Finals approach, as does spring break, and I'm here writing my history paper. I finally chose a major, like 3 weeks ago, after wavering my first year and a half in college. History/Law & Society is my choice. I've liked history classes and the law and society seem to be a good addition since without it I'd be very lax on my coursework since the history major isn't too hard to fulfill, in terms of units. I want to get the max out of my 4 years. As far as what I'd do with this major... well, I haven't gotten there yet. Law school, maybe, but not likely. Teaching? Maybe, but I don't know how effective a teacher I'd be. Whatever, I only just picked a major, I've got time.

Yesterday, I watched Bush deliver his "ultimatum" speech to Saddam. Here's what I've got to say about all this war stuff. I'm sort of on the fence about going to war and being all for waiting and trying to use diplomacy. I don't want to say I'm "anti-war" because I can forsee where war could be necessary. Then there are the anti-war protestors. They obviously have valid points, considering the death and destruction that would undoubtedly result. But as far as what the politicians have been saying goes, I can't say I trust either side.

The Bush side of things certainly has all sorts of holes in its argument. From what I can gather, George W. Bush wants to go into Iraq because he has yet to disarm following the UN resolutions passed after the Gulf War. Thats almost 12 years. Certainly ample time has been allotted to Saddam to relinquish or destroy his weapons of mass destruction. This reason, in my opinion, is a good one. First of all, its not like the United States placed this demand upon Iraq, it was a United Nations resolution to do so, and as such it would be a global thing. Then last year in November 2002, there came resolution 1441 that was a two step process that had them demanding that Iraq disarm and everyone passed it except for Syria. Basically it called for a two-step process saying that if Iraq didn't disarm, then the UN Security Council would debate it again. So fine, then we'll have a new resolution in the UN allowing us to go in, as Bush said in his State of the Union address that he would call for a resolution to find out what all the other countries were and find out who was supporting the US and where everyone stood on the matter. But last night, in his ultimatum, Bush has unliaterally decided to go into Iraq (seeing as how Sadaam has vowed not to exile himself). Although it may seem that Bush had gone back on his word, he merely wanted a resolution in order to find out what cards everyone was holding and since France's Chiraq has come out and said that he will veto any resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq at any time, calling for another resolution seems pointless.

But something that seems to have been overlooked by many is the fact that Reoslution 1441 had said that:

"There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken." (Source: LA Times)

But now Bush has gone and claimed that he can go in, even without the approval of the United Nations. Tricky tricky feller that Bush, slipping that one by us, eh?

And of course you've got to ask, why now? Why would during the past 12 years we didn't threaten Saddam much about this? My guess is that Bush wants some sort of lasting legacy and he called out Sadaam, threatening force and if he were able to get Sadaam to disarm or even get him out of power, then Bush's legacy as perhaps a peacekeeper would be intact. (Especially if he weren't re-elected next year) Also, by either taking away Saddam's teeth, or even replacing him, they would be able to control the oil in that region, something Bush has shown he is all about. Being from Texas, and having an oil background, he has supported building a pipeline in Alaska (through protected regions) so clearly he is big on the oil business here. So unfortunately for the Bush his story has got some holes and his motives are of particular concern as well.

Then there's France. France, as stated before, doesn't want any sort of force used there because they want to be civil and diplomatic about everything. They don't want to kill innocent Iraqis, nor do they want to have the United States be the center of hatred for pepole in the Middle East. And they don't want to send our troops in to get killed. How nice of them, trying to protect their allies and protect innocent people and the sons and daughters of parents in the military. Very nice gesture, I'm sure. But Bush isn't the only one with ulterior motives. Read here and here. Gee, the Americans aren't the only ones with oil are their minds eh?

At any rate, then there are the protestors in the public that are anti-war for a variety of reasons. Among the popular ones seem to be distrust for anything Bush says, fighting a war for oil, and just plaing being anti-war. I can respect being plain anti-war and believing everything has a diplomatic solution. But distrusting Bush, just because? I don't know about that. At any rate, here's where I stand after all that discussion that probably went unread. There are good reasons to goto war, in that Iraq likely has weapons and a threat of war could get Saddam to flinch first. But with that comes concerns about North Korea's clear violations and of them having weapons of mass destruction as well, why not deal with them? At any rate, I think we should put off war as long as possible and seek something less aggressive than war, but certainly something more aggressive than the "UN Inspectors" who travel from site to site "inspecting" while Saddam moves his weapons from site to site. Obviously if someone were going to come to my house to find something I didn't want them to see and they went from room to room, I'd just move the object to the area where they are not, so that whole inspectors thing wasn't working. Unfortunately, nobody has come up with something inbetween war and not doing anything, and between those two? I would have to lean towards war, as the inspectors just weren't cutting it and its been 12 years of that.

Just my 2 cents. (Maybe more like a quarter, I wrote a bit more than I anticipated)

N.E.R.D. - Rockstar (Jason Nevins Remix)

On Wednesday, I went to the gym to play basketball at around 3:30, having class at 5pm. Well, I brought in my cell phone into the gym and I set it down on the ground where most people put their stuff. At any rate, I brought my cell phone in with the mindset that I would need it to check the time since there's no clock inside of the gym.

I never checked the time, with the mindset that I wasn't going to goto class. When I decided to leave the gym I went to go get my cell phone, but it was nowhere to be seen. My car keys were there, but not my cell phone. Alas, it was stolen.

Crazy karma. I figure, if I had just gone to class and went to check the time on my cell phone, it wouldn't have been stolen and I wouldn't be in such a predicament. Oh well, I needed a new cell phone anyways.

Rehab - It Don't Matter