Bill's Notes

Has Microsoft perfected its technology to the point where it can implant thoughts?

My computer is in my bedroom. I always leave it on. Last night, as I slept, I dreamt that Bill Gates and I were good friends. We were having a joke together at the expense of someone else ... I forget the rest of the dream.

Anyone else having dreams of a pleasant, funny Bill Gates being your friend?

Tough battles underway in Iraq. No doubt I won't be the only one praying for victory for our coalition troops. Brave coalition forces are fighting and dying today for our freedom against terror and for the freedom of Iraqis.

And the coalition will win, the U.S. Marines will win, but the cost won't be free. Let's remain grateful for their efforts.

For some reason, the link isn't working to Jonah Goldberg's entry in The Corner today, so I'm cutting and pasting:

AL QAEDA V. SPAIN [Jonah Goldberg ]
Al Qaeda is allegedly turning up the heat on Spain. This is an amazing and amazingly undercovered development. If it's true, the conventional wisdom about al Qaeda winning a victory by knocking Spain out of the coalition shouldn't be overturned so much as revised. If that had truly been al Qaeda's goal they would have been very, very smart to pocket the victory and attack Britain or Poland. Instead, by increasing the attacks on Spain they underscore the stupidity of Spain's appeasement since that appeasement bought Spain nothing.

***

My objection here is to the common assumption among my friends on the right that the Spanish voters voted in the Socialists shortly after the bloody March 11 attacks in order to appease the terrorists. (I equally object to the notion from my opponents on the Left that the Spanish voted to reject the Conservatives in power because of the War on Iraq, or because of purported manipulation of the events by conservatives for political gain.)

My best guess -- is that this is about mathematics, not intention. The results of the March 14 election were about voter turnout. In that sense, Al Qaeda acted brilliantly. The bombings on March 11 dramatically increased voter turnout -- and since most people in Spain are socialists, not conservatives, the election tipped naturally to the socialists. The conservatives may have won among voters who planned to vote on March 14 -- but the March 11 attacks increased the number of voters completing their civic duty, and the percentage differential between the socialists and the conservatives took care of the rest.

Let me put it this way: There are a lot more registered Democrats or people who self-identify as Democrats in this country. That's why Democrats talk about "getting out the vote." Democrats worry a lot about rain or rough weather on election day: The fear is Republicans are more motivated voters, and thus show up in greater percentages than Democrats, regardless of weather and circumstances.

A terrorist attack that resulted in increased voter turnout would most likely hand the election to the Democrats. Would everyone consider that appeasement?

A daughter was born to my good friends Rose and John yesterday. The baby was 8 pounds, and is cute in that squishy red newborn way. When I saw her, she was completely wrapped up and wearing a goofy little baby hat.

Welcome to the world, Anastasia!

(She's also my God-daughter. You may call me Godfather from now on.)

You are a GRAMMAR GOD!


If your mission in life is not already to
preserve the English tongue, it should be.
Congratulations and thank you!


How grammatically sound are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Speaking of Holy Week, and the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Christ our Savior... I hope it's not too flip to say that had that been me who went through all of that whipping and crucifying on Good Friday, and I rose again on Sunday, the world would not celebrate Easter Sunday so much as Severe Payback Sunday.

I'm just saying.

ON SECOND THOUGHT: We don't know what Jesus did to Satan after His death and before His resurrection. Maybe that was Severe Payback Saturday.

Jesus' riding on a colt to enter Jerusalem was well-known symbol at the time ... He chose it to fulfill a prophecy, and that communicated clearly to the people of Jerusalem that He was the messiah. Apparently others who claimed to be the messiah had done the same thing.

Of course, as our priest explained today, Jesus then proceeded to spend a few days arguing in the Temple, instead of taking the Throne of David and overthrowing the Romans. By the time he throws someone out — it's not the Romans, it's the moneychangers in the Temple. The people's hopes are dashed. By Friday, they've turned against him entirely.

Perhaps those in the crowd felt they'd tipped their hands on Palm Sunday, both against Herod and against Pilate, by honoring Jesus with palms and cloaks strewn in his path. By receiving a man with such honors as He entered Jerusalem, they'd showed disloyalty to the Roman empire and their own Jewish king. After the expected revolution from Jesus didn't occur, they may have started to turn on Jesus to get back in the good graces of Pilate and Herod. Judas may have been monitoring this delicate situation — and determined that he needed to force Jesus' hand on Thursday night.

*****

Different parts of the Gospel affect us in different times. One that stood out when I saw The Passion was at the Last Supper, when Jesus said, "If they'll do this to me, they'll do this to you." It was a reminder where the world stands on Christ and His followers. We're lucky, in the United States, that virtually all the persecution against us is merely disapproval and ridicule. In the larger scheme of things, that's pretty light. In the Sudan, in Nigeria, and in other places, the persecution is what Jesus said was coming at the Last Supper.

I have one of those atomic clocks that synchronizes via microwaves. It had already done daylight savings time for me, so I woke up and my clock had already moved itself forward. Pretty cool.

Of course, I still had to check it online. Just to make sure.

In NRO today, there's an article on Rep. Zach Wamp's sell-out as a Congressman.

The cause of this: The GOP majority has SOLD OUT to DC culture and essentially become fat, dumb, drunk and happy. Zach Wamp, who I initially thought was a made-up congressman for National Review to make a larger point, is just a symptom.

Anyway, where does that leave our political debate? If the GOP is now the Dems, where are the Dems? If the GOP won't rein in spending, do we have to look to the Democrats to do so?

The political issue is out there, a brass ring lying on the ground. It's not only a proven vote-getter, it's a proven election winner. All the Dems have to do is pick it up. Dubya can't — he's compromised on the issue. The GOP can't — they spent the money.

This is, by the way, is why I'm considering voting for John Kerry. Because all Kerry has to do is find some outrage over spending, take national security off the table (easy enough) and he's got an excellent shot at winning. I'm waiting to see if he's smart enough to grab it.

Bush's first term weakness is not Iraq. Stop talking about it, Dems. No matter what, you'll have to continue that war, and in a robust manner. You may feel you're right, but you'll lose the election if you campaign on it.

But spending is an issue in which the GOP is extremely vulnerable. The brass ring is there. The Dems just gotta pick it up off the ground, and run with it.

Don't know how much longer you can see Misha's April Fools banner here.

One extreme to the other, you know.

UPDATE: The banner is down. Whew!

Fooled no one with the last two posts. Pleased I got a dean-o-lanche. Nearly 150 visitors yesterday. Nice little traffic day. Y'all come back now ...

Now, to the real politics: Shocking as it may sound, I haven't decided for whom I'll vote in November. Most likely Bush, but possibly Kerry. I'll give Kerry a fair hearing in September. If Kerry has half a brain, he'll do exactly what Clinton did to Bush the elder — moved to the right of him.

In the meantime, when analyzing the campaign as it is now, I'll stick to the analysis Hunter S. Thompson used while covering the Pulitzer divorce trial (the whole trumpet thing, if you've forgotten) back in the mid-1980s. Paraphrasing the good doctor here: I believe every accusation made by each side is true. They should split the money and sell the children to the Arabs.

Or something like that. Anyone who has the exact quote is welcome to e-mail it to me.

The IB Committee on Truth and "Truth" has decided to begin a campaign to enjoin legislators to write new, more rigorous hate-speech laws. The problem with such laws until now is they are content neutral.

The problem is the fact that the debate is long since over that there is such a thing as "content-neutral". Post-structuralist criticism instructs us that there is no such thing as a non-political act. Attempts to be neutral do nothing more than encourage and enforce the status quo; therefore, content-neutral hate speech laws are not merely conservative, they are positively, aggressively reactionary.

Indeed, most people prosecuted under hate-crimes laws have turned out to be members of the very oppressed groups the laws were designed to protect. Content-neutral means the form is conservative, thus the content is conservative. This is so painfully obvious after 50 years of post-structuralist thought, and the evidence of the arrests under the hate crimes laws, that it is simply beyond arguing. Members of oppressor groups will simply use any level-playing to tip the scales their way.

Thus, the IB Committee on Truth and "Truth" demands new hate-speech laws to counteract the reactionary aggression of the First Amendment to the Constitution and current, content-neutral hate speech laws. These laws must get not only the thumbs, but the hands, feet and buttocks of the oppressors off the scales of justice.

This means foremost recognizing the condition of the speaker, and the circumstances of the speech, before a hate speech prosecution may commence. To put it in terms even an oppressor can understand, members of non-privileged groups cannot hate by definition, they can only react to others' hatred of them. Thus, they are incapable of hate crimes and incapable of hate speech. So prosecution of hate speech and hate crimes will be limited to privileged groups only.

We recommend the following to be designated hate speech:

1. Any outward expression, including words, sounds, gestures, facial expressions and the like, that indicates hate, fear, loathing, derision, disapproval of the existence or behavior of members of repressed groups.

2. Opposition to, or collaboration with or sympathy for any opposition to, any political agenda designed to correct the legacy of oppression in the past or eliminate oppression in the present.

3. Timidity, passivity or indifference in the presence of injustice, whether caused by oppressive attitudes toward race, sex, addiction, HIV status, sexual orientation, and previous history of felonies, depression or joblessness. No longer will oppressors be permitted to just "look the other way" and pretend they don't see the plain injustice of their acts, the acts of their neighbors, and the acts of their kind.

4. Superstition or worship of any deity who/that signifies oppression, or encourages any oppression of the kind listed in the first three demands. People will no longer be permitted to hide behind texts of ancient ethnic hatred to justify their hate. Nor will they be permitted to make gods who look like they do.

The IB People's Political Caucus on Choosing Between the Two Right Wing Parties has made its decision for the upcoming presidential election. Here is its official statement:

Whereas true progressives in the United States must choose between two regressive, right-wing parties,

Whereas true progressives have watched both political parties continue each other's policies regardless of who holds political office,

Whereas violent overthrow of the government isn't feasible at the present time,

Whereas regressive, reactionary politics dominates the landscape as long as fictitious corporate "persons" dominate the land and purchase their political lackeys,

Whereas the choice for president in 2004 is about the lesser of two reactionaries,

Therefore, be it resolved, that:

The IB People's Committee for the Promotion of Justice in Politics and the Mass Reeducation and Elimination of False Consciousness in the American Public in Order to Hasten the Mass Appearance of Socialist Womyn and Men and Eliminate All Forms of Oppression by the Creation of the Total State, as delegated to the IB People's Political Caucus on Choosing Between the Two Right Wing Parties, supports Dennis Kucinich for Vice President and John Kerry for President.

Bush cried! People lied!

April 1st.

You can trust me to tell the truth, though.

You can tell something about your workplace by what your co-workers say when you come to work especially dressed up. Do they say:

1. "Got a job interview?" Or
2. "Going to court?"

It says something if you think they'll say (1) but in fact they say (2).

Brown University has convened a Committee on Slavery and Justice to look into the connection between Brown and the slave trade. The Weekly Standard is on the case here. Here's the lead:

IN APRIL 2003, Brown University president Ruth Simmons invited more than a dozen members of the Brown community to serve on a Committee on Slavery and Justice. The committee lay mostly dormant until March of this year, when its existence was made public (Brown arranged for the news to break in the New York Times). Since then, the committee has attracted much attention because (1) Ruth Simmons is, as the Times trumpets, "a great-granddaughter of slaves," as well as the first black Ivy League president; and (2) the committee may set precedent on the issue of reparations.

As the Times puts it, Simmons "has directed Brown to start what its officials say is an unprecedented undertaking for a university: an exploration of reparations for slavery and specifically whether Brown should pay reparations or otherwise make amends for its past."

Industrial Blog is convening a Committee On New Lilliputians to look into the matter. OK, we've reviewed the matter: Brown University's Committee wins. They are small people walking around feeling self-important; thus, Lilliputians.

God bless bilious Jonathan Swift. He knew people.

are in LAST place. Let's enjoy this moment.