March 17, 2005

Annatar, Annatar
Elendur

I never thought it of you. Actually, I did. But that's not the point. You, ever so careful not to believe without proof (and perhaps a little to careful to to believe even when their is proof); you believe the unsupported statement that our President (that is who your talking about, I assume without proof) lied to us. Even though we know Saddam harboured terrorists, even though we know what he's cappable of, you believe (1) that he did not work with al-qaeda and (2) that our President lied to us when he claimed Saddam did. Both statements are not prooved, and perhaps never will be. I don't claim to know the truth or the falsity of either. But isn't it possible al-qaeda took the troube to wide its tracks? Or, if not, could our rather fickle intellegence agencies have been mistaken? Could they have been the liars, if liars there were? Must Bush have lied? No. So many possibilities, and yet you grab one of them and cling to it with blind faith...

Ah, well. You do get a lot of Bad America press over there.

Which brings me to another topic, the Bad America press over here. The disturbing thing is that that is what it often is. Not Bad American Government. Bad America. The press has taken a disliking to our people (with a few notable exeptions--over this election there were 3 anti-Bush articles written for each 1 anti-Kerry, and 2 pro-Kerry to each one pro-Bush), not just our government.

Last of all, guns. I just want to mention something about that America-Ireland gun control info. It's rather incomplete. You see, there are several variables.

1: It's from eleven years ago.

2: It doesn't tell how many of those deaths were criminals killed in self-defense.

3: It doesn't take into account the competence of each country's police force or

4: the tendency towards crime of each country's citizens. Maybe you're just nicer than us.

5: It doesn't compare itself to the overall ratio of deaths caused in violent crime. A lot of those deaths would probable have been caused by another weapon if a gun wasn't available. There's no question that a lack of gun control makes it easier to obtain a gun, but, if a gun is not at hand, many enterprising folks find a way to kill without one. It stands to reason that baseball-bat-control would cause fewer deaths by baseball bat, but it would probably cause more deaths by non-baseball-bat. Unfortunately, in cases like this, human ingenuity usually finds a way.

-Elendur