Russia goes nuts (again).

According to CNN, Russia is once again upset with the US over, what the US claims, is a missle defense system being deployed in Europe.

The Russian response was to test-launch an ICBM.

The general thinking behind all this was voiced by Condoleezza Rice; to protect our European allies from threats like Iran. Thats all fine and good, I suppose. Prudence is a virtue afterall.

But, am I the only one going WTF?

Explain exactly why we would allow Iran to have such missle capabilities in the first place? I would much rather urge a pre-emtive strike on Iranian facilities. Of course, while I can only hope such a plan is in the works; I can understand the "just-in-case" scenario of placing a missle defense system in Europe. Of course, another question is why aren't European nations taking these actions themselves? If not at least at the urging of NATO.

As for the Russian response; I don't know whether I should laugh or cry. Showboating around will only get you so far - yes, I think we're all aware of how Russia still has a poorly made and maintained arsenal.

Jackass for April 2007

Well, after a month of silence, I'm back (finals were gearing up, among other things).

So, the numbers for april are in. The Entire Cast of View are hereby named the Jackass of the for the month of April in this year of 2007.

It's not like I'm completely biased however, I like to think of myself as an equal opporotunity critic. The View has had its good moments; but for me personally, whatever credibility it had died when Rosie claimed that 9/11 was "an inside job". That's absolute-lunatic-talk.

She's well documented as saying "Thats the first time in history I've seen steel melt" Wow.

She further claims that bombs must have been planted to complete the horrible act.

Lets keep some simple logic in mind.

All metals melt. They have too, or you wouldn't have any metal to shape into a spoon, rebar, etc etc etc etc etc etc. Lets also keep in mind that when those planes hit the twin towers jet fuel was ejected (as in dispersed) in large quanities over a relatively small area. Lets also keep in mind that simple physics posits that something with a large surface area (such as dispersed jet fuel) burns quickly and instensely. Hot enough even to melt the steel that supports the twin towers. It shouldn't be surprising that the towers, with melting supports, collapsed, taking tower 7 with them.

Next she'll claim the jews must have planted the bombs.

I'm calling bullshit on "The View" for supporting Rosie's blantant drivel.

I'm not saying we should question conventional theories. I support the unconventional; however I'm a stronger supporter of the fact that logic bears truth; and in this case truth wasn't even given a chance.

..Pry it from my Cold Dead Fingers

The recent tragic shootings at Virginia Tech have already started to prompt the perennial debate on guns, gun laws, and whether or not citizens should even own them.

Guns have their purpose. They can stop a rapists from attacking you, shoot a deer in the head for dinner, or be used as a never ending euphemism to the glory of the male anatomy.

But lets face it, King George has been dead for a while now.

Lets take a look at the infamous second amendment, the right to bear arms:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Many gun-crazed persons in the NRA have repeatedly cited this as the main protection to owning guns. The fact is, however, the history doesn't really support this.

They often cite that it's all about self-defense. Well, the matter of personal or individual self-defense, whether from wild animals or modern-day predators, does not fall within, nor is it dependent on, the Second Amendment rubric. Nothing in the history, construction, or interpretation of the Amendment applies or infers such a protection. Rather, legal protection for personal self-defense arises from the British common law tradition and modern criminal law; not from constitutional law. The common law right of self defense is legally distinct from the right to bear arms.

The potential connection between the right of self defense and the perceived constitutional protection of a right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment depends on the distinction whether 'keep and bear arms' is synonymous more broadly with the right of individual self defense or does 'keep and bear arms' pertain more narrowly towards use of arms in a military context, or, in the case of the Common Law while still under the British, in service of the king and country. Clearly, the right to bear arms pertains to a state militia.

Some history-savy NRA persons have even gone so far as to say that if the settlers were not allowed guns in the west, then americans would have been slaughtered by hostile native american tribes. This may be true. But I feel compelled to point out that settlers weren't in america then. They were in territoires, that is, lands that had not been admitted into the union subject to federal law. Thus, its like arguing that Canadians, or any foreign peoples are subject to federal US law.

I'm not suggesting people shouldn't protect themselves. Indeed, I think it's a fundamental right (just not outlined by the second amendment). But, technology has advanced past projectiles hurled by the chemical reactions of gunpowder. One could get the same level of self-defense with a non-lethal weapon. Some may argue, what if multiple persons? I assure you, non-lethals weapons exist that can do this job.

Many pro-gunners believe that the 2nd is the Constitution's way of making sure that our government never becomes tyrannical, and ensures that if it does, we will be able to overthrow it. There are a few reasons why this is not a good argument.

First and most important, the Constitution was a document intended to create a government that could be changed by the people through peaceful means, and it has succeeded for over 200 years to that effect. In fact, America is the oldest continual democracy on earth. Other democratic means already exist to change, or even overthrow, the government. One counter-argument sometimes heard here is that if the government disarms the populace, the populace is ripe for a dictatorial takeover, and cannot fight back. My response to this is simple: America has nearly 300,000,000 citizens. No dictator could "take over" without popular support of these citizens.
There is always the possibility (although an incredibly remote one) that another Hitler may arise to power, democratically elected and supported, and then begin to ignore the basic ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, not only can we elect our leaders, we can un-elect them as well. We have extensive checks and balances to make sure no one person or agency can have too much power, and we have a healthy respect for democracy earned over 200 years. These are features that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan lacked. There is always the possibility that another Hitler will come, yes, but in the meantime, we have at least ten thousand persons a year dying from guns, and countless more injured. We must weigh this certainty against the infinitesimally small chance that our well-constructed checks and balances will suddenly all fail.

Krazed Korean Kills 33

No, its not Kim Jung-il (I was surprised too)

It was Virginia Tech shooter Cho Sueng-Hui, who was admitted to a hospital for treatment of mental illness in 2005 because he was "an imminent danger to himself," according to court documents. (See at cnn.com)

Of course, why authories didn't respond in an attempt to protect students for two hours after the first shooting seems like bad business. If students die, universities can't get their tuition checks. Plus one has to wonder what the Virgina Tech Dean was doing for those hours.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and in hindsight there were plenty of warning signs that this Sueng-Hui was teetering on the edge. The only thing that seems to be missing was a picture of him wearing a sign plastered to his forehead saying "The Chemical imbalance in my brain makes me CrAzY!"

Nikki Giovanni, one of the gunman's professors stated, "I know we're talking about a troubled youngster and crap like that, but troubled youngsters get drunk and jump off buildings; troubled youngsters drink and drive," Giovanni said. "I've taught troubled youngsters. I've taught crazy people. It was the meanness that bothered me. It was a really mean streak."

Hmm..mean... Noteably, Giovanni is an English professor, not a Psychologist.
That must be a whole to new level to "mean" to shoot people. Lets just call a duck a duck; the guy was insane.

On a more personal note, my condolences to those that lost someone due to this senseless violence.

Toronto: Canada's LA?

Yes, according Albert Nerenberg; whose passionate distaste for the city of Toronto warranted an entire documentary.
Of course, for the east-coasters living in the USA, Los Angeles, or Hell, is the arm-pit of the earth.

And apparently, according the documentary, the two cities do have something in common: souless inhabitants.

To be fair, of course, not all the inhabiants of either Toronto or LA are souless. Some are in fact just catholic; which is often understandably confused with being souless.

Source

Article:http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/13/hate.toronto.reut/index.html

Future of American Jewry

Does Judaism have a future in America?
Personally, I would like to say so - despite assimilation; and many jews, including myself, wondering if wearing that yarmakle would draw too much attention; or if taking one of the various jewish holidays off would upset management too much - just enough to deny you a promotion.

However, everytime I see a story casting the dark shadow of assimilation, I can't help but think its a tad bit alarmist. Afterall, as americans we do have rights; and an assortment of employment laws protecting us from religious discrimination.

Yet, the primary objections seem to come from intermarriage not the business world. Falling in love with those pretty gentile boys and girls. To oppose intermarriage today means going against the entire modern American ethos by placing group identity over social integration, individualism, and liberal values.

Many an orthodox, and perhaps even conservative jew would object - citing that we'd just be sacrificing ourselves just to fit in. I say, not exactly. It's ridiculous to think that judaism isn't compatiable with liberalism, or concern for individual rights - values which are also american. So why not embrace them?

Part of embracing them is that as Jews, we need to stop feeling so insecure about our own traditions - aka, we don't have a christmas tree, and we're proud. We have a religious tradition much older, and much richer.

So light that shabbat candle, and wear that kippot like a rock-star; basically, be Jewish without apology.
Besides, The Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah) had positive effects, like Zionism, and ultimately Einstein; and it had it's roots in a certain gentile enlightenment...we can't as a group remain completely isolated from the rest of the world, that only invites antisemitism.

Source Article:http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378383951&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Queer and in Charge

A new poll indicates that a majority of Americans would vote for a gay person for president. The Gallup survey finds that 55% of respondents would vote for a gay candidate if he or she were "generally well-qualified."Given the wide range of backgrounds among the current field of 2008 presidential contenders, the poll asked how willing Americans would be to vote for them, and it included hypothetical candidates for good measure. The results, released earlier this week, reveal that 95% of those polled would vote for a Catholic (the religion of Republican hopeful Rudy Giuliani), 94% would vote for an African-American (Democratic contender Barack Obama), 88% would vote for a woman (Hillary Rodham Clinton), and 72% would vote for a Mormon (Mitt Romney, Republican former governor of Massachusetts).The only category to poll below 50% was atheist. (The Advocate)

I have to say, I'm only surprised the number isn't lower. Perhaps its from living in one of those red states too long; but I could only imagin the objections of some..."Just think who would be invited to the lincoln bedroom" - Perhaps thats only a polite objection.