randoms on the top news

the thing that i understand the least about terrorists/jihadists/extremists is that they are so adamently against the western world and the way we conduct society. sure, everyone has different perspectives on the correct way to live life, but what i see to be the most beautiful thing about our culture is that we generally let everyone do just that...live their life the way they please. we don't condone murder, incest, or certain narcotics; other than that we pretty much do what we want with what we have.

it is just heartwrenching for me to hear about people who despise us and this sort of lifestyle because if they lived here, we would allow them to live just as they do now (except the murderous part). so i know it sounds so simple, but seriously, why can't we all just get along?

on another note, i'm not quite sure how i feel about the whole john roberts nomination thing. in a senate judiciary hearing, he said that roe v. wade should be reversed. but i guess since this nomination seemed possible, he has come out and said that it is the law of the land. that's it. is the connotation of that saying that it cannot be changed or does he believe that although it is the law of the land right now that the law of the land should be changed. the press is complimenting him on that statement, but i think that it does no justice whatsoever to the issue at hand. will he attempt to be the deciding vote in the reversal of one of the most controversial decisions in history? better not. or i'll have to throw a whoopin' down on his ass.

i heard bork (former nominee that was denied) comment on cnn that roe v, wade is actually unconstitutional. not because of what most conservatives argue which is that it is murder or something along those lines. but he argued that the constitution cannot be interpreted to say anything on the topic of women's right to an abortion. there are many topics that can be loosely figured out based on the vague language used in the constitution. but, and i'm no constitution buff, abortion is apparently not one of them. according to bork-who i'm pretty sure believes that abortion is wrong-the decision should be in the hands of the state governments not the federal. interesting, i think. but i guess it is all open to interpretation. i mean, i'm not ever going to have an abortion because personally i am against it, but i am more against the federal government telling me or any other person (man or woman) what to do or not to do with our body-and our future.

sorry for the ranting, but i must admit that i'm a bit concerned that roberts will "tip the scale" and possibly make a monumental faux pas. i joked the other day that rehnquist-a conservative himself-realized what bush was attempting to do by nominating a conservative rather than a moderate to replace o'connor. so although he should probably consider retirement, he is holding out to see if the american people will elect a more moderate or even liberal president/congress in 2008. being such an amazing intellect, hopefully he can see that although his opinion will win more often than not now, it would not be doing the country any justice. not sure if any of that made sense, but i like to think that things will work themselves out.

we'll see.

soccer tonight. andy's birthday saturday. soccer next thursday followed by power hour. my birthday friday. jameson's birthday sunday. alaska the following thursday. family time. no derek. humph.

"no i won't cry on the outside, anymore."