The news around Najaf is really upsetting to me. The fact that militants have taken refuge in a mosque doesn't really bother me. The fact that they are actively fighting from it and using women and children as human shields is what bothers me. It is outright cowardly. In the interest of our troops, we should just bomb it. However, because of the political consequences, we are unwilling to destroy a holy mosque of Islam with women and children inside. The fact that CNN has a reporter inside the mosque further complicates matters.

It is obvious to me that we need to change the Geneva accords. Women and children who willingly put themselves in harm's way need to be classified as combantants, or at the very least not labeled as non-combantants. Otherwise, we are sacrificing our troops and getting labeled as war criminals in order to save our troops. There probably is no way around killing the women and children, but at least our troops wouldn't have to be put on trial afterwards.

The only reason our enemy resort to this tactic is because it is so effective, which makes it alot like terrorism. The "War on Terror" is an unwinnable war, and we will never beat it by beating down other countries, because terrorism, by it's nature is a tactic, not a group or person. We can defeat Osama or Saddam, but there will always be someone new to take their place.

Terrorism will exist so long as it is effective. Terrorism is an effective way for a small group of people can influence major political organizations and international diplomacy. When terrorism ceases to be effective, it will go away. That is what disturbs me about the US reaction to 9/11. We go into Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden... fine that is justifiable. We can have an foreign policy that states, if terrorists are hidding in your nation, we will go after them if you are unwilling to. Iraq on the otherhand was just a tie-ing up of a loose end that Bush's father left behind when he was president and has nothing to do with the war on terror and more to do with oil. So the whole push is not about tracking down terrorist anymore, it is about going after enemies. I don't understand how Saddam was ever really our enemy. Sure, he invaded Kuwait, we kicked him out and put international sanctions on his country for the next 10 years and successfully dismantled his weapons programs. How is he our enemy. We are not in a tizzy about China invading Tibet. How is the situation any different besides the fact Tibet doesn't have oil.

We have as much justification to go after Castro as we did Hussein, which is to say none at all.

9/11 was a horrendous act of terrorism. But, the US is really shooting itself in the foot here. If the point of the attack was to destroy the West and our way-of-life, I'm afraid they have been remarkably effective. 9/11 is not effective because of the number of people killed. The number of people killed was tragic, but not earth shattering. How many people die of smoking in this country every year? How many people die in car accidents? How many people are just outright murdered by other Americans? So, 9/11 is not about how many people died but rather the effect. The West dies when it gives up on the values it treasures most. The most important of which are equality and freedom. Terrorism is the greatest challenge that we face. We must face it with bravery. Freedom and liberty have costs, and one of them is we can get hurt or killed by those that abuse those rights. Security is important as far as being diligent and wise to those that may harm you. But, when we get heavy handed and give away our civil liberties in the face of fear, the terrorists have accomplished what they have set out to do. That is how we lose the War on Terror. It is not an external battle, but rather one that is fought within, and we, my friends, are losing.

I always find it bizarre when I hear a veteran of war being for Bush. I realize that military people usually have a certain mindset. And therefore are more likely to vote Republican. Republicans typically fund the military better. They are typically against police actions/nation building. When a Republican leads the nation into war, they usually do so with the full arsenal of United States. This, in general, leads to a greater safety for an American solider. Republicans have a policy of fighting till they win. Which, in a military point of view is good. If your military is unbeaten in war, they have an aura of being invincible. It improves morale of your army and decreases morale of the enemy.

So, at an intellectual level, I can understand why a veteran would vote Republican over Democrat. But, if you look at the actual candidates in this race, it seems to be no contest. For Vietnam, Bush took a rich man's way out and enlisted in the National Guard. He was unaccounted for three weeks. He's never seen combat.

John Kerry won three purple hearts. He's seen combat and had his life on the line. After he did his service, he came back and protested against the war. I really can't think of anything that is more American.

So, I don't understand why Republicans attack Kerry's war record. Kerry did what he was supposed to do. He fought. He had first hand knowledge of what a mistake Vietnam was, came back, and tried to end it. Bush did not fight for this country. He went through a loophole. And, according to reports did not even take his service for the National Guard very seriously. What are Republicans thinking when Kerry's hand is so strong and Bush's so weak on this issue?

In fact, I don't know what Bush supporters are thinking in general. The man has had drug problems, which were far more serious than Clinton's weed usage. He is ultimately a hypocrite anytime he speaks against drugs. Bush is not an intellectual. In fact, I would say he isn't the brightest spoon in the drawer. Every company he has ever run, he has run into the ground. Now, he has done the same with the federal government. We have the largest deficits in history. Even Kerry's plan will take four years to repair the budget. He led us into a war based on faulty intelligence, in response to an attack that said nation had little to nothing to do with. He lied to us when he said we would be greeted as liberators. He failed to build world opinion and commit enough resources to actually secure the nation that we "liberated." He claims that the American "people are safer" while at the same time terror alert levels go up. I'm left to wonder, why the hell do people think this election will even be close? The fact that it sounds like it will be close terrifies me to no end. What does a man have to do to prove that he has been a bad president and no good for this nation?

But, what really floors me: Halliburton lying about profits while Cheney was CEO. I'm flabbergasted.

You know that they make you sign endorsement decrees to attend Cheney's speeches. I don't like how this administration thinks.

This was originally part of a post that I wrote. I took it out because it was off-topic. But, I wrote so much, I couldn't throw it away, so I put it in my journal.

I honestly think Microsoft has shot themselves in the foot. They've committed so many sins in the marketplace that they've ruined the Microsoft Windows ecosystem. In their pursuit to dominate every aspect of the PC software market, they've killed off all their competition. They need 3rd parties developing software for their platform, but software companies are becoming more reluctant because if they are successful, Microsoft will step in and compete and undercut them. Netscape is probably the most visable example. I honestly think that killing Netscape was very bad for Microsoft. Without competition, what drives features? What drives upgrades? Nothing. There is no reasion to innovate. You compete with old versions of your product. You suffer from group think.

Look, they could have sold IE for $30-$40 a pop. Instead, they ship it with the OS, and IE development costs eats into their OS profits. WTF?

I also must state, Ballmer is killing Microsoft. He is too much of a bean counter. He is the typical big company CEO. Shareholders like him because he does safe things to boost profits. But, make no mistake. Microsoft is a shadow of it's former self. I honestly believe Microsoft will be around for a long time. But for the sake of the PC software industry, they need to learn not to kill their competitors. Otherwise, Linux is going to eat them alive. Linux is a healther software ecosystem than Windows right now. Atleast, the ground is more fertile. But Microsoft has had longer to grow. This will change. 3rd party software developers will be attracted to Linux because it is free. They don't have to worry about the OS vendor coming in and killing their product. It is safer all around. The only thing stopping Linux is market share. Which is just a chicken and egg problem at this point. But, Linux will catch up if things don't turn around at Microsoft. Microsoft can't move forward fast enough to outpace Linux. Big companies with nothing to compete against can't do it. Linux will eat them from low-end on up, just like Microsoft did to bigger proprietary computer companies.

I must say I'm a little disappointed with the moderation system. The biggest problem that I see is that most moderators don't mod 1-0 posts up. They mod the 3 or 4 posts up. Which creates this situation where posts either sky-rocket to 5 or linger at 0-2.

Here a couple examples from stories posted yesterday.

Spamassassin Beats CRM-114 In Anti-Spam Shootout

• -1: 19
• 0: 64
• 1: 66
• 2: 96
• 3: 24
• 4: 10
• 5: 25

Building a Better Office

• -1: 9
• 0: 184
• 1: 216
• 2: 253
• 3: 66
• 4: 16
• 5: 52

This is consistent with my own experience. 5's routinely beat out 4's. 5's and 3's are almost equal. And most posts don't make it out of where they start at. This is not the numbers you want from a properly working moderation system. Much more posts need to be modded up. And the posts that need to be modded up are the ones sitting in 0-2 category. And overall, there are too many fives.

Although, what really bothers me the most, is that moderaters with agendas know exactly how this works. I made an unpopular post defending the RIAA suing copyright infringers. I feel the post is well argued and makes for a more meaningful discussion. It got modded up to 3. Then a moderator came along who didn't agree with what I said and modded it down to 2 again. Effectively, killing the post.

I guess the best thing about posting on slashdot is that it allows me to practice argumentative essays. For, if you make a mistake in your argument (and sometimes even if you don't) someone will point it out.

Although, one thing that I could do without is the ad hominem attacks. Someone vaguely accused me of being a cock-sucker. While, it was definitely a zinger. Such an accusation in a post detracts from a useful discussion because it works on other people's prejudices not on facts relevant to the discussion.

The other thing people try to do is point out a fallacy in your argument by using a flaw in their own. A popular one is equivocation. They try to change the meaning of what was said and argue with that (usually with loaded language) rather than the facts or their interpretation. I guess they buy into Homer Simpson's philosophy of: "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." I'm not a big fan of word twisting, and as such I try to choose words carefully to convey exactly what I mean. Still, there are people that no matter how considered the wording will equivocate it to some argument with which they are familiar. Then spout out a bunch of rhetoric which doesn't address any of the points in the original argument. It is like trying to have a meaningful discussion with a parrot. I guess that is the world we live in. Sometimes I just wish we lived in a better one.

I was a little bit hesitant to use my journal. I already have a website, and most of the important stuff that I want to express is there. I don't want this journal to compete with it, so I was a little unsure of this journal's role. Then, in came a troll. And it occured to me what I could write in my journal, a meta-discussion about my posts.

I liked the troll that attached herself to my post. She was pretty intelligent in goading me along. I was half tempted to write another follow-up, but that post would just be reiterating points I had already made instead adding anything new. So I resisted. No point in carrying out a private argument in a public forum.

I try hard to make quality posts. I'm a little disappointed that some of my posts didn't make it past 1. But, I probably posted too late. Of those that did get modded up. I can see how the score seems consistent with the quality of the post.

The biggest frustration that I have with writing is connecting ideas. There are things that I want to say. And I think I can clearly express them. However, sometimes I have a tough time making ideas flow. I'm always unsure if the connection between ideas is blatantly obvious to the reader and I am belaboring a point, or if I just left the poor reader in the dust. The reason that I have such a problem is because I'm such a poor judge. My writing is supposed to express my thoughts to the reader. I know how I think. So the next sentence always follows since it came from my head. I try to look at my posts critically from the reader's perspective. So I do reread my posts quite a few times before I submit, which leads to the problem of me getting into a discussion late. So it doesn't get read by as many people because it doesn't get modded up. And, I miss my chance at getting the better reviewers (other people) to critque my post and point out flaws in my thinking.

I do believe the only way to become a better writer is very similar to how you get better in any art be it programming or drawing. First of all, you need to do it. Secondly, you need to submit your work to someone else and get it reviewed. Sometimes I feel that I just wasted my time if the second phase doesn't happen. Although, I suppose just the practice is good.

Another thing that I need to figure out is sentence structure. My sentences seem too long and don't have a good pace to them. Reading some more books would help. I also tend towards being too verbose. Saying something simply is truly an art to master.

I am grateful to slashdot for providing such an open forum for people to participate. This is a great experiment in public discussions. Here to writing better posts in the future.