi and Osama bin Laden? I mean, is there any at all?

The next two quotes are particularly maddening. They're from Reuters.

"'The secretary-general condemns Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Abdelaziz Rantissi,' a spokesman for [UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan] said in a statement. "He reiterates that extrajudicial killings are violations of international law and calls on the government of Israel to immediately end this practice.

'He (Annan) is apprehensive that such an action would lead to further deterioration of an already distressing and fragile situation,' the spokesman said."

So the UN condemns Israel for killing Hamas leaders.

My question is, exactly why are they not condemning Palestine for allowing Hamas to continue operations against Israel, including sending their children to blow up Jews?

Hamas is a terrorist organization. If the Palestinian Authority refuses to do anything about them, Israel has to.

And don't give me the "They're just upset because Israel's so mean, what with wanting to exist and not be overrun by their enemies" argument. Israel has given many concessions to the Palestinians to try and end this conflict, and still Israelis die. There is no evidence that the Palestine Authority will actually live up to its end of any bargain. Until Palestine makes a gesture of good faith, I see no reason why Israel should concede a thing.

Palestine wants peace? Fine. Surely they can make SOME concessions themselves. They keep talking about how Israel is "ruining the peace process". But it's not a process if only one party is willing to compromise!

If someone can name a concession Palestine has made, I'd love to hear it.

The next quote makes me want to pull my hair out. It's from (color me shocked) France.

"'(France) declares once again that extrajudicial executions contravene international law and are unacceptable,' the Foreign Ministry said in a written statement.

'Each state in the region has the right to protect its citizens but not in violation of the law. It is through dialogue, not violence, that peace can be achieved.'

You know, if we're going to throw international law around, can somebody please explain to me why the U.N. is not in an uproar over Hamas getting children to blow themselves up?

How about that second line? States can defend themselves, but not if it violates our law? So if Kofi Annan decides Hamas is legitimate, you're not allowed to eliminate them? Are you TRYING to force Israel to declare open war? Are they supposed to eliminate Hamas by voting them off the island?

::sigh::

Hamas, like al-Qaeda, is a terrorist organization. The Bush doctrine (for those of you who think Bush is a moron that understands nothing when it comes to foreign policy) states that if you harbor a terrorist group, you are no different than the terrorists themselves. That's why we toppled the Taliban, and that's a reason why we eliminated Saddam Hussein. Extreme terrorists are the biggest obstacle to peace that exists today. They must be destroyed.

You cannot force peace upon them, either.

All of you who think war is bad and violence must never be used, listen up. This is very important, and you must understand this.

Peace is not a strategy. It is not a method. It is not an action. It is a condition. Wanting peace has nothing to do with whether or not you will have it. In order for peace to occur, both parties must desire it.

Some people do not desire it.

For example, if I believe that the "Zionists" must be destroyed and killed and that a Jewish Israel must be wiped from the face of the planet, why would I want peace? Peace does not serve my desires.

This is the problem when people talk about the Middle East "peace process". Hamas's stated goal is the destruction of Israel. Yassir Arafat has stated that all Israeli concessions must be treated as steps towards the overall goal of the destruction of Israel.

It seems to be just as possible for Israel to establish peace with the Palestinian organizations in power as it would be for America to establish peace with Osama bin Laden.

I bet you didn't know that Osama wants peace with America as well, too. In fact, he wrote a letter to America telling us what we can do to prevent further attacks.

Convert to Islam. Throw away the Constitution and use the Quran as the law of the land. Take away personal choice.

We could have peace with Osama, if we were willing to throw away our freedoms. Israel could have peace with Hamas, if it's willing to accept its destruction.

The price for peace is just too high.

In these cases, for a country's survival, it must eradicate its enemies.

It's what we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It's what Israel should do with Hamas.

If the Palestine Authority continues to harbor Hamas, then it too must be dealt with.

It ain't pretty. Survival typically isn't.

It ain't noble. Survival isn't that either.

However, it is life.

Note: if I begin an entry with the words "real quick", interpret that to mean "real friggin' long".

Haven't really been hearing so much about the economy, have we?

The media has chosen to focus on the 9/11 commission and the war in Iraq, whereas before they'd been harping about how everyone thinks the economy sucks.

Bush has taken a lot of heat for his economic policy, which included tax cuts for all brackets (yes, that means the rich. Shudder gasp.). He's been accused of giving his rich buddies tax breaks while doing nothing to fight jobs being exported to India (I already covered that). They allege that the economy's still dragging, and that the strong economic growth we've experienced has been a "jobless recovery".

Ladies and gentlemen, we have vindication. According to preliminary numbers, over 300,000 jobs were created in March 2004.

For a long time, Bush supporters have been claiming that cutting taxes would stimulate the economy and lead to job growth. His detractors first said the economy wasn't growing. Then, they claimed it was a "jobless recovery".

So what's left?

If you're John Kerry, the solution is obvious.

Make shit up.

See, there's this economic indicator called the "Misery Index". It's a simple idea: it adds the unemployment rate with the rate of inflation, which is how much buying power your dollar carries.

Under this classic, universally accepted definition of the Index, and when compared to the previous 56 years, Bush's average Misery Index of 7.4 can only be beaten by Bill Clinton's second term. While I reject the idea that the government has much control over the economy and that Presidents should be blamed or credited with how well the economy does, there are certain things you can do to help the economy. Namely, get out of the way. Lowering taxes, avoiding regulation, and privatizing are the best ways to help an economy grow. With the exception of his ridiculous Medicare bill, Bush has done a great job of removing the government drag on the economy.

However, that doesn't help John Kerry get elected.

So instead of following the old definition of the Misery Index, Kerry has helpfully come up with a BRAND SPANKING NEW, BETTER THAN EVER Misery Index.

And, shock of all shocks, his new Index makes Bush look bad.

Kerry's new Misery Index uses college tuition (he only uses the increase in public school tuition, because including private schools would reduce the Index and thus fail to serve their purpose), gasoline (Uh, John Kerry wanted to increase the tax on gasoline by 50 cents a gallon. And again, I fail to see what the President is supposed to do about gas prices. We can't drill in America, because that'd be enviormentally bad for whatever reason.), and health care (If the government or employers pay for health care as they do now, of course prices are going to go up. Consumers don't have to pay for it, therefore they take all they can get. If someone else paid for my food, I'd be eating Filet Mignon steak every night.).

So, in other words, Kerry picked three areas in which prices went up, and decided to scream that they proved Bush is handling the economy badly.

Of course, pessimism of all things Bush is a way of life for Democrats. Consider this excerpt from a John Kerry op-ed in the Washington Post:

"The United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people."

Let's put aside that the United Nations has no experience in rebuilding a nation with a hostile possibility, is not equipped to do so, and has no desire to do so. Read that last part again.

"...re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people."

Damn, that sucks. The Iraqis aren't optimistic about their future? Shucks.

Wait....wait a minute. I used an ABC News poll of Iraqis as a source for my previous post. Maybe it can shed some light on just how pessimistic Bush has made the Iraqi people.

"And the level of personal optimism is extraordinary: Seventy-one percent expect their lives to improve over the next year."

Way to stay on the ball there, John.

Whether it is the economy or the Iraq War, John Kerry has made a campaign out of painting the bleakest picture he possibly can of the last three years.

As I've shown you, it's nothing more than posturing to take the White House.

Bush has done a brilliant job of handling the economy. He's going out there and defeating gathering threats before they can pull off another 9/11. And he's allowing you and I to keep more of our money.

In comparison, Kerry has promoted his Bush-bashing platform while only giving lip service (and bad lip service at that) to coming up with alternate visions for America.

Don't let the Dems fool you. Things are looking up. Life is good in America.

It will only get better.

Oh, real quick about the Iraqi war and President Bush's press conference:

Critics have taken the recent increase in the death toll and have stated "Aha! See, I told you they weren't going to welcome us with open arms!" Another favorite is "Why didn't you plan what the Iraqi government was going to look like BEFORE you invaded?" Finally, there's the old "NO WMD! BUSH LIED! HE JUST WENT IN TO AVENGE HIS DADDY!" line.

My main source for debunking the first two claims will be this ABC news poll of Iraqis taken on March 15, 2004.

First, Bush critics have taken lines such as this...

"The Iraqis will welcome us as liberators"

....and interpreted it to mean this....

"Everything will be peachy keen after Saddam is taken out!"

Sorry, but no one ever said the latter.

I don't know why this resistence has been a surprise to anybody. It took the Allied Powers years and hundreds of thousands of lives to clean up the Nazi resistence in Germany. There are a lot of groups that would like to grab power in Iraq. Our job is to make sure that the government that is set up can handle the affairs of the Iraqi people. We cannot leave a day sooner.

But have the Iraqis welcomed us as liberators?

Let's find out.

The Kurds love us, to be sure. 80% of them are glad we're there, and hope we stay. The Arabs however are split, with a majority opposing the invasion and a two-thirds majority opposing the presence of coalition forces.

So have we been welcomed with open arms and a smile that we're there? Not exactly.

However, does that mean they didn't want us to go in? This is not neccessarily true either. It may be that Iraqis would rather that they have dealt with Saddam Hussein instead of the U.S. Well, if it were up to us, that's how it would've happened. Saddam had other ideas.

Also, an overwhelming majority of ALL Iraqis oppose attacks on U.S. forces. Could they be hiding their real answers due to fear that we'll pull a Saddam and assassinate them for daring to oppose us? Possibly. They might also be hiding their answers so that they won't be killed if an anti-American group takes power. So let's just take the Iraqis at their word.

I think the answer therefore is neither of the above. I think the Iraqis don't like that we're helping them. Like all people, I think they'd rather that they had dealt with their problems. However, I think they know we're there to help them.

Bush has also gotten a lot of criticism for not having a government plan ready before he went into Iraq. This one is utterly absurd.

I know this is a radical thought and all, but shouldn't the planning for how the Iraqi interim government have some involvement from, oh, I don't know, IRAQIS?! Why would Bush go into Iraq knowing how he was going to set up their government? Shouldn't the Iraqis be involved in that plan? Sheesh.

Besides, we went in for national security reasons. We're establishing a democracy in Iraq to protect that security. The nice humanitarian stuff is a bonus.

Which leads me to the good old Bush misled the country about Iraq's WMD threat. We didn't find any WMD, therefore Bush lied.

First, I find it ridiculous that Bush is being taken to task for allegedly not reacting to non-specific intelligence before 9/11 that Osama bin Laden wanted to kill Americans in Washington and hijack airplanes to do so. The reason is because the VERY SAME PEOPLE are hating on him for acting on specific intelligence that stated Saddam Hussein had WMD.

Second, I have a source that is certainly not loyal to Bush that has said "Everybody thought Saddam had WMD".

That source? Counterterrorism czar turned Bush critic Richard Clarke.

Yep, the man who has been touted by liberals as the man Bush refused to listen to because he wanted to go after Iraq has stated that even HE thought Saddam Hussein had WMD. Where he and Bush differed was on how the Iraqi threat should've been accessed. Clarke stated that he didn't think Saddam was stupid enough to hand off WMD to terrorist groups, because he'd lose power if he did so.

Well, Bush must've listened to Clarke's objections, because in a State of the Union speech he said the following:

"Trusting in the sanity of Saddam Hussein is not an option."

So Clarke said Saddam wouldn't do something because it would be bad for Saddam, and Bush's stance was that that's not good enough.

If you're going to give Clarke's words weight, you can't win the "Bush misled the country about Iraq" argument. They are totally incompatible.

So last week I went on vacation with Sandy. We had to go through a lot of drama to do it, but we weathered it. It was well worth it.

Friday night, after a late start due to dramaness, was spent driving west on I-10 towards San Antonio. At the halfway point, we called it a night and found a nice hotel called the Antler Inn. Two beds, cable, fridge, microwave, and a vibrating bed (that didn't work in our room :()?! For $40?!

Coolness.

Saturday was the fun day. We woke up early and headed past I-35 and into New Braunsfels. This was the centerpiece of the trip: a four hour raft trip down the Guadalupe River. I'd done it a couple of times previously, but Sandy had never done anything like it before. I had promised her a new experience.

Yeah, I'd say I delievered.

We rented a raft from Jerry's River Rafting, and after 30 minutes of changing clothes (Me to Sandy: "Love, bathing suits aren't really given a chance to do their job if you wear clothing over them"), we started our voyage.

Here's where I made Dumbass Mistake #1:

I forgot that the stronger person needs to be in back to steer. Instead, I put Sandy in back because that's where she wanted to be.

So when we hit our first rapid, we end up hitting it SIDEWAYS.

To put the effect it had on Sandy into proper context....Sandy is scared to ride just about any Astroworld ride. I kid you not, she freaked out on the Warp 2000 for crying out loud.

And I have her on a river, riding rapids and hitting "dips". I'm a smart guy, aren't I?

By the time we clear the rapids, she's panicking, and her oar is floating down the river.

Don't worry, I rescued the oar.

Oh yeah, Sandy calmed down after a bit.

To be honest, considering her shelteredness, she handled it like a trooper. She never said to turn back or stop, and she never said we shouldn't have done this.

She was just worried that the first dip was a preview of coming attractions.

Luckily it wasn't, and I was able to tell her so. Before we left, I'd told her "The river is 80% calm and peace, and 20%...uh, fun". I stuck by that and reassured her.

The calmness and serenity of the enviorment helped, and she tried her best to relax.

Then we hit another rapid.

This is where I made Dumbass Mistake #2: Never blindly listen to advice someone gives you when your instinct tells you otherwise.

See, the guy who rented us our raft told us "When in doubt, go left". Well, I saw two directions I could take, so I went left.

And got stuck on a bed of rocks.

I spent 20 minutes standing on rocks with my barefeet in cold-ass river water trying to lift, pull, and push the raft back to open waters, and making sure the raft didn't speed off without us when I succeeded.

You know what? In a sick, sick way, it was fun. We had to solve a problem, and we did.

After that, it was nothing but fun. Sandy got over her fears and had a great time (God, I love her). We spent the next few hours taking in the serenity of nature. Eagles flew over us. Turtles swam with us.

And ducks. We fed ducks.

After we finished our adventure, we were forced to wait in the blazing sun half-naked while our shuttle failed to pick us up. It took an hour, during which I figured out how one skips stones across a river as well as realizing why alcohol and water don't mix (Hey drunk dude, it's called "sunscreen").

The shuttle ride was fun. Sandy and I sat in a hot van while two guys behind us smoked weed. Yup, they was smoking the weed. They also had hemp tattoos on their chest and marijuana leaves on their shorts and caps.

I know weed is supposed to be cool and all, but isn't having marijuana leaves on your clothing just a TAAADDDD over the top?

"Mommy mommy, I'm cool! I've got wuaahhheeeeddddd on my shirt! Eheheheh, get it? That means I get high! So, like, I'm rad!"

"Awww, sure you are son. Now hurry up, or you'll be late for your Justin Timberlake concert."

So we get back to our car and head into San Antonio to get a room. We end up staying in a place called the "Knights Inn" in the Northeast part of San Antonio on I-410 (That's their loop).

Sunday was supposed to be a day of touring the city. However, two problems occcured. One of them was an Act Of God the other was.....::drumroll::......Dumbass Mistake #3!

First off, it was going to rain that night. Bad. Real bad. So we decided to head out early that day, when we'd planned to leave the next morning.

Second, when I planned our vacation a month in advance, I failed to check what was scheduled to happen in San Antonio for that weekend. Lo and behold, we ended up taking a vacation in San Antonio on the weekend the NCAA Final Four was in town. How's that for brillant planning? So the traffic and parking were not looking condusive to cruising around downtown. After checking out the "Sunken Gardens" (Sandy's big wish for the trip, although sadly the place was no longer being maintained), we headed back to Houston.

That was our very first trip on our own, both individually and as a couple. Here's what I learned from it:

- Settle all drama well in advance of the trip. Drama interferes with trip planning, and figuring out where you're going to stay the day you're leaving is living dangerously.

- In our first non-stop 72 hours together, not once did we get frustrated or fed up with each other, even though there were plenty of frustrations abound. Sandy and I handle issues that arrive very smoothly. It speaks well of how we'll work together later in life.

- Sandy can be stubborn sometimes (like a certain writer of a certain blog with a certain rugged handsomeness), but when it came to making decisions, she was wonderful. Not once did we deal with the "I want to do this, I don't want to do your thing" problem.

- Sandy also showed an amazing willingness to try new things. Going down a river with rapids interspersed had to be scary considering her makeup and experience, yet she managed to overcome her fears and enjoy a great experience. After spending the first 5 minutes panicking, she ended up having a good time and is up to doing it again. I am incredibly lucky.

- If you're going down a river, don't buy chips with the idea that you'll be able to eat them on the river. The first rapid you hit will take care of that silliness, as all chips and such will be too soaked to serve any other purpose other than food for ducks.

- Well, sealed bread is still good, but not if Sandy.....er, somebody doesn't watch where they step and smushes it.

- Make a well calculated and thought out plan weeks in advance of your trip. Carefully make adjustments as the date approaches. Then, the day of the trip, rip up said plan and just go have fun.

I'll update soon, I promise. Probably tonight. In the meantime, I'll deal with the "outsourcing epidemic" that's allegedly killing jobs for Americans. Let's listen to John "Mr. Heinz" Kerry on the subject:

"We're going to shut down any incentive, any reward or any kind of benefit for any Benedict Arnold company or CEO that takes American jobs overseas and sticks the American people with the bill."

Benedict Arnold companies and CEOs? Wow John, that's really strong language, calling them traitors and all. Well, I guess he's right: if outsourcing truly does take American jobs overseas.....

Wait a minute. What's that word again?

Outsourcing.

Hmmm....so if American companies are "outsourcing"....I wonder if there's such a thing as "insourcing". Let's check.


". . .the United States greatly benefits from doing business with the world. Right now, foreign companies employ 6.4 million Americans. Foreign business leaders realize that American workers are the best in the world. There are hundreds of foreign companies employing thousands of American workers in each of your states. For example, in my home state of Texas, Toyota plans to hire 2,000 employees in the next year at its new, $800 million San Antonio truck facility. In addition, an Indiana auto parts manufacturer has just broken ground on a $13 million plant in Austin that will supply Toyota's factory. Economic isolationism would threaten each one of these 6.4 million American jobs. America cannot turn back from a global marketplace of goods and services. Engagement with the world creates jobs and growth, while a policy of economic isolation destroys them." ~Commerce Secretary Don Evans in a March 24 statement before the House Energy and Commerce Committee


6.4 million jobs from foreign companies?! Wow, that's a lot of "insourcing". How can all of those foreign companies "Benedict Arnold" their home countries like that?

Well, here's a kooky thought.

Maybe....just maybe....free trade moves jobs to where they can be best done, thus giving us the best products for the lowest prices. Maybe all of this "outsourcing" hoopla is just nonsense. It may even be- and work with me, I know this is a radical concept- that free trade actually gives Americans MORE jobs than jealously guarding American jobs ever could.

Eh, that can't be right. Because then John Kerry would be sensationalizing the job market picture in order to help himself get elected. And John Kerry was a bonafide Vietnam hero, dagnamit!

So the solution must be to convince every country to imprison any CEO who allows his companies to steal its citizens jobs and move them to another country. That will eradicate this rash of treason we're seeing worldwide.

And next, we can all go live in a cave, put on blindfolds, and place our hands on our ears while going

"LA LA LA"

so we can pretend other countries don't exist.

It'll be great!

I've been out on vacation for the past week, thus the no entries. I'll tell ya'll about it within the next couple of days.

-David