US "to reduce its forces in Iraq", apparently.

The Bush administration is now actively encouraging the hope that some American troops will pull out of Iraq next year.

Well, that just sets me right at ease. Encouraging the hope. Have to make sure we're optimistic about maybe starting to withdraw next year.

Rumsey had this to say on the subject...

"We've been passing over bases... we've been turning over responsibilities, but by golly the people who've been denigrating the Iraqi security forces are flat wrong."

"They're doing a darned good job and they're doing an increasingly better job every day, every week, every month."

Is it just me, or should senior officials really not be using phrases like "by golly"? It just makes them sound... like someone who should not be holding positions of power. That, and then euphemisms. I hate euphemisms. If you're passionate about a subject, don't degrade it by throwing around pansy words. Change the above to "damn" and look how much more forceful it looks: "They're doing a damned good job and they're doing an increasingly better job every day, every week, every month." OK, so the grammar is still crap, but that's his fault, not mine. Still. Pisses me off. Dubya and his evil Righteous Right. I want a leader that's not afraid to speak his mind. No, Dubya doesn't. If he did, he'd become even more of a laughingstock.

Oh, and finally; this, your moment of Zen:

"...may encourage further the sense that Mr. Bush is now thinking hard about how to begin to leave Iraq."

Ouch. Dubya is thinking. The world is in trouble.

EDIT: There is hope yet. Dubya is "a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard." (Taken insanely out of context, which I normally loathe, but hey, it's accurate anyway...)

I saw this and cracked up. Sometimes ads are hilarious without meaning to be. The look of mock concern on her face is just classic. And to properly complement this one, I submit various captions:

OH N0S! U HAVE T3H HERPS!!!11! L0LZ!
pwn3d.
Imagine what he got.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Concerned? You bloody well should be.
See your doctor today. Run, don't walk.
And how do you feel about that?
I'll trade you my AIDS.
Talk to your kids about spreading herpes.

This will be a two-subject post. With many rabbit trails along the way. Enjoy!

Firstly, and less importantly, I hit upon a genius idea for saving the economy, reducing the number of auto accidents, increasing driver skill, and increasing speed of travel, all with one fell swoop. Sounds impossible? I have two words for you: Manual Transmission. Yes, that wonderful piece of engineering that an absurdly small amount of cars sold today (in the U.S.) have. I was attempting to navigate traffic on S. Tunnel tonight whilst leaving work, and was getting increasingly agitated at the idiocy of my fellow drivers. I have (OK, I drive...) a 1985 Ford Ranger. Tan, Carb 2.8L V6, 4x4, 5-speed manual. The automatic choke plays up when it gets cold, and it has a rather crappy response time coming off idle. You hit the acclerator, and absolutely nothing happens for a good second or two. So you also have to remember to hold the clutch in for a bit until the engine picks up, or else it bogs down/lunges forward, depending when it engaged. This can [sort-of] be remedied by jamming a cloth inside the air intake, which (I assume) confuses the ECU and changes the fuel/air ratio. It also completely saps what little power there is. So, back to the story. On a slight hill, two stoplights away from Tunnel, which is only 2 more stoplights away from I-240W. Every twit behind and in front of me was driving an auto. How could I tell? Other than the fact that more than half of them were SUVs (I've seen precisely one manual-equipped SUV in my life. Gen 1 Ford Explorer.), nobody was rolling backwards when taking off. And they were taking off entirely too smoothly for the average driver. People with autos forget that not everyone can creep forward (which is pointless anyway - ooh, there's 3 feet between the next car and myself. Better close the gap) and stop constantly. Truck clutches are rather heavy buggers, which tends to wear your left foot out. That, and my cold, carbureted engine means I had to keep the engine at a very fast idle while simultaneously holding in the brake and clutch (that's three pedals with two feet, for those of you not paying attention), and then feathering the throttle and clutch when I launch, while gradually letting off the brake to avoid rolling into the idiot whose nose is kissing my bumper. Not fun. So, um... my idea. Right.

Force everyone to learn to drive manual transmissions. Many European countries require it before granting you your license. I see no reason why we should be any different. Knowing how to drive an auto forces you to learn more about your car, it teaches you more about proper vehicle control, and you gain a few mpg in fuel economy. (automatic transmissions have a fluid coupling via the torque converter, which wastes energy. Overdrive locks the shafts mechanically, however)

So how does this accomplish my claims? By forcing people to learn how to drive a stick, those who fail (obviously crappy drivers) are no longer driving. Those who pass are better drivers. Less drivers + existing drivers skills increased = less accidents. Also, we can increase the speed limits (or remove them entirely) on open highway and interstate since the overall skill level has increased. This 60 MPH crap has to stop. 75 MPH isn't bad, but when the road is entirely straight, there's no reason to not go 85+.

So, any dissidents? I thought not. It's brilliant, brilliant, brilliant, I tell you! Genius, I say!

And now, for something completely different.

Soulmates. Merriam-Webster says "a person temperamentally suited to another". Dictionary.com retorts with "One of two persons compatible with each other in disposition, point of view, or sensitivity." Finally, Wikipedia claims that is "is a term sometimes used to designate someone with whom one has a feeling of deep affinity, friendship, love, strong intimacy or compatibility."

Let's break this down into numbers first, shall we? I love numbers. They make everything easy. Actual facts bolded. Comments left plain. (The following is entirely derived from the simultaneously frightening and wonderful CIA World Factbook)

There are 6,446,131,400 people in the world, circa July 2005. But that's only an estimate. It seems they missed poor old Mr. Smothers in Buckingham, bringing the grand total up to 6,446,131,401. Oh, nevermind. He just died.

64.9% of these are of marrigeable (well, age 15-64. Best I could do) age. There is a roughly 50/50 male/female split, with males having an approximate 50 million lead.

There is 57,500,000 km^2 of land on this earth. That works out to about 112 people per square mile. Or of marrigeable age, about 73 per square mile. The population density is obviously much higher in much smaller zones in reality, but this is an average of the entire globe.

Now then... there are two definitions of soul mates that I've heard. One is religious (usually Christian) based. The other is Mystic/New Age based. The former believes that due to God's omniscience and micro-management skills, there is precisely one person in the world for you to marry. The latter just believes that there is someone or someones with whom you click. I don't really have a problem with that. I think that there are obviously some people you'll get along with better than others, due to personality types, likes and dislikes, and such. However, the religious explanation blows my mind. One in 6.4/4.2 (64.9% marrigable age, remember) billion? Crazy. And why is it that these supposed soul mates almost always live very near to you, like what you like, speak your language, and usually (from what I've seen) have your skin color? The obvious explanation (other than the skin color - that's just stupid) is that, *gasp*, they click. You move somewhere, someone catches your eye, you get to talking, and hey, you like each other. So you pray fervently, convince yourself it's God's will, and next thing you know, you're married. Better results than courtship, I suppose. I'm not even getting into that.

War! It ain't nothing
But a heartbreaker.
War! Friend only to the undertaker.
Ooooh, war!
It's an enemy to all mankind;
The point of war blows my mind.

-Edwin Starr, War

Yet more civilian deaths in Iraq. Apparently that's par for staying the course. Or whatever the excuse of the moment is. "Regrettable, tragic incident." Incident?! A traffic violation is an incident. Killing a family traveling home from a funeral (won't even get into that one...) isn't. At the very least, it's a casualty.

I'm not blaming the soldiers. I'd be pretty jumpy too, with how many bombings have gone on. No, the finger points squarely to Our Glorious and Exalted Leader. Apparently, there is currently a plan undergoing review that would begin withdrawing soldiers in 2006. 2,000 or so. And this only if certain milestones are met. Good God, ya'll...

"U.S. troubled over Iraq abuse claim". Well. Troubled. I wonder if the prisoners were "troubled". Perhaps they were a bit "upset"? "Outraged over these allegations", maybe? Such a shame, these scandals. I just don't know what we'll do.

I can't wait for the next speech by Our Fearless Leader...

I got a forward today via email. Nothing unusual, and I usually delete them. However, for some reason, I opened this one. Hmm. "Chocolate Math"? Sounds stupid, but it's just a few simple math problems. Waitaminute... it worked! So I checked with a couple other people, and yes, it does. Examine the steps, do some Googling, confirm my suspicions. Brilliantly simple, but still cool. Can you figure it out?

1. Pick the number of times a week that you would like to have chocolate. Make sure it's more than once but less than 10.
2. Multiply this number by 2
3. Add 5.
4. Multiply it by 50.
5. If you've already had your birthday this year, add 1755. If you haven't, then add 1754.
6. Now subtract the four digit year that you were born.
7. You should now have a three digit number.
8. The first digit of this is your original number (how many times you want to have chocolate each week).
9. The next two numbers are your age.

So... there is justice in the world... Prick deserves it. I need to find this video, and laugh uproariously. Then send it to someone as a shocker, or something.

BWAHAHAHAHA...

"We do not torture," Mr. Bush told reporters...

That prison thingy, what was it? Abu something?

I had some thoughts... but first, some other thoughts.

I was under the deluded impression that rabid Anti-Semitism and Christian Fundamentalism were, for the most part, seperate entities. Sadly, I was mistaken. Yes, Xanga. There are many, many more, but this one stood out to me. I think it was the Confederate Flag (never mind he lives in Kansas...) and Calvinism that I found most amusing. I'm not even going to get into the whole Southern Pride thing (remember, we, um, they [I claim no kinship. I live in Asheville, dammit. An oasis of humanity in a sea of xenophobia] won the War of Northern Aggression), but it just fits so perfectly. On another page somewheres, he was also seen wielding a rifle of some type or another. /looks closely... Nope, shottie. I'd say a Remington 870 Express, but see what you make of it. But I digress. The Calvinism is the other interesting point. I've a Calvinist friend, so I know a tad about the subject. Quite frankly, I love it. It's total crap, (God loves everyone, but everyone means an elect few. Everyone else is going to hell, and there's nothing they can do about it) but it gets me off the hook. Assuming I (and a few billion others) are wrong, and we are going to hell, it's not our fault. If I were meant to be saved, I would be saved. Works for me.

To sidetrack for a minute, I really, really hate the whole Gun Enthusiast=Fundamentalist Nutjob stereotype. I love guns with a passion. The precision, power, and cold, calculating exactness is just awesome. And yes, I hunt. I also eat that which I kill. Yet paradoxically, I'm against most wars the U.S. has entered into, I don't go around threatening people who disagree with me, I do not think I am part of some überrace, and quite frankly, I wish everyone would let well enough alone. There. Glad that's off my chest.

But on the Anti-Semitism thing, (actually Anti-Everything-Except-The-Holy-Trinity) it's astounding. I'm aware there's still people who think Jews, Catholics, Hollywood, and Yankees have some major world takeover plot, but I didn't think they had figured out what blogs were yet. Stupid, stupid me. They have forums, so why not blogs? What's even more frightening is the amount of comments the fellow has. I suspect it has something to do with Xanga, though. If you start a blog on Xanga, even if it's completely blank, you will have people leaving you "eProps" and comments about how cool/hot/sexy you are. On Blogger, you get spammers and linkfarmers.

Honestly, how someone can in this day and age seriously believe that organized religion is, well, organized enough to pull off something as grand as a world takeover, is beyond me. We're still blowing each other up for reasons that are murky at best, and people think there's some deeper meaning behind all of it?

And what's with this obsession with Lord of the Rings? I saw it on a few other similar blogs. If they're drawing parallels between it and nationalism, er, patriotism, I'm not seeing it. Wait... surely they don't view themselves as the Fellowship... nah...

Delusions of Grandeur indeed.

Um, edit, yeah. I forgot my original thought. Basically, this: what is the turnover rate from other religions to Athiesm, and for what reasons? I'd think Islam would be a tad lower than Christianity, mainly because you may well be excommunicated (of course, that happens here as well) or killed for denying Allah. But Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, Paganism, Wicca... what compelling reason do they have? Their religions don't go around demanding everyone bow to their god[s], nor do they demand one turn a blind eye to science. It's more of a philosophy than anything else.