Saturday, July 31, 2004

American Dictators 

I know I should be commenting on Kerry's speech, but you know what? I didn't listen. And I really don't care to. The fact he has the gaul to criticize Bush for not supplying body armor for the troops when him and his sidekick both voted AGAINST the funding for said armor is beyond dirty.

No, my rant tonight will be against the American Dictators, also known as our Federal Judges.

The American legal system was designed to be a system of checks and balances, where no one branch of government could overpower another. The Supreme Court under John Marshall usurped a great amount of power when he issued the Marbury v. Madison decision, which illegally established the court's right of Judicial Review.

Judicial Review cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution, and essentially allows the court to eliminate any laws that Congress and the president pass. The Judiciary has no check to this power. The Legislature and the Executive have no recourse to a Supreme Court decision short of amending the Constitution itself.

This has led to many problems throughout history. Many of our current budget problems result from the Supreme Court eliminating the line-item veto that the Republican Congress gave to President Clinton, ironically saying that such a privilege to the president was an infrigement of the seperation of powers.

The current, emotionally-charged debates on abortion are due to the Supreme Court inventing a rights not mentioned in the Constitution, by dubiously mixing Amendments to establish a right to privacy, and then dubiously using that right to ban the state's right to legislate a morally questionable cosmetic surgery.

The gay marriage debate is similar. Federal courts have openly ignored federal law and allowed certain states to recognize gay marriage. Rather than allow the citizenry to decide on their own to allow this right, the courts forced this decision upon the people. This can only be described as tyranny.

The most infamous case of judicial activism was the Dred Scott decision. In this case, the Supreme Court decided on its own that Blacks can never be free. Not in the North, not in foreign lands. They circumvented the laws of the Northern states, because they believed that the Congress and the people were unable to resolve this issue on their own. This decision led directly to America's bloody Civil War.

The only remedy for this would be a Constitutional Amendment that would somehow limit the powers of the court. Judicial Review probably should not be thrown out completely, since our modern system of laws relies so heavily on it. What we need is a way for Congress and/or the president to respond (Theoretically, the president could refuse to acknowledge a Supreme Court decision, as Andrew Jackson did, but in the current political climate, that may be an impeachable offense).

Until we find a remedy, we are all at the mercy of an omnipotent Court system; unelected and unaccountable.

(1) comments

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

Democratic National Confusion 

The Democrats had their national convention tonight, and there really isn't much to say.  They promised not to bash Bush, which meant that they didn't compare him to Hitler, as they've been doing of late.  "Not bashing Bush" now seems to mean "only bash as bad as we would have four years ago, before we constantly called him a Nazi." 

Hillary obviously should be the candidate, because the Democrats love her, even more than Dean, I'd imagine.  The Democrats play too cautiously with their idiot games of trying to nominate "electable" candidates.

Bill is the only man in the entire party who can articulate any sort of message.  It really is a shame that he's a dirty pervert who was more content to follow polls than to show leadership, or else he may have been a great leader.  The saddest thing is, I think that Bill knows that better than anyone.

Carter was a disgrace.  He was not content to bash Bush, but had to bash America as well.  It is pretty easy to see how Reagan wiped the floor with him.

FoxNews, who might as well dropped all pretense of being "Fair and Balanced", kept making an interesting point.  Kerry/Edwards and the Democratic platform support the war and have no plans of pulling troops from Iraq, but every delegate there was anti-war.  I think this sort of contradiction is the main reason I could never support a Democratic candidate, as the party stands now.  They try to appeal to too many contradictory bases.   You cannot support the soldiers, and then make those who would throw rocks at them the delegates at your convention.

(0) comments

Friday, July 23, 2004


One of the more interesting stories in the news lately is that Doonsbury is being dropped out of several papers, and as a result, cries of censorship raise across the land.

Quite frankly, Doonsbury has never been funny within my lifetime.  I'm told that it was funny during the Vietnam era, but became an idiotic rant throughout the Reagan years.  I don't know.  All I know is that an anthropomorphic cigarette isn't particularly funny.

I tend to think the entire comics industry needs to start throwing out the non-funny comics.  I think that if the original cartoonist is dead, then throw out the comic.  Has anyone laughed at a Broom Hilda comic in the last 40 years?  Don't get me started on Blondie.  I have never seen anything remotely amusing in a Blondie comic.

I tend to think that any comic that has been made into a cartoon series should be discontinued as well.  Both Garfield and Dilbert started to suck around the time they were made into animated series.

However, I digress.  Gary Treudeau, Doonsbury's cartoonist, seems to think it deserves special protection against being dropped by papers because it is political.  Therefore, by being political, they are entitled to special protections, due to the First Amendment Freedom of Speech.

This is a common misconception about the First Amendment.  The First Amendment only protects you from government censorship.  If your sponsor newspaper feels like your politics will cause them to lose sales, they are well within their rights to cancel you.

Entertainers seem to lack the understanding that they work in a form of customer service.  Cartoonists, singers, actors, and comedians all make their money by making people feel better about life in one way or another.  When they make their audience feel worse, they are negligent in their jobs.  And when they insist on being blatantly political, they are bound to upset someone. 

The Dixie Chicks should not be upset if I choose not to listen to their music after they insisted on bringing their politics beyond the water's edge.  They are pro-choice, after all.  Whoopie should understand that when she calls 50% of the population evil racists, that SlimFast may not want her to represent them any longer.  After all, SlimFast cannot afford to write off 50% of the population as potential customers. 

And if Gary Treaudeau insists on "making a statement" with his comics, then he should understand the possible consequences.  After all, what use would it be to be a rebel, if rebels never had to face consequences for their rebellions?

(0) comments

Tuesday, July 20, 2004

Proof that my rants ring true 

Sandy Berger, the same Clintonite who allowed the Chinese to steal our nuclear secrets, was caught red-handed trying to pilfer documents that make the Clinton Administration look bad from the National Archives.  These files were allegedly written by His Holiness, Richard Clarke, He Who Is Above Politics For He Worked For Both Political Parties.
Yet, the press has more or less tried to bury the story. According to Matt Drudge, only USA Today put this story on the front page.  NYTimes, Washington Post, and most other prominent papers buried the story.  Imagine if Don Rumsfeld or Condi Rice tried the same thing.  This story would be almost big enough to push Abu Ghraib out of the papers, if only for a short time.   

(0) comments

Monday, July 19, 2004

Treacherous Media 

Remember during the Iraq War, during the opening days, when the media was telling us daily how horrible the war was going?  FoxNews was demonized as a propoganda mouthpiece of the administration when they offered suggestions that perhaps America was winning the war.  Embedded reporters were written off as delusional when they reported good news from the front.  America was losing, and there was no room for disagreement about that.
And then, Baghdad fell. America won.
Then, Saddam and sons were impossible to find.  Iraqis would be loyal to their former leaders, the media told us, and no one would give them up.  Besides, Saddam had so many doubles, we'd never know if we actually ever killed him
And then, we killed Uday and Qusay.  We captured the real Saddam. 
And this is just Iraq.  I haven't even touched upon all the miscalculations the media had in the Afghan War. 
The media harps that Bush lied, when he was wrong about stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (IF he was wrong.  Two tons of uranium were found in Iraq, as well as Mustard Gas, Serin Gas, and warheads to deliver WMDs).  By the media's own logic, if Bush is a liar, they are villainously deceptive.
Now, the media keeps reports that the Bush '04 campaign is going down in flames, because of the Hate Bush movement the extreme Left initiated.  Yet, Bush has stayed consistantly even with Kerry in the polls.  They fail to report that the economy is growing faster now than it has in over twenty years. 
The media has failed this country.  It has proven that it cannot be trusted to look beyond their petty ideology to fairly report the news. 
To understand the origin of the rant, go here: www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005370

(0) comments

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Virginia Baseball 

I hate the Baltimore Orioles. I used to think I simply hated baseball, but the truth is, I actually enjoy going to the games. I can get drunk and zone out, and never lose track of what is going on in the game.

But the Orioles. Is there any reason to be an Orioles fan? They can't win a game against a little league team.

Luckily, here in the Washington area, we may finally be free of the ineptitude of Baltimore. Both Northern VA and DC have put in bids to get their own team, or perhaps bring the Expos over here.

I think the most interesting aspect of the VA/DC baseball issue is that Virginia wants a team of their own. Rather than being content to let them be the DC Expos (or whatever), they actually want them to be the Virginia Expos (or whatever).

When you think about it, Virginia deserves a team more anyway. Which region is more successful? Northern Virginia is the richest, fastest growing region of the country. DC is a gigantic cesspool full of crackwhores, drug dealers, and lobbyists. They are planning on letting Marion Barry run for public office AGAIN! They don't deserve a baseball team! They don't even deserve self-rule!

(1) comments

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

Suspended Elections would Suck 

Someone somewhere voiced the opinion that the Bush administration may need to put in place some sort of contingency plan to delay elections in case of a terror attack. Already, Bush has become a South American dictator, no better than Arastide, in the minds of all the conspiracy theorists. (Actually, most conspiracy theorists consider Arastide a great leader, so that was a bad example.)

I say that if there is a terror attack, we should procede as if nothing happened. Remember, our elections occur two months before the actual transfer of power. Its not like we will have a power transfer in a time of chaos.

If New York gets nuked, it will be a national tragedy, yes. If DC gets nuked, it will be even worse, because I personally will die. But why should a terror attack delay the election? All that will prove is that the terrorists can disrupt the most important aspect of our democracy, and come the rescheduled date, there will be another attack.

If we are attacked around our election time, I think we should hold Spain somewhat accountable. Their cowardice is going to cost us.

On a pure, amoral level, Bush should probably be against suspending elections in a terror attack, since the attack will likely be in an urban area that would be more likely to support Kerry.

(0) comments

Thursday, July 08, 2004


It has come to my attention that Reagan won both California and New York in 1984. So it would not be unprecedented for a Republican to win those states in my lifetime. All the more reason to woo their votes, says I!

Even more amazing, George H. Bush won California in 1988. Why the Hell do Republicans write off California as unwinnable? Thats 55 frikkin' electoral votes that the Democrats cannot possibly win without!

(1) comments

Tuesday, July 06, 2004


First of all, I would like to shout a big "F You!" out to the New York Post for getting me all worked up about an easily beatable Kerry/Gephart ticket. Secondly, I would like to congratulate John Kerry on making a much better choice with John Edwards.

Honestly, I cannot help but like Edwards. He seems so much more civil than most of the other Democratic challengers, and I admit that I voted for him in the Virginia Primaries (Lieberman already conceded). Admittedly, I agree with very few of his policies. Edwards is an anti-NAFTA protectionist, and voted against the money to support our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unlike his new boss, he didn't even vote for it before he voted against it. Edwards also likes to play the class warfare card, speaking of "two Americas, one for the priviliged and one for everyone else."

On the other hand, he doesn't encourage the wacko conspiracy theories against the current administration. That alone proves he is more civil than 98% of the Democrats. Hopefully, this also offers hope that Edwards will be the Democratic nominee in 2008, not Hillary.

So why is Edwards a better choice than Gephart? I would say his biggest qualification is that Edwards will be perceived as the anti-Cheney. Friendly and young looking, as opposed to the sneering Ogre that supposedly gives Bush his marching orders. I imagine that the Vice Presidential debates this year will resemble the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Cheney will win the arguments hands down, but Edwards will be the perceived winner.

Which brings me to my next point. Why is Bush hanging onto Cheney? Why does the Bush family insist on holding onto vice presidents that erode their support? Cheney won't deliver any electoral votes to the ticket. If Bush replaced Cheney with Rudy Giuliani, for example, he would easily take New York and probably New Jersey. Democrats need two states to win any presidential election: New York (31 electoral votes) and California (55 electoral votes). Both states are achievable for Republicans for the first time in my lifetime. 9/11 has made New York very conscious of national security, and putting the world's most admired New Yorker on the Bush ticket may seal the deal.

California's recall of Liberal Gray Davis for Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger (and his fantastic successes he's had governing so far), combined with Reagan's passing has made California ripe for the picking as well. Schwarzenegger is ineligible for the vice presidency since he is not a natural born citizen. However, Tom McClintoch, who put up a decent race for the Republican nomination in the California recall, might make an interesting addition.

Or perhaps Bush could sign up John McCain as a reach-out toward moderate Republicans and those Democrats who have convinced themselves they love McCain in the last 4 years. That would be the best Prez/VP match since JFK/LBJ, and we all know how THAT turned out.

(0) comments

Sunday, July 04, 2004

Independence Day 

When you think of the American Revolution, you think of the birth of a new nation, the USA, splitting from the British Empire. In fact, that aspect of the American Revolution is very overplayed. In addition to the United States, the American Revolution signifies the birth of two other concepts; Representative Rule, and Nationalism.

The American Revolution began when the Declaration of Independence was signed, not when America began to revolt against the English. The Declaration justified itself with Classic Liberal doctrine, the idea that everyone on Earth was entitled to control their own Life, Liberty, and Property. These rights superceded the supposed Divine Rights of kings to rule. The idea behind the succession from Britain was simple: Since taxation without representation unduly violated Rights to Property, the colonies had a right to break free.

To the surprise of even the Founding Fathers, representative rule took hold in the US, and continues to grow even today. What once was just a handful of landowners holding power has grown to everyone over the age of 18, regardless of race, sex, gender, or economic class.

This notion of citizenship, where everyone has a right to vote, led to a feeling of national unity. While back in the Middle Ages, people were united by being enslaved by the same king, in America they were united in a shared responsibility for the destiny of their newly formed country. Nationalism has proven so strong that it manages to survive even in areas where representative rule is in remission.

I would say there are two types of Nationalism in the world: Patriotism, and Jingoism. Patriotism is a justified feeling of pride in one's country based on accompishments, often found in Democracies. Jingoism is a belligerent hatred of all other countries, and a unjustified feeling of superiority. Patriots tend to lead to successful democracies. Jinogists lead to fascist movements. America is more Patriotic. Arab nations are more Jingoistic. I am afraid to guess where most European nations would fall in this theory.

The American Revolution continues to this day. Countries worldwide seek to establish rule based on a Classic Liberal tradition. The ideas of freedom are so powerful, those who would take away freedom must devise their own philosophies to justify doing so. Marxists point out that freedom allows some to succeed and some to fail, allowing a supposed unfair inequality between the classes. Hitler and Mussolini twisted the ideas of Nationalism in their respective countries to justify their warmongering and bigotry. Radical Greens use the environment as an excuse to allow the government to overtax, steal private property, and justify a more authoritarian government.

So far, Freedom has overcome almost every despot that has tried to eliminate it. Hitler and Mussolini overextended their armies trying to extinguish liberty. The Soviets crumbled from within by trying to keep up their egalitarian image. Saddam Hussein found very few supporters willing to defend him as their leader once America took action in removing him.

The American Revolution lives on, and I believe not even Nuclear War would stop it.

(0) comments

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