It seems that what I've been saying—something, I'll add, that has been roundly rejected by my Democratic peers—may actually turn out to have an element of truth: "The number of College Republicans has almost tripled, from 400 or so campus chapters six years ago, to 1,148 today, with 120,000-plus members (compared with the College Democrats' 900 or so chapters and 100,000 members). College Republicans are thriving even on elite campuses. 'We've doubled in size over the last few years, to more than 400 students,' reports Evan Baehr, the square-jawed future pol heading the Princeton chapter. The number of College Republicans at Penn has also rocketed upward, says chapter president Stephanie Steward, from 25 or so members a couple of years ago to 700 today. Same story at Harvard. These young Republican activists, trudging into battleground states this fall in get-out-the-vote efforts, helped George W. Bush win."
Read the whole thing. It seems that we're gaining ground, slowly but surely—so let's just hope it continues.
Friday, January 14, 2005
While I do love my new iPod, I have to say that ScrappleFace has a point: "In another uncharacteristic effort to woo the masses, Apple CEO Steve Jobs today announced that starting in February his company would ship a "starter version" of the iconic Macintosh computer which will sell for only $29 -- hardware not included.
The announcement follows yesterday's launch of a $499 Mac mini -- a small metal box with no monitor, keyboard, mouse, or other peripherals.
The new $29 Apple Nano-Mac promises to 'reduce desktop clutter, while instilling the confidence and feelings of self-worth shared by Mac users worldwide,' Mr. Jobs said.
And while critics charged that the bargain-priced Nano-Mac is 'little more than a silver Apple logo sticker on an empty matchbox with no ports, plugs, peripherals or programs,' Mr. Jobs was quick to point out that all of those 'high-end extras can be purchased at Apple.com by users who like the Mac culture and zeitgeist and want to upgrade to a more hardware-centric experience.'"
Thursday, January 13, 2005
CNN.com - Army sergeant refuses 2nd Iraq deployment: "'I told them that I refused deployment because I just couldn't go back over there,' Benderman said Wednesday. 'If I'm going to sit up there and tell everyone that I do not believe in war, why would I go back to a war zone?'"
Because you made a commitment to the armed forces, and it is your responsibility as a man of your word to live up to that commitment. The main stream press shouldn't even be covering this matter—it is an internal matter, and the man should face a courtmartial for dereliction of duty.
He has every right to object to war and refuse to serve, but he has to face the consequences of his actions as well.
A Sad Day For Everyone
The last word, for now; humorist gives jokes a rest. I have no more to say on the matter.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
I should be a scientist
CNN.com - Fossil shows baby dinosaur in mammal's belly: "Villagers digging in China's rich fossil beds have uncovered the preserved remains of a tiny dinosaur in the belly of a mammal, a startling discovery for scientists who have long believed early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur.
Scientists say the animal's last meal probably is the first proof that mammals hunted small dinosaurs some 130 million years ago."
Has anyone considered the possibility that the scientists' original assertion was right and this "mamals hunted small dinosaurs" stuff is completely off track? Let's look at this logically. Scientists now have in their posession a mammal whose last meal was a small dinosaur. From this, which is most rational: (a)That some mammals regularly hunted and ate dinosaurs, or; (b)That one mammal ate a small dinosaur (possibly already dead and rancid), died as a result, and we found him?
I'm going with the latter.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
This is pretty incredible: "A Presbyterian minister collapsed and died at the pulpit after saying 'And when I go to heaven...,' his colleague said."
I hope somebody has his notes for the sermon because I really want to know how he was going to finish that sentence.
"If the world's most wanted terrorist is captured or killed, a power struggle among his Al-Qaeda subordinates may trigger a wave of terror attacks, said AB 'Buzzy' Krongard, who stepped down six weeks ago as the CIA's third most senior executive.Personally, I think this is an even bigger issue than "Buzzy" acknowledges—it is compounded by the fact that, should Bin Laden be captured, the democratic nations of the world would find that their citizens lose the stomach for any sustained war on terror. Like it or not, we have allowed Al Quaeda and Bin Laden to be associated as the only terrorists we have a right to pursue (hence the "sure, Saddam is a terrorist, but he's not associated with Bin Laden" argument regarding Iraq). If he were to be captured, too many people would find themselves satisfied.
'You can make the argument that we're better off with him (at large),' Krongard said. 'Because if something happens to Bin Laden, you might find a lot of people vying for his position and demonstrating how macho they are by unleashing a stream of terror.'"
Monday, January 10, 2005
Due to having the girlfriend in town, classes starting today and other scheduling complications, I've been very busy and unable to post this past weekend. I assure you that I will be back to my regular blogging schedule tomorrow afternoon.