their

This post is similar to the 'a lot' post in that i'm arguing for breaking a grammar rule in the English language in order to make it more user-friendly. In this case, I feel that a writer should be able to substitute the word 'their' for 'his/her' because it looks better and is faster to type. Saying and writing his/her all the time, in my opinion, weakens the writing and distracts from the point.

Now, understand that I'm only refering to a very specific case here. It usually occurs when one is trying to say "A person should such and such and such..." and then one needs a possesive pronoun. You can't just say 'his' because then your politically incorret, so you either have to say 'his/her', or break the grammatical rules and go with 'their'. It also makes sense in the sense that one is usually refering to 'a person' in the sense of one out of many (e pluribus unum) so there is a connotation of it being plural.

For those who would insist that a plural matches up with a plural, I would point out one glaring example of an instance where we always match a plural with a singular. Are is quite clearly a plural verb, we use it for 'we', 'they', 'many,' etc. But we also use it for 'you', which is equally clearly a singular pronoun. You are only one person. Thus, from the point of view of grammatical consistancy, "you is," is more correct than "you are,". I'm not suggesting we change 'you are', I'm just suggesting we let me use 'their' instead of 'his/her'.

Leviticus

When it comes to religion, there is a lot of fiery rhetoric. Apparently a lot of people have very strong opinions about religion. And they have every right to, since religion concerns the salvation of the soul. But even in religion there is room for debate that doesn't involve mutual excommunication. And so I humbly submit this argument (I still think its weird that there isn't an e in argument).

Leviticus 18:22. There's been a lot of talk about that particular verse in the Bible, especially from the televangelists who are involved in politics. "It's in the Bible," they say, "and the Bible is the word of God." But few of them discuss Leviticus 19:19 with equal fervor. But there they are. Both of those verses are in the book of Leviticus, and nowhere in Leviticus is it said that one of the verses is more important than the other. May I venture to say that it would be hypocritical to so boldly preach one and violate the other. I ask this, how many televangelists have worn polyester or another synthetic fiber?

I'm not going to come to a conclusion now, but only put that out there and let you draw your own conclusions. If you want more information, consult the Bible.

Mark 10:25

Bush

To the theme to M*A*S*H, which seems so appropriate

Through bullet-proof car glass I see
A Gold Star mom protesting me
In my own ranch! Just let me be
I'll just ignore her desperate plee!

Because vacation's painless
it brings on many changes
and i'll take just one more now if I please

Cliche

It is something that all serious writers despise and condemn. It is something you are taught not to use in creative writing class. It is the great evil. The temptation of the dark side. The easy way out. The cliche.

So I am about to say something very unpopular. Cliches aren't bad... if. Yes, that's right, I said it.

A cliche is defined as an overused phrase. Something that was once original, but isn't anymore. So your teacher tells you to come up with something more original. But there are times when a cliche is appropriate. After all, cliches have stood the test of time (test of time, I'm pretty sure that's a cliche). They work, so it would be a shame to waste them. And the problem with originality is that it doesn't always work. How many sayings were discarded and never became cliches? If you're trying to express a point and won't to drive it through, risking originality could risk the loss of the entire piece.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be original. That should be the goal of all writing. But writers should use the cliche as they would any other literary tool. It has its place.

War-torn Afghanistan

So, i was working on my required summer reading and one book on the list was "My Forbidden Face" which is a book written by an afghan girl who grew up under Taliban rule. It's a really good book that was probably even better in its original language and it really makes you think about US foreign policy, because you get the chance to look at it from another person's point of view.

Bush has said that his goal in foreign policy is to spread freedom and democracy across the globe. Surely, no one could have a problem with a goal like that, since democracy is widely considered a very good thing. I will discuss whether or not he has been doing anything remotely close to spreading democracy a little later, but first i want to relate the story of US foreign policy in Afghanistan.

It is a story of selfish interests and pretended ignorance, of catastrophic nearsightedness and reckless abandonment.

WWII. The Western Democracies mobilized against the threat of fascism. When Hitler made the poor desicion to invade Russia (probably because he was taking so many drugs at the time) the USSR entered the war and expanded west. Thus the Cold War was born.

The Cold War. Named partially for the fact that it wasn't officially a war and partially because it was fought in Russia, which is really cold. In order to realize the USSR's imperialistic dreams (the very dreams that they preached against when fighting the fascists, but what can you do when you're a superpower), the Great Communist State invaded Afghanistan to bring Great Reforms and Modern Freedoms to that country. Thus our story begins.

America immediantly responded by helping the mujahadeen (apology for the spelling errors) fight the Soviets. America did this to stop the 'spread of godless communism' (they really loved that phrase in the 50's. Ever wonder why 'under god' is in the pledge of allegiance? 50's!)
Of course, America wasn't concerned with what would replace the communists, and so we quickly abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew.

Thus eventually the (Pakistan-supported) Taliban invaded. Most were probably not educated enough to read, which made it quite easy for them to horribly mistranslate the Koran (I use the term 'mistranslate' losely, 'make up stuff' might be slightly more appropriate). For many years rockets had daily pounded into Kabul, but the author of "My Forbidden Face" says that the oppressive silence of the Taliban was worse.

Little by little the Taliban took away every right the Afghan women had. Since women were not allowed to go outside without a male escort, widows and other women without families were forced to starve to death in their own homes. Thus it was that the Taliban finally took away the right of Afghan women to live. To live.

But the Taliban were not communists, so the U.S. didn't care much. We had won the fight against the godless communists! Oh glorious day! With the fall of communism every single last threat to world peace had been removed.

But then, what's this? September 11th? Are you telling me that if we ignore dictatorial regimes that oppress their people it could someday come back to haunt us?

Bush was right to invade Afghanistan and kick out the Taliban. The act of removing Saddam Hussein itself is not bad (though the manner in which it was done was a horrible bungle).

But Bush is no hero. He is good friends with the Saudis who also oppress their people and don't do much to stop terrorism (how many 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? A lot). And of course. In the modern Crusade against the middle east most people have forgotten about the crises in Africa. Dictators abound there, and it is only a matter of time before they realize the power of nukes.

Oh, and North Korea has nukes and is led by a psycho for a leader. It is not what i would consider a "diplomatic problem".

End.

Bolton, the conclusion

Congrats Bolton, you're now the UN ambassador. And thanks to the Republican leadership's commitment to a fair up or down vote... oh wait, you were a recess appointment weren't you? Since the Republicans couldn't get enough votes to confirm you, Bush had to appoint you when Congress wasn't in session (that pesky Congress!).

So it would seem that despite Republicans saying that they were going to use the nuclear option because they wanted a "fair up or down vote", they're perfectly happy to have you confirmed with no vote at all!

And of course, a recess appointment is going to do wonders for your popularity in the UN. You're going to find it so easy to accomplish your objectives because all of the foreign diplomats know that you were the choice not just of Bush, but of Congress and the people of this country. Afterall, we gave you a wonderful send off on your first day, didn't we? Isn't NYC just great?

Yes, I'm sure history will view you as one of the most influencial UN ambassadors the United States has ever had.