Before the US invaded Iraq there was some fear in the Muslim world that Bush 43 would stop at nothing until he stood at the gates of Jerusalem. They saw his moves as part of a Crusade, just as he implied in his own speech. Here was a Christian ready to conquer the Holy Land, just as the Crusaders tried so many centuries ago. A cover story in Newsweek made this even more apparent by focusing on his religious leanings. This is a man who puts God above all else. Not being overly spiritual myself, I don’t fully understand this point of view, but even my friends who are, commented on how much more scary Bush seemed after learning how much of a role religion plays in his life.

I’m not a dumb guy, I realize that Christianity is the dominant religion in this country. I also understand that this country was founded on Christian values. Not Muslim values, not Jewish values, not Hindu or Buddhist values, but Christian values. We’ve evolved over the last 200 odd years and, I thought, had moved beyond this narrow way of thinking. Apparently not.

Today Bush says he’s going to find a way to prevent gay marriage. So, two people love each other, they want to be devoted to one another, they want to spend the rest of their lives together, but we’re not going to recognize that?

Still, I believe Bush when he says he’s not a homophobe. I believe him when he says we should accept people for who they are. But why can’t he take that understanding and bring it to the logical next step and let homosexuals marry? Without marriage, gay couples can’t take advantage of the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. But more importantly, in my opinion, is the mental leap they’re not allowed to make. Marriage ads permanence and heft to the union a couple has, not just in the fact that it takes legal action to break the union, but in the perception of others. Many in this country perceive gay couples as promiscuous or lacking in commitment, when that’s not true. I’m sure there are a portion of them out there who are, but the same goes for heterosexual people.

By recognizing gay marriage, we’re recognizing that gay couples are committed, and that could change America’s perception of homosexuality.

How much more proof does this country need before it wakes up and realizes that Bush 43 is a stain on US history? When do we begin to ask for a new candidate? How far is too far? It's not like this guy lied about getting a blowjob in the Oval Office, he lied about intelligence he had been told was wrong, just to put us into war. He lied outright to the American public to gain support for a war with no purpose, a war in which we are the agressor nation, a war that continues despite being over. More lives are lost every day, so why isn't the American public outraged yet?

Still, this administration has done more horrid things. How about this idea to set up a futures market in which people bet on terrorist activity? The idea is laughable.. but that's not all. This is from NYTimes.com:

"The Pentagon office that proposed spying electronically on Americans to monitor potential terrorists has quickly abandoned an idea in which anonymous speculators would have bet on forecasting terrorist attacks, assassinations and coups in an online futures market.

"Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today that program was being 'terminated.'

"And Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, said today that he had conferred with the program's director at the Pentagon, 'and we mutually agreed that this thing should be stopped.'"

This program had to be "terminated"?!? Why was it every allowed to go beyond the "Hey, I've got this crazy idea" stage. If a guy walks into your office and says "I have this idea, what if we let people bet when others would be murdered," he should be fired immediately. How about the idea that it took the program director and the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee to mutually agree?

Now, we can't blame Bush himself for all of this, but he creates the climate that lets this sort of thing go on. He also brought in the people who make this happen. Insane people like Rumsfeld.

I hope America wakes up and starts "disapproving" of this fool. Otherwise, we're in for more of the same, and the long term consequences could be dire.

Oh, the perils of listening to the guy at Best Buy. Turns out, my math was wrong. The $40 per month figure actually covers two rooms, not one. The third TV (in the kitchen) will be indelibly linked to the one in the living room. Not a terrible thing, but not perfection either. Also, it’ll cost me later if I want the 4th.

Still, I can’t make an economic argument for the new system, which was my point all along. I can, however, say I just want it. I want the convenience of watching Jets games in my living room rather then at a sports bar. It’s $200 more per year for that option, still more then I’d probably spend on beer and wings, but it’s a convenience decision, not an economic decision.

In other news, I did manage to fix the leak under my sink, something I’ve never done before. It only required two trips to Home Depot and a bit of sweat. I'm now more confident and ready to tackle bigger projects.

So I thought about getting DirecTV. Everyone tells me it’s the same price as cable, but I don’t understand how you can possibly make an economic argument for it.

I have basic cable, not the MOST basic package, but a cable package with no frills. I have it on three cable-ready televisions so I don’t pay for any boxes. I also have one more room wired and ready to go, all at a cost of $40/month.

Now, if I were to get DirecTV I’d first need $100 worth of equipment (I could upgrade for $130, but let’s not go there just yet) that gives me the ability to put DirecTV on two televisions. They advertise that the cost is $40/month, but that’s only for one TV! The second brings the cost to nearly $60/month! Add this to the $100 up front cost for equipment, and you’re talking about $820 for the first year. And then I still don’t have a third TV with the signal. Cable, mind you, is $480 per year.

To be fair, DirecTV is currently running a promotion that gives you the first two months of service free. I haven’t looked at the fine print, but my guess is that’s just two months of service on one TV, so that’s a savings of $80. Not bad, but that brings the cost for the first year down to $740, a far cry from $480.

With the economic facts now established, let’s look at the advantages. You get a digital signal (I’m not sure what this costs from the cable company) and some channels you probably can’t get from cable.

Frankly, the only advantage of DirecTV is gaining the option of spending even MORE money and seeing Jets games. Then again, I could go to the local sports bar and buy $800 worth of beer and wings.

So this is what it means to Blog. I can now espouse to the world my thoughts on everything from football to Bush 43. Hmm.... I can get into this!