Wednesday, November 24, 2004

So Much to Talk About... 

Well, the biggest story right now is the Detroit Pistons beatin' on their fans. I wrote a great piece of satire on the decline of professional sports in high school for the school paper, and as soon as I can find a copy of it, I plan on posting it here. All I'll say now is that every player involved should be banned from the game for life, and that the jerk in the stands who poured the beer should be fined and banned from attending any NBA events.
The Declaration of Independence has been banned in California schools. Does that mean that California is now a part of the British Empire? After all, they recalled their Declaration.
The Ukraine is having their own little Bush/Gore 2000 kerfuffle, and Colin Powell is sticking our nose into their business. Honestly, do we need to be pissing off Russia and the Ukraine? They almost like us! Our international relations suck enough with having non-nuclear nations hating us, why piss off those who can easily invoke nuclear war?
I believe that people who don't flush urinals in office buildings deserve death.
Dan Rather was fired. Call it what you will, but c'mon. He is being forcefully removed from his position of CBS anchor. I, for one, think that it will change absolutely nothing. But I'm still glad he's fired.
Some Brit company is releasing a game based on the JFK assassination. You get to be Lee Harvey Oswald, and you have to perfectly reenact the murder. As a result, now we have to deal with this "VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES ARE EVIL" garbage again, so we can probably expect another two or so years of games meant for 7 years olds starring Mario and Kirby. Enjoy Gran Turismo 4, I envision it will be the only decent game to come out for many months to come.
After many recounts, Washington's Republican gubernatorial candidate won the election. Ohio is still recounting the presidential election. Since they are down by tens of thousands of votes, I think that perhaps the Kerryites are a little optimistic.

More to come as I find time to blog.

(0) comments

Saturday, November 20, 2004

Holland's Liberalism 

Although the US press has not been covering the story at all, ultra-liberal Holland is going through a violent social revolution.

The catalyst was the slaying of a radical right-wing writer, Theo Van Gogh, who preached that Islam was not as great a religion as the media force feeds us. This rubbed some al Qaeda guy the wrong way, who killed him in broad daylight in public. In this land of ultra-tolerance, no one bothered to intervene. None of their business.

So, now pent-up anger that has been growing against the Muslim immigrants is venting in horrible ways. Natives are destroying Mosques, and in retaliation, Muslims are destroying Churches. Hey, why not? Its Holland! We don't judge people as bad just because they destroy places of worship!

This is the danger of ultra-tolerance. When there are no social mores, then dangerous actions are much more likely. As a result, Holland now faces the danger of falling to right-wing extremism on two fronts: The burgeoning Muslim population that is very sympathetic to al Qaeda; and the racist nativist movement that wants all Muslims expelled or destroyed. High price to pay for legal pot and prostitution, I'd say.

(0) comments

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Free Saddam! 

You heard me! The Iraqis deserve him! The whole Arab world deserves him!

Not only free him, lets GIVE him some WMDs!

They dare get pissy because a US Marine killed an insurgent who claimed to be injured?

If they don't like us there, let's set it back to the way it was before we were there!

(0) comments

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Anyone Who Is Sad About Arafat's Death will Burn in Hell With Him 

How is that for getting my thesis out fast?

Anyway, I find it rather disgusting how distraught the media is over Arafat's death. The only sad thing about Arafat's demise is that he didn't die in a horribly painful manner.

To call Arafat a terrorist does not even scratch the surface. He is the father of modern terrorism, trained by the KGB to destroy Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. He tied bombs to children in order to use them as human artillary, sending them into pizzarias and ice cream parlors to kill civilians. He personally ordered the PLO to kidnap and murder the Israeli Olympic Team in the 1972. He has personally created 50 years of nonstop war in the Middle East. Without Arafat, it is arguable that the regimes of Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeini, and the Taliban would not have been possible. Arafat made Islamic fundementalism a popular rallying tool in the Middle East, and mixed it with a virulent form of anti-Semitism.

Arafat was never anything but a thug. However, for a Europe riddled with guilt over the Holocaust, Arafat offered a valuable gift: Justification. By accusing Jews and Zionists of crimes against humanity, Arafat not only excused Europe of the Holocaust, he justified it! Evil allying with Evil! The European Intellectuals could not have invented a better hero!

Whats the difference between Yasser Arafat and Osama bin Laden? Arafat was good at it. It took bin Laden 20 years of trying and failing to pull off a successful attack on the United States, Arafat attacked Israel on a regular basis for decades, and as recently as two years ago managed to attack daily for over a year! And he managed to still convince Europe and the United Nations that HE was the victim!

Rot in Hell Arafat. I wish the United States or Israel had the balls to bomb your funeral, so that they'd kill everyone who mourns you.

(0) comments

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

The Specter of Infighting 

Now that the Republicans are decidedly the majority fighting, we shall now see the infighting. As mentioned before, the Republican Party is not a big tent.

A Civil War in the Republican Party has long been brewing between the "Moderate" and "Conservative" wings. Conservatives tend to be more pigheaded, trying to force the president to put impossible ideals, such as eliminating all farm subsidies, over the political realities. This is why it is shocking that it is the moderates, led by one Senator Arlen Specter, who are initiating the battle.

Senator Specter is expected to head the judiciary committee in the upcoming congress. As many people with an unhealthy fixation on politics know, during the last session of Congress, Daschle and the Democrats made it their business to make sure that practically none of Bush's judicial nominations would come up for a vote, no matter their qualifications, even if endorsed by the liberal American Bar Association. Unless the nominee was a pro-choice Democrat (which two were, as Bush's foolish attempt to be a "Uniter, not a Divider") the Democrats would filibuster to make sure the Senate was never able to vote.

With Bush's mandate creating a major Senatorial coattail effect, Republicans and Conservatives breathed a sigh of relief. Finally, Republicans would be able to fill all the vacant judgeships across the country! That is, until Senator Specter opened his fool mouth.

Specter immediately told the press that he would continue to put Bush's nominees to a litmus test. Bush would not have the freedom to choose his judicial nominees based on merits. They'd have to conform to Specter's view of the world.

Immediately, Conservatives were red with anger. They won the most bitter election in modern history! Who the Hell is Specter to challenge the man who endorsed him against a more qualified Conservative in the primaries?

We'll tell you! said the Conservatives. He's the man who betrayed the Party on the nomination of Robert Bork. When stinging accusations about the judge's sick wife brought him to tears, Specter refused to allow the Democrats to call a recess, he was so determined to get his barbs in!

Specter is a traitor to the party, in the eyes of most Conservatives. While they may disagree with McCain on certain issues, and they seethed with rage against Jim Jeffords when he switched parties with the 50/50 Senate, neither ever angered Conservatives as much as Specter did during the Bork hearings.

Arlen Specter is dead to Conservatives, and rightfully so. He should be dead to the Republican Party as well.

(0) comments

Saturday, November 06, 2004

Just Blather 

As it stands now, political ideology seems to be overly important in whether or not a candidate will win a national election. I've had some time to think of this kind of thing, in that my current job is exceedingly boring.

Republicans come from a small tent Conservative Party. Therefore, its a rather specialized sort of vote that they attract. Luckily for them, its a vote that most people in this country are currently willing to make.

Democrats, on the other hand, are the party of Radicalism, and have an extremely large tent. As a result, the Democrat label tends to wield more power than the Liberal label, which many Democrats fear. Essentially, anyone who isn't happy with the current America, the America represented by the Republican Party, joins the Democrats.
Presented for your approval is the hierarchy of electability in American Politics, from least to most electable.
1.) Independent/Third Party: Totally unelectable, except maybe as a joke vote. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Lyndon LaRouche, Pat Buchanan. Without the backing of an organized political party, they have no prayer to ever be elected to any office higher than Dogcatcher.

2.) Moderate Republican: In a national election, these candidates are doomed. Republicans tend to distrust their own who don't toe the party line up to their expectations. George H. Bush won the presidency as Reagan's heir, but was thrown out on his ass when he compromised with the Democrats and raised taxes.

3.) Liberal Democrats: Despised by the Republicans of all colors and distrusted by independents, Democrats will sell their souls to lose the Liberal label. They will not, however, give up their tax-raising policies. John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, and Jimmy Carter fall into this category.

4.) Conservative Republicans: They stand for the values of Heartland America, and they are as loyal to each other as a cult. Their admiration of the military, as well as their resolve to use it if they deem it necessary, tends to put Independents at ease during times of crisis. If Republicans can nominate a Conservative who doesn't prove to be a hypocrite or racist right before the election, he will always win. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are the epitomes of the Conservative Republican.

5.) Moderate Democrats: The Ace in the Deck. If a Democrat candidate can shake the liberal label, he will win every time. Promise new social programs while managing to cut taxes and spending. They minimize their threat to Heartland America's value system, and promote social programs in ways so minute that no one but the Conservative Right notices. Bill Clinton was the master, and Zell Miller could arguably fall into this category (if not under Conservative Republican).
As it stands, this doesn't bode well for the Republicans in 2008 (yeah, starting the analysis early). So far, all the candidates being groomed for the presidency in 2008 are moderate Republicans, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani being the most notable.

John McCain may think that he's beloved by Democrats for his supposed hatred of George W. Bush. John McCain will be in for a big shock when they start smearing him with slander just as bad as they hurl at Bush. George H. Bush's supposed moderate philosophy did not protect him from labels of racist, or "Destroyer of the Environment." Many Republicans may decide not to support McCain in 2008, since he allowed Kerry to invoke him so often in this election. He is decidedly out of the Republican Cult.

Rudy Giuliani, as mayor of New York, was often accused of racism too, but this hardly slowed him in his programs to make New York an inhabitable city again, and was able to run on platforms of results. However, He's a New Yorker. That will weaken his support in rural America. He's Pro-Abortion, which will dissolve any Christian Coalition support. He's ruthless on crime, which will send the Libertarian Wing of the Republican Party into Ashcroft-Fear Mode, and they will at the very least, stay home on election day. Essentially, none of the traditional Republican strongholds will be overly passionate about a Giuliani candidacy.
As for the Democrats, they've already picked Hillary. Some people bring up John Edwards , almost as a side-note, but thats like bringing up Alan Keyes opposition to George W. in 2000. Unlike her husband, Hillary is decidedly not a Moderate Democrat. It would be exceedingly difficult for her to lose the Liberal label. However, unlike either of the presumptive Republican candidates, she'd have her party support.
My rubrick would predict Hillary as the winner in 2008. However, there are a few things that could skew this. First would be Bush's success in his first term. If he leaves office as a popular president, and endorses the new candidate in his warm Stereotype Southerner manner, he'll do much to help either candidate (either bring the Republican coalitions back around to Giuliani, or prove to Republicans, once and for all, that he and McCain do NOT actually hate each other). If Bush ends his term unpopularly, the Republicans have no hope any way you look at it.

The other modifier is how the Democrats portray themselves these next four years. This election cycle, they went on a strategy of pure propoganda, never before seen on a scale like this in this country. One would have had to have gone to Stalin's Soviet Bloc or Hitler's Germany to find a propogandist in the style of Michael Moore. This contributed more to Bush's victory than any other factor. Hillary will have the benefit of having the support of her entire party, but if her party does not conduct itself better over the next four years, there may not be enough people left who identify themselves as Democrats to make a difference. By blaming the Bush Victory entirely on homophobia, the Democrats are not off to a good start.

(0) comments

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

The Bush Victory: What we learned, and What the Dems must do to Recover. 

So, as it appears that Bush won more of the popular vote than ANYONE in history, it also appears that Anybody But Bushisms were pure myth.

I think we can thank the following people for Bush's reelection:

Michael Moore: For illustrating the absurdity of the anti-Bush Left.
Osama bin Laden: For mirroring Michael Moore's propoganda right before the election. Or rather, we can thank al Qaeda for releasing this tape. Osama is dead.
Jimmy Carter: For reminding Americans that most Democrat economies are not like Clinton's.
Howard Dean: For making hatred and raving conspiracy theories a popular tool in politics.

This election proved other things as well:

- The youth is not a Democratic stronghold. The youth voted for Bush at least as much as they voted for Kerry.
- High turnout is no longer an advantage for Democrats.
- Renewed Patriotism after 9/11 was not just superficial. We voted. We participated in our Democracy in the highest numbers since the Revolution.

This election is now over. As a result, Kerry is no longer fair game to criticism, except for how he holds himself in the Senate. Republicans need to be graceful in victory.

The Democrats, I believe, will need to do some soul searching to discover an identity. Bush could not have won this election by this large a margin if a large number of Democrats who felt disenfranchized by their own party didn't cross party lines. Many probably believe in the ideals of the Democratic party, but feel their party betrayed them in a ill-conceived plan to bring down one man. Think Zell Miller.

The Democrats need to come up with policies that don't rely on creating fear of the opposition. The youth of the nation did not fall for the Draft scam. The elderly did not fall for the loss of Social Security threats. Even the Blacks are starting to become skeptical that Republicans are trying to re-enslave them.

The leadership of the Democrats may be angrier than ever, but the rank-and-file of the Democrats will not put up with another campaign like this. Barack Obama, for example, as soon as he won his Senate seat, gave an interview to NBC emphasizing that he believed in LOYAL opposition to the president, a surprising blow to his own party's handling of politics as they relate to George W. Bush and the War on Terror.

My prediction is that the Democrats will throw Terry McAuliffe out as party chairman, and find someone a little more sane, like Susan Estridge, to replace him. With Daschle out as Senate Minority leader, the Democrats have an opportunity to select a leader willing to work with the president. Now that they are a full 5 seats short in the Senate, they will need to.

We must all work together to reunite. Al Qaeda is still out there, as well as hundreds of other enemies who reveled in our perceived disharmony. If we put the internal bickering aside, we may find peace in our time.

(0) comments

Monday, November 01, 2004

Beltway Bastards 

The Kerry people have gone too fucking far this time.

This morning, on the way to work, the Beltway, Dulles Toll Road, and most other major highways were smacked down by people demonstrating for John Kerry, making our already terrible traffic situation explode.

For this reason I shall ammend my predictions made the other day. Maryland will go to Bush. You don't fuck with the traffic situation in the DC area.

(0) comments

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