Homercles: Space Monkey Man of Tomorrow
Saturday, July 31, 2004
An appeal to undecided voters, part 1
To the regulars: My friends, this is the rough draft of the first part of what I’ve been working on. Feel free to point out any mistakes you catch. More to come soon, including more relevant links.
This is intended for the roughly 10% of voters out there who are undecided, or are not strongly dedicated to your candidate. In this series of posts, which I’m sure will go on far too long, I’m going to do my best to elaborate on why I’m voting for GW Bush, and why I hope you’ll do the same. I’ll do my best not to descend into pure snark, as I realize that it would just turn you away. So, no Democrat-bashing; hell, I’ll even abstain from French bashing, if you’ll stick with me to the end.
Part 1: September and everything after
John Edwards is right, you know, in his own way. There ARE two Americas. There’s the America that still thinks and acts like 9/11 never happened, and those who realize that we are in a war we absolutely have to win.
Wait! Don’t go yet. Yes, I know what you’re thinking. I’ve read a lot of Dem blogs, and talked to a lot of people, so I have a fair idea of what you’re thinking, at least a fair idea.
Maybe you’re thinking “9/11 was a one-off. Why should I worry about terrorism, when it’s only happened once?”
Ah, but you see, it’s happened more than once. Before 9/11, we had attacks on the USS Cole in 2000, bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, The Khobar Towers attack in 1996, the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1982 bombing of Marine barracks in Lebanon etc. 9/11 wasn’t the opening salvo; it was just the bloodiest, the one that got our attention.
Immediately after 9/11, there was the Anthrax mail scare, Richard Reid, and Jose Padilla. 9/11 wasn’t a one-off; the fact that we’ve been able to prevent other attacks does not mean the danger is over.
Perhaps you’re thinking: “Statistically, you’re more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed by terrorists.”
True. Very true. But I can minimize the danger of being struck by lightning, by not swimming during a thunderstorm, standing under a tree, waving a golf club in the air, etc. On the other hand, if Abdul decides that my city is a wanton nest of infidels, and needs to be wiped clean from the earth, there’s not a damn thing I, personally, can do about it. My government, however, can do something to prevent it, and should. Above all else, our government’s mandate is to ensure our rights to life, liberty, and property are never infringed.
Or maybe you’re thinking: “John Kerry said that he’d respond to any terrorist attack.”
Again, true. I’m even willing to accept that he’d do as he says he will do. Consider, however, the word “respond.” Isn’t Kerry saying that he will not act until something catastrophic happens? Let me put it to you this way: wouldn’t that policy be akin to closing the barn door after the horses got out? Wouldn’t that be like the Russians saying that they wouldn’t respond to the NAZI threat until after Moscow was occupied?
You cannot think of 9/11 as a one-time thing. It was just one snapshot of a much larger war. It’s like looking at the fall of Paris, and then thinking: “Whew! Glad that’s over.”
“Speaking of Paris,” you may be thinking, “what about the goodwill of our allies? Bush has squandered that.”
Which allies? Great Britain? Australia? Japan? The thirty nations that have joined us in Afghanistan and Iraq? No?
Oh, you mean THOSE allies. The allies who wanted another UN resolution against Iraq, but weren’t willing to back it up. The allies who sold Saddam most of his weapons. The allies who had sweet oil deals with Saddam. The allies who secretly cashed a literal boatload of Oil-For-Food money. Gotcha.
“But we were buddy-buddy with Saddam and al-Qaeda back in the day! We were the ones who sold Saddam weapons, and taught the mujahideen how to fight!”
Ah, yes, that would explain why Saddam used Soviet T-72 tanks, AK-47s, and RPGs in both Gulf Wars instead of M1 Abrams, M-16s, and LAWs. Hate to break it to you, but we sold Saddam around one percent of all his weapons. The allies we alienated sold close to seventy percent.
As to backing Saddam and al-Qaeda in the 80’s, yes, I can’t argue with that. Tell me, though, knowing what we know now, should we have not allied ourselves with Stalin to stop the NAZI war machine? Everybody knows (well, everybody except the New York Times) just how awful the Communist state was. Estimates vary between twenty million and one hundred million, all killed by their own government. Should we have left them to fend for themselves?
Political prognostication is a fool’s game, especially in the face of whatever crisis is front and center. In 1941, Germany was the threat, and the USSR wasn’t. In 1979, Iran was the threat, Iraq wasn’t. The USSR was the threat, Afghanistan wasn’t. Maybe we shouldn’t have any allies at all in the War on Terror. After all, they may grow into a threat at some indeterminate point in the future; then again, that’d just be downright unilateral, wouldn’t it?
“But Saddam had nothing to do with the War on Terror! There’s no link between Saddam and 9/11!”
You’re absolutely right: Saddam likely had nothing to do with 9/11. That’s not to say that there weren’t connections between Iraq and al Qaeda. As has been so thoroughly documented, there were occasional communications between the two parties. Is it such a leap to conclude that maybe an alliance would eventually be forged? And Saddam did have terror links; he offered cash rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
“But Fundie Muslims hated Saddam. He was a secular leader.”
There’s an old saw about the enemy of my enemy being my friend. Secular ruler or not, Saddam was Muslim, and the Koran states “Kill the infidel, wherever you may find him.” Saddam was nobody’s pal, but he was no Great Satan. That distinction belongs to us, and only us. Considering our alliances in the past, is it so inconceivable that Saddam and al Qaeda would’ve eventually fallen into bed together?
As far as Saddam having nothing to do with the War on Terror, I’d like you to broaden your worldview, just a bit. Can anyone make a rational argument that the entire Middle East is not seriously messed up?
Your party line may not allow for it, but the simple honest-to-God truth is that with one notable exception, the entire Middle East is a region of despots and dictators, royal families and mullahs. The entire region needs a change, stat. It needs desperately brought into the Democratic era. Cultural relativists argue that their ways are as valid as ours, but do you honestly believe that? If you’re for women’s rights, how can you defend nations where women can be beaten for the slightest infractions, are not allowed to drive or leave the house unaccompanied, or even show their faces? If you’re for the separation of Church and State, how can you stomach nations where one religion is mandatory, and conversion to any other is a criminal offense?
Imagine if in America everyone had to be Christian, and anyone who came in and tried to preach Islam or Sufism or Shinto or whatever could be put to death for corrupting the people. You’d have a holy fit, wouldn’t you?
There are some moral absolutes. What is fundamentally wrong here is equally wrong over there. A person of conscience cannot witness the enslavement of others without acting.
Back to Saddam. Saddam’s a scumbag. He started as a street thug, and worked his way up to mass-murdering despot. To criticize him was to sign one’s own death warrant. They’re still finding bodies, you know; these thousands upon thousands were killed for one purpose: to keep the population cowed. To keep Saddam in power.
In a sane world, Saddam’s manifest evil would be enough of a legitimate reason to depose him. How could any person of conscience look at the suffering of others, and tolerate it?
In my mind, conscience was enough reason to depose Saddam. Or, as Dennis Miller put it: “Saddam and his punk sons drew the Wonka ticket in the asshole lottery.” Ya gotta start somewhere.
But maybe that’s not reason enough for you, so let me throw some others your way.
1)There were over a dozen UN resolutions telling Saddam to disarm, or else. (As far as our “allies” were concerned, “or else” meant “or else we’ll have to draft another resolution against you.” If you’ve ever raised or worked with kids, you know that a threat has no value unless you back it up.
2) Every intelligence agency in the Western world was convinced that Saddam was in possession or close to acquiring nuclear or biological weapons. He already had chemical munitions, as evidenced by the Kurdish slaughter. I believe he did have them, but in the run-up to the war, he managed a little sleight-of-hand, and hid them someplace else (cough*Syria*cough). Now, if you’re a responsible leader of the world’s only remaining superpower, do you just ignore what EVERY source is telling you, or do you take heed?
3) Remember the Iraqi plot to kill Bush 41? If you can just manage to put aside your Terry Macauliffe-approved disdain for all things Republican for a second, just think about that. Saddam wanted to kill the President of the United States. Our president. I know this fact has been used as a rationale for opposing the war (ie,”Bush was trying to get revenge for his Daddy!”), but I want you to step outside of party lines for a moment and listen to the better angels of your nature. Do Republicans chuckle approvingly at the assassination of JFK? Somehow, I don’t think so.
4) I’ve already mentioned the whole “stopping the threat before it becomes imminent.”
5) We have shown that we are no mere paper tiger. Anybody notice how Libya is making nice now? It was for one reason, and one reason only: Khaddafi knew he could very well draw the next Wonka ticket in the asshole lottery. The judicious use of force has effects far beyond the battlefield; and, as far as I’m concerned, since no Arab ME nation will ever look kindly upon us, no matter how much gas we buy, or how much financial aid we give, I’ll gladly settle for those nations realizing the consequences of pissing us off. If I can’t get respect, I’ll settle for fear.
How many more damn reasons do you need?
The sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan has been terrible. Of that, there can be no argument. But to say that Afghanistan or Iraq was an ignoble mistake is to say that there is nothing worth fighting for. Or that some people are not worth freeing. We sacrificed so that others could be free, and so that we could be safer. In a sane world, that would be called noble. In this world, it’s called hegemony.
I’m voting for GW Bush because I want a president who will make the difficult choices, and one who will obey the mandate to protect our life, liberty, and property.
Part 2 coming soon.
This is intended for the roughly 10% of voters out there who are undecided, or are not strongly dedicated to your candidate. In this series of posts, which I’m sure will go on far too long, I’m going to do my best to elaborate on why I’m voting for GW Bush, and why I hope you’ll do the same. I’ll do my best not to descend into pure snark, as I realize that it would just turn you away. So, no Democrat-bashing; hell, I’ll even abstain from French bashing, if you’ll stick with me to the end.
Part 1: September and everything after
John Edwards is right, you know, in his own way. There ARE two Americas. There’s the America that still thinks and acts like 9/11 never happened, and those who realize that we are in a war we absolutely have to win.
Wait! Don’t go yet. Yes, I know what you’re thinking. I’ve read a lot of Dem blogs, and talked to a lot of people, so I have a fair idea of what you’re thinking, at least a fair idea.
Maybe you’re thinking “9/11 was a one-off. Why should I worry about terrorism, when it’s only happened once?”
Ah, but you see, it’s happened more than once. Before 9/11, we had attacks on the USS Cole in 2000, bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, The Khobar Towers attack in 1996, the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1982 bombing of Marine barracks in Lebanon etc. 9/11 wasn’t the opening salvo; it was just the bloodiest, the one that got our attention.
Immediately after 9/11, there was the Anthrax mail scare, Richard Reid, and Jose Padilla. 9/11 wasn’t a one-off; the fact that we’ve been able to prevent other attacks does not mean the danger is over.
Perhaps you’re thinking: “Statistically, you’re more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed by terrorists.”
True. Very true. But I can minimize the danger of being struck by lightning, by not swimming during a thunderstorm, standing under a tree, waving a golf club in the air, etc. On the other hand, if Abdul decides that my city is a wanton nest of infidels, and needs to be wiped clean from the earth, there’s not a damn thing I, personally, can do about it. My government, however, can do something to prevent it, and should. Above all else, our government’s mandate is to ensure our rights to life, liberty, and property are never infringed.
Or maybe you’re thinking: “John Kerry said that he’d respond to any terrorist attack.”
Again, true. I’m even willing to accept that he’d do as he says he will do. Consider, however, the word “respond.” Isn’t Kerry saying that he will not act until something catastrophic happens? Let me put it to you this way: wouldn’t that policy be akin to closing the barn door after the horses got out? Wouldn’t that be like the Russians saying that they wouldn’t respond to the NAZI threat until after Moscow was occupied?
You cannot think of 9/11 as a one-time thing. It was just one snapshot of a much larger war. It’s like looking at the fall of Paris, and then thinking: “Whew! Glad that’s over.”
“Speaking of Paris,” you may be thinking, “what about the goodwill of our allies? Bush has squandered that.”
Which allies? Great Britain? Australia? Japan? The thirty nations that have joined us in Afghanistan and Iraq? No?
Oh, you mean THOSE allies. The allies who wanted another UN resolution against Iraq, but weren’t willing to back it up. The allies who sold Saddam most of his weapons. The allies who had sweet oil deals with Saddam. The allies who secretly cashed a literal boatload of Oil-For-Food money. Gotcha.
“But we were buddy-buddy with Saddam and al-Qaeda back in the day! We were the ones who sold Saddam weapons, and taught the mujahideen how to fight!”
Ah, yes, that would explain why Saddam used Soviet T-72 tanks, AK-47s, and RPGs in both Gulf Wars instead of M1 Abrams, M-16s, and LAWs. Hate to break it to you, but we sold Saddam around one percent of all his weapons. The allies we alienated sold close to seventy percent.
As to backing Saddam and al-Qaeda in the 80’s, yes, I can’t argue with that. Tell me, though, knowing what we know now, should we have not allied ourselves with Stalin to stop the NAZI war machine? Everybody knows (well, everybody except the New York Times) just how awful the Communist state was. Estimates vary between twenty million and one hundred million, all killed by their own government. Should we have left them to fend for themselves?
Political prognostication is a fool’s game, especially in the face of whatever crisis is front and center. In 1941, Germany was the threat, and the USSR wasn’t. In 1979, Iran was the threat, Iraq wasn’t. The USSR was the threat, Afghanistan wasn’t. Maybe we shouldn’t have any allies at all in the War on Terror. After all, they may grow into a threat at some indeterminate point in the future; then again, that’d just be downright unilateral, wouldn’t it?
“But Saddam had nothing to do with the War on Terror! There’s no link between Saddam and 9/11!”
You’re absolutely right: Saddam likely had nothing to do with 9/11. That’s not to say that there weren’t connections between Iraq and al Qaeda. As has been so thoroughly documented, there were occasional communications between the two parties. Is it such a leap to conclude that maybe an alliance would eventually be forged? And Saddam did have terror links; he offered cash rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
“But Fundie Muslims hated Saddam. He was a secular leader.”
There’s an old saw about the enemy of my enemy being my friend. Secular ruler or not, Saddam was Muslim, and the Koran states “Kill the infidel, wherever you may find him.” Saddam was nobody’s pal, but he was no Great Satan. That distinction belongs to us, and only us. Considering our alliances in the past, is it so inconceivable that Saddam and al Qaeda would’ve eventually fallen into bed together?
As far as Saddam having nothing to do with the War on Terror, I’d like you to broaden your worldview, just a bit. Can anyone make a rational argument that the entire Middle East is not seriously messed up?
Your party line may not allow for it, but the simple honest-to-God truth is that with one notable exception, the entire Middle East is a region of despots and dictators, royal families and mullahs. The entire region needs a change, stat. It needs desperately brought into the Democratic era. Cultural relativists argue that their ways are as valid as ours, but do you honestly believe that? If you’re for women’s rights, how can you defend nations where women can be beaten for the slightest infractions, are not allowed to drive or leave the house unaccompanied, or even show their faces? If you’re for the separation of Church and State, how can you stomach nations where one religion is mandatory, and conversion to any other is a criminal offense?
Imagine if in America everyone had to be Christian, and anyone who came in and tried to preach Islam or Sufism or Shinto or whatever could be put to death for corrupting the people. You’d have a holy fit, wouldn’t you?
There are some moral absolutes. What is fundamentally wrong here is equally wrong over there. A person of conscience cannot witness the enslavement of others without acting.
Back to Saddam. Saddam’s a scumbag. He started as a street thug, and worked his way up to mass-murdering despot. To criticize him was to sign one’s own death warrant. They’re still finding bodies, you know; these thousands upon thousands were killed for one purpose: to keep the population cowed. To keep Saddam in power.
In a sane world, Saddam’s manifest evil would be enough of a legitimate reason to depose him. How could any person of conscience look at the suffering of others, and tolerate it?
In my mind, conscience was enough reason to depose Saddam. Or, as Dennis Miller put it: “Saddam and his punk sons drew the Wonka ticket in the asshole lottery.” Ya gotta start somewhere.
But maybe that’s not reason enough for you, so let me throw some others your way.
1)There were over a dozen UN resolutions telling Saddam to disarm, or else. (As far as our “allies” were concerned, “or else” meant “or else we’ll have to draft another resolution against you.” If you’ve ever raised or worked with kids, you know that a threat has no value unless you back it up.
2) Every intelligence agency in the Western world was convinced that Saddam was in possession or close to acquiring nuclear or biological weapons. He already had chemical munitions, as evidenced by the Kurdish slaughter. I believe he did have them, but in the run-up to the war, he managed a little sleight-of-hand, and hid them someplace else (cough*Syria*cough). Now, if you’re a responsible leader of the world’s only remaining superpower, do you just ignore what EVERY source is telling you, or do you take heed?
3) Remember the Iraqi plot to kill Bush 41? If you can just manage to put aside your Terry Macauliffe-approved disdain for all things Republican for a second, just think about that. Saddam wanted to kill the President of the United States. Our president. I know this fact has been used as a rationale for opposing the war (ie,”Bush was trying to get revenge for his Daddy!”), but I want you to step outside of party lines for a moment and listen to the better angels of your nature. Do Republicans chuckle approvingly at the assassination of JFK? Somehow, I don’t think so.
4) I’ve already mentioned the whole “stopping the threat before it becomes imminent.”
5) We have shown that we are no mere paper tiger. Anybody notice how Libya is making nice now? It was for one reason, and one reason only: Khaddafi knew he could very well draw the next Wonka ticket in the asshole lottery. The judicious use of force has effects far beyond the battlefield; and, as far as I’m concerned, since no Arab ME nation will ever look kindly upon us, no matter how much gas we buy, or how much financial aid we give, I’ll gladly settle for those nations realizing the consequences of pissing us off. If I can’t get respect, I’ll settle for fear.
How many more damn reasons do you need?
The sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan has been terrible. Of that, there can be no argument. But to say that Afghanistan or Iraq was an ignoble mistake is to say that there is nothing worth fighting for. Or that some people are not worth freeing. We sacrificed so that others could be free, and so that we could be safer. In a sane world, that would be called noble. In this world, it’s called hegemony.
I’m voting for GW Bush because I want a president who will make the difficult choices, and one who will obey the mandate to protect our life, liberty, and property.
Part 2 coming soon.
Man, I have GOT to get away from politics
Most. Bizarre. Dream. Ever.
The dream starts out with me in a room; I turn around, and realize I'm not alone; I am, in fact, in the company of Rudy Guiliani, who is sitting in a rocking chair, smoking a cigar and laughing like Santa Claus, kind of a deep, sonorous guffaw, while contemplating this massive and gaudy diamond pinky ring. "They are so screwed," Dream Guiliani says.
The door to the room opens, and suddenly I remember I'm in the Kerry estate. I remember this because Teresa is the one at the door, pointing at me accusatorily. "How dare you," she says, referring to the blanket of noxious cigar smoke in the room.
"But," I say, "it was . . ." And then I turn back around and Guiliani is gone, of course. Bastard.
"Shush. Tut tut. Go get showered. Your family's here."
So I walk downstairs to the shower, and it's one of those circular tile floors with a six-inch lip all the way around. No curtain, natch. Best of all, the shower head is mounted about two feet above the ground. As I'm trying to navigate the whole shower thing, snaking in low like a SEAL in training, I see my grandparents, both sets, at a buffet line. Which in itself is quite a feat, as my parents are quite acrimoniously divorced, thank you.
I'm trying to get my hair wet, and the shower has a slow drain, so the entire basin is soon filled up with soapy water. I'm blinded for a moment, and when I clear out my eyes, my Dad's mom is there, holding a chicken leg, with chow mein noodles hanging off it.
"I get turkey legs too!" she says, and then I wake up.
Too f'n weird.
*UPDATE* Even Lilek's dreams are smarter than mine.
The dream starts out with me in a room; I turn around, and realize I'm not alone; I am, in fact, in the company of Rudy Guiliani, who is sitting in a rocking chair, smoking a cigar and laughing like Santa Claus, kind of a deep, sonorous guffaw, while contemplating this massive and gaudy diamond pinky ring. "They are so screwed," Dream Guiliani says.
The door to the room opens, and suddenly I remember I'm in the Kerry estate. I remember this because Teresa is the one at the door, pointing at me accusatorily. "How dare you," she says, referring to the blanket of noxious cigar smoke in the room.
"But," I say, "it was . . ." And then I turn back around and Guiliani is gone, of course. Bastard.
"Shush. Tut tut. Go get showered. Your family's here."
So I walk downstairs to the shower, and it's one of those circular tile floors with a six-inch lip all the way around. No curtain, natch. Best of all, the shower head is mounted about two feet above the ground. As I'm trying to navigate the whole shower thing, snaking in low like a SEAL in training, I see my grandparents, both sets, at a buffet line. Which in itself is quite a feat, as my parents are quite acrimoniously divorced, thank you.
I'm trying to get my hair wet, and the shower has a slow drain, so the entire basin is soon filled up with soapy water. I'm blinded for a moment, and when I clear out my eyes, my Dad's mom is there, holding a chicken leg, with chow mein noodles hanging off it.
"I get turkey legs too!" she says, and then I wake up.
Too f'n weird.
*UPDATE* Even Lilek's dreams are smarter than mine.
Friday, July 30, 2004
Log
I keep forgetting to keep track. This is what happens when I don't use my brain for a couple of months.
July 27
Cardio
Time:1:06:00
2004 total:104:36:00
Weights + Cardio: 119 Days (37 to go)
July 27
Cardio
Time:1:06:00
2004 total:104:36:00
Weights + Cardio: 119 Days (37 to go)
More, please
Via Fark
The British are developing technology to harness the power of the tides in creating electricity.
Caveat: It's not as efficient a means of creating electricity as good ol' fossil fuels. The system in the story can only provide power to the UK's smallest city. We're still a long way off from weaning ourselves off the oil teat.
It's still a step in the right direction, though, and I hope that alternative energy sources continue to be aggressively researched. No more money for the Arab oil ticks. The only chance the royal families, the mullahs, etc have of maintaining the status quo is if the money keeps pouring in.
And while we're at it, we should really be developing domestic sources for petroleum while we're looking to replace it. The Alaska pipeline and offshore drilling could get us a few million barrels, I'm sure.
And what of nuclear power? There hasn't been an NRC license issued since 3-Mile Island; even though there hasn't been a domestic nuclear incident since, I think a lot of people still remember Chernobyl. Which really says nothing about the overall safety of nuclear power, since the Chernobyl reactors were built without the safety mechanisms that are built into every US plant.
Now, I know I'm being absolutist and xenophobic and a few other things, because I believe in right and wrong, but I don't want to support barbaric states like Iran and Saudi Arabia with petrodollars. You know, the kind of culture where if your wife gets raped, you can kill her for committing adultery. The kind of culture where school means memorizing the Koran. The kind of culture where preaching any other faith than Islam is a criminal act.
Eighth century mindset + obscene amounts of money = trouble for the civilized world.
The British are developing technology to harness the power of the tides in creating electricity.
Caveat: It's not as efficient a means of creating electricity as good ol' fossil fuels. The system in the story can only provide power to the UK's smallest city. We're still a long way off from weaning ourselves off the oil teat.
It's still a step in the right direction, though, and I hope that alternative energy sources continue to be aggressively researched. No more money for the Arab oil ticks. The only chance the royal families, the mullahs, etc have of maintaining the status quo is if the money keeps pouring in.
And while we're at it, we should really be developing domestic sources for petroleum while we're looking to replace it. The Alaska pipeline and offshore drilling could get us a few million barrels, I'm sure.
And what of nuclear power? There hasn't been an NRC license issued since 3-Mile Island; even though there hasn't been a domestic nuclear incident since, I think a lot of people still remember Chernobyl. Which really says nothing about the overall safety of nuclear power, since the Chernobyl reactors were built without the safety mechanisms that are built into every US plant.
Now, I know I'm being absolutist and xenophobic and a few other things, because I believe in right and wrong, but I don't want to support barbaric states like Iran and Saudi Arabia with petrodollars. You know, the kind of culture where if your wife gets raped, you can kill her for committing adultery. The kind of culture where school means memorizing the Koran. The kind of culture where preaching any other faith than Islam is a criminal act.
Eighth century mindset + obscene amounts of money = trouble for the civilized world.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Much like Bush43
I've been lying low during the DNC. I really haven't been paying much attention to it, except for the grating Janeane Garofolo interview I heard on Hannity. Boy, she's just way out of her league. Being able to talk circles around Tucker Carlson on Crossfire does not mean you're ready for the big leagues.
So, like I said, I've pretty much been tuning it out. While walking last night, I was given a choice between listening to the DNC on AM, Limp Bizkit on FM, or the automated weather band. I chose the weather band. (Incidently,Mr. Durst, if you know why I wanna hate ya, then I don't have to spell out that you're a marginally talented Korn wannabe who got to sleep with Britney Spears.)
In all honesty, Kerry could say everything I want to hear tonight and I'll still vote for Bush. Because I don't trust that the things Kerry says tonight will be the things that Kerry will actually do if he's elected.
You can talk all about Repub dirty tricks all you want. For Kerry, the shoe fits. And I'd rather have someone who will occasionally make the wrong decision than one who will wait to see which way the wind blows, or worse, one who will only act at the beckon of his UN cronies.
So, like I said, I've pretty much been tuning it out. While walking last night, I was given a choice between listening to the DNC on AM, Limp Bizkit on FM, or the automated weather band. I chose the weather band. (Incidently,Mr. Durst, if you know why I wanna hate ya, then I don't have to spell out that you're a marginally talented Korn wannabe who got to sleep with Britney Spears.)
In all honesty, Kerry could say everything I want to hear tonight and I'll still vote for Bush. Because I don't trust that the things Kerry says tonight will be the things that Kerry will actually do if he's elected.
You can talk all about Repub dirty tricks all you want. For Kerry, the shoe fits. And I'd rather have someone who will occasionally make the wrong decision than one who will wait to see which way the wind blows, or worse, one who will only act at the beckon of his UN cronies.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
No more F-bombs, I swore . . .
and then I read Vodkapundit today.
Aw, forget it. Heck with the French. I'm not growing an ulcer on account of their worthless asses.
Aw, forget it. Heck with the French. I'm not growing an ulcer on account of their worthless asses.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Nobody hates a winner more than a loser
See the French.
See the French lose to an American.
Lose, French, lose!
See the French complain about the American.
Complain, French, complain!
Love those bullet points:
*... he has a natural inclination towards being a despot
*His self esteem has been transformed into a need for absolute domination
*He is carried away by a cruel imbecility and humiliates other participants
*Someone of legend does not behave in such a childish way
*Does he need to prove his superority? That's all he knows how to do.
*... it is forbidden to humiliate the weakest. That's written black-on-white in the Tour's rulebook. Lance uses the rulebook to sit on.
My goodness, I didn't think the French could be any more worthless. Boy is my face red.And the absolutely stupidest thing: Lance is closer ideologically to the French than he is to Cowboy Bush on the whole War on Terror thing. I've read somewhere that he felt the Iraq invasion was mishandled. Fair enough, I disagree, but swing a cat in the air, and you'll hit someone who does agree. But nooooooo, they don't look at that; they see an American, and they see "despot," "childish," "imbecility," and "humiliate the weakest."
That's it. I've really tried to stay away from using F*bombs, to retain at least some level of mature dialogue, but this is a special occasion. I'll leave space here, so you can take or leave my profanity at your discretion.
Fuck the French.
Fuck those wine-tasting, foul-smelling, cheese-eating, pretentious, cowardly, arrogant, waste-of-oxygen-and-carbon, appeasing jag-offs right in their waxy ears. Fuck their worthless, decadent culture.
See the French lose to an American.
Lose, French, lose!
See the French complain about the American.
Complain, French, complain!
Love those bullet points:
*... he has a natural inclination towards being a despot
*His self esteem has been transformed into a need for absolute domination
*He is carried away by a cruel imbecility and humiliates other participants
*Someone of legend does not behave in such a childish way
*Does he need to prove his superority? That's all he knows how to do.
*... it is forbidden to humiliate the weakest. That's written black-on-white in the Tour's rulebook. Lance uses the rulebook to sit on.
My goodness, I didn't think the French could be any more worthless. Boy is my face red.And the absolutely stupidest thing: Lance is closer ideologically to the French than he is to Cowboy Bush on the whole War on Terror thing. I've read somewhere that he felt the Iraq invasion was mishandled. Fair enough, I disagree, but swing a cat in the air, and you'll hit someone who does agree. But nooooooo, they don't look at that; they see an American, and they see "despot," "childish," "imbecility," and "humiliate the weakest."
That's it. I've really tried to stay away from using F*bombs, to retain at least some level of mature dialogue, but this is a special occasion. I'll leave space here, so you can take or leave my profanity at your discretion.
Fuck the French.
Fuck those wine-tasting, foul-smelling, cheese-eating, pretentious, cowardly, arrogant, waste-of-oxygen-and-carbon, appeasing jag-offs right in their waxy ears. Fuck their worthless, decadent culture.
Monday, July 26, 2004
Watch the Gipper spin! Whee!
I managed to watch just enough MSNBC today to see Ron Reagan declare that Gore conclusively won the 2000 election. When pressed by Chris Matthews as to how that was determined, L'il Ron mumbled something about "a consortium of newspapers and journalists."
To which Matthews responded, "Good luck getting the entire nation to believe that."
Dubious claim about the 2000 election? Check.
Half-assed challenged to said dubious claim? Check.
One minute of that was one minute too much.
2000 is so four years ago. Get over it. If you'll recall, Gore originally conceded (albeit after Bush conceded then withdrew the concession), then flip-flopped, and argued his way up to the Supreme Court. The Court made its ruling, and they STILL can't just accept it. Even when I was sympathetic to the Democratic Party, I realized that at some point, you just have to accept, move on (as opposed to moveon), and make sure your guy wins next time.
July 26
Cardio
Time: 1:00:00
2004 total:103:30:00
Weights + Cardio: 118 Days (38 to go)
To which Matthews responded, "Good luck getting the entire nation to believe that."
Dubious claim about the 2000 election? Check.
Half-assed challenged to said dubious claim? Check.
One minute of that was one minute too much.
2000 is so four years ago. Get over it. If you'll recall, Gore originally conceded (albeit after Bush conceded then withdrew the concession), then flip-flopped, and argued his way up to the Supreme Court. The Court made its ruling, and they STILL can't just accept it. Even when I was sympathetic to the Democratic Party, I realized that at some point, you just have to accept, move on (as opposed to moveon), and make sure your guy wins next time.
July 26
Cardio
Time: 1:00:00
2004 total:103:30:00
Weights + Cardio: 118 Days (38 to go)
Raising my right hand, as we speak
Dean Esmay is pledging to respect the office of POTUS should Kerry win, despite his misgivings. Which I have to admit, is a classy thing to do. As I've said before, if worse comes to worst, our great nation will survive a Kerry presidency. So I will take up the cause, and make the following solemn oath:
I do solemnly swear on this day, July 26, 2004, that I will respect the office of President of the United States, even if John Kerry succeeds in becoming the next president.
Further, if I should have cause to criticise Kerry, I will restrict myself to the following epithets (or derivations thereof): elitist douchebag, asshole, liberal Flip-Flopper, rich-bitch, President of the Blue States of America, Clueless French Ass-Kisser, Trophy Husband, and Kofi's slave.
I will not use the words traitor, coward, or baby-killer, under any circumstances.
In all seriousness, I will give respect to the office, and I will refrain from the kind of shrill angsty criticisms that have been directed at Bush for 4 years. I may be only two steps higher towards the moral high ground than the tinfoil hat brigades, but it's a start.
I do solemnly swear on this day, July 26, 2004, that I will respect the office of President of the United States, even if John Kerry succeeds in becoming the next president.
Further, if I should have cause to criticise Kerry, I will restrict myself to the following epithets (or derivations thereof): elitist douchebag, asshole, liberal Flip-Flopper, rich-bitch, President of the Blue States of America, Clueless French Ass-Kisser, Trophy Husband, and Kofi's slave.
I will not use the words traitor, coward, or baby-killer, under any circumstances.
In all seriousness, I will give respect to the office, and I will refrain from the kind of shrill angsty criticisms that have been directed at Bush for 4 years. I may be only two steps higher towards the moral high ground than the tinfoil hat brigades, but it's a start.
Sunday, July 25, 2004
Tour de Lance, baby!
Lance Armstrong Wins 6th TdF
I was tempted to gloat, say nasty things about the French, etc. But nah. We'll be classy.
I was tempted to gloat, say nasty things about the French, etc. But nah. We'll be classy.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
Fun Stuff
In case you haven't seen it, I give you the Subservient Chicken.
Sure, you can make it sit, roll over, run about, etc. But the real fun for me is giving it commands that it doesn't understand.
Examples:
1) Demonstrate schadenfreude
2)Hubris
3)Weep bitterly at the futility of it all
4) Be obsessive compulsive
5) Collapse in orgiastic ecstasy
6) Position yourself as a moderate Democrat, until you're elected.
Okay, I didn't actually try the last one.
Sure, you can make it sit, roll over, run about, etc. But the real fun for me is giving it commands that it doesn't understand.
Examples:
1) Demonstrate schadenfreude
2)Hubris
3)Weep bitterly at the futility of it all
4) Be obsessive compulsive
5) Collapse in orgiastic ecstasy
6) Position yourself as a moderate Democrat, until you're elected.
Okay, I didn't actually try the last one.
If a tree falls in the woods...
No, scratch that. If a scandal goes deliberately and consistently unreported, does it make a sound?
Roger Simon keeps Oil-For-Food alive, and laments the lack of domestic coverage, while noting that the free Iraqi press is digging into it like a dog chasing a rabbit down a burrow.
Where is the coverage?
Why is this story being ignored?
Where is the outrage?
I believe Oil-For-Food lies at the very heart of the Iraq matter. I believe that certain foreign powers *cough*weasels*cough* intended to keep Iraq in stasis, with Saddam still in power, and sanctions still in place. That way they could enjoy their under the table kickbacks while still appearing nobly compassionate.
If the modern Left could manage, just for a moment, to indulge in a thought contrary to its firmly entrenched schema, its constituents just might see that there's a lot of Iraqi blood on a lot of hands, and that those hands do not belong exclusively, or even in majority, to Americans.
If the Left could remove their blinders, even for just a moment, they could ask our enlightened Euro allies about why it was so damned important to keep the status quo in Iraq.
Roger Simon keeps Oil-For-Food alive, and laments the lack of domestic coverage, while noting that the free Iraqi press is digging into it like a dog chasing a rabbit down a burrow.
Where is the coverage?
Why is this story being ignored?
Where is the outrage?
I believe Oil-For-Food lies at the very heart of the Iraq matter. I believe that certain foreign powers *cough*weasels*cough* intended to keep Iraq in stasis, with Saddam still in power, and sanctions still in place. That way they could enjoy their under the table kickbacks while still appearing nobly compassionate.
If the modern Left could manage, just for a moment, to indulge in a thought contrary to its firmly entrenched schema, its constituents just might see that there's a lot of Iraqi blood on a lot of hands, and that those hands do not belong exclusively, or even in majority, to Americans.
If the Left could remove their blinders, even for just a moment, they could ask our enlightened Euro allies about why it was so damned important to keep the status quo in Iraq.
Friday, July 23, 2004
Well, here's a shocker...**Updated**
The Indigo Girls don't like W. (Found via Famous Idiot)
Somehow, I'm really not offended by this. When you buy into the Indigo Girls, you pretty much know what you're getting into. I can't imagine any conservative throwing away their IG cd's, as they most likely don't own any. Even in my own leftier days, they were too one-note for me.
This is going to sound terrible, and I apologize in advance. But honestly, between the Indigo Girls, Michael Stipe, and Andrew Sullivan, I'm starting to think that at least some gay people filter EVERYTHING through their gay-ness. Sullivan supports Bush and the War on Terror, until the gay marriage thing comes up, and now he's intimating that he's switched horses.
News Flash, Andy: Given a choice between a man who doesn't want you getting married, and a culture who'd gladly kill you just for being gay, I'd go with Door #1 if I were you. How much of a voice do you think you'd be granted under sharia?
Honestly, do these people EVER think of something outside their pet issues? I'm not begrudging the struggle for gay rights, but seriously, doesn't life come before liberty?
The way I see it: fighting terrorism is issue #1,2, and 3. I don't want to ever see again what I saw that day, regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation, or politics of my fellow Americans. Their lives matter, even if we don't agree on some things. And I'm aghast at how so many are pushing their pet cause ahead of survival.
Personally, I'm okay with gay civil unions. Confer upon them all the legal priviledges of marriage, except the name. For heterosexuals, marriage is recognized by the state as a civil union, and by the church. I'm okay with asking the state to recognize a gay union, but it's unfair to ask the church to do the same. More than that, it would be government meddling in religious doctrine.
But that's a debate for another day. First things first. There's a whole lotta bad people out there who need killing; and for the good of all of our people, be they straight, gay, or somewhere in-between, I fully expect my government to make this the first priority. Everything else is negotiable, AFTER the threat to our very lives is dealt with.
**Update** Well, it's official. Sullivan's going for Kerry. And, as LGF's Charles points out, it's in a long-winded rationalization that studiously avoids the real reason for the switch. Congrats, Andy, by endorsing Kerry, you've placed yourself in rather rarefied company. Hey, if he's good enough for Chirac . . .
Somehow, I'm really not offended by this. When you buy into the Indigo Girls, you pretty much know what you're getting into. I can't imagine any conservative throwing away their IG cd's, as they most likely don't own any. Even in my own leftier days, they were too one-note for me.
This is going to sound terrible, and I apologize in advance. But honestly, between the Indigo Girls, Michael Stipe, and Andrew Sullivan, I'm starting to think that at least some gay people filter EVERYTHING through their gay-ness. Sullivan supports Bush and the War on Terror, until the gay marriage thing comes up, and now he's intimating that he's switched horses.
News Flash, Andy: Given a choice between a man who doesn't want you getting married, and a culture who'd gladly kill you just for being gay, I'd go with Door #1 if I were you. How much of a voice do you think you'd be granted under sharia?
Honestly, do these people EVER think of something outside their pet issues? I'm not begrudging the struggle for gay rights, but seriously, doesn't life come before liberty?
The way I see it: fighting terrorism is issue #1,2, and 3. I don't want to ever see again what I saw that day, regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation, or politics of my fellow Americans. Their lives matter, even if we don't agree on some things. And I'm aghast at how so many are pushing their pet cause ahead of survival.
Personally, I'm okay with gay civil unions. Confer upon them all the legal priviledges of marriage, except the name. For heterosexuals, marriage is recognized by the state as a civil union, and by the church. I'm okay with asking the state to recognize a gay union, but it's unfair to ask the church to do the same. More than that, it would be government meddling in religious doctrine.
But that's a debate for another day. First things first. There's a whole lotta bad people out there who need killing; and for the good of all of our people, be they straight, gay, or somewhere in-between, I fully expect my government to make this the first priority. Everything else is negotiable, AFTER the threat to our very lives is dealt with.
**Update** Well, it's official. Sullivan's going for Kerry. And, as LGF's Charles points out, it's in a long-winded rationalization that studiously avoids the real reason for the switch. Congrats, Andy, by endorsing Kerry, you've placed yourself in rather rarefied company. Hey, if he's good enough for Chirac . . .
Thursday, July 22, 2004
I got nothing
Call it blogger's block. Sigh. So much to bitch about, with no words flowing. Tell you what, I'll put up a list of all the things I was going to write about, and you can imagine a profanity-laced snarkfest, 'kay?
Joe Wilson
Sandy "The Hamburglar" Berger
Security at the DNC and RNC
The 9/11 report
Wahabbism
People letting their dogs drop dookie on my yard
Ground squirrels, and their insatiable lust for bird feed
Jadakiss
Linda "Ms Swan" Ronstadt
The tubby bitch
Amazon.com taking a week for an order, when everything I bought is in stock
Feh.
July 22
Cardio
Time: 1:20:00
2004 Total:101:25:00
Weights + Cardio: 116 Days (40 to go)
Joe Wilson
Sandy "The Hamburglar" Berger
Security at the DNC and RNC
The 9/11 report
Wahabbism
People letting their dogs drop dookie on my yard
Ground squirrels, and their insatiable lust for bird feed
Jadakiss
Linda "Ms Swan" Ronstadt
The tubby bitch
Amazon.com taking a week for an order, when everything I bought is in stock
Feh.
July 22
Cardio
Time: 1:20:00
2004 Total:101:25:00
Weights + Cardio: 116 Days (40 to go)
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Potential
I watched the premiere ep of Rescue Me after my walk tonight, and I must say, it looks promising. And unlike the other original F/X shows (The Shield and Nip/Tuck), I don't feel like I need to take a shower after watching it.
July 21
Cardio
Time: 1:00:00
2004 Total: 100:05:00
Weights + Cardio: 115 Days (41 to go)
July 21
Cardio
Time: 1:00:00
2004 Total: 100:05:00
Weights + Cardio: 115 Days (41 to go)
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Reason #3 for voting for W:
He actually has a platform.
Bush gave a pretty good stump speech in CR today.
He hit a lot of points that I liked:
*Vigorous prosecution of the War on Terror
*Not putting the US Armed Forces on the UN leash
*Tax cuts for individuals and small business
*Faith-based initiatives
*Free trade
*Alternative sources of energy, ethanol, bio-diesel, etc (Sure, it's playing to the crowd that stands to gain from this, but hey, if it keeps money out of the oil ticks' hands, then I say "Mush on.")
One "meh" thing:
*More of that same-old same-old "Religion of Peace" hijacked by evil people, yadda, yadda, yadda
He's doing Q&A right now, and doing fairly well. I'm actually looking forward to the Bush/Kerry debates; I think he could stand on his own two feet.
Update: Here's the AP's take on the appearance.
Bush gave a pretty good stump speech in CR today.
He hit a lot of points that I liked:
*Vigorous prosecution of the War on Terror
*Not putting the US Armed Forces on the UN leash
*Tax cuts for individuals and small business
*Faith-based initiatives
*Free trade
*Alternative sources of energy, ethanol, bio-diesel, etc (Sure, it's playing to the crowd that stands to gain from this, but hey, if it keeps money out of the oil ticks' hands, then I say "Mush on.")
One "meh" thing:
*More of that same-old same-old "Religion of Peace" hijacked by evil people, yadda, yadda, yadda
He's doing Q&A right now, and doing fairly well. I'm actually looking forward to the Bush/Kerry debates; I think he could stand on his own two feet.
Update: Here's the AP's take on the appearance.
Reason #2 for voting for W
He tells it like it is.
I don't think it's on par with Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech, or even Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech, but it's still an important statement. Where the eye of POTUS wanders, the world follows; the last thing the mad Mullahs want is the eyes of the world on them. If the dissenters there catch even the lightest whiff of support from outside, it may be enough to spark a revolution. Especially with a newly democratic neighbor as an example to follow.
Fall, dominoes, fall.
I don't think it's on par with Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech, or even Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech, but it's still an important statement. Where the eye of POTUS wanders, the world follows; the last thing the mad Mullahs want is the eyes of the world on them. If the dissenters there catch even the lightest whiff of support from outside, it may be enough to spark a revolution. Especially with a newly democratic neighbor as an example to follow.
Fall, dominoes, fall.
Monday, July 19, 2004
Now Reading:
The Sword of the Prophet, by Serge Trifkovic
In its implications, this book is probably the most disturbing thing I've ever read. I need to bone up on my history, and my Koran, because I need backround before I render judgment.
Let me be clear: it has been my contention for a while now that the Arab Muslim world is in need of a reformation (actually, I think I used the word "enema"). I've always pictured our enemies as deluded fools, duped by the oil ticks, who use their religion to maintain, or even increase, their temporal power. And I've long considered Wahabbist dogma to be the means by which Islamic rulers keep their followers on a leash.
The question I'm forced to ask, and the one I will be asking all the way through the book, is: "What if Islam itself is the problem?" I heretofore never considered that the problem could very well be intrinsic to the religion.
Trifkovic paints a picture of an entire culture built around the id whims of a sheep-herder cum conquerer, whose "revelations from Allah" allowed him to do whatever the hell he wanted.
In terms of belief structure, Allah is omnipresent and unknowable. Prayer is a duty, not a means of communicating. All are predestined to fall into torment, or enjoy an eternity filled with suspiciously earthly delights (72 virgins, anyone?).
With predestination comes the lack of free will. One does not love Allah by choice; rather, one loves Allah because that is the only thing he was created to do.
There is only one purpose: to serve Allah, and to spread Islam until it rules over the entire Earth. The infidels that get in the way can A) convert, B) pay dhimmi taxes (thereby funding the jihad), or C) die.
I honestly don't know if Trifkovic's book actually describes the whole of Islam, but I have my sneaking suspicions. Credibility is lent to his thesis by current events. Let me put it to you this way: if you believed in something strongly enough, you would die for it, yes? I would say "Yes, IF NECESSARY." Contrast that with your average Hamas guided munition (ie: a suicide bomber). Death is the objective, and it is the first resort. A suicide bomber lives in a world where eternal sex and nice clothes (I'm not joking) are the payoff for helping Allah subjugate the world.
Let me put it to you another way: Muslims are at war with Christians in the West, and with Hindus and Buddhists in India. As a matter of fact, they've come into conflict with EVERY alien culture they've encountered.
Everybody has at least one asshole in their life; if you look around, and can't find the asshole, odds are it's you.
So, like I said, I have my suspicions. I think I'm going to finish Trifkovic's book, and maybe a few others, before I pass judgment.
One last happy thought. Suppose it's all true. Suppose sharia someday reigns supreme over the entire world. At least I'll have the posthumous satisfaction of knowing that the apologists and the cultural relativists will be first against the wall.
In its implications, this book is probably the most disturbing thing I've ever read. I need to bone up on my history, and my Koran, because I need backround before I render judgment.
Let me be clear: it has been my contention for a while now that the Arab Muslim world is in need of a reformation (actually, I think I used the word "enema"). I've always pictured our enemies as deluded fools, duped by the oil ticks, who use their religion to maintain, or even increase, their temporal power. And I've long considered Wahabbist dogma to be the means by which Islamic rulers keep their followers on a leash.
The question I'm forced to ask, and the one I will be asking all the way through the book, is: "What if Islam itself is the problem?" I heretofore never considered that the problem could very well be intrinsic to the religion.
Trifkovic paints a picture of an entire culture built around the id whims of a sheep-herder cum conquerer, whose "revelations from Allah" allowed him to do whatever the hell he wanted.
In terms of belief structure, Allah is omnipresent and unknowable. Prayer is a duty, not a means of communicating. All are predestined to fall into torment, or enjoy an eternity filled with suspiciously earthly delights (72 virgins, anyone?).
With predestination comes the lack of free will. One does not love Allah by choice; rather, one loves Allah because that is the only thing he was created to do.
There is only one purpose: to serve Allah, and to spread Islam until it rules over the entire Earth. The infidels that get in the way can A) convert, B) pay dhimmi taxes (thereby funding the jihad), or C) die.
I honestly don't know if Trifkovic's book actually describes the whole of Islam, but I have my sneaking suspicions. Credibility is lent to his thesis by current events. Let me put it to you this way: if you believed in something strongly enough, you would die for it, yes? I would say "Yes, IF NECESSARY." Contrast that with your average Hamas guided munition (ie: a suicide bomber). Death is the objective, and it is the first resort. A suicide bomber lives in a world where eternal sex and nice clothes (I'm not joking) are the payoff for helping Allah subjugate the world.
Let me put it to you another way: Muslims are at war with Christians in the West, and with Hindus and Buddhists in India. As a matter of fact, they've come into conflict with EVERY alien culture they've encountered.
Everybody has at least one asshole in their life; if you look around, and can't find the asshole, odds are it's you.
So, like I said, I have my suspicions. I think I'm going to finish Trifkovic's book, and maybe a few others, before I pass judgment.
One last happy thought. Suppose it's all true. Suppose sharia someday reigns supreme over the entire world. At least I'll have the posthumous satisfaction of knowing that the apologists and the cultural relativists will be first against the wall.
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Watching "I Love the 90's" and mumbling quietly to myself
1993. Dr Dre and Snoop Doggy Dogg. The Chronic. Exclaims comedienne Loni Love: "Thank God for Dr. Dre! Else we'd still be listening to grunge."
True. We'd also, however, still be listening to socially conscious hip-hop instead of the vacuous bitches and bling-bling swill that dominates the airwaves now.
It occurred to me recently, when a 2 Live Crew song came up on my Launch station, how this music,which was so taboo a decade or so ago, now seems more like an eerily prescient parody of today's popular music.
1993. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Why yes, I am the poster child for naivete. I honestly never once noticed how the Black Ranger was African-American, and the Yellow Ranger was Asian. I guess I don't think in those terms.
1998. Soccer Moms. Yes, I can see how parents who actually invest time and energy in their kids are worthy of ridicule.
Can't wait to see "I Love the 00's!" I'm sure the breezy Vh1 format of cleverly selected clips coupled with deadpan quips from Hal Sparks and Michael Ian Black will make delightfully comedic hay out of 9/11.
Note to Vh1: I'm sick of this format that you've developed. Your network is surely the master of pioneering a format, then running it into the ground.
True. We'd also, however, still be listening to socially conscious hip-hop instead of the vacuous bitches and bling-bling swill that dominates the airwaves now.
It occurred to me recently, when a 2 Live Crew song came up on my Launch station, how this music,which was so taboo a decade or so ago, now seems more like an eerily prescient parody of today's popular music.
1993. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Why yes, I am the poster child for naivete. I honestly never once noticed how the Black Ranger was African-American, and the Yellow Ranger was Asian. I guess I don't think in those terms.
1998. Soccer Moms. Yes, I can see how parents who actually invest time and energy in their kids are worthy of ridicule.
Can't wait to see "I Love the 00's!" I'm sure the breezy Vh1 format of cleverly selected clips coupled with deadpan quips from Hal Sparks and Michael Ian Black will make delightfully comedic hay out of 9/11.
Note to Vh1: I'm sick of this format that you've developed. Your network is surely the master of pioneering a format, then running it into the ground.
Dude, you're harshing my mellow Updatedx2
I read an interesting post on Cop Talk yesterday regarding legalization of marijuana. It's a subject that I haven't really made up my mind about, and I see the value of both sides of the debate. A sampling of my own thoughts:
Pro-legalization
1) Marijuana may be the least of all chemical evils, but it can still do harm to a person. I've seen enough burnouts, and people who've smoked themselves retarded, that I believe the studies that connect marijuana use with a decline in cognitive function.
2) The slippery slope. If we regard pot as harmless fun, doesn't that open up a whole can of worms regarding other, more dangerous drugs? First, it's "We should legalize marijuana because it's not as bad as alcohol;" then it's "We should legalize cocaine, because it's not as bad as meth." Most of the arguments I made in the Pro section could be applied to any other illegal drug.
3) Uncertainties. How will we keep it away from minors?
Are the studies that suggest marijuana is a "gateway drug" accurate?
How do police officers test for someone driving under the influence?
What about second-hand smoke (ie: the contact high)?
What about homes where the children are still growing, and their parents are using? Wouldn't those kids be more likely to grow up and use?
It seems to me that legalization would be far more than just changing one law. It would be a significant cultural change, and I don't think anyone has really thought about all of the ripples that would follow.
So, my friends, as you can see, I'm still up in the air about it. I've no use for the stuff, but is that enough reason to naysay? Hell, maybe I'm a hypocrite; I don't want government regulating fast food, but I'm squeamish about government NOT regulating weed. At this point, I just don't know.
Well, great. The proverbial dog has chased its own tail, and I'm right back where I started, and no closer to taking a stand. Damn nuance.
**UPDATE** Kris at Random Mentality puts some thought into the matter, and makes a helluva argument.
**UPDATE #2** State 29 gives his take. I'm presuming 29 is a he, apologies if I am mistaken.
July 17
Cardio
Time: 1:03:00
2004 total: 99:05:00
Weights + Cardio: 114 Days (42 to go)
Pro-legalization
1) Even if it's just legalized for medicinal purposes, the US government stands to make a fortune on this. Imagine this: farmers grow the wacky weed, and the government buys it for double the cost of say, soybeans. Uncle Sam then turns around and sells it to private industry for a tidy profit. Industry sells it to consumers for a hefty profit, along with the inevitable exorbitant govenment sin tax. The stuff could be sold at half the current street value, and still be a cash cow, and Uncle Sam gets paid twice for it.
2) The profits from such an enterprise could be used to seal the borders, and fund DEA and Customs. Considering how easy it is for people to smuggle drugs across the borders, or in shipping containers, wouldn't we be better off redoubling our efforts there? It's only a matter of time before something a lot more menacing than drugs gets smuggled in, and used on Americans.
3) If the wacky weed were ever legalized, wouldn't that completely devalue the stuff smuggled in? Why would a user pay more, when he could pay less, and have it be legal? That's less money in the hands of rather unsavory people.
4) I'm just going to quote Cop Talk here:
Anti-Legalization* I’ve never had to fight anyone under the influence of marijuana.
* I’ve never been to a loud marijuana party.
* There has never been a marijuana overdose.
1) Marijuana may be the least of all chemical evils, but it can still do harm to a person. I've seen enough burnouts, and people who've smoked themselves retarded, that I believe the studies that connect marijuana use with a decline in cognitive function.
2) The slippery slope. If we regard pot as harmless fun, doesn't that open up a whole can of worms regarding other, more dangerous drugs? First, it's "We should legalize marijuana because it's not as bad as alcohol;" then it's "We should legalize cocaine, because it's not as bad as meth." Most of the arguments I made in the Pro section could be applied to any other illegal drug.
3) Uncertainties. How will we keep it away from minors?
Are the studies that suggest marijuana is a "gateway drug" accurate?
How do police officers test for someone driving under the influence?
What about second-hand smoke (ie: the contact high)?
What about homes where the children are still growing, and their parents are using? Wouldn't those kids be more likely to grow up and use?
It seems to me that legalization would be far more than just changing one law. It would be a significant cultural change, and I don't think anyone has really thought about all of the ripples that would follow.
So, my friends, as you can see, I'm still up in the air about it. I've no use for the stuff, but is that enough reason to naysay? Hell, maybe I'm a hypocrite; I don't want government regulating fast food, but I'm squeamish about government NOT regulating weed. At this point, I just don't know.
Well, great. The proverbial dog has chased its own tail, and I'm right back where I started, and no closer to taking a stand. Damn nuance.
**UPDATE** Kris at Random Mentality puts some thought into the matter, and makes a helluva argument.
**UPDATE #2** State 29 gives his take. I'm presuming 29 is a he, apologies if I am mistaken.
July 17
Cardio
Time: 1:03:00
2004 total: 99:05:00
Weights + Cardio: 114 Days (42 to go)
Friday, July 16, 2004
I'm sure it's just for medicinal purposes
Big Opium Bust in Iowa
It occurs to me that an operation like this should've been detected sooner; say around, oh I don't know, a few hundred plants. Way to go, Crockett and Tubbs.
Actually, 22,000 plants probably isn't all that much. That'd likely be just enough to cover Iowa City's needs.
I'm thinking we need a new state motto. Some possibilities:
Iowa: No longer just for crankheads!
Iowa; or as we like to call it: New Chicago.
Move over, corn! Now there's something meatier!
Hey, if it was good enough for the Taliban. . .
Note: I never said any of these would actually be funny.
From the KCRG-TV9 Cedar Rapids NewsroomI'm sure the Yangs just really love poppyseed muffins.
A rare find for police in the central Iowa Town of Pella.
Officers raided a home this week to find nearly 22,000 opium plants.
Now three members of the yang family face drug charges.
Officers say the bust is rare because of the size of the operation.
It occurs to me that an operation like this should've been detected sooner; say around, oh I don't know, a few hundred plants. Way to go, Crockett and Tubbs.
Actually, 22,000 plants probably isn't all that much. That'd likely be just enough to cover Iowa City's needs.
I'm thinking we need a new state motto. Some possibilities:
Iowa: No longer just for crankheads!
Iowa; or as we like to call it: New Chicago.
Move over, corn! Now there's something meatier!
Hey, if it was good enough for the Taliban. . .
Note: I never said any of these would actually be funny.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
I just don't get it . . .
Teacher charged with having sex with teen.
We're not allowed to kill people we don't like, but hey, if the idea's exciting, then go for it.
She couldn't just cheat on her husband, no. There's a whole world of perversion out there for someone with an itch to scratch. But nooooooo, she just HAD to get her jollies this way, and upholding the honor and integrity of our profession be damned. It's not like she'd have any difficulty finding someone of legal age for hanky panky.
I have little tolerance for peers who choose this course of action. They make us all look bad. When I'm not hearing about how our schools have failed so miserably, I'm hearing about people like this.
Teaching's not just a job, and it's not just an adventure. Let me put it this way: when my end comes, I'll know that I tried to make the world a better place by empowering our children, so that they can be happy and productive in their lives. It's not the Salk vaccine, but as nobility goes, it's not too shabby.
Some may argue that there's no harm done. The boy is certainly not likely to cry foul; after all, he hit the 14-year old boy equivalent of the Powerball jackpot. The fact remains, though, that someone that young cannot make an informed consensual decision. Any adult can look damned impressive to a child(Ooh, look! I have a car! And a place of my own!), but to actually abuse a child is about as low as it gets. And abuse is exactly what it is.
Stupid, stupid girl. I hope you get serious time for this.
The boy told detectives that Lafave told him that her months-old marriage was in trouble and that she was attracted to him because having sex with him was not allowed.
We're not allowed to kill people we don't like, but hey, if the idea's exciting, then go for it.
She couldn't just cheat on her husband, no. There's a whole world of perversion out there for someone with an itch to scratch. But nooooooo, she just HAD to get her jollies this way, and upholding the honor and integrity of our profession be damned. It's not like she'd have any difficulty finding someone of legal age for hanky panky.
I have little tolerance for peers who choose this course of action. They make us all look bad. When I'm not hearing about how our schools have failed so miserably, I'm hearing about people like this.
Teaching's not just a job, and it's not just an adventure. Let me put it this way: when my end comes, I'll know that I tried to make the world a better place by empowering our children, so that they can be happy and productive in their lives. It's not the Salk vaccine, but as nobility goes, it's not too shabby.
Some may argue that there's no harm done. The boy is certainly not likely to cry foul; after all, he hit the 14-year old boy equivalent of the Powerball jackpot. The fact remains, though, that someone that young cannot make an informed consensual decision. Any adult can look damned impressive to a child(Ooh, look! I have a car! And a place of my own!), but to actually abuse a child is about as low as it gets. And abuse is exactly what it is.
Stupid, stupid girl. I hope you get serious time for this.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Somewhere, Tim Robbins is rambling about "a chill wind"
Whoopi Goldberg has been unceremoniously dumped from her endorsement deal with Slim-Fast.
The dumping comes after her remarks at a recent Kerry fundraiser.
Whoopi's take?
As my students are wont to say: ummmm . . . no.
The RNC had nothing to do with this. Republican consumers had everything to do with this. Consider:
I think it's safe to say that roughly 45% of the population will vote for Bush, no matter what. Some may hold their noses while they do it, but they will vote for him, just the same.
That's nearly half the population. Millions upon millions of voters. And while some may regard Bush as the lesser of two evils, some admire the man, and admire his unflagging determination to win the War on Terror.
If you're the owner of Slim-Fast, or any large company, your goal is to move product. To make money. If for some reason, the representative of your product suddenly alienates nearly half of your consumer base, you've got problems. Sure, not all of that 45% would care enough about it to boycott Slim-Fast, but enough would to cut into the bottom line to the tune of millions of dollars.
Just ask France. A few hundred thousand people in America decide not to buy French wine, and suddenly their economy is in a slump. (It's off-topic, so I won't tell it here, but some time I want to relate a story my Dad told me about how the French are stripping the country of origin off their industrial products.)
Slim-Fast did what any responsible business would: they dropped her like a bad habit.
And the worst part, the really galling part for Whoopi: she brought it on herself. She can fancy it to be her right as an artist, but her comments were in poor taste, and served only to further diminish the level of political discourse in this nation.
Score another one for the blogosphere! Oh, how I love thee. From Jayson Blair to Oil-For-Food to this recent brouhaha, the blogosphere has spread the stories that the dominant media tried to bury.
The dumping comes after her remarks at a recent Kerry fundraiser.
Whoopi's take?
"I only wish that the Republican re-election committee would spend as much time working on the economy as they seem to be spending trying to harm my pocketbook," Goldberg said.
As my students are wont to say: ummmm . . . no.
The RNC had nothing to do with this. Republican consumers had everything to do with this. Consider:
I think it's safe to say that roughly 45% of the population will vote for Bush, no matter what. Some may hold their noses while they do it, but they will vote for him, just the same.
That's nearly half the population. Millions upon millions of voters. And while some may regard Bush as the lesser of two evils, some admire the man, and admire his unflagging determination to win the War on Terror.
If you're the owner of Slim-Fast, or any large company, your goal is to move product. To make money. If for some reason, the representative of your product suddenly alienates nearly half of your consumer base, you've got problems. Sure, not all of that 45% would care enough about it to boycott Slim-Fast, but enough would to cut into the bottom line to the tune of millions of dollars.
Just ask France. A few hundred thousand people in America decide not to buy French wine, and suddenly their economy is in a slump. (It's off-topic, so I won't tell it here, but some time I want to relate a story my Dad told me about how the French are stripping the country of origin off their industrial products.)
Slim-Fast did what any responsible business would: they dropped her like a bad habit.
And the worst part, the really galling part for Whoopi: she brought it on herself. She can fancy it to be her right as an artist, but her comments were in poor taste, and served only to further diminish the level of political discourse in this nation.
Score another one for the blogosphere! Oh, how I love thee. From Jayson Blair to Oil-For-Food to this recent brouhaha, the blogosphere has spread the stories that the dominant media tried to bury.
Monday, July 12, 2004
Sunday, July 11, 2004
Geek drool-fest
If this Ebay auction is legit, I just may have to hold up a Kwik-E-Mart.
Just Kidding. I'd have to hold up several hundred Kwik-E-Marts (too lazy), sell my firstborn along with five pints of blood(no firstborn as yet, and I don't like needles), and recruit a plucky gang of ne'er-do-wells in an attempt to rob three casinos at the same time (don't know enough ne'er-do-wells).
(Found via www.fark.com)
Just Kidding. I'd have to hold up several hundred Kwik-E-Marts (too lazy), sell my firstborn along with five pints of blood(no firstborn as yet, and I don't like needles), and recruit a plucky gang of ne'er-do-wells in an attempt to rob three casinos at the same time (don't know enough ne'er-do-wells).
(Found via www.fark.com)
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Log
For goodness' sake, why aren't you reading Roger Simon this very instant? (On the link bar------->)
Insightful posts coupled with thoughtful commenters make this blog a must read.
And Roger gets special kudos in my book for keeping the Oil-For-Food story front and center. I doubt I'd have heard of it had he not been so vigilant.
Go. Read. Now.
Once you've had your fill, and are ready to return to the wandering musings of an irreverent man-child with a potty mouth, I'll be here for you.
Good night, and God bless.
July 10
Weights
Weights + Cardio: 112 days (44 to go)
Insightful posts coupled with thoughtful commenters make this blog a must read.
And Roger gets special kudos in my book for keeping the Oil-For-Food story front and center. I doubt I'd have heard of it had he not been so vigilant.
Go. Read. Now.
Once you've had your fill, and are ready to return to the wandering musings of an irreverent man-child with a potty mouth, I'll be here for you.
Good night, and God bless.
July 10
Weights
Weights + Cardio: 112 days (44 to go)
Friday, July 09, 2004
Touchy-gate?
While I find myself somewhat bemused by Kerry's ham-handed attempts to convey "genuine" affection for Edwards, I'm amazed that it's newsworthy.
Honestly, I think this is something that has bubbled up from the blogosphere, through Drudge, and onto cable news (CNBC, Fox News).
Now, if it makes it onto Leno tonight, then, my friend, it's got legs. At least for a few days. I would hate, though, for this to become a central feature of the Bush message.
Don't get me wrong; I'm refreshingly lowbrow, and I'm certainly enjoying some of the jabs at the expense of the android candidate who became a real live boy overnight. Some of it's frickin' hilarious(found via Tusk and Talon). But it's not substantive. It says nothing about Kerry's voting record, or his beliefs, nor is it a predictor of his likely behavior as president. (Although . . . maybe this is what the Middle East peace process needs. Maybe Arafat and Sharon are just afraid of expressing their affections, and Kerry could be the facilitator for their encounter group. Quick, whose turn is it to get the talking stick?)
If Kerry goes down, let it be because of his message. Or his record. I'd rather not hear Left-wing boilerplate about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy media character assassination squads and the rampant homophobia that shows how evil our country really is, for the next four years. No, let it be something more substantive that sinks Kerry. God knows there's enough there.
Touchy-gate reminds me a lot of Dukakis, and how he helped to sink his own ship with that ridiculous tank photo-op.
Stump speeches get buried below the fold. Images get replayed forever.
Honestly, I think this is something that has bubbled up from the blogosphere, through Drudge, and onto cable news (CNBC, Fox News).
Now, if it makes it onto Leno tonight, then, my friend, it's got legs. At least for a few days. I would hate, though, for this to become a central feature of the Bush message.
Don't get me wrong; I'm refreshingly lowbrow, and I'm certainly enjoying some of the jabs at the expense of the android candidate who became a real live boy overnight. Some of it's frickin' hilarious(found via Tusk and Talon). But it's not substantive. It says nothing about Kerry's voting record, or his beliefs, nor is it a predictor of his likely behavior as president. (Although . . . maybe this is what the Middle East peace process needs. Maybe Arafat and Sharon are just afraid of expressing their affections, and Kerry could be the facilitator for their encounter group. Quick, whose turn is it to get the talking stick?)
If Kerry goes down, let it be because of his message. Or his record. I'd rather not hear Left-wing boilerplate about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy media character assassination squads and the rampant homophobia that shows how evil our country really is, for the next four years. No, let it be something more substantive that sinks Kerry. God knows there's enough there.
Touchy-gate reminds me a lot of Dukakis, and how he helped to sink his own ship with that ridiculous tank photo-op.
Stump speeches get buried below the fold. Images get replayed forever.
Schadenfreuede
The host of CNN's American Morning reported this morning that the source of the NY Post's widely ridiculed (and deservedly so) report that Kerry chose Gephardt was none other than Rupert Murdoch.
In a virtuoso display of journalistic integrity, the host then goes on to mention that Newscorp owns both the Post and Fox News.
Twice.
You see, mentioning it just once wouldn't have been enough for the average viewer to catch: 1) the contempt Fox News gets from "legitimate" news sources, and 2) the implication that everything under the Newscorp umbrella may be similarly inept.
Because, obviously, it's all owned by a conservative. And conservos are dumb. And mean. And bad. And dumb.
In a virtuoso display of journalistic integrity, the host then goes on to mention that Newscorp owns both the Post and Fox News.
Twice.
You see, mentioning it just once wouldn't have been enough for the average viewer to catch: 1) the contempt Fox News gets from "legitimate" news sources, and 2) the implication that everything under the Newscorp umbrella may be similarly inept.
Because, obviously, it's all owned by a conservative. And conservos are dumb. And mean. And bad. And dumb.
Breaking news
The world court rules Israel'ssecurity fence illegal.
In a related story, Israel doesn't give a rodent's rectum.
And in further developments, the world court can kiss my pimply ass.
In a related story, Israel doesn't give a rodent's rectum.
And in further developments, the world court can kiss my pimply ass.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Like I didn't know this was gonna happen
29 has a good round-up of the coming stink regarding the Fridley Theater chain, and their refusal to show the tubby bitch's movie.
Sooner or later, everyone's going to get rounded up to see this turd. Because it's an IMPORTANT movie, and because it's every American's duty to reward the tubby bitch for his behavior. And sure there are some bits that may be the teeniest bit untrue, but it's SO WELL MADE.
Did I miss anything?
By the way, on Scarborough Country yesterday, Christopher Hitchens absolutely demolished Moore flack Chris Lehane.
I know I'm out of touch with the Left, and maybe even the Center, but could any moderate have listened to Lehane's shrill braying, and rapid-fire delivery of every anti-Bush meme, and honestly thought that he could possibly be even the slightest bit right?
I don't always agree with Hitchens, but I'll admit he is a formidable man to debate. Honestly, watching Lehane get his undies tied neatly into a bundle reminded me of the signature line from the Untouchables. Verily, he brought a proverbial knife to a gunfight.
Regarding F911, all I'll say is: the truth speaks for itself, and it defends itself. If something must be proven with a deception, then odds are it's not true.
Sooner or later, everyone's going to get rounded up to see this turd. Because it's an IMPORTANT movie, and because it's every American's duty to reward the tubby bitch for his behavior. And sure there are some bits that may be the teeniest bit untrue, but it's SO WELL MADE.
Did I miss anything?
By the way, on Scarborough Country yesterday, Christopher Hitchens absolutely demolished Moore flack Chris Lehane.
I know I'm out of touch with the Left, and maybe even the Center, but could any moderate have listened to Lehane's shrill braying, and rapid-fire delivery of every anti-Bush meme, and honestly thought that he could possibly be even the slightest bit right?
I don't always agree with Hitchens, but I'll admit he is a formidable man to debate. Honestly, watching Lehane get his undies tied neatly into a bundle reminded me of the signature line from the Untouchables. Verily, he brought a proverbial knife to a gunfight.
Regarding F911, all I'll say is: the truth speaks for itself, and it defends itself. If something must be proven with a deception, then odds are it's not true.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Kerry-Edwards vs. Bush-Cheney?
Jeff at Tusk and Talon posts about the selection of John Edwards as the veep candidate, and gives a very convincing argument for why Bush will keep Cheney on the ticket.
I haven't written about it, because, well, I'm just ignorant enough about Edwards to say something stupid. I've only seen the message, not the voting record behind it. I do think it's possible he will outshine Kerry in likability; whether this negatively affects the Kerry campaign, we shall see.
Still, I would've liked to have seen Lieberman on the ticket; that way, in the event that Kerry wins, I could console myself, knowing the somebody in the chain of command had principles and at least a lick of sense.
I'm just glad it's over. If I had to listen to another day of the little media hen sewing circle fairly drooling over the possibilities of who Kerry will choose, I think I'd have gone mental.
July 4
Cardio
Time: 0:55:00
2004 Total: 98:57:00
July 5
Weights Day ?
Weights + Cardio: 111 days (45 to go)
I haven't written about it, because, well, I'm just ignorant enough about Edwards to say something stupid. I've only seen the message, not the voting record behind it. I do think it's possible he will outshine Kerry in likability; whether this negatively affects the Kerry campaign, we shall see.
Still, I would've liked to have seen Lieberman on the ticket; that way, in the event that Kerry wins, I could console myself, knowing the somebody in the chain of command had principles and at least a lick of sense.
I'm just glad it's over. If I had to listen to another day of the little media hen sewing circle fairly drooling over the possibilities of who Kerry will choose, I think I'd have gone mental.
July 4
Cardio
Time: 0:55:00
2004 Total: 98:57:00
July 5
Weights Day ?
Weights + Cardio: 111 days (45 to go)
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Awwwww!
Take a look at Roger Simon's beautiful little girl, and tell me you don't want to give her a world where she can grow up to be whoever she wants. I dare you.
F911 Round-Up
The tubby bitch has everyone up in arms, on one side or the other.
Victor Davis Hanson's take (via LGF)
And . . . the inimitable Mark Steyn sounds off(via Roger L Simon)
Finally, a man who used to work in the WTC, and missed death by an hour, weighs in. (via LGF)
On the other side, read EW's fawning review, or perhaps their positively swooning, yet posing as "tough," interview with the tubby bitch. (You'll need to sign in. Use "spidey" for this week's access code, and just make up an e-mail addy.)
I've been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that as annoying as the Cult of the Infallible Michael Moore is, the thing that really gets me is the softball treatment this film has gotten from most of the news media. In review after review, including the one linked above, the basic message is: "Sure, there are some questionable assertions in the movie, but it's SO WELL MADE."
News flash: you can't polish a turd.
The other thing that bugs me is this meme that F911 is an IMPORTANT MOVIE, and that it's every American's duty to see it.
No, it's not.
This film is not The Killing Fields, or The China Syndrome, or All the President's Men, nor is it equal in measure to any of the classics that happen to have a political message.
It's a hatchet job. It's a two-hour infomercial for the Left. As Moore himself admits in the EW interview, his goal is nothing less than to topple the presidency of GW Bush, by any means necessary. It's not my patriotic duty to see this film; my duty is to choose to see it or not to see it. And if I do choose to see it, I will not put dime one in the tubby bitch's pocket.
*Correction* My post originally stated that Moore states in F911 that his aim is to topple GW Bush's presidency. It was supposed to read that Moore asserted as much in the EW interview. To my knowledge, he makes no such admission in F911. The error has been corrected. Apologies, all.
Victor Davis Hanson's take (via LGF)
And . . . the inimitable Mark Steyn sounds off(via Roger L Simon)
Finally, a man who used to work in the WTC, and missed death by an hour, weighs in. (via LGF)
On the other side, read EW's fawning review, or perhaps their positively swooning, yet posing as "tough," interview with the tubby bitch. (You'll need to sign in. Use "spidey" for this week's access code, and just make up an e-mail addy.)
I've been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that as annoying as the Cult of the Infallible Michael Moore is, the thing that really gets me is the softball treatment this film has gotten from most of the news media. In review after review, including the one linked above, the basic message is: "Sure, there are some questionable assertions in the movie, but it's SO WELL MADE."
News flash: you can't polish a turd.
The other thing that bugs me is this meme that F911 is an IMPORTANT MOVIE, and that it's every American's duty to see it.
No, it's not.
This film is not The Killing Fields, or The China Syndrome, or All the President's Men, nor is it equal in measure to any of the classics that happen to have a political message.
It's a hatchet job. It's a two-hour infomercial for the Left. As Moore himself admits in the EW interview, his goal is nothing less than to topple the presidency of GW Bush, by any means necessary. It's not my patriotic duty to see this film; my duty is to choose to see it or not to see it. And if I do choose to see it, I will not put dime one in the tubby bitch's pocket.
*Correction* My post originally stated that Moore states in F911 that his aim is to topple GW Bush's presidency. It was supposed to read that Moore asserted as much in the EW interview. To my knowledge, he makes no such admission in F911. The error has been corrected. Apologies, all.
Saturday, July 03, 2004
Time for some perspective
If you've spent any time reading my meandering scribbles, you likely have a fair sense that I don't much care for John Kerry.
In fact, I distrust him immensely. He seems to me to be a man who will say or do anything to attain the presidency. He'll say two different and contradictory things, and stand by them. I think he's been positioned as a moderate (ie, "electable"), but in reality he's in thrall to every nutball Lefty special interest permutation there is. Hypothetical President Kerry would also treat the War on Terror like a police action, basically setting us back years in the progress we've made.
Having said that, I also think that if he should win, it will not be the end of the world. Or, more specifically, not the end of the nation.
We're made of sterner stuff than that; and while the inevitable missteps of Hypothetical President Kerry would no doubt further damage the already-wounded culture of values at the heart of this nation (as opposed to the thriving culture of victimology), the nation will endure, as long as there are a few of us who still believe in the dream.
At its finest, our nation is the one place on Earth where a person can go from underclass to upper crust through hard work and perserverance. At our best, we Americans have the power to do as we please, with the responsibility to do what we should. No other nation has done so much to erase the lines of race, gender, and sexual orientation. And what's really amazing is that given so much personal power, we can still be a nation of good people.
Others may turn up their noses at us, but they just don't understand what it is to live the American ideal. Continentals can sneer about our unsophisticated ways all they want, but they're the ones living in dying societies, kept alive but comatose by socialist nanny states. They can mock our brashness, but they're the ones who have lived under our protection for decades. Without us, the Iron Curtain would extend from the Eastern Atlantic all the way to the international date line. They think, and emote, and philosophize. We DO. We talk the talk AND we walk the walk.
They will never understand what it means to live the American ideal, because to them, personal responsibility only goes so far. They will never understand because from cradle to grave their lives are being managed for them, and they like it that way.
"May your chains set lightly upon you."
No matter what happens, no matter what the rest of the world thinks, we will endure. Time and again, we have survived threats that would crush any other nation. Even in our darkest hours, somehow, our flag is still there.
So, Hypothetical President Kerry, should you actually become Honest to goodness President Kerry, I will be disappointed, but I will wait and see what you do. If you should change my view of you, so much the better for our great nation. And if you confirm my beliefs, well then, I'm just going to have to work my ass off to see that you're not re-elected. Either way, we endure.
Happy B-Day, America.
Thanks for everything.
July 3
Weights Day ?
Weights + Cardio: 110 days (46 to go)
In fact, I distrust him immensely. He seems to me to be a man who will say or do anything to attain the presidency. He'll say two different and contradictory things, and stand by them. I think he's been positioned as a moderate (ie, "electable"), but in reality he's in thrall to every nutball Lefty special interest permutation there is. Hypothetical President Kerry would also treat the War on Terror like a police action, basically setting us back years in the progress we've made.
Having said that, I also think that if he should win, it will not be the end of the world. Or, more specifically, not the end of the nation.
We're made of sterner stuff than that; and while the inevitable missteps of Hypothetical President Kerry would no doubt further damage the already-wounded culture of values at the heart of this nation (as opposed to the thriving culture of victimology), the nation will endure, as long as there are a few of us who still believe in the dream.
At its finest, our nation is the one place on Earth where a person can go from underclass to upper crust through hard work and perserverance. At our best, we Americans have the power to do as we please, with the responsibility to do what we should. No other nation has done so much to erase the lines of race, gender, and sexual orientation. And what's really amazing is that given so much personal power, we can still be a nation of good people.
Others may turn up their noses at us, but they just don't understand what it is to live the American ideal. Continentals can sneer about our unsophisticated ways all they want, but they're the ones living in dying societies, kept alive but comatose by socialist nanny states. They can mock our brashness, but they're the ones who have lived under our protection for decades. Without us, the Iron Curtain would extend from the Eastern Atlantic all the way to the international date line. They think, and emote, and philosophize. We DO. We talk the talk AND we walk the walk.
They will never understand what it means to live the American ideal, because to them, personal responsibility only goes so far. They will never understand because from cradle to grave their lives are being managed for them, and they like it that way.
"May your chains set lightly upon you."
No matter what happens, no matter what the rest of the world thinks, we will endure. Time and again, we have survived threats that would crush any other nation. Even in our darkest hours, somehow, our flag is still there.
So, Hypothetical President Kerry, should you actually become Honest to goodness President Kerry, I will be disappointed, but I will wait and see what you do. If you should change my view of you, so much the better for our great nation. And if you confirm my beliefs, well then, I'm just going to have to work my ass off to see that you're not re-elected. Either way, we endure.
Happy B-Day, America.
Thanks for everything.
July 3
Weights Day ?
Weights + Cardio: 110 days (46 to go)
Friday, July 02, 2004
Meanwhile, in another part of the state...
Jeff at Tusk and Talon is commemorating the impending holiday with some favorite patriotic songs.
I'm gonna go with Jeff here, and state that Battle Hymn of the Republic is my favorite, or at least tied with The Star-Spangled Banner.
If the world gets any more sensitive-multi-culti-everyone's-okay-except-America, we'll have to hum these songs, because the lyrics are too gosh-darn jingoistic.
I'm gonna go with Jeff here, and state that Battle Hymn of the Republic is my favorite, or at least tied with The Star-Spangled Banner.
If the world gets any more sensitive-multi-culti-everyone's-okay-except-America, we'll have to hum these songs, because the lyrics are too gosh-darn jingoistic.
Deja Vu
From al-Associated Press (and via Instapundit):
Nader Accuses Democrats of 'Dirty Tricks:'
*SNIP*
Shades of 1996, dude! This reminds me a lot of Ross Perot dropping out of the running due to "Republican dirty tricks."
Just as Perot was the spoiler in '92, now there's Nader. The only difference is the party in the White House.
No matter what I think of Nader (see below), if he has the support, he should be on the ballot. Given my oft-stated opinion of the modern Democratic Party, you may not believe this, but I sincerely think that any candidate who meets the criteria set forth by law should be on the ballot, regardless of party, and regardless of the damage they may do to another's campaign.
To not allow Nader's supporters to see their man get a shot at the brass ring is, well, undemocratic.
But, apparently it's not un-Democratic.
Once again, my former party seizes the moral high ground from the eeeevvvviiillll Republicans, who are evil, and bad, and who steal candy from babies, and who resort to shady means to attain power.
Party Uber Alles!
Nader Accuses Democrats of 'Dirty Tricks:'
WASHINGTON - Independent candidate Ralph Nade, denied a spot on the Arizona ballot, on Friday accused the Democrats and presidential candidate John Kerry of engaging in political "dirty tricks."
Just hours before the developments in Arizona, Nader complained that the Democratic Party has "stepped up its obstruction tendencies" in challenging his ballot access. The consumer advocate said he had called the Kerry campaign three times Thursday, asking to chat with the candidate.
*SNIP*
The Kerry campaign dismissed Nader's complaints, arguing that Democrats were following the rules when they legally challenged Nader's signatures to get on the ballot. "These are rules that have been on the books for years and they ought to be followed," said Chad Clanton, who added that the Massachusetts senator would be happy to talk to Nader.
In Arizona, supporters of Nader abandoned their effort to get the independent candidate on the presidential ballot after Democrats challenged the validity of thousands of signatures.
Shades of 1996, dude! This reminds me a lot of Ross Perot dropping out of the running due to "Republican dirty tricks."
Just as Perot was the spoiler in '92, now there's Nader. The only difference is the party in the White House.
No matter what I think of Nader (see below), if he has the support, he should be on the ballot. Given my oft-stated opinion of the modern Democratic Party, you may not believe this, but I sincerely think that any candidate who meets the criteria set forth by law should be on the ballot, regardless of party, and regardless of the damage they may do to another's campaign.
To not allow Nader's supporters to see their man get a shot at the brass ring is, well, undemocratic.
But, apparently it's not un-Democratic.
Once again, my former party seizes the moral high ground from the eeeevvvviiillll Republicans, who are evil, and bad, and who steal candy from babies, and who resort to shady means to attain power.
Party Uber Alles!
Congratulations are in order
Royce Dunbar, the Iowa Libertarian, got linked by big-time blogger Tim Blair.
Well done, sir. Glad to have you back blogging.
Well done, sir. Glad to have you back blogging.
