<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Tuesday, August 31, 2004

Freedom of Speech 

The ACLU types are always fear mongering that John Ashcroft has a secret plan to destroy our Freedom of Speech. Apparantly, people are less concerned when such plans are laid out in the open.

For example, John Kerry has threatened to sue any network who would air the Swift Boat Vets ads, as well as the bookstores who carried Unfit to Command. How does Bush respond? He signs with John McCain to destroy the Free Speech rights of the 527 Advocacy Groups.

Similarly, none of the major networks covered Giuliani or McCain's speeches. They did cover Clinton's speech, however. The liberal control of the media borders on fascist.


(0) comments

Thursday, August 26, 2004

Jon vs. the Establishment 

Y'know, it is kind of nice to be back in college. Since I already have my bachelors, my professors hold no power with which to intimidate me.

My Communications professor runs the class as if it is her private forum to espouse her far-left beliefs. She laments our Jew-bias media, and in every class she has presided over so far, she has found ways to criticize how Americans view themselves. She calls us foolish for judging the 9/11 terrorists as evil.

Now, to be honest, I usually zone her out. I resent the fact that I have to take any Humanities classes, since I already have my BA, so my theory is, they can make me come to class, but they cannot make me listen. However, work has sucked balls lately, and I haven't gotten nearly the sleep that I've grown accustomed to (17 hours/day, ideally), so today, I found myself challenging this woman.

Our original teacher for this class had to quit mid-term for medical reasons, but before he left, he presented a lesson plan in which we had to give a group speech on any topic. The new professor has limited our options to three subjects: Racial, Sexual Harassment, and Cultural. If you choose cultural, you are forced to argue this thesis: All Cultures are Inherently Equal. And I find this to be the most offensive bit of tripe the Left has ever come up with. (My group, by the way, chose Sexual Harassment. We are for it.)

I asked the professor if she believed that the United States was the moral equivolent of Nazi Germany. She was at first stunned that someone dared challenge her, and she stuttered. She then replied that Nazi Germany was not a culture. Well, according to Dictionary.com:
---
culĀ·ture -
These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
---
1930's/40's Germany would definitely fall into this category.

So, she became angrier, as did a few students in the class. She claimed that Naziism was destined to fall. I told her it only fell because we wiped it out.

"WE?!" She said, fairly slyly. "Who is 'WE'?"

Luckily, I've seen this trick before. "The Allies," I replied. "The United States, Britain, and the Soviets."

You see, whenever Americans talk about World War II, we say that WE won, which anti-Americans use to prove jingoism. By pointing out our allies, I proved I wasn't just mouthing US Patriotism.

At this point she yelled at me to shut it, and claimed I was just a flag-waver. I considered myself victorious. When someone is forced to pull rank, it means you won. If someone is forced to resort to name-calling, it means you went beyond the arguments that they could win by logic.

(0) comments

All Cultures are NOT Created Equal 

As I said in my last posting (split apart for easier reading) I think the most offensive idea the Left has ever come up with is that of Moral Relativism, that all cultures are created equal.

Why does that disgust me? Because it discounts everything anyone has ever achieved, and anything anyone has ever believed in.

Abraham Lincoln accomplished nothing when he freed the slaves. After all, if all cultures are equal, then society post-slavery was no different than society during slavery. The Civil War was a joke. Similarly, I suppose Nelson Mendela's sacrifice was for vain as well, if the culture of Apartheid South Africa was equivolent to the culture of Modern South Africa.

Ghandi and Hitler? No difference between the two, when one puts on the spectacles of moral equivolency. Two leaders who brought equally desirable results to their respective nations.

My professor I mentioned in my previous entry came to America for graduate school. I resisted the personal question asking why she came here rather than Saudi Arabia for her education. I already know the answer. Because in American culture, women are allowed and encouraged to learn. Our Euro-centric culture has provided twophilosophies that has allowed women the right to full protections of citizenship: Feminism and Chivalry.

Chivalry is the idea that noblemen must be respectful to all women, no matter their station, and that men should protect the women. Even if most real knights didn't follow this code, the value was ingrained in our system. Feminism is the idea that females have a right to consider themselves the equals of their male counterparts.

Compare this to the value system of Taliban-Afghanistan. Women had no rights. They could not even leave their homes. If their husband died, as was common in that hellish culture, they were not allowed to earn any money to feed themselves or their children. Was this culture the equivolent of say, Spain? Of course not!

In Saudi Arabia, women are considered property. They do not go to school, so the question of why she didn't study there would have been an intentionally ludicrous one. Women cannot drive, no one can profess any religious belief besides Wahabbi Islam, and there is no representative government. And we are supposed to believe this culture is the equivolent of the Roman Republic, the Athenian city-state, or even of the modern day Philippines?

The fact is, there are cultures that are superior to others. And it is measurable. How many people starve every night? What is the employment rate? Infant mortality rate? Life expectancy? Income levels? How is human dignity respected, if at all? Who is eligible to vote? Is it likely this country will commit genocide in the near future?

I am not necessarily saying that the US is the greatest nation in history. I believe it is probably the greatest nation on earth at the moment, and could probably compare with Ancient Rome and Hellenic Greece, but hey, I could be wrong. I will say without a doubt that we are better than the Saudis, we are better than the Taliban was, we are better than Nazi Germany. We committed sins in the past, and we will likely commit them again in the future, but perspective needs to be kept in all things.

(0) comments

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

False Popularity, False Hatred 

I honestly believe, at this point, that Bush will beat Kerry by a fairly large margin. Here's why:

After 9/11, Bush had a 91% approval rating. Essentially, it was expected that everyone love Bush. Everyone except the True Believer Liberals loved him. Those who hated him did so with a passion, and this passion motivated them into action.

Today, we are at the exact opposite point. Everyone except the True Believers hate Bush. Those that still support the president support him despite the fact that it is no longer socially expected, or even socially acceptable. To admit you support Bush in polite society is an invitation for ridicule. And yet, Bush's approval remains around 50%.

If 100% of the population voted, this would be a dubious figure, showing that the election could go either way.

But most of the population does not vote. Most people disdain politics beyond the occasional bitching.

Self-described Conservatives vote in much higher numbers than anyone else in normal circumstances. And most Bush defenders don't believe these to be normal circumstances. They will go out of their way to make sure to vote this time around.

A couple months ago, I warned that the Bush supporters were overconfident. Now I think the Bush-Haters are.
---

On another note, anyone else think Kerry is acting like a whiny bitch?

How do you campaign for president and cry like a little girl when the other side attacks you? What a frikkin' wuss.

(0) comments

Monday, August 23, 2004

Swift Boats Vets and MoveOn Hippies 

There was a notable loophole in the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill and now the parties are pretending they didn't leave it in there on purpose.

Essentially, while candidates are limited in the amount of money they are allowed to raise and spend, certain political non-profits are allowed to spend as much as they wish, as long as they have no (provable) connections to the campaign.

When the Democrats first supported McCain-Feingold, I was suspicious, because the limitations would have hurt Democrats far more than Republicans. Republicans already rose most of their money through numerous small donations, whereas Democrats relied on massive money coming in from organizations like N.O.W., the Labor Unions, and other special interests. Most Conservative groups don't donate to Republicans. The Heritage Foundation spends its funds increasing its own influence, not to benefit the GOP. The NRA almost never backs Republicans when they have a viable Democratic candidate, because they rightly take Republican support for granted. Big Businesses donate to both Republicans and Democrats, because they want favors no matter who wins.

As I said, I was suspicious, but I simply thought the Democrats would ignore the rules. Instead, they built in a loophole, as previously discussed. This allowed them to take unlimited money from one George Soros, a billionaire who made a fortune bankrupting the third world through currency speculation and manipulation. Soros funded several leftist organizations, the most well-known being MoveOn.org, the group that thought it had chosen Howard Dean to be Bush's replacement. MoveOn's most famous works involve comparing George W. Bush to Hitler.

The Right has no all-powerful benefactor like Soros, so they did not have an abundance of these political groups to finance commercials and raise money for their candidate. However, Kerry's anti-war activities made him a lot of enemies. After he falsely accused his Brothers-in-Arms of Nazi-like atrocities, the Brothers essentially told him to bugger off.

The most notable of these soldiers is a fellow Swift Boat commander named John O'Neille, who has been a nemesis to Kerry since 1968 or so. He debated Kerry back in the 60's over Kerry's libelous accusations, and has made it a mission to be a thorn in Kerry's side for the last couple decades. Recently, when Kerry decided that he was once again proud to be a Swift Boat Veteran as long as it would help his political career, O'Neille has led the attack to shine the light on the sins Kerry committed against his fellow soldiers.

O'Neille organized the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an organization of 60+ veterans, of all political persuasions, who served with Kerry and believe him to be a fraud. They produced a single commercial. And they unleashed all Hell.

Kerry is livid that a group dare question his service. Now, he has made it a mission to silence these soldiers, even if it means defaming their character. Once again, John Kerry is slandering his Band-of-Brothers to enhance his own political career.

It was ok, according to Kerry, to allow MoveOn to accuse Bush of deserting the National Gaurd. However, it is simply unacceptable for his fellow veterans to say anything that may hurt his bid for power.

Now, Kerry wants it to stop. Bush has called on all these groups to stop running their ads. Kerry will probably agree, since the Democratic loophole accidently benefitted the other side.

(0) comments

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

The Perot Effect 

In 2000, many Democrats blamed Ralph Nader for Bush's narrow victory. I think that perhaps they missed the point.

All and all, I don't think Nader cost Gore the election any more than Ross Perot cost H. Bush the 1992 election.

In every presidentual election of my conscious life, there has been at least one third party candidate that the media deigns to take pseudo-seriously. In 1992 and 1996 it was a goofy little midget named Ross Perot. In 2000 it was a wacky little gnome called Ralph Nader (as well as Pat Buchanan, whom apparantly had a healthy Jewish following in Florida, despite being an anti-Semite).

Now, Perot was what most people would call Conservative on most issues, with one bold exception. He was a staunch protectionist, and therefore could not ally with the Republican Party of Reagan/Bush/Dole. The gigantic tent of the Democratic Party didn't have any room for his anti-immigration beliefs, either.

In the early '90s, the USSR collapsed, and as a result, everyone in the United States was an internationalist. Perot's advisors must have known that anti-trade/anti-immigrant would not be an effective platform in this atmosphere, so they decided to go against the one thing every swing voter in this nation hates. Political Parties.

There were many times when Perot actually made some decent showings in the polls, but the sad truth is, most people didn't know where he stood on any issues. They just wanted to elect someone who was neither Democrat or Republican.

Fast forward to 2000. Perot's poor showings in '96 made it clear that a run in 2000 would be useless, but Party Fatigue was still alive and well. Perot's two preffered successors, Donald Trump and Jesse Ventura, both opted not to make a run for the Oval Office, and Pat Buchanan snuck in as the Reform Party nominee. Fortunately, we all knew what sort of nutjob Buchanan was, and no one was fooled.

However, another Third Party, the Greens, nominated Ralph Nader as their candidate. Nader came off as someone who would fight for what the Democrats claimed they believed in, but never pushed for. He was a former Democrat, disenfranchised by the party when Clinton eliminated the National Speed Limit.

Very few people knew what Nader stood for, specifically. He was for pot and hemp legalization, which was more than enough for Hollywood and the youth. More importantly, he wasn't a Democrat or Republican. He was an alternative.

Nader didn't steal votes from Gore, and Perot did not steal votes from George H. Bush. The fact is, they brought in voters who more than likely would have stayed home on election day. In a country where 70% of the population doesn't vote, thats a powerful untapped demographic. Jesse Ventura won the governorship of Minnesota by appealing to these citizens.

Why is this relevent today? Because the Kerry Kamp believes that they will win all of Nader's votes. They believe that Naderites want Bush out of office so badly, that they will support anyone who runs against him.

In fact, the Naderites will likely stay home this November. Howard Dean may have had the potential of capturing their imaginations, but John Kerry? He's just George W. Bush with French-looking jowels.

(0) comments

Monday, August 16, 2004

Polluting Democracy 

One of the things that bugs me most in politics is the cynical way celebrities try to influence votes.

Bruce Springsteen and a bunch of other rock bands are organizing concerts in order to ensure Bush's defeat in November. So, rather than develop compelling arguments to support Kerry, or even throw legitimate criticism at Bush, they hope to defeat the president through the following prism of cynicism:

"People, especially young people, will listen to us because we can sing. We do not need to advance ideas."

This really bugs me. Democracy is supposed to be an open exchange of ideas. Springsteen, rather than encouraging a debate of the issues, is essentially setting Michael Moorian propganda to music. No need to debate. He can sing, therefore you like him, therefore you will vote the way he tells you.

I've thought Springsteen was a hypocrite for a while now, ever since he advertised The Rising as a tribute to 9/11. Looking at the lyrics, there is nothing that refers to 9/11 in any way, nor the American spirit, nor the heroes. I think The Rising was already written and was ready to come out, and Springsteen saw the popularity artists like Alan Jackson received when they wrote legitimate songs that stemmed from the tragedy.

I saw Springsteen in concert about a year ago, and he is undoubtedly a talented musician. That does not mean that his political opinions are worth shit. In his concert, while introducing the band, he somehow became possessed with the need to start screaming IMPEACH BUSH (That cost him a T-Shirt sale). Obviously, it must not have gotten the approval he hoped for, because later in the concert he actually apologized for it.

If entertainers want to be politicians, they should try to educate themselves on the issues. It is notable that Bono, who actually educated himself on the economic crisis in Africa, knows enough to realize that he cannot blame the entire problem on one man, one political party, or even one political philosophy. All of the problems we face in this nation and in this world have more complex solutions than "Blame Bush."

Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger both believed they could improve the political system and legitimately ran for office. Bruce Springsteen is more analogous to Gary Coleman, who ran for governor of California without even the knowledge of who the Vice President was. Springsteen may think he has good ideas, but he's just a moron who can sing. Unless he can prove otherwise.

(0) comments

Friday, August 13, 2004

Wacko vs. Hippie: The Debates. 

Drudge listed the moderators for the upcoming presidential debates.

First Presidential Debate: Jim Lehrer (PBS)
Second Presidential Debate: Charlie Gibson (ABC)
Third Presidential Debate: Bob Schieffer (CBS)
Vice Presidential Debate: Gwen Ifill (PBS)

Yes, that was lifted directly from Drudge Report. I'm a plagiarist. So sue me.

On second thought, don't.

Of those listed, Charlie Gibson is the only person who impresses me (Who the Hell is Gwen Ifill? Looks like some Affirmative Action name put up there so there'd be at least one female). I think that we should have more aggressive interviewers conduct the debates, so we won't be forced to listen to people like Al Gore drone on about lockboxes when asked questions about National Security.

If it were me, these would be the debate coordinators I would choose.

First Presidential Debate: John McLaughlin (NBC)
Second Presidential Debate: Tim Russert (NBC)
Third Presidential Debate: Bill O'Reilly (FoxNews)
Vice Presidential Debate: Chris Matthews (NBC)

Yeah, I know that its disproportionately NBC leaning, but they tend to have the most non-bias interviewers who will grill both sides of the isle. FoxNews will interrogate, but they have a decidedly Conservative slant, more often than not.

Anyone else have any picks?

(0) comments

Thursday, August 12, 2004

Y'arr! 

Yeah, I haven't been able to update very regularly lately. Mostly because I go to school full-time, and work over 40 hours a week. Y'know, I never thought I'd have doubts about the benefits of living in a Right-to-Work state, but I'm thinkin' that some union representation might not be a bad thing.

So, umm, Vote Bush.



(0) comments

Monday, August 09, 2004

Denial of Achievement 

Tomorrow night, the Redskins will play their first pre-season game under Joe Gibbs in twelve years, and although I don't expect a miracle, I am excited.

However, of all the glowing commentaries on Gibbs, one really pisses me off. Some Redskins fan are afraid that the modern, suck-ass Redskins might ruin Gibbs' reputation of one of the all-time great coaches.

Why does this piss me off? Because it implies that Gibbs doesn't really deserve his reputation, that he simply got lucky when he won those Super Bowls. This is a typically Liberal mind-set. No one ever deserves credit. If they achieve, they are simply lucky. It is disgusting.

Now, I don't know how I think the Redskins will do this year. I doubt they'll even make it to the play offs. But even if they are as pathetic as they were under Norv Turner, I will still credit Gibbs for his greatness.

(0) comments

Saturday, August 07, 2004

BTW... 

The timestamp on this blog is wrong, it IS still the 6th, so I am still technically correct on the aniversary date.

(0) comments

WJON: All Requests, All the Time 

It comes to my attention that today is the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing. This usually tends to prompt the Hippies to organize their anti-American protests, but this year they seem too preoccupied with their duties excusing Kerry's war crimes to bother with their assaults over at the Air and Space Museum.

Hiroshima was probably one of the most significant events in World History. Japan, an unstoppable, aggressive empire was halted with the drop of just two bombs. The Soviet Union, another unstoppable, aggressive empire halted in its tracks, and gave up its hopes of world domination, if only for a time. And a peaceful Democracy, the United States, became a Super Power.

The Hippies like to revise history. They like to say that Japan had already lost the war, and were prepared to surrender. They are wrong. The Japanese were still living by a feudal system known as Bushido, which forbade any warrior from surrendering. If Americans and allies had to go from island to island, hundreds of thousands on each side would have died. America may have been winning the war at that moment, but victory in war can slip from the presumbed victor's hands very quickly and without warning.

With Hitler defeated, Europe and Britain yearned to return to a peaceful existence and to rebuild their homes, and were not overly enthusiastic on helping us defeat Japan. The Soviets, if not for the knowledge of our new weaponry, may have allied with Japan in order to weaken the United States, the only check on their power with Hitler defeated.

Meanwhile, in America, the Beatniks (the 1940s version of Hippies), were instigating anti-war sentiments. If Americans suffered too many casualties, there is a very legitimate chance that the beatniks may have convinced America to surrender without total victory. If this had happened, many Pacific Islands may still be in Japanese control today.

All in all, i doubt anyone benefitted more from the nuking than Japan itself. By losing the war, they were forced to modernize, and now have the second most powerful economy on earth.

Yes, a lot of people died in the nuclear attacks, but its important to realize that it took two bombs to force surrender. Even after the first attack, the Japanese were still determined to fight on. And more importantly, no one can be successful in war if they try to spare the lives of the enemy, a lesson I wish Rumsfeld and Bush would learn.

(0) comments

Thursday, August 05, 2004

Closed Roads 

In order to increase security, DC has closed several roads in order to protect federal buildings and important national monuments. Which leads to the obvious question: What roads in DC don't lead to one or the other? Only the parts that the terrorists would be afraid to go into anyway.

I suppose that these type actions might throw a wrench in the terrorist plans, but I seriously doubt they do any real good. If Mohammad bin Mohammad can't drive his truck-bomb into the Capitol, he'll simply turn and drive it into some other building or monument. A lot of people don't think the Pentagon was a planned target on 9/11, just a convenient one when the attackers couldn't find the Capitol or White House. Any hotel or apartment complex will create as much fear as a government building would, when you think about it.

Face it people, until we take out the terrorists and their sponsors, these attacks will be inevitable. And don't think that the friendship of cowardly countries like France or Germany or Spain will protect us, Kerryites.
--------------
Turns out Kerry's band of brothers hate him.

http://www.swiftvets.com/ This is totally required reading!

(0) comments

Monday, August 02, 2004

Fiscal Responsibility 

Here is a tale of two idiotic political parties, and why we will never find our way out of debt.

On one hand, we have the Conservative Republicans. Republicans style themselves as the Fiscally Responsible party. They allow the citizenry to control their own money, by means of reducing existing taxes, and staving off future taxation. They believe that by lowering taxes, the economy will grow, and the revenue taken in by the government will increase. Since the government's takings grow, they reason, THERE IS NO REASON TO CUT SPENDING. They believe that by limiting the government's takings, the other political party will be afraid to increase spending. The Republicans are idiots, except for those who are hypocrites.

On the other hand, we have the Liberal Democrats. Liberal Democrats believe that they can spend all they want. They can pay for everyone in America to have free health care. They can pay for everyone in America to have their own house. How can they afford this? Tax Tax Tax! Since they raise the taxes to pay for all their wacky schemes, they are the party of fiscal responsibility!

But where will the Democrats find enough money for their programs? Why, the Rich People! America is full of rich people! And if we keep taxing them, these rich people can buy everything for everybody! These rich people don't really need that money anyway. What did they do to deserve to be able to afford giant houses, Hawaiian Vacations, and fast cars? Go to college and grad school? Bah! The rich are no more deserving of luxuries than the 8th Grade dropout-turned-crackwhore! So, they shall pay for that crackwhore's medical bills, housing, child care/abortion, and drug needle sterilization. After all, how dare someone be rich in America!

But what if we run out of rich people? What if these higher taxes destroy jobs and increase inflation? Well, if you ask these questions you are either
- a racist
- a homophobe
- a bigot
- a racist, homophobic bigot

In short, Democrats are idiots. Except for those who are hypocrites.

Can we expect the moderates of the parties to save us? Hardly. Most Moderates describe themselves as "Fiscally Conservative but Socially Liberal." This translates to "Cut the taxes while increasing welfare." Essentially, the worst of both worlds, when translated to fiscal responsibility.

By the way, if any company tried to operate like either the Republicans or the Democrats, the Feds would destroy them. The only way out of debt? Cut the spending. Start building a yearly surplus to spend on paying back the national debt so that we do not have to pay billions on interest on said debt every year. Only then can either party claim fiscal responsibility.

(0) comments

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