So, I recently got to hear the story of my friend's brother-in-law who has been in Iraq for most of the last 4 years. I'd heard stuff similar to his story in the news a while back, but coming from him, it made it more real for some reason. So, this guy was a tank driver. And a couple of years ago, another U.S. tank driver was driving through an Iraqi city and an Iraqi threw his 2-year old son out in front of the tank. The tank came to a stop so as not to injure the child. And six men jumped out from a building with machine guns and shot the men in the tank. So, after that day, U.S. tanks were ordered not to stop for anything when going through cities. So, my friend's brother-in-law informed me that several times as a tank driver over the last two years, he has run over infants and small children thrown out in front of his tank. Someone else listening to this conversation stated, "That really says something about the moral character of those people over there." I don't think that could possibly be it. Bad people don't intentionally slaughter their children. This is something far worse. And even though recent Iraq study reports have suggested that President Bush have civilized, diplomatic peace discussions with the leaders of Iran, Syria, etc., perhaps there is not a universal interest in peace.

So, if you watch the film, The Patriot, you will see that the rules of war used to maintain somewhat of a gentlemen's approach. Often, the two sides lined up at a specific field, fired shots and then the second in line (the survivors) moved to the front. It was a battle of numbers as well as aim. When watching this, I'm screaming, "You guys are morons! Sneak attack!!! " They beat me to the punch and war became more strategic. But, there was still a venue, a 'wrestling ring' if you will, to separate the soldiers from the civilians. Lately in Iraq, we have been giving the Iraqi civilians warnings of the places we are going to attack before we attack, in order to give them enough time to evacuate their families. However, some civilians have recently been going to these buildings that we have warned about, and surrounding the building with a human shield, knowing or hoping that a civilized country like us would not destroy the lives of "civilians" in order to destroy a target. So far, they have called our bluff correctly. But, if these civilians are protecting an enemy, are they really merely civilians? And do our rules need to change?

So, my friend nicely told me the other day that the emission results of my penguin-hating consumption habits were ruining the world, and that I should give my money away. So, naturally offended, I thought that over. Let's say I give 50% of my income away. And we all willingly redistribute our funds so that no one's rich and no one has need. Will total consumption change? I will just be consuming less, and other people will be consuming more. I don't see how that solves his environmental concerns. Isn't he really looking for a production decrease? Or a population control mandate?

So, I watched Al Gore's biopic, "An Inconvenient Truth" this weekend. What the heck were with the flashbacks to Gore's life throughout the film that had nothing to do with the science being promoted? Anyway, if I read between the lines right, the movie's point was that tree frogs TRUMP tree beetles, and that polar bears TRUMP humans. When asked about the economic downfalls of America signing progressive emissions legislation, Gore answers the question by saying "Actually, it would increase jobs, because we have to remember that doing the right thing is always a step forward." Ok, but, you're not a muppet and I'm not a 6 year old watching Sesame Street, so that answer doesn't appease me. The film did indeed open my mind to the fact that the tripling of the population in the last 45 years has indeed skyrocketed CO2 rates and IS a problem, but the film almost made it seem like the world is already working extremely hard to produce cleaner energy, so it didn't make me want to vote for Al Gore in order to get it done, which is clearly what the film is about.

Alright, I have it...the tipping point for illegal immigration. First, this is based off the premise that illegal immigration is indeed an epidemic that needs to be addressed. So, if you can't concede the problem, then obviously no solution is needed. For those who are looking for a solution and don't like the financial repercussions of a Great Wall of Mexico, how bout this? If an American corporation knowingly hires an illegal or undocumented worker, the worker responsible for the hiring receives 6 months in prison.

From the same History Channel Lincoln special referenced a couple of weeks ago, they also talked about Lincoln's obsession with finding some way to be remembered, which he was obviously successful in doing. Does this bother anyone else? The media was equally obsessed with this question regarding our current President's legacy, asking questions like, "What legislation can Bush push in the next two years in order to leave his mark...etc." I don't understand this. I understand the notion that everyone wants to be liked and thought of positively. But, the idea of people standing up and fighting for legislation that they don't really believe in, in order to have a positive mention is the next generation's 4th-grade history book is mystifying to me. If these people are making decisions based primarily upon how history will judge them, and not upon whether they truly believe it's the right decision or not, these people should not be in office.

Let's tip AIDS. Instead of an epidemic for this one, we want to go in reverse. Since unprotected sex is far and away the leading cause of the spread of AIDS, let's start there. Condom distribution, 6th grade sex ed videos, abstinence teaching, stricter punishment for adultery...The forum is open:

New Advertising Campaign for Coke: quick :15 second spot cut to (bunch of guys sitting at a table in a sports bar/restaurant) guys begin to order sandwiches and fries cut to guy ordering "I'll have a burger, fries and a coke." cut to waitress saying, "Is Pepsi ok? cut back to guy ordering (offers a blank face and blinks a few times, then sighs) "No. I'll go without liquids." cut to later, guys eating meal (guy w/ no Coke smacking lips to pronounce his dry throat)

Why do government officials get to vote on their own salaries? That's just as ridiculous as a boss letting their employees decide their wage. I for one, would definitely give myself a raise, just as they continuously tend to do. But, since they are representing us, shouldn't we as a people determine what that job is worth, and we'll get what we pay for?

So controversial question, why are locker rooms same-sex only? (The controversy's coming, don't worry). Get an answer to that question before reading on by the way... Ok, so, I came up with two. Either A) Locker rooms are same-sex because we want to avoid the temptation of staring at the opposite sex in their underoos. OR B) We don't want people who may be sexually attracted to us staring at US in our underoos. So, does the existence of homosexuality mean that our locker-room etiquette needs to be changed? Because unless there's another reason that I'm not thinking of (please correct me), homosexuals break both of those reasons for same-sex only locker rooms. So, perhaps we need to change the policy of public nudity allowed in these locker rooms?