Thursday, September 30, 2004

Master Debater 

I must admit, I will give Kerry the slight edge on this one, and here is why.

Kerry managed to articulate an opinion. Bush did as well, but we already knew what his positions were, so no big deal. Kerry made a stand in front of a national audience. That alone will win him back some of his party loyalists he lost.

In the long run, Bush may be able to make up the difference, however. Kerry relied on anecdotes, saying that the Iraqi War diverted troops from Tommy Franks, for example. Franks, however, has heartily endorsed Bush. If Karl Rove has any brains, he's calling the general up right now to prepare a response. In his chronicles of the Afghan War, Franks pointed out that his troop reserve actually increased after Iraq.

The Bush team just needs to point out all of Kerry's falsehoods, and this slight loss may become a major victory.

(0) comments

Mark Warner is a Bum 

At the moment, I really hate Mark Warner.

Mostly, because the VDOT has destroyed the road in front of my house, and now seems to have abandoned it. Also, he refused to support a Virginian baseball team. That totally invalidates any gratitude I had for his contribution to getting Tech into the ACC.

Hell, Tech doesn't belong in the ACC anyway. Tech belongs in the Pee-Wee leagues.

So, now Washington has baseball again, which I suppose is good enough. However, if they get a idiotic name like the Grays, or the Taxation without Representation, I'm afraid I'll have to set someone on fire.

As I said before, any city that would continuously elect Marion Barry as their leader does not deserve baseball, or any other privileges.

(0) comments

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Jimmy Carter is a Punk 

Jimmy Carter has decided the best way to help America is to tell the world that our elections are worse than that of the third world.

Honestly, not since Andrew Johnson have we had a president who so obviously hated the country he led. The fact that Kerry is using this shame to our country as one of his mouthpieces speaks volumes.

I spoke most of my anger toward Carter the other day. He was an ineffective leader who abandoned our only ally in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, and allowed the Islamic Revolution that bred the current War on Terror. If you want to blame a single person for 9/11, don't look at Bush or Clinton, look directly at Jimmy.

Carter has been a thorn in the side of every president who tried to conduct foreign policy since he lost his bid for reelection. When Clinton tried to confront North Korea's nuclear weapon program, Carter butted in, and negotiated a peace which somehow allowed the Koreans to finish their nuclear programs.

Carter should be content to fade into the obscurity of history reserved for ineffective presidents. Herbert Hoover made it a point to make his displeasure of FDR's policies known. As a result, he's blamed for the Depression. Had he kept his fool mouth shut, his contribution to the Depression would be rightly lumped in with those of Coolidge, McKinley, and Taft. Likewise, Carter is inviting hostile historians, most of which have better credentials than this cranky blogger, to evaluate, critique, and inevitably demonize his legacy.

Most contemporary Americans give Carter a pass due to his charitable works since he left office. But in 40 years, no one will care if he built a habitat for humanity. They will care that while he was in office, Iran fell to a Soviet controlled totalitarian government which initiated a war that allowed Saddam Hussein to consolodate power in Iraq. They will care that inflation skyrocketed as the economy plummeted. They will care that Cuban forces invaded Africa, and Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan.

And the defining moment of his presidency will be when seventy (70) American diplomats were taken hostage, and there was nothing our leader was able or willing to do to save them.

(0) comments

Tuesday, September 21, 2004


Today the Bush/Ashcroft launched the biggest lawsuit against the Tobacco Industry in history, specifically designed to bankrupt the entire group.

Electorally, it seems Bush has totally forsaken the Libertarian wing of his party to appease the Christians.

As a Virginian, I find this whole lawsuit deathly stupid. If Tobacco companies are forced out of business, it will collapse the economies of southern Virginia and both Carolinas. The economic shockwave will hit most of the southern East Coast.

In addition, this will eliminate one of the most profitable exports the United States has to offer. Worldwide, it is accepted that the only quality tobacco comes from the eastern US.

In fact, this is why the American colonies were successful to begin with. Virginia was originally settled by the Virginia Company. Their goal was to find new resources to sell back to Britain and Europe. They found tobacco, and America thrived. The Father of our Country, George Washington, made his living as a tobacco farmer when he wasn't commanding troops or running governments.

Yet, Bush and Ashcroft think it would be wise to eliminate this boon to our economy, under the Clintonian philosophy that people don't need to take responsibility for heir own actions. If Ashcroft succeeds in his case, who knows what will happen to the Carolinian economies? John Edwards, now is the chance to win back the support of your home states.

(0) comments

Monday, September 20, 2004

Why Another Vietnam? 

For months, the Democrats have actively been trying to turn Iraq into another Vietnam. And yet, so far, I'm yet to hear any Conservative commentator question why.

The simple answer is that they want George W. Bush defeated in November. However, I would theorize that this is just a tiny little side-effect of their true intentions.

As it stands, the United States spends around 98% of its funds in three areas: Defense, Social Security, and paying off the interest (although never eating into the principle, of course) to our national debt. Of these three, Defense gets highest priority.

The Democrats no longer believe that the biggest threats to the United States are external, so they see that most of the Defense Funding is unnecessary. No rational enemy would attack the world's sole superpower, they reason, so why do we spend so much money on defense? This is money they believe could be better spent on their pet concerns here at home.

So, how would be the best way to turn American funding from defense? Glad you asked! A horrible defeat in battle, of course!

After Vietnam, American influence in the world retracted. Jimmy Carter essentially let the Soviets have the run of the world, which luckily ended with the Soviets having their own Vietnam-esque war in Afghanistan. Carter and his willing accomplices in Congress ravaged our defense capabilities and crippled our intelligence gathering in ways that even Ronald Reagan and two George Bushes were unable to fully repair.

Another Vietnam would create another opportunity for liberals to divert some of that defense spending. Rather than buying missiles to shoot at al Qaedan training camps, we can buy nutricious school lunches for inner city schoolchildren. Instead of building a missile shield to protect us from North Korean and Iranian nuclear warheads, we can make sure every Grandpa in America gets some free Viagra without any increase in his MediCare premiums! At the very least, we would be able to ignore the impending bankruptcy of Social Security for another ten years.

As nice as the Liberal Theory sounds, however, it has some pretty grievious flaws. Essentially, it relies on the idea that our enemies give a damn if they live or die. When fighting the USSR, we could safely assume they didn't want a nuclear war, since if an ICBM was fired, both Democracy and Communist ideologies would incinerate in the flames.

Today, our enemies don't believe in an ideology. They believe in a religion. They believe that if they kill us, they go to heaven where they will get a whole bunch of virgins to rape for eternity (how many times can you rape them before they cease to be virgins, I wonder?).

However, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Howard Dean and others still live in denial of all this and believe that money would be better spent elsewhere. After all, who can spend the time worrying about another 9/11 type attack when somewhere in mid-America, an animal shelter may put puppies and kittens down because it lacks funding to keep the unwanted strays alive?

So they continue to harp on how we are losing this war, how it was the wrong war, and how America is less safe because of this war. They will pressure John Kerry to pull us out of Iraq prematurely, and will breath a sigh of relief when American prestige takes a hit as al-Sadr sets up shop in Saddam's old palaces.

People want to know John Kerry's platform? It is an isolationist concern for our own domestic well-being, and to hell with the rest of the world. Quite a long way from the Free-Trading platform of Bill Clinton, and the Democracy-Spreading philosophies of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and JFK. Much more akin to the policies pre-World War II, that led to the Great Depression. But that, my friends, is a Blog for another day.

(0) comments

Thursday, September 16, 2004

Rather Interesting Conspiracy Theories 

Wacky Liberal Conspiracy Theory: Abu Ghraib.

As I mentioned in my previous post, Dan Rather exposed the abuse at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. By doing so, the Department of Defense faced greater international humiliation than any time in its entire history. My theory is that perhaps the Pentagon set Rather up. They would have been the ones who would have released official National Guard records. Perhaps Rumsfeld set up this obvious forgery to discredit the man who tried to hard to discredit him.

When MoveOn.org comes up with this theory in two days, remember you heard it here first.

Wacky Conservative Conspiracy Theory: The Saddam Scoop

I find it interesting that of all the Western journalists, Saddam picked Dan Rather to interview him. Why? What sets him apart from the other major journalists?

I can see why Saddam didn't go with Tom Brokaw. Mr. "Greatest Generation" is obviously a proud patriot, even if a Liberal. But why not the Canadian Peter Jennings? Saddam had CNN by the gonads through a system of blackmail and bribes, so why not let Wolf Blitzer or Larry King interview him? If he wanted himself to seem sympathetic to the average American, why not follow Castro's example and let Barbara Walters interview him? (Personally, I'd love to see Bill O'Reilly interview him).

The answer, I believe, is that both CBS and Dan Rather himself have a history of anti-American bias in their reporting. Dan Rather produced a long documentary in 1988' concerning the atrocities American soldiers committed in Vietnam. It was proven to be utterly fictitious, but not for years later. And, of course, I've already given my speal on CBS's Uncle Walter's contribution to our war efforts.

Saddam probably saw Rather and CBS as the most willing accomplices to his propoganda. Of course, by the time he agreed to the interview, it was too late to stop Bush's crusade. Too much credibility was at stake.

When you see this theory on Townhall.com in two days, remember you heard it here first.

(0) comments

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

A Rather Interesting Development 

Dan Rather has proven, once and for all, what Conservatives have tried to prove for decades: that the media has a relentless liberal bias.

Rather used forged documents to try to prove that Bush eluded duty in the Texas and Alabama Air National Guards. Unfortunately, in these days where any darn idiot with a computer (me) can communicate with the whole world, it is difficult for the media to get away with these sorts of fraud. These documents were hardly made public for any length of time before expert typologists exposed to the entire world that it was simply impossible for these documents to be authentic. In fact, it seems these records from the early 1970s were written using Microsoft Word.

There is very little doubt that these documents probably made their way to CBS via the Kerry Campaign. Dan Rather decided to be a mouthpiece of the campaign, rather than to try to independently validate the documents. Essentially, he's proven CBS has less of a burden of proof on their stories than the National Enquirer.

CBS has a long-storied history of letting their bias influence their reporting. Recently, they released the infamous Abu Ghraib story, which was probably the best thing to happen to anti-American propoganda since the spawning of Michael Moore. The Pentagon, the Presidency, and the Congress were already working on solving this issue, but Danny Rather decided it was his duty to air our dirty laundry worldwide, in a move that probably cost hundreds of American lives.

This isn't new, either. Walter Cronkite destroyed the public's willingness to win the Vietnam War. After the Tet Offensive, undeniably the greatest American Victory of the Vietnam War, Cronkite lamented that this was proof that the war was unwinnable. The American Public, who trusted their newsmen (before we knew better), took his off-base comment as gospel. The fringe anti-war movement became mainstream. Foolish politicians like Kerry tried to build careers on anti-American speech, and many patriotic feelings were demonized.

The American Constitution gaurantees a Free Media. However, Americans have been slow to learn that a Free Media is not necessarily a trustworthy one. For example, the Spanish American War was largely fought because Pulitzer and Hearst wanted a war to help them sell newspapers. Benjamin Franklin said that those who read newspapers are usually less informed than those who do not, and he published them!

I would say that anyone who listens to Dan Rather is probably worse informed than those who skip 60 Minutes to watch The Simpsons.

(1) comments

Thursday, September 02, 2004

Russia and Israel and the USA 

Russia is suffering through yet another terrorist crisis. Militant Chechnyans have taken over a school and are holding the lives of children as barter to have other militants released.

As Israel prepares to leave the Gaza Strip, I think it may be wise to look back on the lessons Israel, as well as the United States, can learn from the Russian/Chechnyan situation.

Since the days of the Soviet Empire, Chechnya has yearned to be free from Russian rule, which is more than understandable. However, their hypernationalism has become a supreme liability for Russian security.

At first, Russia hoped to quell their rebellion through military might, and this caused a long, bloody, drawn-out war in Chechnya. Eventually, the Pacifist movement, figure-headed by mothers of drafted soldiers, forced Putin to pull the troops back home. Chechnya was given partial autonomy, and has the right to elect their own heads of government.

However, the conflicts have not stopped, because the militants are left unchecked. They assassinated their president not long ago, and constantly launch attacks into mainland Russia. Now, instead of the bloody fighting being in Chechnya, its in the Russian mainland.

Israel seems to hope that Palestinians will cease the suicide attacks if they abandon the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Not too likely. Arafat has made Israel's elimination his sole purpose in life, and as soon as he regains those territories, he'll think up an excuse to take something else, with his allies in the EU waiting in the wings to eat up any manure he serves up. Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad won't even go through the courtesy of making up a new excuse to attack.

If the United States decides to go passive in the War on Terror, you can believe we will suffer fates like the Russians. We've not had a single major terror attack in our borders since 9/11, because the terror masters were preoccupied in Afghanistan and Iraq to concentrate on any attacks in our homeland. If a future president decides not to aggressively deal with the terrorists, they will have more time to plan for attacks, and we will see more devastation stateside.

(0) comments

Wednesday, September 01, 2004

Brief History on Conventions 

It has been said that the Republican and Democratic Conventions are pointless. On some levels I agree.

Party Conventions were originally developed to bring politics out of the smoke filled rooms and back to the people. Average joes could debate on the convention floor over their party's platform, thus giving control back to the people and away from corrupt political bosses.

In the 1968 election, however, this changed forever. With the Democrats in disarray, the Nixon Republicans decided they would carefully choreograph their convention to display the beauty of party unity. The Democrats were horribly split over Vietnam, and riots broke out during their convention. Republicans showed that they could all get along. Nixon won handily.

The Republicans did not learn the lesson from their own success, however. In 1976 Gerald Ford was up for reelection against the man The Simpsons would one day dubb "History's Greatest Monster," Jimmy Carter. On the convention floor, Reagan Republicans challenged the validity of Ford Republicans. This disunity destroyed any chance the Republicans had to win the election. Reagan's outburst cost the Republicans the White House.

So, now all conventions are designed to show a united purpose toward a major message. This year, the Democrats' message was "Look! We can be Republicans." The Republican message was, "Look! Even the Moderates in our party want to blow shit up!"

Actual platforms are created in the smoke-filled rooms again (although with a lot less smoke, since no self-respecting politico would be caught smoking these days). Are Conventions useless? Not entirely. They do put a face on what it is the Parties hope to stand for, and to accomplish. But, since none of the networks cover the conventions, the message may never reach the intended targets.
On a side note, my professor did not quote any of her wacky views today, so I guess I get results. Didn't stop me from putting my displeasure on her evaluation, and I have an appointment to speak to my advisor about her tomorrow.

"You have the right to speak you mind, but not on MY time!" -Billy Joel

(0) comments

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