After so long without writing anything, I guess I've just exploded.
Let me give you a hypothetical situation. You have a next-door neighbor whom you do not like. Worse yet, that neighbor absolutely hates you. In fact your very presence in the neighborhood is an affront to him. None of the other folks on the block like you either. They have vowed to force you out of your home. What do you do? Well, the logical thing would be to offer your neighbor some of your front yard. What? Did I miss something? Well, that's what so many people think Israel should do to achieve peace. The analogy is not exactly correct. Your neighbor just hates you. Israel's neighbors want the Jews to be exterminated and have vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. I am a little biased, given my Jewish leanings and tendencies. I do understand the beef the Palestinians have. Israel was pretty much created where they were living. But too damn bad. The rest of the region consists of Muslim nations. You would think that someone else would give the Palestinians a place to live. Hell, no one wants Lebanon. Let them have that. No, conventional wisdom by the libs, including the current Prime Minister, is that Israel should give up strategic buffer zones gained in previous wars and let the Palestinians control it. "You want to kill us all? Well, if we give you some land in our front yard, will you promise not to? Great. Thanks. BOOM!!! What was that? Wait, you promised!" Arafat is a terrorist, not the leader of a nation. Ronald Reagan had it right. Peace is achieved through strength. Israelis used to know that. They had better remember pretty damn soon or pay the price.
And another thing ...
I'm not the smartest guy in the world. But at least I speak correctly (most of the time). It is true that an impression is made by the way you speak. If Stephen Hawking could speak and he sounded like a ignorant redneck, who would take him seriously? (I do not mean to imply that southerners are the only people who speak with atrocious grammar. It happens all over the place. But I currently live in the south, so there you go.) Did people not pay any attention in school or was it just not cool to speak properly? If I hear someone say that they have went somewhere or that they seen something, my first impression is not one of intelligence. I'm not talking about accents and dialects. Some can be charming and some can be grating. I'm talking about speaking the language as it is supposed to be spoken. There are many conspirators in this crime against the English language. Popular music has been mangling verbiage for many years. But I grew up listening to "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" and "It Don't Matter To Me" and "You Haven't Done Nothin" and "Ain't Nobody" and I don't speak that way. The quality of our education system has deteriorated. It has become more important to acknowledge diversity and explore feelings than to acknowledge learning and explore the language. People speak monosyllabically these days. A wide vocabulary is a puzzling thing to a great many people. If you ever want to impress the average citizen, learn a big word and use it sometime. He probably won't ask you what you mean or to explain what you said. To hide his ignorance, he'll just let it pass. But the seed has been planted. He's thinking you might be smarter than he is. Use another big word and he'll think you are a genius! I don't know how this situation has developed and I do not have an answer. If you ask me for a solution to the problem, I'll just tell you I ain't got no idea.
And another thing ...
Boy, that Melissa Stark is a fine looking woman. Sorry, I got sidetracked. I just heard on the news that the president just signed a bill that requires states to adopt a .08 blood-alcohol level as the legal threshold for drunken driving by 2007 at the latest. Proponents claim that the legislation has the potential to save 500 lives a year. A laudable goal. (As an aside, those of you who thing big oil and big tobacco have a lot of influence in Washington, MADD and other advocacy groups are pretty damn powerful lobbies themselves. People don't usually think of these types of groups as lobbies, but don't let their names fool you.) But forgive me for throwing a monkey in the wrench on this one. "What? You are in favor of drunk drivers?" No, don't be stupid and don't insult me. But why is it a federal issue? The states establish their own legal blood alcohol limits. (For the record, I wouldn't be too upset if it was 0.0) Then the good old imperial federal government (motto: We Only Want To Help You SO DO AS WE SAY AND NOBODY GETS HURT!) steps in and tells the states that they must comply or lose federal highway funds. I'm sure they are hiding under the cover of interstate commerce, as with so many other laws they impose on the states. I'm just tired of this kind of extortion. Excuse me, Tennessee, you want your highway funding? We've got some new rules for you to play by. That goes for you too, Montana. Hey, you got a problem with that, Texas? I didn't think so. I'm sure this was a bipartisan effort and all the politicians will claim credit for this, but we used to have a tenth amendment to the Constitution. (Average high school senior: "The Constitu - what?") I know, I know, don't worry, be happy. Big brother gets bigger and bigger and more and more powerful. So what. Just watch the football game and shut up. Melissa Stark sure is pretty...