A note on the Amazon ads: I've chosen to display current events titles in the Amazon box. Unfortunately, Amazon appears to promote a disproportionate number of angry-left books. I have no power over it at this time. Rest assured, I'm still a conservative.
|
Wednesday, November 21, 2001
I like to write, but this past week has just been crazy with work and, I am happy to announce, social activities with members of the fairer sex. You, dear reader, can complain all you want, but when it comes to a choice between writing this free column and spending free time with lovely ladies, the ladies win.
A lot's happened in the past week, so I'm going to just make some quick notes on a variety of different subjects. Someday when I have more time (sorry, it's you vs. the ladies again) I'll find a good way of formatting this for easier reading.
Alan Dershowitz, moron: I've never been really impressed by the Harvard University law professor. I didn't particularly care for him pre-O.J., but I definitely didn't like him post-O.J. The man has no moral grounding. He may have ethics, but they certainly don't take into account right and wrong. Dershowitz is so much fun to watch when he tries to explain morality. About one year ago, Dershowitz debated former ambassador and GOP presidential candidate Alan Keyes (probably the best orator in America today) about religion's role in society. Dershowitz may practice law, but he doesn't want people to practice religion, especially if that religion (Christianity is the one he consistently singles out) outlines what is right and wrong. C-SPAN periodically replays this debate, if you can catch it, it's well worth the 2 hours it runs, especially the last 30 minutes or so, when questions from the audience are read.
I told you that story so I could tell you this one. Dershowitz is just one of a number of prominent people who are crying foul over the Bush administration's decision to keep open the possibility of trying terrorists who plot against the United States in military tribunals. I don't see why this is a big deal. U.S. citizens would be unaffected by this, but Dershowitz and his cohorts think that we have to make sure that every terrorist has full use of the Bill of Rights that they would plot to destroy. It is silly. Dershowitz basically claims that U.S. military officers would be under pressure from their commander-in-chief, George W. Bush, to find everyone guilty. Well, we could always have the trials in Manhattan. I'm sure Dershowitz could find an impartial jury there. I don't think the president should just keep the possibility of military tribunals open -- I think he should do it. Dershowitz decried the fact that residents of this country could be tried before a military tribunal. These "Americans," as Dershowitz called them on "Fox News Sunday," are no such thing. They are foreign nationals. Citizens of another country. If there is evidence they are plotting the destruction of this country, then I think a military court is enough process for them. It is certainly more process than would be accorded them in their homeland.
What Reuters reaps, it sows: Well, Reuters, the British news agency, said it would not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as "terrorist attacks," nor would it refer to the 19 madmen who flew airliners into building as "terrorists." "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter," said Stephen Jukes, Reuters global editor for news. Last week two Reuters photographers were among four journalists murdered in Afghanistan by Taliban soldiers. Other news agencies opined that Reuters management was afraid that if it appeared to take sides in its reporting by calling the attackers "terrorists" then its reporters and photographers might become targets of violence throughout the Muslim world. Well, I'm not sure that the Muslims who are predisposed to killing journalists are the type that read Reuters reports and are sufficiently educated to appreciate the nuances of the news agency's choice of labels.
My theory on matchmakers and blind dates: In the past couple of years, I've been set up on two blind dates. Neither went especially well, and I'm becoming more and more skeptical of the entire process and the abilities of these matchmakers. I've talked with other "victims" of blind dates, and I've come up with the following theory in the hopes that someday, some matchmaker will prove me wrong.
Matchmakers choose to set up people who they believe would look good together. They do not take into account similar personalities, interests or sense of humor in making a match.
What society generally frowns upon, and every single person denies that they do, the typical matchmaker does. That is, people are matched based on a similar physical appearance. I'm reminded of Rosie O'Donnell's rant in the movie "Beautiful Girls." In the scene Rosie lectures Timothy Hutton and Matt Dillon on women, appearance and relationships. "If there's nothing else going on in the relationship, besides the physical, I guarantee you'll get sick and tired of her."
So, what should you, the potential matchmaker out there, be looking for in a woman for me?
Christian.
Smart.
Conservative.
Interest in politics and current events.
Someone with an artistic bent (female engineers and mathematicians would not fall into this category).
A good sense of humor and an affinity for foreign films and British humor.
Interest in photography, art, history and the outdoors.
A good cook (I know it's cliche, but I can cook for her too).
Everyone have a happy turkey day tomorrow. I'll prepare the standard: "What I'm thankful for" column, that is mandatory for aspiring columnists like myself, for tomorrow.
10:54 AM
|
|
