Like Rumsfeld's second tour in Defense, my blog server picked a great time for glitches. Anyhoo.

All in all, too little, too late, in my estimation, concerning the State of the Union. The time for firing Rummy and sending in the cavalry was two years ago, not two months. I appreciate Mr Bush's courtesies, and his management of the economy (read: tax cuts); however, I remain unconvinced on the Iraq front, and the talk about global warming and federally-subsidized health care accounts are a bit much.

Mr Webb was simply philistine. He is far too taken with himself, and I am quite frankly embarrassed that he is the junior senator from Virginia. The Commonwealth deserves better, as do the poor viewers that had to endure him last night. First, he use of the English language is a tad boorish. How many metaphors did he mix, anyway? Second, he was flat wrong in his assessments. How can a senator indicate that the economy is going poorly when the middle class is larger than ever before, stocks continue to rise, inflation to continues to be in check, unemployment is at record lows, and tax revenues are at record highs? What's wrong with that picture? And, too, the statement that most of the military is against the war seems off to me. A majority of Congress is against the war; a majority of the populace is against the war; a majority of me is against the war. But there is no evidence--at least not any that I have seen or that Mr Webb referenced--to indicate the majority of the military is against the war. People are ill at Mr Bush for lying--no need to replicate the error, Mr Webb.

Something There Is That Doesn't Love A Wall

Hard to reconcile 'compassionate conversativism' with the whole immigration wall thing, but I do like the temporary worker thing. At least it's not complete, um, stonewalling. I would prefer amnesty, though. . . .

Mr Schwarzenegger's--I mean, Mr Bush's--Health Plan

How is this different from nationalized (read: socialized) health care? And who decides who is poor enough or sick enough?

Still Not Bad for the First Time

The Madame Speaker keeps licking her lips--what's up with that? Still, she's doing pretty well for being under this scrutiny the first time. Mrs Clinton, however, looks like she has recently visited the hair salon from hell. . . .

Surge versus State

So far, Mr Bush is doing far better with this speech than he did with the 'surge' speech. With the former, he looked tired and addled. So far, he looks confident and prepared. The nod to the Madame Speaker was a very nice touch. The Democrats have been playing nice, too; it's almost as if the two sides are trying to outdo the other.

The State of the Union

I still get chills up my spine when the Sergeant at Arms announces: "The President of the United States!"

America Needs a 'Beast'!

Ha, ha! Yes! I take away two things from this unraveling: First, the sheer joy of knowing that Arsenal's young line is in form. That bodes quite well for the future. Sure, a lot of that is import, and the transfer window gives, and the transfer window takes away. Nonetheless, at its foundation, the Gunner side is playing great football right now. "One-nil to the Gunners!"

The second thing I take away from this is how young the side is, not only for Arsenal, but for some of the Liverpool side, as well. Contrast that with MLS. Recently, Freddie Adu--theoretically, the American version of Theo Walcott--worked out with Manchester United. Sir Alex was unimpressed. Europe has a culture of breeding young footballers that we don't have. You see it in this tie. We can somewhat imagine an eighteen-year-old playing NBA (because we've seen it in Kobe Bryant and LeBron James), and it happens in MLB. But (true) football is a physical and demanding sport, especially at the pace it is played in the Premiership (and the Carling Cup tie today was a conflict of Premiership sides). Who can think of eighteen-year-olds playing in the starting lineup of an NFL team and being competitive? If 'soccer' is ever going to catch on here, the MLS style and structure won't get it; we will have to rethink our expectations for our kids. Now, we expect everyone to go through college. In the future, perhaps we will give our kids the leniency to go to college, trade school, work--or football academy. . . .

I Prefer A Foil, Thank You, Or At Least An Epee

Statements like this one, it seems to me, fail two tests. One is the theology test. This attitude stems from the natural theology tack that what is revealed is what is intended. In other words, what we see is the way things ought to be. It doesn't take long to dispel that notion, however, for surely no one of any grace would say that Down's sydrome is that way things ought to be. Burkitt's lymphona are not the way things ought to be. The Darfur genocide is not the way things ought to be (if I can stretch a bit outside of genetics). The question should be asked: If homosexuality occurs in animals, is that a good thing, or is that a deviation? Assuming that simply because a trait shows up in animals is a good thing strikes me as naive, at best. After all, if this assertion is correct that male whales "penis fence" and only infrequently mate with females, perhaps that is why we now need bumper stickers that read "Save the Whales".

A second, and corollary, test that is failed is the common sense test. If homosexuality is so wonderfully natural, why doesn't the anus self-lubricate for penile penetration like the vagina does? It just doesn't make sense. I'm sure that this somehow makes me homophobic, but I simply don't find compelling evidence here that homosexuality is a good thing. It may be a natural thing, although on this mark I still remain unconvinced. But nature is fallen just as we humans are. Pointing out that something exists in nature doesn't make it a good thing. Thoughtful reflection, if not a casual observance, bear this out.