Ron Suskind writes in The New York Times Magazine about Bush’s “faith-based” presidency. While the article runs on the anti-Bush side — Suskind isn’t coy about what he thinks of “Bush’s faith” vs. the world of reason and picks and chooses the worst quotes, as most folks do when they are trying to prove a point — it brings up an interesting point: Is faith without doubt good for a fallible human being? Even — or perhaps especially — as a person who respects faith as much as I do, and who has and probably always will be a Baptist at heart, the idea of having certainty that your words are the voice of God bothers me a great deal. ...

You know, I can only laud the fact that Saddam Hussein is out of power, but for President Bush to say over and over again that the world is safer now that has happened is to ignore events such as the removal of Iraq’s nuclear weapons research facilities by parties unknown, while we’re nominally in charge.

I’ve never read a Laurell K. Hamilton book, but my wife has read some of them, and therefore the description of Incubus Dreams from the New York Times Book Update actually makes sense to me: Is a vampire serial killer preying on strippers? :)

BUSH: Gosh, I just don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden. It’s kind of one of those exaggerations. Of course we’re worried about Osama bin Laden. We’re on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We’re using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden. George W. Bush, Third Presidential Debate, October 13, 2004 Hit the Wayback Machine… Q “But don’t you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?” ...

Excerpts from the second Presidential debate: BUSH: “I remember sitting in the White House looking at those generals, saying, ‘Do you have what you need in this war? Do you have what it takes?’ I remember going down to the basement of the White House the day we committed our troops as last resort, looking at Tommy Franks and the generals on the ground, asking them, ‘Do we have the right plan with the right troop level?’ ...

Over the last several years, the question of the relevancy of past behavior — indeed, even current “private” behavior — for a person’s ability to fulfill the duties of public office has come up many times. Aside from Vietnam service and/or its lack in the current Presidential election, current reporting by The Oregonian about a U.S Representative’s past is probably the the most recent example of a big story concerning the relevancy of an act years in the past. ...

Today is the six-month anniversary of the day I married a woman I didn’t think could exist, at least before I met her: My soulmate. (As corny as it sounds, it’s true, which still amazes me.) It has been wonder-full. Love you, Lorrie. Looking forward to a lot more anniversaries. :)

Back from one of those vacations I’m always afraid to announce online, since those warnings about robbers somehow finding out where you live and robbing you while you’re away have made me paranoid over losing our Precious, Precious Junk. :) Another lesson in the need for precision on the Web last night. During the John Edwards/Dick Cheney Vice-Presidential Debate, Cheney asked the folks at home to go to FactCheck.com, a nonpartisan UPenn site which he claimed would defend his tenure at Halliburton. Now, there’s one problem. It’s actually FactCheck.org. According to reports, FactCheck.com, during the debate, was apparently owned by one of those domain name resellers that only shows a page asking you to buy the domain name. Not long after the debate, suddenly it was redirecting people to GeorgeSoros.com, a site that is not very friendly to the current Administration. So, the first site many saw when heading to read Cheney’s defense was one encouraging folks to think of the dangers of re-electing Bush. ...

Well, the same hosting company that watched our server get fried — to be fair, they also rebuilt it fast, considering — is now moving it to a more secure facility. I just keep imagining a forklift blade stuck through the server rack, somehow skewering only our production server. :)

Amazing how much lightning running in on one server can kill your time and desire to blog. :| (Not this server…our production Web server at my work.) Anyway, another interesting Spiked book review, for two reasons: What the author is trying to tell us, and what the article says about the publication. First, as you can read in the article, the book being reviewed argues that the modern concept of inclusion is reducing the value in our institutions. To become accessible to the masses, they simply require less of us, which has the effect of removing our desire to aspire to the heights those institutions once exemplified. ...