<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Thursday, February 26, 2004

I Now Pronounce You Queer and Fag 

Okay, this is an issue I wasn't really intending on writing about, but which won't go away. And nothing else interesting is happening at the moment, so lets give this a go.

So, let me start out by pointing out that the government really has no business defining marriage at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony, endorsed by the state for reasons of population control and disease minimization, as well as creating a basic microcosmic government union of the Family (See, those Sociology classes weren't a complete waste. Oh wait. Yes they were).

Anyway, as I was saying, marriage is none of the government's business. However, this also means that the gays really shouldn't care whether the government sanctions their marriage. It is between the lovers and their God(s)(ess)(es).

And this inspires another Sociological Rant to explain why the gays find it so important that the government sanctions their unions. As I said in the previous paragraph, all they need is for God (or whatever) to sanction their marriage. But Liberalism is practically synonymous with atheism these days. With no other higher power to legitimize their relationship, they appeal to the government. Its a form of worship, really.

So, what is my recommendation?

Well, the Constitution was meant to preserve rights, not limit them, so a Constitutional Ban is idiotic. The only time the Constitution banned anything was Prohibition, and that backfired big-time.

Gays should be allowed Civil Unions where they get practically all the privileges of marriage. Whether they have a right to adopt a child is another issue for another column. But tax-wise, and in all other ways that marriage benefits or harms heterosexuals, the gays should have their dues.

And all of us heterosexuals who can't get chicks should get huge government payouts to help us forget how much it sucks to be us.

(0) comments

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

Blarby Darby  

John Kerry is losing his overwhelming popularity after just one tiny scandal. Guess his grass roots support was overhyped. Sound familiar?

The issue here is that Kerry is running on only two platforms:

1. I am not Howard Dean
2. I am not George W. Bush

In the end, neither really encourages any loyalty.

(0) comments

Monday, February 16, 2004

Kerry's Fling? 

Well, the chick Kerry supposedly screwed has come out and said it did not happen.

Of course, even if there was an affair, she is smart to deny it. Every woman who dared accuse Clinton of impropriety had her life ruined.

Democrats have no patience for women who don't know their place.

(0) comments

T'was Raised by a Cup o' Coffee 

So, another Democrat who wants to be president is screwing around with the interns. Well, at least Kerry had the fine sense to at least find an attractive girl. Something about Clinton's attraction to the Fatties and the Trailor Trash just seemed so unwholesome.

Right now, I'm pretty sick of this whole campaign. The Democrats have totally demonized Bush, and now the Republicans are responding in kind. There really are some major issues that need to be addressed this election cycle. For example, the Democrats owe so much allegience to the anti-War leftists, can we really trust them to defend us in the Post-9/11 world? Or how can the Republicans explain how gas prices are going through the roof while OPEC has not increased the price per barrel exported? Seems to me that there may be some profiteering going on, and that an administration less beholden to Big Oil may be more inclined to stop it.

The fact is, if Kerry IS having an affair, no one will care. Clinton proved that. And the Democrats' continuing conspiracy theory that Bush skipped out on his National Guard duties, despite all the evidence to the contrary, just proves that everything cynics say about politics is true. Democrats make up lies, hypnotize themselves into believing them, and shape the world around them. Its pretty scary, really.

(0) comments

Tuesday, February 10, 2004

Democratic Strategiery 

You want to know why Democrats can't get the military vote? It is because they insist on insinuating that certain branches are not really in the military. For example, the National Guard. There are probably more guardsmen in Iraq than there are conventional military. Yet the Democrats go around calling these men cowards, because they are not in a regular unit. They implied this with Quayle in 1992, and they are implying it with Bush now.

With Bush, of course, they've added another twist. They say he stopped showing up for drills. The White House today released every bit of conceivable evidence proving that Bush showed up, but I doubt it will be enough.

On the other hand, does the charge of draft-dodging really hurt a presidential candidate? Clinton got elected twice, after all.

(0) comments

Joe Gibbs 

Can anyone imagine if Joe Gibbs didn't pull through? I honestly don't think DC would be standing tomorrow....

(0) comments

Sunday, February 08, 2004

Kinda Starts as an Analysis, but then Becomes a Flow of Consciousness Rant, then Kinda Becomes Analysis Again 

Well, I originally planned on writing my analysis of Bush's Meet the Press appearance today, but as luck would have it, I slept until noon. Luckily, MSNBC has the transcript of the interview on their web page, so I can get a pretty good look at how it played out.

First of all, I admire that Bush actually has the guts to do these interviews. Now, Diane Sawyer and Tony Snow were both obviously softball interviews, and though he went head-to-head with Bill O'Reilly for his first presidential campaign, most of O'Reilly's audience was probably already in the Bush camp. In contrast, by allowing Tim Russert to interview him, he shows he really has confidence in what he has to say. After all, Russert is probably the most thorough and objective interviewer in the business, and the interview will be watched and scrutinized by people on all ends of the political spectrum.

Like I said, I slept through the interview, so I don't know how well he delivered the message, but the message itself was one that needs to be heard. He pointed out that Iraq may not have had stockpiles of weapons, but they had the infrastructure to build chemical and biological weapons. Thanks to his connections with terror organizations, stockpiles of weapons are not needed. Saddam could have created a small amount of Ricin (the stuff they found in Senator Frisk's office), transferred it to his allies at Ansar al-Islam (an Al-Qaeda subgroup based in Iraq), and wait for his agents to spread chaos to his enemies.

What bothers me the most about this entire Iraq mess is that those most critical of the Iraqi operation are the people who yell the loudest that Bush should have prevented 9/11 from occuring. Now, the only way we could have prevented 9/11 is if we invaded Afghanistan and arrested the Al Qaeda leadership before 9/11 occured (and by the time Bush took office, it may have already been too late for that to have made a difference). Now, nobody would have supported an invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11. Its a little pissant country that could not possibly be a threat to the United States in any meaningful way. And yet, they were able to hit us in a way that the British, Spanish, French, Germans, and Soviets were unable to at the heights of their respective empires.

Saddam's weapons were not an imminent threat, but Saddam's attitude was. He was a hero to the America-haters worldwide. Therefore, his pathetic capture was a symbol to all who dare think they can annoy us and get away with it. The world may hate us for what we did in Iraq, but as Machiavelli said, it is better to be feared than loved.

The most important question Russert asked was whether it was worth all the loss of American lives to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. Bush actually gives a pretty stark answer to this. He says it was worth it, because by spreading freedom to the Middle East, we wil eliminate the hatred that breeds in the hearts of the terrorist.

After legitimate Iraq questions, Russert gives Bush a chance to repudiate some of the garbage his opponents threw his way. Bush simply brushed off allegations that he went AWOL from the National Guard, and volunteered to open his military records. He also pointed out that the National Guard is a legitimate part of the military, and that he would have gone to Vietnam had his unit been called up.

On questions about the sour economy, Bush simply seemed to fillibuster.

When confronted with Conservatives' allegations that he overspends, he more or less told them to suck it. I, for one, agree with him on that one.

Then, it got into political stuff that you can read yourself at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/ . Anyway, I am bored of writing this stuff, and I seriously doubt anyone read this far down. Ta-Ta.

(0) comments

Wednesday, February 04, 2004

Musings 

You know, a couple years ago, people thought it would be impossible for Bush to lose re-election. Nowadays, it seems almost inevitable.

First, there is the Patriot Act. Libertarians and the wacko Left jumped upon this legislation as proof that Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft were trying to create a police state. The actual legislation does nothing of the sort, but the Republicans have done very little to battle the public perception of the Patriot Act. Of course, it doesn't help that Ashcroft looks like a Disney villain.

Then, there is the Iraqi War. Though a clear majority of Americans conceded the need for war, they changed their mind when we started to suffer casualties. So, essentially, Americans are idiots. Apparantly, the idea that war means casualties never occured to the majority of this nation. Some say that we went to war under the assumption that Saddam had WMDs, when in fact he did not. But didn't he? David Kay said he had the infrostructure to build WMD at a moments notice, and would have, if not for invasion. This tells me that we were just a little earlier than we thought we were. Better to get there before he had stockpiles. After all, did we want our soldiers infected with Smallpox as they marched to Baghdad?

Finally, there is the stupidity of his supporters. The Republican base is overconfident. They think that it is still 9/12/01, when Bush had a 92% approval rating. Overconfidence breeds apathy, and may affect voter turnout. Then, there is the Conservative base. The Conservatives are pissed because Bush acknowledges that in some cases, the goevernment DOES need to spend government money. A good number may be angry enough to avoid the polls in November, ignoring that this will allow in a Democrat who will spend much more than Bush would.

So, things look pretty bad for Bush. Lucky for him, the Democrats are also falling apart at the seams. The assumed front-runner for the Democratic nomination, Howard Dean, made the idiot mistake of relying on the youth vote. But, youths do not vote. As a result, the much more wooden John Kerry seems likely to win the nomination, a man who is a little more exciting than Al Gore, but not much.

Democrats are doing an even better job of alienating their base than the Republicans. Since 9/11, the Left has decided to take an anti-Isreal stand on a number of issues, which may cause Jewish voters may stay home on election day this November. Sharpton is starting to point out the racial hypocracy of the Democratic Party. Democrats have taken the Black vote for granted for so long, they attack one of their own when he dares questions their motives. We may see that the Blacks, like the Jews, decide not to bother to go to the polls in November. Without the Jewish and Black support, the Democratic Party would be doomed.

It should be interesting to see which Party contains their self-destruction more successfully.

(0) comments

Tuesday, February 03, 2004

An Explanation, and the Battle to Lose the General Election 

Yes. I got a blog. In my true fashion, I mock the trend of the moment, and then I submit whole-heartedly to it.

So, why am I doing this? So that I can bitch, and not worry that I'm boring the person I'm bitching to. Not that this has ever stopped me.

Everyone needs a hobby, especially the chronically unemployed.

(0) comments

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?