Having returned from Iraq, Chief Wiggles has quite a mouthful for his dear readers:

In the whirl wind of political debate that is circling around the president regarding his motives for going to war, I find it curiously strange that no one has asked the opinion of those of us who have put our lives on the line to carryout that vary decision. Who better than us to answer the question regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction as a premise for going to war? Do the self proclaimed political experts write us off, assuming we are like sheep blindly following a miss guided shepherd to the extent of putting our own life in jeopardy? Do they really think we have not thought about the reasons for and justifications behind leaving our families and putting ourselves in harms way?

I could say, for the years to come, whether Bush is re-elected or not, that his opponents will hang on to a few core predictable accusations and opinions that are all too familiar. These include such buzzwords as “illegal war,” “lied to the American people,” “unilateral action,” “supporting the troops but not their commander-in-chief,” among so much more of the usual tripe that we come across. I have grown weary and tired of it all, and I am in no position to debate or argue over rhetoric and personal opinion. I am, however, disappointed in so many who remain so hung up and stuck in the past, talking about how “Bush stole the election,” how the WMD will never be found “because Saddam never had them,” that Bush apparently mentioned “something about Iraq being an imminent threat;” we also know this usual tripe. I am dissappointed because their narcolepsy over the past has blinded them to what is going on in the present — or at least has given them a lopsided view of things.

To answer Wiggles’ question that I quoted: Yes, I do think that so many of those opposed to the war have written off the American soldier as an unthinking sheep who doesn’t worry about the motivations of their leaders’ actions and would follow orders, even if it meant baby-killing. That is the only explanation I have as to why so few have considered asking the opinions of America’s sons and daughters who are there. I think they have written the Soldier off as a sheep because these people opposed to the war are probably assuming that if the Soldier is in agreement with their views, then they will put their guns down and demand for a release of duty. I think that a Soldier who one hundred percent agrees with what some of these anti-war people are saying has a moral duty to himself and his fellow people to surrender and be subject to the ICJ.

They have written the Soldier off as sheep for the very reason that they are not sheep.

As we are bombarded more and more with conflicting news, I would like to keep in mind the one thing that is keeping my head on straight. It’s the same thing that has kept so many other bloggers humble, whether they are for or against the war. The fact of the matter is, we only know, and can and may only know, so much. There remains a limit to the amount of information we as citizenry are privy to. This doesn’t trouble me, because I have this gut feeling that a full revelation of all the facts to the American public, at this point, will not sway the opinions of the most fixed minds: the loudest, most charismatic, and most likely to attract others to share their beliefs.

It is a well known human response that in the face of incontrovertible facts to the contrary, a true believer will further buttress his beliefs with self-deception.

(Link to Wiggles courtesy of the Insta-Glenn.)

Matt Mullenweg recently came up with a collection of links from all over, which led me to this Joe Clark guy’s entry about using BBEdit. In it is this one gem that has helped me for the past few days work faster and better in my word processing and other typing work. Says Joe:

I have meticulously-developed preferences that make it easy to stare at text files all day. As stated in my book’s colophon, I do indeed use black Georgia 17 text on a pink [rgb(242,181,231)] background. I struggle to explain why this backdrop colour works. It merely does. And pink is not a positioning statement of any kind, nor is it an amusing coincidence or “ironic.” I admit I tried it on a lark, but, like a stray cat, it seems to have adopted me.

Working on a 1280*1024-pixel screen I have to deal with smaller stuff all the time. This tip from Joe has helped me a lot and I have modified my WordPress UI’s CSS to adopt this environment, even if it’s just the editing area. Joe has his screenshot, here is mine (clipped, but it shows enough).

Give it a try; who knows, maybe it’ll help you do your work better too.

Chelle has come up with a very useful gimmick of her own, featuring not “good and cheap” software, but free software.

This week she’s featured Color Selector 3.0 and Filezilla. Go there to read her take on these utilities, the former of which I have been using for a while now, thanks to her. Later today I’ll give Filezilla a test-drive as well.

Volokh Buddy Tyler Cowen, citing a long post on Crooked Timber about writing style in the blogosphere:

There is no blogger we would compare with Keats or Montaigne for style. Perhaps style in the blogosphere is a bit like drama on TV. We perceive it only in cumulative fashion. (Few people “get” the very first episode of Seinfeld they see.) Over time we see how the mind of a single blogger evolves, how that mind deals with a variety of issues, and how that mind encounters the blogging of others. It is a kind of drama to see what a good blogger will come up with today. Recall that blogging is a new mixture of writing and editing. So the drama, and the accompanying stylistic interest, becomes most apparent over time. The “unit of style,” so to speak, is larger than the single post. It involves personality, perspective, and intellectual drama as much as it puts forth pleasing combinations of words. And the style spans all the chosen links, not just the written comments of the author.

I’m quite a blog-filter myself. Most of my posts rely on other blogs, and are quite formulaic in structure. This is usually the case unless I go on a full-blown rant, or the rare contemplative essay about whatever comes to mind. Usually my posts go a little something like this: Blogger says “wah,” followed by an inline or block quote, followed by my own take on whatever I have cited.

Putting structure out of the way facilitates wordsmithing; most bloggers who post on a frequent and regular basis usually have posts with an observable structure. I suppose writing so frequently tends to do that to us, but I know this familiarity helps readers as well.

I’m not a regular reader of James Lileks’ so I wouldn’t know head from tail the ends to which he wrote today’s bleat, especially his rant regarding Howie Stern’s suspension from air (definitive info from Jeff Jarvis, although I really find him very, very cranky on this topic). Says Lileks:

Look: this isn’t cable, which people choose to receive. This isn’t a satellite radio channel, purchased with full knowledge of its contents. We’re talking about the public airwaves here, and that means there cannot be any standards whatsoever. If you admit that there should be some standards, well, whose standards? Ned Flanders’ standards? Right, like we’re going to hand that over to some God-bothering Churchy LeFemme. (Do you realize that you could get fired today for a 6 minute on-air rant about wanting to engage in watersports with the Virgin Mary? I’m serious!) Do you want to give control to some Clear Channel exec who’s worried about losing the moms-in-cars demographic? Spare me. We live in a puritan age; anyone entrusted to sets the “standards” will be too cowardly to greenlight a show where snarky nihilists sit around and snigger about “n-ggers” and anal sex. So WHAT if you have a kid in the back seat? Don’t hit the scan button, moron

Truth be told I am upset, way upset, that Stern’s on-air trash parade has been taken down. I think this is way over my head to go into a discussion about the causes and effects of this issue, but when public broadcasting (and I don’t mean Commie Radio) is screened “for our own good” I get suspicious.

That’s what I am complaining about. I want the freedom to change the station; I reserve the right to turn away. With this taken away from us by a Republican-leaning broadcasting entity, the Left’s accusations of creeping fascism — an accusation that I find distasteful — gain ground among more easily-convinced minds.

UPDATE: Instapundit makes it clear that Lileks is totally sarcastic.

(Lileks link courtesy of Inoperable Terran.)

The first comic in this entry by Rev. Chapin makes clear to me something that I have missed, considering how I didn’t go to college here in the United States. I was not politically active in college save for some socialist-leaning discussions that I had with a few friends during rides home. I was, back then, politically indifferent beyond whining about Evil Capitalist Multinational Corporations.

When you have more than eight hours in a school day, for most days of the week, politics is usually the last thing that comes to mind.

However, reading blogs like those of Eugene Volokh and Friends, of Glenn Reynolds, and a few more, they sometimes mention the lack of ideological diversity in American universities. I have read article after article chronicling the plights of collegiate conservatives, whether they are students, or educators.

I’m left wondering about a few things.

First, and of course I am excluding those in Poli Sci and other Liberal Arts majors, don’t most of these students have better things to do with their time? Second, why and how did our universities become breeding grounds for groupthink? I have a pretty good idea about the attitudes that may or may not be a factor in this, considering how I have been called many things for my being a Filipino who supports the Republican party. Third, I am left wondering whether I will also experience the same should I go back and go for another Bachelor’s degree in something.

I will not, however, try and waste money by paying for a Poli Sci education considering how I am not interested in pursuing a career in politics. I’m an armchair pundit, dear friends. So the question — and I need to throw this at some of my collegiate readers, preferably those who are not taking a Poli Sci major — basically boils down to just how political our universities are, despite the irrelevance of politics in your studies.