Riding Out the Day's Events Tactus has provided an excellant summary of today's joint Commie/Fascist rally. So good, in fact, that I will leave it to him entirely. (Don't forget to read the commentary afterward!)

Reuters News Agency and the Anti-War Movement: Accidental (I Hope) Supporters of Stalinist Totalitarianism
For real, too.
"Activists sound bugle call on U.S. Peace Campaign" cries the headline of Reuters, the popular news wire agency, and possibly Marx's most useful idiot. I wasn't even going to write about this, since Glenn at Instapundit (January 16th, 2003, 9:03 PM) did such a good job addressing what International ANSWER, the protest's organizer, really is, but the Reuters article made me even more upset. Usually, Reuters is just bogged down with latent anti-American sentiment. It's (kind of) new for them to actually suggest heroism in those who would see us destroyed. Hey, and "bugle call"? What the heck? It's just poor journalism to use loaded words like that in a factual article. They treat these people like they're heroes of peace, when in fact, they're a bunch of Stalin worshipping Reds.

International ANSWER, the group which has masterminded this week's national protest, as well as the ones previous to it, is a front organization for the Worker's World Party. Apparently, ANSWER's protest offices are housed within WWP offices, ANSWER officials (including Brian Becker, an ANSWER spokesman quoted in the article), are WWP members, as were 5 of 13 speakers at an ANSWER press conference. WWP even has a link to ANSWER on their website, like a proud parent. Like a Soviet satellite state, ANSWER exists to serve the WWP's goals, stuffed with brainwashed minions to direct it's activities.

The WWP is not merely socialist. They are not the warm and fuzzy teenage girls living in a tent city in the Student Union Courtyard to protest capitalism and war because "capitalism and war are mean". The WWP is so loyal to the ideals of Joseph Stalin that they broke off from the Socialist Worker's Party in 1956 because they were actually too radical for the SWP. These are the people who put other people in death camps. These are the people that are leading America's anti-war sentiment? God help us.

You might be thinking "come on Aaron, they can't be that bad".

From the WWP website: "Capitalism rests on the exploitation of the many by the few...That's why capitalist democracy produces nothing but hot air. The power of the workers and the oppressed is in the streets, not in Washington. Workers World fights for a socialist society -- where the wealth is socially owned and production is planned to satisfy human need."

Their logo is even the Soviet red star. They link to a Marxist bookstore. One link on their homepage takes you to "Bolsheviks and War: Lessons for the Anti-War Movement". They idolize North Korea and Cuba as heros of their ideal, and like Saddam, apparently go to the North Korean news agency for writing tips. One of their buddies is an attorney who helps defend Slobodan Milosevic. Somehow, they even got the memory of Martin Luther King Jr. laced into their lunacy. These aren't the kind of Communists who think the Soviet Union was a poor implementation of the idea, the kind who think Soviets were bad and Communism could be good if done right. These are people who think the Soviet Union was great, and that Stalin, who slaughtered countless millions, was a hero. They're hardcore totalitarians, like Hitler and Mao, and Reuters thinks they're wonderful. The bastards.

Just to make this clear, WWP/ANSWER is not merely involved with, or supporting the protests. They are responsible for them. They have organized them, acquired the permits, arranged for concessions, porta-potties, music, handled publicity, media interest, the whole deal. They are the protest's leader.

You can read interesting anecdotes about ANSWER/WWP and their antics at their October 25th Protest here. The article also makes the frightening point that the WWP's real interest seems to be more in preventing anything bad from happening to Saddam's Iraq, not just to require inspections. They don't talk about inspections at these rallies. One activist has even been quoted in WWP's newspaper as saying "inspections are war, in another form!" They talk about leaving Iraq alone, despite Hussein's butchery of thousands, claiming he has done nothing wrong. Apparently, they like Iraq the way it is: a fascist state ruled by their kind of madman.

This week's anti-war protests are not anti-war protests at all. This week's events are Stalinist rallies. What's worse, thousands of students, soldiers, professionals, celebrities, white-collar and blue-collar workers, and of course, hippies, will gather to share what they hope will be a message of peace. Instead, they will be fed brainwashing propaganda by people who are barely human themselves, and who's goals include nothing even resembling the peace the protestors hope for, but rather, world conquest and the end of democracy. The people who come to listen are being used as Marx's "useful idiots". They, and most of the anti-war movement, are being led by a horrible group of people, a group so terrible that they use another name when they organize events, a group so sinister that they lie about the groups their guest speakers represent, because if Americans are told who they really are, no one will be willing to work with them. The protestors are being used as tools of the fan club of history's great mass murderers. That is what is truly frightening here, that people like this are capable of manipulating the minds of the American people. I reiterate: God help us. By raining hellfire upon the WWP, if possible.

The Constitution protects free speech within the framework of the Constitution itself. That framework allows for virtually any political ideals that don't interfere liberty. It is part of the genius of the Founding Fathers, that they developed a system that does not, itself, determine what society will embrace. Instead, it provides a mechanism for people to decide what to embrace as the times change. The Constitution was never meant to protect speech that is intended to destroy that mechanism, the Founding Fathers couldn't have foreseen anything so insidious, and the WWP using ANSWER's Constitutionally protected voice, using the document that protects our way of life as a shield to protect their activities in their fight to destroy it, to destroy everything that we live for, proves what they really are: cold hearted hypocrits and liars. Inside their warped minds, they hate the Western way of life simply because we love it, and because they know that as long as the Constitutional mechanism to choose our path exists, we will never choose theirs. So they have set out to destroy it, and if neccessary, us. They find little ways to insert their tentacles into our lives, like taking control of the anti-war movement, to get their message out, without revealing the whole terrible nightmare plan at once. There is no brotherhood, there is no democracy, there is no voice of the people in their ideals. There is only their hate.

Totalitarianism, Dictatorship, Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Maoism, Marxism; you can argue the nuances of the words and ideals, but the fact is, they all mean the same thing: the absence of liberty. Liberty can only be guaranteed by unfettered capitalism, popular democracy, and defined freedoms. These people, the Chairmen, Ayatollahs, Presidentes, terrorists, and 'progressive activists' are all on the same team. They're all the enemies of human liberty, and people must stand against them if we're going to get through this crazy decade. That doesn't mean you have to be a war supporter, but it means you have to recognize who some of these people are, and, just like children are taught, if a stranger tries to take you away, scream bloody murder before it's too late. If you want to protest the war, do it on your terms, not theirs. Totalitarianism, the complete control of the people's lives by the State, is the greatest darkness that has ever slithered across the Earth, and supporting them, even temporarily, is selling your soul out to Evil. Reuters, they can bite my ass.

Saddam: Talking Out of His Butt Again

Hussein has apparently hired a North Korean speechwriter. Not that he doesn't always talk like that, but it's fun to pick on him for it.

In this case, Hussein has declared, among other things, that if we attack, we will be defeated at the gates of Baghdad. In the same speech, he also reminded his people that they won the 1991 Gulf War. Of course, they didn't. He just says things like that sometimes. All of this appears to be in response to finding a bunch of empty artillery shells that could have been used for chemical weapons, or, for smoke bombs. A fairly innocuous find, that triggered a passionate, although idiotic, response. Maybe we're getting close to the real weapons.

However, in his speech, Hussein referred to America as the "Mongols of this age". Maybe he should've used somebody else. I know that totalitarian history books are laced with lies, but this is just dumb. Genghis Khan's armies conquered the city, and in fact, the city's Christian minority took the opportunity to shed the chains of oppression of that Muslim kingdom, and fought alongside the Mongols. Maybe the Iraqi people think Baghdad won that war too?

As for our imminent defeat at the gates of the city against a mighty army of faithful Muslim nations, even the Saudis are trying to get Hussein killed now. Given that the whole world knows Saddam's Iraq is a secular state and their Islamic faith and fervor is a political ploy to make the people of Iraq think he doesn't suck, it's unlikely that the Muslim world is going to shed a lot of tears for him. Finally, Hussein has backed himself into a logic trap. Considering that we had fewer than 200 casualties when we crushed Hussein last time, when his army was the fifth largest on Earth, the only way we could reasonably face a defeat now is if he were to make large scale use of weapons of mass destruction on the battlefield. The thing is, if he does that, well, it proves we were right about him all along, doesn't it?

Race-based College Admissions
Or: Why Everybody Should Be Angry
Somebody's using their brain again, according to the Associated Press. The White House finally came through and formally filed their friend-of-the-court brief that effectively denounces so-called "Affirmative Action" programs. For the few left who don't know, Affirmative Action programs give "bonus points" to members of "oppressed" minorities in areas such as hiring, university admissions, and funding or grants. On what principle is unclear, but there seems to be some mumbling about how they're disadvantaged, or about the need to promote diversity.

Of course, this is insane, and anybody outfitted with eyes can see it. In fact, it's organized racism, and of the worst kind. Some white University of Michigan students saw it, as do millions of other Americans, and went to court. Of course, Tom Daschle wasted no time in saying something stupid.

"I think the burden of proof will be on the administration, I think the burden of proof will be on Republicans to show us how they can be for diversity and yet be against the laws that promulgate diversity," Daschle said.

Let's give Affirmative Action an honest moment's thought. First, there's the "reverse racism" issue, that giving someone credit for being of a minority race unfairly punishes the "majority" who can't help their race. In many cases, entirely unqualified people who happen to belong to a minority group receive jobs or college admissions over more qualified candidates who happen to be white, entirely on the basis of race. Corporations and universities are often so afraid of litigation or claims of racism that they actually discriminate against whites.

To make matters worse, these programs virtually enslave minorities to the system, rather than setting them free. If a people get used to having a "crutch", they will become dependant on that crutch. Makes you wonder if the Democratic party isn't deliberately trying to create a pool of voters who will be loyal to them forever, huh? Though rather conspiratorial, it does rather look that way. After all, under this system, minorities don't have to achieve, instead allowing those who don't get such freebies to pick up their slack. The fact is, these programs don't promulgate diversity, they promulgate inferiority. Under Affirmative Action, people are actually graded by their race, and given a "handicap" if they aren't white. The implication in such a program is that minorities aren't good enough to make it on their own merits, that they need "help" to get into college, or to get a job, because they're not capable of doing it on their own. This is not merely simple prejudice, this is not merely about a bunch of whites somewhere who quietly dislike blacks. Affirmative Action is the worst kind of hate-mongering institutionalized racism, the kind that assumes that minorities are sub-human, and incapable of performing as well as white, protestant males.

I know I'm not saying anything new there. It just ticks me off. I just want to drive the point home that it's sick, mentally diseased, immoral, and unconstitutional. Jesse Jackson ought to be suing the people responsible for these programs to get his reparations, not the federal government that fought a war that killed 600,000 Americans to no end but to set the slaves free. Meanwhile, if Tom Daschle and the Democrats really care about minorities half as much as they claim, they should be celebrating Bush's effort to bring an end to this horrifying system of inferiority-enforcement, rather than making monkeys of themselves by hinting that they don't really care about minorities, but instead just give them freebies to guarantee their votes. That is how it works, too. The supporters of Affirmative Action will hear none of a "race-neutral" program like Bush's Affirmative Access, which guarantees university admission to the top 10% of graduating high school students, regardless of race. That's because for supporters of Affirmative Action, this is about petty pandering and handouts to racial minorities. Of course, we shouldn't need a program at all, neutral or otherwise. This is pretty straightforward. The simple solution would be to forbid including race as a factor in any way in any such decision. In America, your race shouldn't be a factor. Yet, here we are, enforcing the most hateful divisions of our society at gunpoint, because some people think it'll promote equality. How?

Don't Ever Give This School Money Again
Clinton High School, in Clinton, Iowa has new garbage cans. Not just garbage cans, talking garbage cans. They say things like "Thank you for helping us keep the environment clean."

What's the big deal? They cost about $4,500 each. Now, I know somebody out there is thinking "aww, those garbage cans sound cute", but think about this. If you had a talking garbage can when you were in high school, what do you most likely think would've happened? Would students line up to throw garbage away in a flourish of anti-littering pride? Probably not. More likely, they'd be popping that sucker open a hundred times a day just to hear it say things. Then, the administration of schools like this scream that they need more money, and we give it to them, because education is important. Yes, a school must be clean, but this is too much. It's just plain wastefulness, and of other people's money to boot. Somewhere in Iowa, there's probably a rural school where students are throwing their garbage in flimsy generic garbage bags set open on the unwaxed floors because Clinton High officials squandered money they could've used. Bend over, Iowa taxpayers. Whoever makes the spending decisions at this school needs their rear kicked, and to join reality. One word for the administrators of Clinton High: Rubbermaid.

The Siege Ends
Heroic Bloggers Repel Chinese Communists
The Siege of Bloggergrad has been lifted, and the government of the People's Republic has unblocked Blogspot.com. Of course, it's still subversive. Three cheers for the universal right to free speech! (As announced on InstaPundit.)

Australia's Whackiest Criminals
"I only drove up the road!"
I'm not sure what's more bizarre here, the judge or the criminal, but Tim Blair, an Australian blogger, has posted a link to this story about a repeat driving offender in New South Wales, Australia. Raymond George Morgan, 24, has apparently been brought before the court for "Driving While Disqualified" (equivalent to our "Driving With a Suspended License") more than 30 times. He can't just stop. He's a driving addict.

If you were the judge here, what would you do?

Whatever you're about to say, it probably isn't this: The judge has suspended Mr. Morgan's license for about 1000 years. At first, he was only going to ban him from the roads for 997 years, until December 2999, but extended it an additional 2 years to December 3001 upon further reflection. Mr. Morgan is also likely to spend 6 months in jail. As Tim Blair so eloquently put it, "No hover cars for YOU!"

"What aggravates this offense," Judge Falzon explained, "is the continual display of effrontery. ...the guy just doesn't want to get it through his head that he can't drive." The judge went on to recall one time when Morgan had appeared in his court for driving merrily down the road in a car with no brakes or windshield. "If someone is not going to appreciate his own life, then they are not going to appreciate someone else's life, and that's scary."

In this latest incident, Morgan was arrested in front of his home when police noticed his taillights were out, as he brought groceries home to his wife. Police said Morgan repeatedly protested "I only drove up the road!".

Africa: CNN Finally Finds Out
Well, CNN has finally run an article on what the British press has been trying to tell people for months: Some rebel generals across Africa are eating people. Perhaps I'm being unfair to CNN, since it's really the U.N. that has taken so long to catch on to what's going on in the Congo, although ABC reported on this going on in Uganda. Now, I know it's not cool to say bad things about Africa, because somebody screams racism and imperialism if you do. "Somebody" is full of crap. The places reported on in these articles appear to have devolved into the worst places in the world in which to live, ever. This is a situation that appears to be reaching some sort of critical mass with the world community, finally. In this case, it appears that they're not just eating their victims, they're holding Pygmies at gunpoint to do it too, and everybody knows you shouldn't mess with Pygmies.

According to one article, the Pygmies say they are hired by the Congolese Liberation Movement to hunt food for them. If they fail, they are killed and eaten. They force the others Pygmies to eat the leftovers, one might suppose to give them ample motivation not to fail in the next hunt. Even Wal-Mart doesn't treat it's employees that badly.

Apparently, there's a Pygmy advocacy group. "It is unacceptable that the international community focuses on protecting endangered animals like the okapi, the mountain gorilla and the rhinoceros and pays no attention to the fate of human beings like ... the Pygmies, who are nevertheless every bit as much in danger of extinction." People before animals. There's some sensible right-wing radical thinking for you, although I'm not sure I like referring to an ancient race of people as being anything akin to animals, subject to extinction. Sort of devalues that whole "human life" thing. The U.N. report also points to one four day period during which the Congo group is believed to have committed at least 117 arbitrary executions, 65 rapes, including the rape of children, 82 kidnappings, and 27 cases of torture. The group has also removed and eaten the hearts of infants, forced family members to eat each other, and mutilated small girls.

Another group accused of cannibalism, among other atrocities, is the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, who purportedly wants to establish a government based on the Ten Commandments. Their leader, Joseph Kony, is possibly creepier than North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, so reclusive that none can confirm his goals, but he is reported to be a tall, skinny man with braided hair, who is guided by spirits who let him see into his enemy's minds, like the Amazing Kreskin after his conversion to the Dark Side of the Force. Then there's the eating people thing. Apprently, his forces consist of the enslaved children of villages he conquers. To top it off, this isn't just some obscure group. The LRA is the largest rebel movement in Uganda. There's a possibility they will control the country at some point in the future. Of course, Iddi Amin, Uganda's former dictator, was also believed to have similar eccentricities.

On top of the cannibalism, there is the usual gangraping civilian women to death, village burning, looting, pillaging, plundering, crop wrecking, and so on and so forth. My only question is, can we bomb these "rebels" yet? If not, when? This has a creepy aspect, too reminiscent of "The 13th Warrior", that makes one feel something ought to be done. (There is a deliberate understatement there.) Between this and an AIDS epidemic that is believed to have touched about 20% of the population, these places need more people to step up and really try to care about them, to do something to help, instead of just talking, discussing, and proposing. Heck with independant development, we have all the reports on African development we will ever be able to use in our lifetimes. People are dying over there, and all the U.N. debates in the world won't fix the fundamental problems.

"...like a painted cake pie in the sky..."
North Korea: Freeing Workers From the Three Shackles of Capitalism: Industry, Food and Sanity.
According to Reuters, North Korea has decided that our wishes to negotiate are a scam. "The U.S. loudmouthed supply of energy and food aid are like a painted cake pie in the sky as they are possible only after the DPRK is totally disarmed," they say. That DPRK thing stands for Democratic People's Republic of Korea. When they put 2 of these 4 words in the title, a) Democratic b) People's c) Republic d) Socialist, that's how you know they're nuts. North Korea has three! "It is clear that the U.S. talk about dialogue is nothing but a deceptive drama to mislead the world public opinion."

"The American capitalist oppressors will all sizzle in a tub of deep fried turkey fat, as our Dear Leader marches gloriously across the cinnamon ashes of their plastic vegetarian land, back and forth, back and forth, with the grin of a thousand organically raised cattle. He will liberate their workers with a frosted mug of 'un-cola' democracy!" OK, it didn't say that, but it might as well have. Between the nuances of the Korean language and the insanity of the North Korean "Dear Leader", Kim Jong-Il, nothing KCNA (their "news" agency) says should surprise anybody. As far as anyone can tell, most of this stuff is coming right out of his mouth. It makes for great reading, "Onion"-quality stuff, like the article where they explained that more than 50 countries around the world were planning celebrations of Great Leader's Birthday. (Great Leader is Dear Leader's Father, Kim Il Sung.) The part they left out was that Great Leader's Birthday would take place during numerous springtime festivals, unconnected in any way to Great Leader. Sort of like being born on Christmas and telling people that schools close to celebrate your birthday. Basically, they just made this stuff up.

"...in essence, there is no change in the U.S. conditional stand that it would have dialogue with the DPRK only after it scraps its 'nuclear program'." Well, duh. What did they think, we'd just give them the food and energy for the heck of it? In free countries, people trade. The guy kidnaps South Korean movie stars and directors, forces them to make movies for him at gunpoint, watches Daffy Duck cartoons while 2 million of his people starve to death, then wonders why nobody anywhere on earth wants him to have nuclear bombs. Could it be because he's crazier than Jim Carey as "The Riddler"? In short, Kim, yes, you have to disarm before we'll give you free food and energy. I'm not even sure I'd be comfortable with you if you were in a straightjacket. It'd have too much of a Hannibal Lecter quality to it.

The Reuters article did quote another interesting tidbit of the KCNA release, though. Apparently, our evil capitalist deeds "prove that they seek to gain time for some other purpose and, therefrom, resort to false propaganda to fool the DPRK and the world public". Well, that "false propaganda" thing is a little weak, since it is like Donny Rumsfield said. We call their country a fifth-world hellhole, they say they aren't, and a look at a map of the world from space at night solves the debate. South Korea is bright and alive, North Korea is black and dead. Capitalism and freedom rule, socialism and oppression are massive failures. Even communist China is bright and glimmering compared to North Korea. Korea is virtually a perfect controlled experiment. South Korea is the control group, the way things are supposed to be. North Korea is the variable. The test animal died. Those people need help. They need liberty. Badly. If the "other purpose" that they say we're "gaining time" for is an invasion, well, I'll bet troops in the region aren't real keen to fight in the De-Militarized Zone, since it's full of about a million land mines. (Literally. It's so bad that the North Koreans regularly try to tunnel underneath it, Bugs Bunny style.) However, uniting Korea and getting rid of Jong-Il would be (a tragedy for humor but) a boon for good journalism. Besides, if you saw the last Bond film, you know that they beat the hell out of 007 when they captured him, and that is unforgivable. (This film event apparently really hurt Kim Jong-Il's feelings, since he is, paradoxically, a big fan of Bond, who he may think is a real person. You can read KCNA's statement about the movie, too. Note the way they seem to think that the U.S. government makes our movies, and can cancel their showing at will. Capitalism is just slightly beyond their grasp, like we're kidding or something.) Points in favor of such a war aside, North Korea accuses us of planning an invason frequently. I mean, every single day since the end of the Korean War. I'm not holding my breath, even if they are violating the De-Militarized Zone, and ought to have their butts kicked just for that.

You can read some of KCNA's highly entertaining productions here, where they are translated using the rules approved by the North Korean government, and updated daily. You can also read what HappyFunPundit's Dan has to say about Kim Jong-Il, which offers some insight into his madness. (Kim Jong-Il's, not Dan's.)

Net Wars: The PC Strikes Back
Or: "The Responsibilities of Man"
Tim Mullen is a smart guy. In this Security Focus article he describes a technology he has developed, called Strikeback. In short, Strikeback is an innovative idea allows system administrators to use technological "force" to defend their machines from other machines carrying advanced, aggressive worms and virii that actively seek out and attack other systems. By actively "counter-hacking" these systems and shutting down the viruses and worms, a Strikeback technology could protect the network from damage.

"But wait," voices whisper. "How can you do that, it's their machine and they have a right to be secure too." Mullen handles that pretty well, by making one of the important points all free societies must understand: No accountability, no rights. If you want to be free, you also have to be responsible for what you do with that freedom. In this case, what Mullen is aiming at is making it clear that if your own system is so insecure, if you failed to take appropriate steps, and your system is now running amok trying to damage other people's networks and machines, heck with you. Your system is insecure and damage prone as it is, why should others suffer? Makes sense to me. This is the computer equivalent of shooting the neighbor's dog because it had rabies and attacked you. His dog, but the fact is, the dog was diseased, was attacking you, and your skin is yours to protect as neccessary. The law provides for this, and, except in the case of incompetent judges who give out judgements because a burgler fell and broke his leg at the home he was robbing, protects you from legal retribution from the dog owner who, though the neglect was accidental, did not take steps to ensure his dog did not acquire rabies or attack others, and so lost some rights in the process. The law also provides for you to sue the dog owner to pay for your damages. Since he failed to protect you from his dog, he must pay for the aftermath.

According to Mullen (to my knowledge, he is correct), in the case of aggressive computer worms, there is no such legal provision. You can't penalize a system owner who failed to protect his system, and thus who's system harmed you, not yet anyway. The legal problem is that it's hard to say when "due diligence" was used on a thing like this. No protection is foolproof, so when is a user safe enough to avoid liability? It seems to me that Mullen has found a practical, real world, legally sound, (if not politically incorrect) solution to a common problem in Information Technology.

Of course, the least rational voices are usually the loudest, and "scholars" like Eugene Schultz from U.C. Berkeley (where else?) are already giving the world further insights into the lunatic lengths they're willing to go to in their efforts to prevent people from getting anything done. In an issue of SANS Newsbites, Schultz wrote that he "hoped no one would take Mr. Mullen seriously" on this. Strange, since Berkeley is the university who's computer system was devastated by a worm spread through their system and infected hordes of external machines. They failed to secure their system. A system like this might, according to Mullen, very well have prevented that disaster.

As far as I can tell, Schultz doesn't like this idea because it doesn't fit into his hippy-dippy worldview. In the minds of people like Schultz, anything aggressive isn't an option, because it isn't very nice. His problem may be two-fold, in that this solution suggests that a) people have rights, and b) people have responsibilities. I'd imagine he'd also like to inject something about the "oppression of the working class" and "the People's Revolution", too. In the real world, aggression is an unpleasant option, but it works, often when nothing else will. It is a last resort to solve problems that must be solved, like the security of one's property. It's a shame that people like Schultz are so wrapped up in what may very well be insanity, that they can't get a firm enough grasp on reality to live in it, with the rest of us.

Bumper Sticker of the Day
The Total Information Awareness Program, a federal government exercise in Orwellian creepiness designed to combine the private and public records of all Americans into one big honkin' "Government Central Database of Unconstitutional Search and Seizure", purportedly to combat terrorism, is run by retired Admiral John M. Poindexter, a 5-time convicted felon. Thus, this is Free Will's Bumper Sticker of the Day for January 15th, 2003. It will continue to be, until another is found.

This bumper sticker can be purchased from Cafepress for $2.99.

America's Prince
I'm trying to just let this go, but I keep making the mistake of watching Turner stations like TBS and CNN, and seeing that ad for "America's Prince: The John F. Kennedy Junior Story". It's one of those really obnoxious things, like a "60 Minutes: Lady Di" special, that you just want to stop hearing about because while it was interesting when it was newsworthy, it has now been hashed to death. Everytime it comes on, I pick up the remote control and mute it, but they keep running it anyway, even though the film has already premiered. I know John F. Kennedy Junior died tragically, but lots of people die tragically, and it's just not practical to make movies about all of them. From what I can tell, it was not practical to make this one, either. I'm unable to understand why anybody would invest two hours of their life into quietly watching the retelling of the life of a person none of us really think about until we're told to, and who has no importance unless we are told that he does. Despite it's being considerably more timely, no one appears to be releasing a TV movie about the (from what I understand, far more exciting, particularly around college,) youth of George W. Bush, despite his having achieved a decidedly more prestigious station in life, and his father having been a famous president, too. That's not to say that someone should make the film. No, not at all. Please. It would be in the same poor taste as this film, but if we have to make films of questionable value, we could at least try to go for relevance to our lives, just a little. This is just plain media manipulation, a bunch of people making a movie about something nobody wants to hear about then trying to generate hype.

Although I missed it on the 12th (deliberately), I've seen some reviews, and most have referred to it as a can-miss. One described it as a "ho-hum production". (Usually, when a critic says this, they mean "I liked Waterworld better, and for god sakes, I'm a critic.") None have been much more enthusiastic. Finally, I got curious enough to check out TBS's Timeline of JFK Jr's life, to make sure I wasn't missing something about him that would be really cool. After all, they made a movie, there MUST be something, right? You'd think so. Really. The timeline was (I'm sure of it!) deliberately disinteresting, citing major dramatic events such as his acceptance to law school, and his graduation from high school. I suppose they didn't want to spoil any of the excitement by telling me why I would want to watch this movie. However, the warning signs are all in the television commercial. It opens with a cheap hip-hop pseudo-jazz beat, introduced by an imitation of a police siren, disguised as music. This is intended to draw one's attention. Rarely are great films' trailers started with a sound effect intended as an attention-getter, you know? Good movies with good plots do that by themselves. This, apparently, was an attempt to use a conditioned head-turner (a police siren) to add false importance to something otherwise boring, meaningless, and irrelevant to our daily lives. That sound effect alone was so obnoxious that it made me decide that I wouldn't watch this film, even if held at gunpoint by Ted Turner.

All of that is putting aside the fact that it makes me feel dirty that they're trying to make a "prince" out of the late heir to an aristocratic dynasty with often disturbingly bizarre social lives. He didn't really do very much from what I can tell. He was born into his wealth and fame, and his wealth and fame appears to be the only motivation for making the film, not any achievement that led to it. In a country where 4,000 died in a horrific, bloody, and often desperate war that was the first of this era of human history to challenge the institution of birthright aristocracy and win, this isn't just poor filmmaking, it's poor taste. Just leave it alone and go back to running "The Blues Brothers", Ted. If you don't, you're letting the terrorists win!

Free Will: Another Annoying Thing to Forward to Your Friends
Setting up a blog, or something similar, a place to rant, has been a plan of mine for about a year and a half now, but I never found a good enough motivation. Recently, I realized I probably need to find a new place to put my opinions so that they no longer blacken the hearts of those around me. Perhaps it's a subconscious attempt to incite national rebellion, but for the most part, I'm just having some fun gettings gripes out, and while most of my rants are political in nature, some will be about technology, movies, music, food, and just some random stuff. My political opinions are apparently so far to the right they would probably make Genghis Khan seem like a moderate Socialist, and, like others who feel that way, I have the power to shoot lightning from my fingertips like the Emperor in "Star Wars". I'm usually up late, and the television outrages me easily, so you never know when I'll be posting something. So though it may get me strung up like a ham, I'm going to give this blog thing a shot. My name is Aaron, enjoy!