I just found this thing again. I can't bring myself to get back into blogging, but just thought I'd throw something up here.
Of course, no one is going to read this...sooo...
9.03.2004
T-Minus 3 pairs of underwear...
Sorry I haven't responded to the great comments I got on yesterday's post yet. My day is going ot be pretty crazy as I am currently packing for my big move up to NYC (SUNDAY). I'll try to respond to the comments and hopefully put up another post later tonight.
Thanks for checkin up on me.
Thanks for checkin up on me.
9.01.2004
It's not flip flopping if you come to our side...
Well, I have always said that I am an undecided voter, and I would have to say that my mind may be changing. (don't everybody go overboard and immediately and assume that I have switched to the "dark side" on the basis of a couple of conventions that I know arefor show...that insultsmy intelligence) However, upon review, I do not believe my mind has changed all that much. Despite how it may sound, whatI am about to write is not a dismissal of John Kerry as a possible recipient of my vote. However, some concerns about JK have come to mind recentlyand I thought it would be wise to hash those out with the help of my friends. As Inigo Montoya once said "Let me explain. No, there is too much....Let me sum up"
As I have said in my previous posts, I want a commander and chief who puts intelligence reform at the very top of his agenda. Now, as it states in my title,I may not always be thinking rationally when I post, so I'd love some discussion on what I am about to say. I give Bush no pardons for leading us down a path that I believe to be wrong. The Iraq war has cost far too much in terms of innocent human life to give him a pass on the basis that he was led astray by faulty intelligence. Also, I fully believe that such military action in lieu of increased focus on intelligence gathering at home puts us in danger. However, and here comes my current dilemma... Has John Kerry, either in his rhetoric or his 20year senate term, given me any reason to believe that he will pursue the path in the War on Terror that I have proposed?
The answer is...save a few exceptions, "no"
Let me first give credit to JK for the one WOT intelligence issue that I think we're in sync on, his support for first responders. JK has made it very clear from the start of his candidacythat oneof his prescriptions for the war on terror was a significant increase in the number of policemen, firemen, and emergency medical responders. Also, Kerry has proposed asignificant amount of funding be dedicated to the training of these new civil servants in anti-terror methods. President Bush, on the other hand, has approved cuts in funding to first responders, causing many precincts tobecome under-funded, under-staffed, and under-trained.
That said, John Kerry's Senate record with regards to intelligence legislation is less than stellar.While he did serve for a number of years on the Intelligence Committee, his absenteism to their meetings (75-77% of meetings missed, depending on who you ask...and 100% of the committee meetings for one year following the 1994 bombing of the WTC...100%...)One year later in 1995, Kerry proposed an amendment to cut intelligence spending by 1 billion dollars (granted, this was only 1% of the budgeted amount and it stemmed from Kerry's concerns that intelligence spending had become corrupt, but the proposal was thoroughly trounced on both sides of the aisle for being short sighted and unneccesary) Now, this is not quite the"gutting" of intelligence funding that currentBush ads would have voters believe ittobe...but it hardly shows the mindset of a man particularly devoted to anti-terrorist intelligence gathering even one year after what should have been considered aserious warning sign from Al-Qaida. Not tomention the fact that John Kerry is a man who hasmade it clear that he wants to limit some of the powers givento the intelligence communityby the PATRIOT act by adding greater oversight by judges astowhether or notsecret tappingof certain suspects can continue without "enough" evidence (Kerry even supports a planthat would require such evidence after only one week of tapping conversations for any individual) Many many people have rightly stated that the PATRIOT act takes too many liberties with our 4th amendment rights (most will only be felt by Arab-Americans and others unfortunate enough to make it onto a watch list), I am just concerned that John Kerry would be overly cautious and make the restrictions too tight.
Like I said in an earlier post, I believe that our funds, national guardsmen, and attention would be of better us eto us here at home in the form of better intelligence. However, John Kerry has given me little to no sign that my "plan" is actually in accordance with his plan.
Now...I'm going on here, but there is a lot to cover tonight...John Kerry also supports an international alliance as a means by which to counter terrorism. I fully agree with that. I fully support any effort the United States can make to return ourselves to the moral highground and international admiration we enjoyed Post-WWII (My girlfriend who recently traveled abroad relayedmanystories of peoplefinding out she was American and immediately responding with "I hate what Bush has done"or, more frequently "I hate Bush")LikeI've said, the Iraq war is largely responsible for that and most, if not all of the blame in that regard falls sqarely on Bush's shoulders. However, as many speakers at the RNC said tonight, and Iagree with them, we shouldn't allow Paris to tell us where and when the United States can appropriately use force. (In the caseof the Iraq war, more concern for international approval would'vebeen prudent)However, should we ever have serious evidence of a plot against the united states (garnered through said improved intelligence) I NEED a president in office who will not rest the entire case for war on the basis of the UN's approval.(On aside note, I don't think Bush's approach to the UN is particularly great. We need something between "It's irrevocably corrupt and broken so 'fuck it'" (Bush) and"It's agreat international body that should have last say on the actions of every country in the world, no matter how inefficient it is'"(Kerry))
Now, all that said, let me layout some basics that make this particular election even more difficult for me.
1. I'm against raising the minimum wage and against socializing healthcare anymore than we have. (Both things Kerry wants to do that I think will hurt the economy immensely)
2. I'm Pro-Choice, pro-gun control (not more controls, just better enforcement...and keep the BradyBill), and pro Gay Marriage (we all know where Bush stands there, and these are big issues for me)
3.I believe in a FIRM separation of church and state. I'm a man of faith, but I don't give a damn if my elected officials are, and I certainly don't want them pushing their or my religion on anyone else through any means(again, Bush and I differ there)
4. I'm pro-tort law reform (minus one for Kerry)
There's A LOT more, but you all have probably stopped reading at this point. (most of it deals with how much I hate Bush's relations with oil and defense companies and his distancing from the "small government" economic pillarof the republican party) Further issues will be hashed out in the comments section I'm sure. What it seems to boil down to is that I would vote for ANY ofthe moderate republicans we've seen showcased at the RNC this year over Kerry OR Bush (so loing as they toldme that improving intelligence is the most important issue in the WOT) . Any Third Party suggestions....Sam? (I am voting in GA, which is firmly in the Bush League...might as well make a social commentary that the Repubs need to start moving towards moderates if they want my vote...not that it counts much against the entire religious right...)
COMMENT AWAY! Pretty crazy post, I know...thanks for reading and I really look forward to input.
As I have said in my previous posts, I want a commander and chief who puts intelligence reform at the very top of his agenda. Now, as it states in my title,I may not always be thinking rationally when I post, so I'd love some discussion on what I am about to say. I give Bush no pardons for leading us down a path that I believe to be wrong. The Iraq war has cost far too much in terms of innocent human life to give him a pass on the basis that he was led astray by faulty intelligence. Also, I fully believe that such military action in lieu of increased focus on intelligence gathering at home puts us in danger. However, and here comes my current dilemma... Has John Kerry, either in his rhetoric or his 20year senate term, given me any reason to believe that he will pursue the path in the War on Terror that I have proposed?
The answer is...save a few exceptions, "no"
Let me first give credit to JK for the one WOT intelligence issue that I think we're in sync on, his support for first responders. JK has made it very clear from the start of his candidacythat oneof his prescriptions for the war on terror was a significant increase in the number of policemen, firemen, and emergency medical responders. Also, Kerry has proposed asignificant amount of funding be dedicated to the training of these new civil servants in anti-terror methods. President Bush, on the other hand, has approved cuts in funding to first responders, causing many precincts tobecome under-funded, under-staffed, and under-trained.
That said, John Kerry's Senate record with regards to intelligence legislation is less than stellar.While he did serve for a number of years on the Intelligence Committee, his absenteism to their meetings (75-77% of meetings missed, depending on who you ask...and 100% of the committee meetings for one year following the 1994 bombing of the WTC...100%...)One year later in 1995, Kerry proposed an amendment to cut intelligence spending by 1 billion dollars (granted, this was only 1% of the budgeted amount and it stemmed from Kerry's concerns that intelligence spending had become corrupt, but the proposal was thoroughly trounced on both sides of the aisle for being short sighted and unneccesary) Now, this is not quite the"gutting" of intelligence funding that currentBush ads would have voters believe ittobe...but it hardly shows the mindset of a man particularly devoted to anti-terrorist intelligence gathering even one year after what should have been considered aserious warning sign from Al-Qaida. Not tomention the fact that John Kerry is a man who hasmade it clear that he wants to limit some of the powers givento the intelligence communityby the PATRIOT act by adding greater oversight by judges astowhether or notsecret tappingof certain suspects can continue without "enough" evidence (Kerry even supports a planthat would require such evidence after only one week of tapping conversations for any individual) Many many people have rightly stated that the PATRIOT act takes too many liberties with our 4th amendment rights (most will only be felt by Arab-Americans and others unfortunate enough to make it onto a watch list), I am just concerned that John Kerry would be overly cautious and make the restrictions too tight.
Like I said in an earlier post, I believe that our funds, national guardsmen, and attention would be of better us eto us here at home in the form of better intelligence. However, John Kerry has given me little to no sign that my "plan" is actually in accordance with his plan.
Now...I'm going on here, but there is a lot to cover tonight...John Kerry also supports an international alliance as a means by which to counter terrorism. I fully agree with that. I fully support any effort the United States can make to return ourselves to the moral highground and international admiration we enjoyed Post-WWII (My girlfriend who recently traveled abroad relayedmanystories of peoplefinding out she was American and immediately responding with "I hate what Bush has done"or, more frequently "I hate Bush")LikeI've said, the Iraq war is largely responsible for that and most, if not all of the blame in that regard falls sqarely on Bush's shoulders. However, as many speakers at the RNC said tonight, and Iagree with them, we shouldn't allow Paris to tell us where and when the United States can appropriately use force. (In the caseof the Iraq war, more concern for international approval would'vebeen prudent)However, should we ever have serious evidence of a plot against the united states (garnered through said improved intelligence) I NEED a president in office who will not rest the entire case for war on the basis of the UN's approval.(On aside note, I don't think Bush's approach to the UN is particularly great. We need something between "It's irrevocably corrupt and broken so 'fuck it'" (Bush) and"It's agreat international body that should have last say on the actions of every country in the world, no matter how inefficient it is'"(Kerry))
Now, all that said, let me layout some basics that make this particular election even more difficult for me.
1. I'm against raising the minimum wage and against socializing healthcare anymore than we have. (Both things Kerry wants to do that I think will hurt the economy immensely)
2. I'm Pro-Choice, pro-gun control (not more controls, just better enforcement...and keep the BradyBill), and pro Gay Marriage (we all know where Bush stands there, and these are big issues for me)
3.I believe in a FIRM separation of church and state. I'm a man of faith, but I don't give a damn if my elected officials are, and I certainly don't want them pushing their or my religion on anyone else through any means(again, Bush and I differ there)
4. I'm pro-tort law reform (minus one for Kerry)
There's A LOT more, but you all have probably stopped reading at this point. (most of it deals with how much I hate Bush's relations with oil and defense companies and his distancing from the "small government" economic pillarof the republican party) Further issues will be hashed out in the comments section I'm sure. What it seems to boil down to is that I would vote for ANY ofthe moderate republicans we've seen showcased at the RNC this year over Kerry OR Bush (so loing as they toldme that improving intelligence is the most important issue in the WOT) . Any Third Party suggestions....Sam? (I am voting in GA, which is firmly in the Bush League...might as well make a social commentary that the Repubs need to start moving towards moderates if they want my vote...not that it counts much against the entire religious right...)
COMMENT AWAY! Pretty crazy post, I know...thanks for reading and I really look forward to input.
Tired of work?
Alright, stepping off politics for one post here. (If you're still interested in the previous posts on Dubya, the convention, or Mohair...feel free to post comments below and we'll continue that)
Anyway, just some random links to follow today to help y'all kill time
Define "Hot"
http://www.rooftopreport.com/rooftopreport/archives/2004/08/so_much_sexier_than_wearing_no_shoes.php
For all you Splinter Cell fans out there
http://www.freeworldgroup.com/games/splinter/index.html
Transcript of Arnold's speech last night - First use of "girlie men" at a RNC ever! (worth a read)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/31/gop.schwarzenegger.transcript/
If you're going to offend someone...might as well make it really hurt
http://www.tshirthell.com/miscpages/politicalshirts.htm
Really well done animation to one of the best songs ever
http://www.koreus.com/files/200408/radiohead_creep.html
Oh how I miss Tunica...
http://www.potapenko.com/games/blackjack/
http://www.potapenko.com/games/roulette_00/
That should be enough to distract you from work for a little while. Take the poll if you haven't already and feel free to put in the "comments" section some topic ideas for future posts.
Anyway, just some random links to follow today to help y'all kill time
Define "Hot"
http://www.rooftopreport.com/rooftopreport/archives/2004/08/so_much_sexier_than_wearing_no_shoes.php
For all you Splinter Cell fans out there
http://www.freeworldgroup.com/games/splinter/index.html
Transcript of Arnold's speech last night - First use of "girlie men" at a RNC ever! (worth a read)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/31/gop.schwarzenegger.transcript/
If you're going to offend someone...might as well make it really hurt
http://www.tshirthell.com/miscpages/politicalshirts.htm
Really well done animation to one of the best songs ever
http://www.koreus.com/files/200408/radiohead_creep.html
Oh how I miss Tunica...
http://www.potapenko.com/games/blackjack/
http://www.potapenko.com/games/roulette_00/
That should be enough to distract you from work for a little while. Take the poll if you haven't already and feel free to put in the "comments" section some topic ideas for future posts.
8.31.2004
Praise Allah! Spiders!
An Iraqi sheik claims Allah sent giant spiders to the town of Fallujah to help its residents fend off attacks by U.S. military forces.
Sheik Mahdi Saleh Al-Sumide'i spoke to Syrian TV on Monday, claiming several Arab television stations videotaped the helpful arachnids.
The interview is featured on the website of the Middle East Media Research Institute TV Monitor Project, or MEMRI TV. The organization translated the conversation into English.
"They [the Americans] attacked Fallujah and tried to cause great damage to its residents," he explained. "They destroyed mosques and homes, killed women, children and youths, and spread corruption in Fallujah. Nevertheless, we believe that Allah protects the believers, and indeed, Allah stood beside Fallujah, and I'd like to mention some miracles Allah performed in Fallujah. It is possible that the media does not know about them."
Continued Al-Sumide'i: "The first miracle that occurred in Fallujah took the form of spiders that appeared in the city – each spider larger than this chair, or about the size of this chair. The American soldiers left, holding the legs of this spider, and I too, in one of the Friday sermons, held up a spider, with all its magnitude, in front of the satellite channels and in front of the world. This spider also had thin black hair. If this hair touches the human body, within a short period of time the body becomes black or blue, and then there is an explosion in the blood cells in the human body - and the person dies."
The sheik's interviewer then asked about the alleged TV coverage: "The people saw it, but the TV stations did not air it?"
Responded Al-Sumide'i: "The people saw it and the TV stations indeed aired it. I held the spider, and there were between 13 to 15 TV stations, including Al-Arabiya, Al-Jazeera, Al-Majd, Dubai, Abu-Dhabi and other stations, and they saw it with their own eyes."
Sheik Mahdi Saleh Al-Sumide'i spoke to Syrian TV on Monday, claiming several Arab television stations videotaped the helpful arachnids.
The interview is featured on the website of the Middle East Media Research Institute TV Monitor Project, or MEMRI TV. The organization translated the conversation into English.
"They [the Americans] attacked Fallujah and tried to cause great damage to its residents," he explained. "They destroyed mosques and homes, killed women, children and youths, and spread corruption in Fallujah. Nevertheless, we believe that Allah protects the believers, and indeed, Allah stood beside Fallujah, and I'd like to mention some miracles Allah performed in Fallujah. It is possible that the media does not know about them."
Continued Al-Sumide'i: "The first miracle that occurred in Fallujah took the form of spiders that appeared in the city – each spider larger than this chair, or about the size of this chair. The American soldiers left, holding the legs of this spider, and I too, in one of the Friday sermons, held up a spider, with all its magnitude, in front of the satellite channels and in front of the world. This spider also had thin black hair. If this hair touches the human body, within a short period of time the body becomes black or blue, and then there is an explosion in the blood cells in the human body - and the person dies."
The sheik's interviewer then asked about the alleged TV coverage: "The people saw it, but the TV stations did not air it?"
Responded Al-Sumide'i: "The people saw it and the TV stations indeed aired it. I held the spider, and there were between 13 to 15 TV stations, including Al-Arabiya, Al-Jazeera, Al-Majd, Dubai, Abu-Dhabi and other stations, and they saw it with their own eyes."
I don't think we can win it - George W. Bush
OK, before everyone starts moaning about the above quote (which came from a Today Show interview that questioned whether or not the war on terror is winnable), let me just say that I understand that the President is not "admitting defeat" in the war on terror, as some on the Left claim. His point is a reasonable one, and one that many informed people fully understand. There will be no peace accord with terrorists, no wall to tear down, no official end to the war on terror. That point is fully understood by most people who understand that we are waging a war on a military tactic combined with a religious ideology, not a nation-state. However, let me just put out there for debate how I think Bush is doing in the War on Terror.
Aright, let me say that I agree with just about everything President Bush did with regards to the war on terror before he invaded Iraq. I think the war in Afghanistan was justified and well executed. I am personally of the mindset that the much decried "civil liberty infringing" powers that Bush gave many intelligence agencies following 9/11 were right on. They made us safer, and I truly believe that a peaceful American citizen with nothing to hide has no reason to fear such "infringements" (despite what Michael Moore would have us believe, the FBI talking to you because you made comments that caused your friends to turn you in is not the equivalent of Soviet Union KGB...as soon as they figured out that the man was simply questioning Bush's policy decisions, not planning to bomb anywhere, they left and considered it another dead lead. I would consider a short conversation with the FBI a small price to pay for my peace of mind that they were checking every lead) Anyway, getting off topic...back to Bush
So, I do agree with many of Bush's decisions following 9/11. However, I think his policy is now taking us down the wrong road. Bush has made it clear that he intends to win the war on terror by attacking the states that "harbor and support terrorist". This is really an understandable reaction, as it boils down a stateless war into terms we can understand and fight against.The problem arises in the fact that these wars are not only costly in both an economic and humanitarian sense (which is enough of a problem to give me pause), but also because they give more people more reasons to hate us. In this day and age, the line between a person who dislikes the United States and a Terrorist is not a hard one to push someone over. (Just remember how blood thirsty a lot of Americans became when we heard that 3,000 of our citizens had been killed...add the radical Islamic ideology to that and you're asking for trouble) So, what Bush is essentially creating is an endless war. We have conceded that we cannot kill or jail every terrorist in the world, so we have moved to a plan of constant disruption. We disrupt the states that harbor terrorists and we do everything we can through intelligence to disrupt them at home and abroad( I agree with the second part) I think this plan of constant disruption will keep us safe for maybe 4 to 6 years, but we have to remember that at some point we are not going to have a Neocon in office and that person may pause this constant war just long enough for all these new terrorists that we've created through these wars to coordinate their effortsand hit us big-time. (not to mention the fact that, someday, the general public may just get tired of budget deficits, ignorance of domestic issues, and dying soldiers. You know how many "terrorist regimes" there are out there, according to our current broad definition? Think Africa.....all of it.)
As it stands now, I think we can start thinking long term by using all of this money that we would be spending on disrupting terrorist regimes through war and redirecting it towards securing our borders, creating and funding THE BEST intelligence community in the world, and training civilians and civil servants how to protect each and every street in the United States.This creates no new terrorists and forces Bin Laden and his ilk to recruit without our help in a world that will allow them fewer newsworthy successes on our soil. I fully understand John McCain's point tonight that this war is the great challenge of my generation and that I cannot just say "I don't wanna fight forever"...I'd be living in a dreamworld if I thought Jihad would end anytime soon. However, I think Bush is pursuing a course of action that, while it will secure us in the near future will force my generation and possibly my children's generation to pay the mounting tab.
That said, I think Kim Jung Il needs to be taken out ASAP but I don't think we should invade North Korea. Whatever happened to good old fashioned assasinations and covert support of civilian uprisings? (bay of pigs...yeah, yeah,yeah)
Anyway, your opinions mean a lot to me, so tell me where I'm wrong or right and we'll discuss.
Aright, let me say that I agree with just about everything President Bush did with regards to the war on terror before he invaded Iraq. I think the war in Afghanistan was justified and well executed. I am personally of the mindset that the much decried "civil liberty infringing" powers that Bush gave many intelligence agencies following 9/11 were right on. They made us safer, and I truly believe that a peaceful American citizen with nothing to hide has no reason to fear such "infringements" (despite what Michael Moore would have us believe, the FBI talking to you because you made comments that caused your friends to turn you in is not the equivalent of Soviet Union KGB...as soon as they figured out that the man was simply questioning Bush's policy decisions, not planning to bomb anywhere, they left and considered it another dead lead. I would consider a short conversation with the FBI a small price to pay for my peace of mind that they were checking every lead) Anyway, getting off topic...back to Bush
So, I do agree with many of Bush's decisions following 9/11. However, I think his policy is now taking us down the wrong road. Bush has made it clear that he intends to win the war on terror by attacking the states that "harbor and support terrorist". This is really an understandable reaction, as it boils down a stateless war into terms we can understand and fight against.The problem arises in the fact that these wars are not only costly in both an economic and humanitarian sense (which is enough of a problem to give me pause), but also because they give more people more reasons to hate us. In this day and age, the line between a person who dislikes the United States and a Terrorist is not a hard one to push someone over. (Just remember how blood thirsty a lot of Americans became when we heard that 3,000 of our citizens had been killed...add the radical Islamic ideology to that and you're asking for trouble) So, what Bush is essentially creating is an endless war. We have conceded that we cannot kill or jail every terrorist in the world, so we have moved to a plan of constant disruption. We disrupt the states that harbor terrorists and we do everything we can through intelligence to disrupt them at home and abroad( I agree with the second part) I think this plan of constant disruption will keep us safe for maybe 4 to 6 years, but we have to remember that at some point we are not going to have a Neocon in office and that person may pause this constant war just long enough for all these new terrorists that we've created through these wars to coordinate their effortsand hit us big-time. (not to mention the fact that, someday, the general public may just get tired of budget deficits, ignorance of domestic issues, and dying soldiers. You know how many "terrorist regimes" there are out there, according to our current broad definition? Think Africa.....all of it.)
As it stands now, I think we can start thinking long term by using all of this money that we would be spending on disrupting terrorist regimes through war and redirecting it towards securing our borders, creating and funding THE BEST intelligence community in the world, and training civilians and civil servants how to protect each and every street in the United States.This creates no new terrorists and forces Bin Laden and his ilk to recruit without our help in a world that will allow them fewer newsworthy successes on our soil. I fully understand John McCain's point tonight that this war is the great challenge of my generation and that I cannot just say "I don't wanna fight forever"...I'd be living in a dreamworld if I thought Jihad would end anytime soon. However, I think Bush is pursuing a course of action that, while it will secure us in the near future will force my generation and possibly my children's generation to pay the mounting tab.
That said, I think Kim Jung Il needs to be taken out ASAP but I don't think we should invade North Korea. Whatever happened to good old fashioned assasinations and covert support of civilian uprisings? (bay of pigs...yeah, yeah,yeah)
Anyway, your opinions mean a lot to me, so tell me where I'm wrong or right and we'll discuss.
8.30.2004
Just for fun
I'm not sure if this person is actually trying to be profound...I just found this funny
http://www.bookofnow.com/home.html
Enjoy!
http://www.bookofnow.com/home.html
Enjoy!
Good news! We just switched to centrism
Well, tomorrow marks the beginning of the Republican National Convention and I am pumped!
Honestly, even though I have leaned towards John Kerry throughout this race(not because I am anti-republican...I disagree with the Neocon worldview)I cannot wait to see the singular message that W and a bunch of people who are nothing like him in most of their political views 360 days out of the year put out there. Rudy Guliani is pro-abortion, pro-gun control, and pro-many social welfare programs that W opposes. A-h-nuld Schwartzenblahblahblah, again pro-choice, supports only a limited school voucher system but still strongly supports dumping more money into failing public schools, Supports the Brady bill (which would probably not last through a 2nd Bush term) among many other gun control policies, considers himself an environmentalist and supports government funded health-care programs that Bush believes are a burden. Then there is ever-loving John McCain. How this guy can stand on a stage with W, let alone campaign for him is beyond me. He was on the recieving end of one of the ugliest, most personal smear campaigns in history when he ran against Bush in the primaries 4 years ago and Bush is now bashing what was supposed to be McCain's crowning career achievement as a faulty piece of legislation that is destroying our electoral system (ok, he's bashingthe loopholes...but when Bush tries to use those loopholes tohis advantage to smear JK's war record...which history will show that he has...McCain lends his voice against Bush calling on him to condemn the swiftboat adds by name and Bush refuses....3 days later, McCain is hugging him on stage)Ugh...
So, anyway, these are thepeople that are going to be speaking FOR one of the most conservative presidents in recorded history..."With friends like these..."
Of course, this is all part of the game we call politics. The liberals are just as guilty for hiding away people like Ted Kennedy so John Kerry's extreme liberalism would not be exposed during the DNC.
The question, ofcourse, is what are these parties so afraid of? Thesimple answer is, of course, that 40%of the american voting public falls into the "independent voter category"...thereby leaving all those votes somewhere in the center. The problem is that the American public is being misled by both sides to vote for a version of each candidate that does not truly exist. I mean, in 2000 Bush was really pushing this idea of "compassionate conservatism"...so much so that he convinced a homosexual congressman to speak on his behalf at that RNC saying that he would be a friend to the gay community and work for their needs. Where does he stand 4 years later? Right at the forefront of a proposed constitutional amendment that would make gay americans 2nd class citizens in their own country....compassionate conservatism my ass.
And, so we're left wondering what to do? Well, the hard answer is to stay informed and remind yourself of both John Kerry's and W's records in their respective offices. the easy answer,of course is to by into all these ideas that W will work for the little guy and the "average american" and "seriously consider" international alliances and diplomacy as a means to combat terror. We would also haveto accept this idea that Kerry will maintain the strength of our military and do nothing to weaken our abilities to wage the war on terror at home, as well as accept the idea that he will balance the economy by spending more money (rolling back Bush's tax credits to the wealthy will not pay for all of this, folks).
So, there you have it....or at least my opinion of "it". These conventions are about as real and spontaneous as Jenna Jameson's on-film orgasms (not that I would know anything about those....ahem....)
Anyway, happy viewing. Set your BS meters to "max", grab a beer, sit back and enjoy the show tomorrow.
AND FEEL FREE TO COMMENT-------------------------->
Honestly, even though I have leaned towards John Kerry throughout this race(not because I am anti-republican...I disagree with the Neocon worldview)I cannot wait to see the singular message that W and a bunch of people who are nothing like him in most of their political views 360 days out of the year put out there. Rudy Guliani is pro-abortion, pro-gun control, and pro-many social welfare programs that W opposes. A-h-nuld Schwartzenblahblahblah, again pro-choice, supports only a limited school voucher system but still strongly supports dumping more money into failing public schools, Supports the Brady bill (which would probably not last through a 2nd Bush term) among many other gun control policies, considers himself an environmentalist and supports government funded health-care programs that Bush believes are a burden. Then there is ever-loving John McCain. How this guy can stand on a stage with W, let alone campaign for him is beyond me. He was on the recieving end of one of the ugliest, most personal smear campaigns in history when he ran against Bush in the primaries 4 years ago and Bush is now bashing what was supposed to be McCain's crowning career achievement as a faulty piece of legislation that is destroying our electoral system (ok, he's bashingthe loopholes...but when Bush tries to use those loopholes tohis advantage to smear JK's war record...which history will show that he has...McCain lends his voice against Bush calling on him to condemn the swiftboat adds by name and Bush refuses....3 days later, McCain is hugging him on stage)Ugh...
So, anyway, these are thepeople that are going to be speaking FOR one of the most conservative presidents in recorded history..."With friends like these..."
Of course, this is all part of the game we call politics. The liberals are just as guilty for hiding away people like Ted Kennedy so John Kerry's extreme liberalism would not be exposed during the DNC.
The question, ofcourse, is what are these parties so afraid of? Thesimple answer is, of course, that 40%of the american voting public falls into the "independent voter category"...thereby leaving all those votes somewhere in the center. The problem is that the American public is being misled by both sides to vote for a version of each candidate that does not truly exist. I mean, in 2000 Bush was really pushing this idea of "compassionate conservatism"...so much so that he convinced a homosexual congressman to speak on his behalf at that RNC saying that he would be a friend to the gay community and work for their needs. Where does he stand 4 years later? Right at the forefront of a proposed constitutional amendment that would make gay americans 2nd class citizens in their own country....compassionate conservatism my ass.
And, so we're left wondering what to do? Well, the hard answer is to stay informed and remind yourself of both John Kerry's and W's records in their respective offices. the easy answer,of course is to by into all these ideas that W will work for the little guy and the "average american" and "seriously consider" international alliances and diplomacy as a means to combat terror. We would also haveto accept this idea that Kerry will maintain the strength of our military and do nothing to weaken our abilities to wage the war on terror at home, as well as accept the idea that he will balance the economy by spending more money (rolling back Bush's tax credits to the wealthy will not pay for all of this, folks).
So, there you have it....or at least my opinion of "it". These conventions are about as real and spontaneous as Jenna Jameson's on-film orgasms (not that I would know anything about those....ahem....)
Anyway, happy viewing. Set your BS meters to "max", grab a beer, sit back and enjoy the show tomorrow.
AND FEEL FREE TO COMMENT-------------------------->
8.29.2004
The O'Fuckit Factor
OK, my first ever venting post....after only 1 day of posting! A sign of things to come? Let's hope not...
Aright,I got in a heated convo with someone who will remain nameless (but who I love and hold in the highest respect) about the possibility of Al Franken running for the Senate seat currently occupied by Norm Coleman (R-MN). Let me say that I've listened to some of Franken's book and I applaud his commitment to his issues and his willingness to be a thorn in the sides of those with whom he disagrees. He's an important balancing voice in a world that was slowly becoming dominated by Rightwing slam-artists like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh (Rush has been around for a while, and really past his heyday,but he deserves to be mentioned) that terminology makes it sound like I'm unfairly biased against those with a rightwing point of view, I'm not. I have aproblem with those people in particular because they bulldog any guest with whom they disagree. If I had my way in the world, shows like O'Reilly Factor would have a code of conduct much like a High School debate with time limits and rules of order. Sadly, that's not the case. It's Bill's show and Bill's rules...and he makes that annoyingly clear to every guest who does not play the part of a "yes man".
Anyway, back to Franken and the afformentioned conversation. I made the statement at some point during a normal conversation that "I hope Al Franken, if he runs for Senate, can survive on the hill without 'Team Franken' backing him up." (for the uninitiated, "Team Franken" is a team of 14 Harvard students whom Franken has put on his payroll as fact checkers for his books and,I assume, his public speeches) My simple statement was that a Harvard education (which Franken has, albeit in "general studies"), some political views, a fact checking team, and good communication skills does not necessarily "make" a good politician.
At least, that's what I thought I said. Apparently I misspoke and said "Hitler was misunderstood, people with Multiple sclerosis are faking it, and I like to eat babies."....Honest mistake, must have gotten mixed up in my head.
But seriously, what followed my seemingly innocent statement was a barrage of arguments ranging from the simple and understandable (I don't think you're giving Al enough credit) to the slightly absurd ( NO one has made it to capitol hill without a team of people paid totell them how to think) to the just insulting (along the lines that I was being small minded and must just have it out for Al because he was once Stuart Smalley) I thought I was going crazy....wasn't my statement so much more innocent than any of that?
It's late and I'm actually pretty tired of thinkingabout this stuff, but I'll just make it short and say that I don't want Al Franken to run for office any more than I want Bill O'Reilly to run . Al has a little more tact in his delivery (although he can be just as misleading, as evidenced here: www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/frankenabs1.html ) but I just think they occupy the same societal space.They are agitators for their side of the political debate, and they both have a very strong tendency to write off and stop listening to people with whom they disagree. I don't want that in a politician, I want it on primetime TV for my personal amusement, but that's me.
OK, that was part of my rant...there was so much more to say, but I'm going to cut it short, wait for comments, and revisit this topic later. Feel free to post about Franken, O'Reily, my dumb ass...whatever. We'll come back to this after I've had a chance to breathe.
Aright,I got in a heated convo with someone who will remain nameless (but who I love and hold in the highest respect) about the possibility of Al Franken running for the Senate seat currently occupied by Norm Coleman (R-MN). Let me say that I've listened to some of Franken's book and I applaud his commitment to his issues and his willingness to be a thorn in the sides of those with whom he disagrees. He's an important balancing voice in a world that was slowly becoming dominated by Rightwing slam-artists like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh (Rush has been around for a while, and really past his heyday,but he deserves to be mentioned) that terminology makes it sound like I'm unfairly biased against those with a rightwing point of view, I'm not. I have aproblem with those people in particular because they bulldog any guest with whom they disagree. If I had my way in the world, shows like O'Reilly Factor would have a code of conduct much like a High School debate with time limits and rules of order. Sadly, that's not the case. It's Bill's show and Bill's rules...and he makes that annoyingly clear to every guest who does not play the part of a "yes man".
Anyway, back to Franken and the afformentioned conversation. I made the statement at some point during a normal conversation that "I hope Al Franken, if he runs for Senate, can survive on the hill without 'Team Franken' backing him up." (for the uninitiated, "Team Franken" is a team of 14 Harvard students whom Franken has put on his payroll as fact checkers for his books and,I assume, his public speeches) My simple statement was that a Harvard education (which Franken has, albeit in "general studies"), some political views, a fact checking team, and good communication skills does not necessarily "make" a good politician.
At least, that's what I thought I said. Apparently I misspoke and said "Hitler was misunderstood, people with Multiple sclerosis are faking it, and I like to eat babies."....Honest mistake, must have gotten mixed up in my head.
But seriously, what followed my seemingly innocent statement was a barrage of arguments ranging from the simple and understandable (I don't think you're giving Al enough credit) to the slightly absurd ( NO one has made it to capitol hill without a team of people paid totell them how to think) to the just insulting (along the lines that I was being small minded and must just have it out for Al because he was once Stuart Smalley) I thought I was going crazy....wasn't my statement so much more innocent than any of that?
It's late and I'm actually pretty tired of thinkingabout this stuff, but I'll just make it short and say that I don't want Al Franken to run for office any more than I want Bill O'Reilly to run . Al has a little more tact in his delivery (although he can be just as misleading, as evidenced here: www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/frankenabs1.html ) but I just think they occupy the same societal space.They are agitators for their side of the political debate, and they both have a very strong tendency to write off and stop listening to people with whom they disagree. I don't want that in a politician, I want it on primetime TV for my personal amusement, but that's me.
OK, that was part of my rant...there was so much more to say, but I'm going to cut it short, wait for comments, and revisit this topic later. Feel free to post about Franken, O'Reily, my dumb ass...whatever. We'll come back to this after I've had a chance to breathe.
8.28.2004
Hell
Well damnit, Jay Sulzman discovered my site. Now I actually have to research my political views before I post....Kidding, Jay.
Anyway, Jay asked me about my feelings on mohair subsidies, east Turkistan, and the 9th circuit court of appeals.
In response....anything that helps mohair is ok by me. The 60's are coming backin the fashion world and mohair makes me look sexier than ever
East Turkistan is one of those places that I refuse to learn about until it comes on my TV screen with the words "Invaded", "Osama", or "Lindsay Lohan" somewhere in the same sentence.(Prefferably all at the same time. "BREAKING NEWS : Lindsay Lohan and Osama Bin Laden invaded East Turkistan today")
The 9th circuit court of appeals will stop sucking when it moves out of California....so...never.
Anyway, that's for you Jay. I'll post some real opinions that will not satisfy your political obsession at all some other time, but for now I'm signin off.
Anyway, Jay asked me about my feelings on mohair subsidies, east Turkistan, and the 9th circuit court of appeals.
In response....anything that helps mohair is ok by me. The 60's are coming backin the fashion world and mohair makes me look sexier than ever
East Turkistan is one of those places that I refuse to learn about until it comes on my TV screen with the words "Invaded", "Osama", or "Lindsay Lohan" somewhere in the same sentence.(Prefferably all at the same time. "BREAKING NEWS : Lindsay Lohan and Osama Bin Laden invaded East Turkistan today")
The 9th circuit court of appeals will stop sucking when it moves out of California....so...never.
Anyway, that's for you Jay. I'll post some real opinions that will not satisfy your political obsession at all some other time, but for now I'm signin off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
