The Badge of Humility

Of Course We Lost

2008-11-07T05:10:00.000-08:00

I'm kind of amazed that any conservative is surprised at our defeat. All of you were here for the last couple of years, right?

All of you were here during the primaries, weren't you? The primaries where the Democrats had to agonizingly decide who among their socialist monarchs was most liberal and most likely to inspire great crowds and celebration, while the Republicans chose which lifeless, ancient talking head would attempt to cut a weaselly "moderate" line? Doesn't anybody else remember reading up on every Republican we were putting up this year with increasing horror?

All of you were here when Barack Obama proved his unbelievable charisma by defeating Hillary Goddamn Clinton in the Democrat primaries, right? Surely I wasn't the only one who realized that nobody defeats a Clinton among Democrats by accident or mistake. We condescended to Obama at our peril because he was a political newcomer and relatively young. We failed to heed the ridiculously obvious warning: he had bested the Clintons in the Democrat political machine. He was the new champ.

All of you were here when we picked John McCain for our candidate, weren't you? Did you really think that most actual conservative voters would forgive Mr. McCain for his repeated backstabbing of his own party? Shit, we were all screaming our fool heads off at him for the "amnesty" debacle half a year before the primaries started. Conservatives really hate McCain, and a watery middle-ground candidate can never defeat a champ. If anything has proven that the current primary system is broken, this cycle has.

All of you were here through agonizing months of flip-flopping and waffling and insufferable liberalism on the part of the conservative candidate, weren't you? McCain is a great man and a war hero, and if e'er we meet I shall buy him a drink. But he never did stick to his guns on anything besides the War on Terror, and as Mark Steyn and others have pointed out the war hasn't been a big issue since the surge worked so phenomenally. It was absolutely painful listening to McCain attempt to approximate what a conservative might sound like (only softer) on every domestic issue imaginable. Are all of you honestly going to tell me that you were blind enough to not know how that looked next to the calm, smooth Obama, presiding with absolute confidence and vision over his people?

And all of you were here through the most lackluster political campaign of my admittedly short lifetime, right? It was absolutely pathetic, the way Sean Hannity had to keep harping on about William Ayers as if it were a good argument, because the McCain campgain was doing nothing to provide us with better ones. Okay, so Obama has very little experience and he is/was associated with some shady people. Noted. Now

WHY IN THE FLAMING HELL SHOULD I VOTE FOR MCCAIN!?

Nobody got around to answering that particular question, least of all McCain himself. If a candidate's campaign can't actually offer me a good reason to vote for him, then why should I? Attack ads are extremely potent weapons; useful tools in a politician's repetoire. But they aren't enough alone.

Despite all of Obama's charisma and confidence, he was an abysmally weak candidate. He had scant experience, a shady background and pretty much a stock standard liberal platform. Numbers-and-facts wise this campaign was giftwrapped for us. But, as many pundits painfully relearned this cycle, elections are not about numbers and facts. They're about confidence and ideals. We aren't picking some utilitarian, mathematical position like a federal reserve chair. We're appointing a figurehead to make rousing speeches, rally us together against common enemies and threats, and showcase American ideals to ourselves and to the rest of the world. The Republicans had a chance to choose among them their most inspiring leader, to showcase conservative ideals as America's ideals. We hedged our bets and nominated the wateriest, weakest-kneed crowd pleaser we could find.

When entering a contest of ideals, nominate a strong and inspiring idealist. That's the first rule. Scratch that - it's the zeroeth rule. It's the essence of the game. We might as well have nominated based on alphabetical order if that wasn't our goal. How did so many of us forget that part?

Admit to yourself that you knew we lost this election a year ago. There were little jerks, sure, little spots of hope. Palin was a big one. Joe the Plumber was a last little sparkle. But you knew. You knew as well as I did, when McCain was nominated... about two weeks after that, watching him on television. You knew we had lost. You knew there was no way that our please-everybody-mo-tron was going to knock out a champ. And the Democrats picked a champ.

See you all in four years. Hopefully we'll have found someone who can shout the conservative ideals from the rooftops with a fraction of the same inspiring courage that John McCain showed in the Hanoi Hilton, in a different arena. And let's hope that next time we don't confuse the two again.

Got It Memorized?

2008-09-13T09:58:00.000-07:00

Since I'm dreadfully sick of hearing about this garbage, let's get it straight one last time:

In the 2000 election, the Supreme Court did -not- decide who would become president. At all. Obviously, as any constitutional scholar would note, if there were an exact tie or some other craziness, that falls to the House of Representatives, not the Supreme Court.

Here's what happened: as most any who were alive at that time can remember (based on the fact that "I demand a recount!" has become something of a cultural catch phrase) presidential hopeful Al Gore was not satisfied with the vote counting process in Florida, where the numbers were very close. He had lost by the initial count, and therefore demanded that the votes be recounted in several districts of the state of Florida. The law allows for recounts, but does place reasonable limits on them (because obviously, in the absence of limits, someone could theoretically deadlock the country for an unknowable amount of time until all of the ballots were counted umpteen billion times.) These exact limits are left up to the individual states themselves. Florida state law states that all recounts must be submitted within seven days of the end of the electoral period.

By the time we were on recount number three (and Bush won all of the recounts) seventeen days had passed since the official closing of the polls. I don't remember every detail of what happened next, but I do remember two things for an absolute goddamned certainty:

1. The United States Supreme Court ruled that seven days meant seven days and not "whenever the hell we feel like it." That was the ONLY thing they decided: that the Florida vote counts had to follow the Florida law. Since Bush won the initial count AND every recount, he had thus won the presidential election.

2. Bush won every other recount, even the bizarre ones held by the New York Times. He won excluding absentee ballots. He won excluding military ballots. He won. It was a very slim margin, no question, but he also won, no question.

So look, I've read two history books that are already stating that the vote was so close that the Supreme Court voted on who would be the next president, and that this is strange because the constitution rules that the House of Representatives should do such. Please, please, oh God in heaven please, don't let this become one of those constantly-debunked-but-still-believed-by-the-general-public historical myths that will live on forever and ever. The Supreme Court was fully in its power to do what it did, and in fact would have been dreadfully remiss no to.

Quickie: Harvey of IMAO Nails It

2008-08-28T17:16:00.000-07:00

Perhaps the most succinct summary of the healthcare issue ever written, by Harvey at IMAO:

"It's an imprudent choice to provide the government with a financial incentive to prefer to see you dead rather than ill."

Well said. Now put it on a T-Shirt so I can buy three.

Flag Burning: Free Speech vs. Cultural Confidence

2008-08-22T14:30:00.001-07:00

The flag burning issue is pretty contentious, and I can understand why. To be perfectly honest, my mind is still not quite decided about the whole thing. I suspect a lot of others don't really know what to think about it either.

The real issue at stake here isn't whether or not the burning of the American flag in protest is a good thing. Most any American despises the actual burning of their nation's flag. The issue is whether or not such an act should be made illegal or, to take it a step further, be made nationally illegal in every state by the introduction of an amendment to the United States constitution.

On the one hand, a nation must have confidence and willpower that it may continue to exist. A nation that isn't willing to defend its national symbols could be perceived as weak, and as the last forty years of international affairs should have taught us the perception of weakness (especially American weakness) can lead to thousands of deaths, and not just the deaths of Americans either. A nation simply must have the will and pride to defend itself, and that includes the defense of the nation's symbols, artifacts and cultural treasures. A nation that no longer cares about its own symbols is a necrotic nation, rotting from the inside out.

And this is not purely an academic concern. In a world where many of the advanced nations are multicultural "motel nations" that have no strong ideals of their own one does not have to look far in order to find examples of why this is a bad thing. Nations like Canada, Germany, Italy and France, once so vital and thriving that they fought hard wars to maintain their ways of life and defend the ideals of their nationhood, are now barely even geographic markers of territory. They are dying nations, consumed by guilt and ennui instead of pride and national will. America is not immune to the same general slide, and the vigilance of the American people is the best and only true safeguard against such a decay of values. A nation that will defend its national symbols proves its strength and relevance, and asserts that it is not willing to allow its values to be assaulted and stand idly by while it happens.

On the other hand, one of those American values, and one that, at current, is experiencing a most alarming decline, is the idea of property rights. If you own a house, you set the house rules. If you buy an ice cream cone, you get to decide who eats it. If you buy a work of art, you can place it on whichever wall of your house or apartment that you wish. If you own land, you are free to develop and renovate it. If you, for example, bought an American flag, you could do what you like with it. You could hang it on any wall, you could fly it from any flag pole you establish... and yes, you could burn it. It's your symbol of America to do with what you like.

Now, don't get me wrong. It behooves the owner of a symbol of their own nation to treat it with respect and dignity. I should hope that those who obtain an American flag display it proudly and observe those rituals regarding it that help to infuse it with meaning. However, requiring such reverence for a national symbol on your own property by law strikes me as counter to certain ideals that the flag itself represents. It's a sort of meddlesome category of law that paces the gray line between the sacrifices of freedom that all cultures must make to ensure the cohesion that makes a society great and the type of infraction upon personal choice and property that puts yet another government intrusion into the lives of the citizenry.

On the other other hand, the government already determines a lot of what you can do with your own things on your own property, and rightfully so. It is legal to purchase the ingredients of methamphetamine, but it is illegal to make or sell the stuff. It's illegal to saw off the barrel of a shotgun in your own garage, it's illegal to commit treason or conspiracy in your own basement, it's illegal to pirate movies or software on your own computer in your own bedroom or study, etc. A nation can decide that certain behaviors or actions are too damaging to be protected by the right to property ownership. In addition, the government can regulate what occurs on it's own property, and so the government would be absolutely fully in its rights to claim that the American flag cannot be burned in public or in view of the public, in the same way that indecent exposure laws work now.

Mark Steyn makes an interesting point in this article, where he states, "For my own part, I believe that, if someone wishes to burn a flag, he should be free to do so. In the same way, if Democrat senators want to make speeches comparing the U.S. military to Nazis and the Khmer Rouge, they should be free to do so. It's always useful to know what people really believe." Indeed, he has a good point. Modern political commentary is very heavily stifled and super polite, to the point where people think that Ann Coulter is mean (if you think that Ann is mean, I invite you to spend ten, maybe fifteen minutes on a construction site one of these days). Stifling the free speech of those who hate America will only make it harder to root out those who truly despise America.

So to end rather abruptly, that's the discussion. Do we defend an important national symbol, or do we allow others to attack it in the name of free speech? I'm leaning toward Mark Steyn's position here; that restricting free speech in such a fashion isn't worthy of a free society. But on the other hand, is failing to come to the defense of one's national symbols worthy of any society? I just don't know...

All the Same?

2008-08-12T11:42:00.000-07:00

The primary failing of the modern intellectual is this: he believes that all men are like himself. No matter how many times he is proven wrong, he clings fervently to this belief. I'm sure that you've recently heard some of the modern pieties expressing this sentiment: "Deep down, we all just want the same things," "All men are really just looking for happiness," "We all really want peace," "Nobody likes to fight and die," "Everyone prefers a friend to an enemy." Of course, this isn't true. In some greater sense, all people seek satisfaction of some kind, but in any real, useful, tangible sense we do not all want the same things.

Part of the reason that capitalism works while other economic systems fail is that people don't want the same things. Sure, most everyone wants milk, but many want it for cheese or butter or cake and not for the milk itself, and some desire different uses of milk in different quantities. Still others could care less for milk, and wish that the nation's productive power would produce more meat instead. A capitalistic system allows the end consumer to set the demand for what they wish industry to produce through pricing and purchase or, more often, a failure to purchase. This is an incidental point, so I'll go no further, but the point is that the very basis of our economic system is that people are -not- the same, that some people would rather spend all of their money on leisure and others would rather put it in the bank, and that without this obvious difference our society might collapse as communism did, based on a faulty idea of human behavior.

But as useful a point this is for illustrating that people have complex differences, it does not refute the intellectual point that people do not have basic differences; no matter which nation we come from or which side of an argument we're on, we all want the same things. This often leads to the denigration of those who continue to struggle, for clearly they are only prolonging a meaningless fight when both parties could come to terms. The idea that we're all the same is the motivation behind the intellectual fixation with diplomacy: if we already really agree on the ends, all that remains is to peaceably find the means.

Decry it how we like, however, people do not want the same things, even at a basic level. People from different cultures have radically different ideas about what is acceptable, what is true, what the future holds, etc. For example, in many Islamic cultures, it is accepted that Islam will spread to conquer the entire world. This isn't some cutesy point about whose face will be on the currency, either. This is about who can vote, who makes the rules and who is subservient.
The American intellectual assumes that everyone is like the Americans. He assumes that everyone wants universal suffrage and that people only embrace the alternative out of ignorance. This attitude spawns from multiculturalism. The idea that all cultures are inherently equal and cannot be judged by any higher standard than their own leads to the elimination of distinctions between nations, because pointing out differences might infer judgement. From there, it's a short hop to the idea that everyone is basically the exact same. Intellectuals believe that they've found the truth, and that anyone who hears about it couldn't possibly disagree with them.

Ironically, they hold the belief that others disagree with them out of ignorance, out of ignorance. Because one cannot truly understand anything without making some kind of distinction or judgement (this is how the human mind works, after all) multiculturalism has doomed is followers to understand nothing about any culture but their own. Multiculturalism demands from its followers only that they feel a sort of fuzzy warmheartedness toward other cultures, not that they actually learn anything about those other cultures, especially not if it's something negative. But the truth of the matter is, cultures can be objectively compared. It doesn't even require a belief in God, if you insist on being difficult. In America, women are allowed to vote, do not live in arranged marriages and are free to be dependent only on themselves virtually free of stigma. In Iran, during the equivalent of the "I dos" at a wedding, the man gives his affirmation clearly, while the woman is in another room. The bridesmaids slam her head into the wall, and if she whimpers, cries or groans in pain, that's a "yes." Are you honestly going to tell me there's no significant difference between the way those cultures treat women? Or try to bluster your way through this by saying something like "Well, women were abused in western culture too..."

Well, they're full equals now, even if certain realities take longer than a single generation to iron themselves out. In the east, however, they're still property. We're not all the same, our cultures are not all equal, and the assumption of such is the foolishness of hoping that the world will become perfect by acting like it is. It doesn't work. It never has. It only leads to tragedy.

Soldiers Aren't Crazy

2008-04-09T11:35:00.000-07:00

I went to my mother's apartment for supper last night. While there, I watched Boston Legal with my sister. The show was hilarious, but unfortunately they'd take five minutes out of every ten to go on long-winded rants about things the writers knew nothing about. Finally, I was able to hear a Hollywood writer's true feelings about the Iraq war! In case you haven't heard they've been silenced and oppressed by us evil right-wingers.

So in between ridiculous rants about why people should be able to sue the TV because they agreed to go on a show and didn't like the results, they sounded off on something that really touched a nerve: veterans.

They talked and talked on their moral high horse about this veteran who committed murder because of PTSD. Oh man, they would not quit talking. It was on and on about how America has abandoned its veterans and how there are all sorts of homeless vets that we do nothing about and how George W. Bush, with a wave of his scepter of evil power, cut veteran's health insurance all by himself because he's an evil dictator.

Alright. I'm going to go down the list here:

1) Veterans aren't insane. They're not. I have buddies who have been in combat with the Army, the Marines and the Navy. Hell, I have a friend from high school who was on guard duty at Baghdad International Airport in '04. It's true that having to kill someone changes you, but it doesn't turn you into some kind of lunatic. Hollywood is obsessed with the idea that veterans are just potential murderers, barely human. They way they represent vets is ludicrous. I mean, it raises serious questions about why you would let someone who would just get confused and kill someone vote. Veterans aren't insane alcoholic-schizophrenics, they don't have trouble holding down a normal job and they're not crazed killing machines out for blood, okay? Can we all get that straight?

2) The US government may not be perfect, but it doesn't just abandon vets the way it did in the 40s and 50s. They understand PTSD. They'll provide you free counseling if you want. They'll help you get into college. They'll help you get a job. My buddy who was medically discharged from the marines got a job when I couldn't because the government helped him out. I'm sick of hearing this bullshit about how they abandon their soldiers, because they don't.

3) 90% of those homeless "veterans" you see aren't veterans. They claim to be veterans because they know people will be more likely to take pity on them and give them money if they say they are. They're not freaking vets, okay? The vast majority of the homeless suffer from severe schizophrenia and don't know what the hell they're doing.

4) George Bush isn't responsible for everything that happens. He isn't a dictator, he doesn't have all-reaching power. We have a constitution. You should read it some time. Hundreds and hundreds of people vote on every law that gets passed. If health care benefits to veterans making more than a certain amount got passed, more than just George Bush was involved, and there were probably good reasons.

5) Health care is not a crisis. I understand that there are a lot of uninsured people, but the vast majority of them could afford health care if they wanted to. People could live with family or in a smaller house or apartment, they could drive a smaller or older car, they could spend less on eating out, they could get a smaller TV, they could not blow their money on a $650 gaming machine. But they don't, because they want those other things. They'll take it at the risk of having to pay a doctor's bill. That's their choice, and it should be their choice. If something is important to you, you can afford it. You'll find a way. But most people will give up if it's not immediately provided for them. Well, if the government gives you healthcare, the government controls your healthcare. We demand hundreds of choices of breakfast cereals and movie rentals, but when it comes to healthcare we don't want a choice? Not me. I don't want it provided for me. I want choice and freedom, and I'm willing to pay all attendant costs myself.

He's Out

2008-01-23T13:45:00.001-08:00

Fred Thompson is out.

Who the hell do I support now? Fuck, I hate the Republican party right now.

The Freedom to Pay

2008-01-04T23:59:00.000-08:00

I'm back from my Christmas and New Years' break. Time to jump back into things.

http://tinyurl.com/2yujno

Very, very interesting article about Huckabee. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but this one has a very strong case behind it. I find some of his points weak and inconclusive, but overall the case for Huckabee's possible use of bariatric surgery seems strong as a whole.

Why does it matter? Because Huckabee is the kind of conservative that's simply a social conservative, and a conservative in no other fashion. He's the type of big-government conservative that's ruining a small-government party. He's the type of conservative who's running on the idea of cramming healthcare down your throat and using the government as a cudgel to force you to do what he thinks is best for your life.

As a social libertarian, I find this unacceptable. As a political conservative, I find it just as unacceptable, and so should all of those who dare attempt to wear the conservative mantle. The fact that Huckabee is using his own weight loss as a means to cajole Americans into believing this malarkey about government needing to dictate everyone's eating habits makes this a vital and important issue.

Ultimately, though, it shouldn't matter, because Republicans shouldn't need a reason to disqualify this garbage other than the fact that it's coercive, invasive, big government foolishness that should be derided by anyone who dares call himself an American right-winger. Unlike conservatives in other countries, we fight for the idea that people should be free to live their lives in a manner prescribed by themselves and not by aristocrats and high rulers, with a minimum of government intervention. The arguing point of where that happy minimum is may be a negotiable point, but this part doesn't even come close to being on the acceptable spectrum.

As Mark Steyn says, we demand choice when it comes to little, inconsequential things like what movie we get to rent and what cereal we get to eat. But when it comes to which doctor we see or what drugs we're allowed to have, we want the government to handle it for us. Why is this? Isn't that an infinitely more important choice? Isn't that worth paying for?

If the essentials are provided for you, then the essentials are decided for you. A wish for freedom is a wish to take all attendant responsibilities and pay all attendant costs. Conservatives in America are supposed to be the ones standing on the side of accepting those costs and responsibilities joyously as the acceptable price of our freedom. If our leader and candidate isn't going to fight for that, then he's not one of us and doesn't deserve our endorsement. Whether his example is fake or not shouldn't matter.

But it does. And while I find that sad, I will take the right ends with the wrong means over vice versa any day.

Open Secrets: Religion

2007-12-26T15:39:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/2h4wu8

Thomas Sowell's piece on the presidential nominees. I think he hits the issues pretty quickly and concisely, so if you haven't been following the race very closely you can just read this short piece and you'll be right up to speed.

What I think is interesting is his assertion that Mitt Romney is the only candidate who "looks presidential." I'd probably dispute him on that... but then, he's a very experienced political commentator, so it's possible he knows something I don't about that matter.

I also doubt his assertions that Huckabee brought religion back into the presidential race. Romney's Mormonism was a sticking point among Republican voters before anybody brought it up at all, and Huckabee using his status as a Christian minister to appeal to voters isn't all that strange and shocking when you think about it. Heck, Jimmy Carter won a lot of votes on his faith, Bill Clinton wasn't exactly subtle about lugging that huge Bible to church every Sunday even when he was having an affair at the oval office, and George W. Bush made no qualms about his faith. Religious faith is a deeply important subject to the American people, and the church and ideals you choose to align yourself with are a clear indication of your views and character.

So I'm really sick of people saying that religion shouldn't be a factor in a presidential (or any) election. Guess what: people choose their faith. They get to pick that, especially by the time they've reached the age at which they can become president. They've lived and learned and experienced, and they've picked which church or faith best represents their views. They've had ample time to look. So why is religion the one choice that's off limits for selection in a race? What does it say about someone if they believe in the Mormon faith, or the Muslim faith, or the Christian faith? Those are legitimate questions and they have clear and easily accessible answers, and an important decision of that magnitude says a great deal about who a person is and the content of their character. Surely people can lie about this choice; in fact, sometimes you can expect that they will on such an important issue. But let me put it to you this way: if a candidate publicly allies with the ACLU, we can all comment on it all we want and there's not a damn thing he can do about it. If a candidate allies with the Mormon faith, nobody gets to say ANYTHING or they're a hateful bigot who's ruining the presidential race. That's fucked up. Religion is important to the American people, and it's only right that we get to consider it when picking our leader.

Now, I think everyone can agree that disqualifying or qualifying someone based solely on any one factor, religion included, is a foolish way to pick a president. Declaring that you'll never vote for someone, no matter his views on everything else, because he's a Mormon, or declaring that you'll automatically vote for the Christian minister on the ticket is just stupid. When you're given the choice to vote you're given the opportunity to pick the destiny of the greatest nation on Earth. If you don't carefully consider every variable and option before making that choice, for the love of God don't vote. Leave it to people who know what they're doing.

Religion is one of those topics like race or sexuality or what have you that liberals are constantly trying to make inaccessible in conversation because they lose on it. Conservatives don't need to help them make entire venues of legitimate inquiry into the "who can shout 'hate speech' first" game. I'm a little disappointed in Dr. Sowell's statement that Huckabee should be disqualified for this reason... as Dr. Sowell points out himself, there are plenty of much better reasons to send Huckabee packing.

Cradle of Civilization

2007-12-20T06:42:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/yt2zz9

Mark Steyn's piece on population and the nativity. Fascinating, as always. This is the sort of piece that makes Mark Steyn my favorite columnist.

What's most interesting about it to me is the obviously self-destructive nature of a people that doesn't breed. This is the reason that Catholics consider birth control immoral, by the way: you've got to produce those babies for Jesus. Perhaps that's not the reasoning given out, but whether by design or by accident it really helps to create a movement that's going to be around in a few centuries.

This is the real problem with the dechristianization of Europe. They replaced a religion, a forward-looking ideology that lays out a reason to preserve the world, with a secular guilt trip. That only works for so long... sooner or later your people cease caring. When they're getting on in years they're going to care more about living out the last of their days in comfort than they are about sacrificing anything for the good of future generations; it's the foolhardy young that risk life and limb to discover new wonders and search for adventure and wealth. Compound this by rapidly aging a population because all of the reasons and means for having children have evaporated and you've got Europe as it is now and as it is increasingly becoming: old, soft, concerned more with who gets the government butter than whether or not you've got enough guns to stave off the enemy.

Europe is doomed to becoming an expansion of the Islamic trans-national identity at this point... it's only a matter of time. The real question before us is: will they be Wahhabist crazies intent that the US has no willpower to resist them? Or at the very least will they be Islamic nations that we can work with? I suppose that's up to who wins our elections and our wars.

New Links!

2007-12-19T07:23:00.000-08:00

I'm now officially a Blogger for Thompson via Draft Thompson '08, which you can access via that nifty Fredhead picture on my sidebar above the links, or via the links section. I'm also linking to That Gay Conservative, which is quite an entertaining blog even on nonpolitical matters. Plus, it's written by a gay conservative, and above all *they* need our support and linkage. They're the ones who are strong and individualistic enough not to buy into some kind of group identity or line simply because of personal characteristics.

Huckaburied

2007-12-19T06:35:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/2hqskg

Okay. I reiterate. What the hell, Republicans? Are we seriously going to let it all ride on Huckabee? Because if we are, get used to the phrase "Madame President."

Most odious and most definitely true, this excerpt from the second page:

"Among likely Republican voters who say they are "very conservative," Huckabee drew the support of 43 percent, with Thompson second at 20 percent and Romney third at 16 percent."

I redirect you to my post from yesterday. How can "very conservative" voters stack Huckabee and Thompson next to each other and choose Huckabee?

"Those voters who describe themselves as "born again" gave Huckabee the lead at 33 percent, with McCain in second at 17 percent and Romney with 14 percent."

Although I'm sadly not surprised by this one. Look, I'm a fiscally conservative, socially libertarian born-again protestant Christian myself. I still don't understand the Evangelicals' need to back a guy like Huckabee. Just because the man's a minister doesn't mean you have to immediately throw him your support! You know who else was a Christian? Jimmy Carter. You may think that comparison is absolutely insane, but if people would look at Huckabee's voting record instead of his poll-pleasing conservative rhetoric they'd see that he's just a liberal with different views on social issues. Anyone can talk a good game when they're on top of the polls. Anyone can tow a line in public when they're ahead. But when the chips are down, voting record is what's most important. Huckabee is a tax-and-spend big-government liberal where it counts.

The American two party system is in a tough place right now. The Democrats are suffering a massive implosion. The Democrat party is built on a brilliant compromise: special interest groups rally together around the idea that they can make the government powerful enough to give them what they want. If the groups are willing to vote for whatever Democrat comes along, issues and morals and character don't matter as long as the guy will vote for a bigger government, more taxes and bigger payouts every time. In this way, dozens of little interwarring factions can be brought in line whenever voting time comes along. This strategy nets them the socially conservative blacks and hispanics, the socially libertarian neo-hippies and youth, the environmentalists, lawyers and unions that profit from a bigger government and the real, actual liberals, which represent roughly 20% of the US population. Unfortunately, this model has caused myriad problems in recent years as a few bold, media-seizing groups have gained disproportionate power in the Democrat party: the anti-war crazies, the conspiracy theorist anti-corporationists and the doomsday environmentalists. This is causing some major fallout among less-liberal groups in the party, most notably older union workers and mugged-by-life former children of the 60's. Thanks to racial grief pimps and clever use of immigration policy the black and hispanic minorities have stayed largely in line, still voting 90% Democrat despite huge amounts of social conservatism amongst both groups. Still, vast whacks of people who are technically Democrats but can't stand the absolute nuttiness of their party are fleeing to the Republican side.

This is fascinating inasmuch as, instead of going for a 3rd party or attempting to reform their own, these Democrats-at-heart have begun to reform the *opposite* party, creating a surge of R.I.N.O.s and Washington natives that rule the upper annals of the Republican party. Slanted polls and a last-gasp frenzy by the moribund mainstream media has convinced top Republicans that their best option is to be a liberal. Freebies are easy political currency, after all. Never mind what they do to your nation or your party; your poll numbers are up! Pseudo-Republicans, having fled the Democrat party and changed sides halfway, love your liberalism and big government mentality. Christian conservatives will vote for you because you believe in God, and in their eyes that means you can't possibly be a bad person; you're one of them after all! The libertarians will jump ship, but they've gone so insane in recent years, throwing the match to Independent candidates and screwing themselves up on bizarre issues like legalizing pot and isolationism that no real Republican is counting on the libertarians any more. That leaves the real Republicans to get led around by the polls and vote for whoever appears on the ticket, regardless of what a tax-and-spend liberal they really are.

You have an option, conservatives. His name: Fred Thompson. The only thing he lacks is your money and support. Fred Thompson can beat Hillary. He's a real conservative. He can get the job done. The liberal media is pushing Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee so hard because they would love to have a tax-and-spend conservative vs. tax-and-spend liberal race. Don't listen to them. Don't go for their preferred candidates. Look at the records, look at the news, and support Fred Thompson. He's the real candidate we need.

We need a real conservative

Perfection

2007-12-18T04:20:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/yu93dl

Very, very interesting transcript of Limbaugh's show here. These are always my favorite types of segments for him: very candid, very much into the mechanics and workings of American culture and politics. He's very experienced in these matters so it's interesting to get sort of the "old man's" perspective on things.

What's most fascinating about this piece to me is the courage and the candor. He's really being honest here; there's not a trace of political fighting or meanness or ill will on his part toward anyone. Surely when and if the media picks this up they'll try to make a huge circus out of it and talk about how mean he's being and how only crude jerks would point something out like this, but really Rush is very tactful and honest. You really get a sense of not just "well, that's the way it is" but even sympathy for Hillary. And I can understand that... it really is sad that that's going to be a factor in the campaign.

There's plenty enough to defeat Hillary on without anyone focusing on her aging looks, but with an electorate as uninformed as ours you know it's going to make a difference, especially if Hillary tries to run again. This is probably her last real chance at the presidency, and you can bet she knows it.

The King Has Returned

2007-12-18T03:56:00.000-08:00

I honestly don't know what happened. For months I couldn't log in. Google was jerking me around a lot... but I think I'm back.

Oh so much has happened these years. I'm 19 and in college now. Still working on that book... on and off, anyway. And I'm keeping up with the news still.

I'm a Fredhead, and I can't imagine why all of you aren't. What the hell is wrong with Republicans right now? McCain? Romney? Huckabee!? Sheesh, you guys. Sheesh.

Fred Thompson is the one you want. He's the real conservative of the group. Yes, he's got less Congressional experience than his contemporaries; that's a good thing. He hasn't had time to go native. He's not in thrall to all of his congressional buddies. He's held down a real job most of his life, even if it *is* in acting. He's our man. Get off your ass and give him some money. I'm poorer than you, almost guaranteed, and I'm donating to the Fred Thompson campaign. We need somebody like Fred, not a busybody big government pantywaist like Romney, a wishy-washy Democrat-at-heart like Giuliani or a lying liberal charlatan like Huckabee. Just because a lot of liberals are fleeing their party because it's insane and coming to ours doesn't mean we have to make them our fucking frontrunners. Get a grip.

Iraq's Patric Henry

2006-03-25T19:44:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/s22hj

For those too lazy to read three paragraphs, a group of Iraqis gathered to thank the American troops. One reveler, speaking for the crowd, has just written Iraq's national motto:

What, the man was asked, did he hope to see now that the Baath Party had been driven from power in his town? What would the Americans bring?

"Democracy," the man said, his voice rising to lift each word to greater prominence. "Whiskey. And sexy!"

Around him, the crowd roared its approval.

Damn straight. Somebody make a T-Shirt and crown this man founding father of Iraq.

And whenever someone asks you why we're sending our men to die, you may now respond in turn. Let loud cries of, "Democracy! Whiskey! Sexy!" ring from the mountaintops and spread around the world.

2006-03-15T19:58:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/kug2k

So... the Roe effect kicks in, eh? And I thought Frank J. was being facetious when he said we'd outbreed them...

Well, who's up for planning a theocracy?

Sun to Obliterate all Sentient Life and Drive Gas up to $6 a Gallon

2006-03-06T17:25:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/r24gn

Damn that Mage Bush and his destruction of the universe!

Glenn Reynolds on CNN

2006-02-18T09:03:00.000-08:00

Watch the Instapundit at work, people.

Glenn Reynolds on CNN

So yeah. My favorite part? His little in-studio poll.

Was *anybody* but the CNN reporter himself not expecting people sitting in on a CNN broadcast to oppose showing the cartoons 2:1?

Three Cartoons Were Fakes

2006-02-17T13:02:00.000-08:00

Not kidding. Three of the infamous Muhammad Cartoons were faked. Not the ones you've seen... the whole story is here:

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/jyllands-posten_cartoons/

Suing the Ice You Slipped On

2006-02-04T06:29:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/and3m

Why not just start punishing the owners of restaurants where people meet before consensual underage sex because one or both is lying about their age?

Hizzoner is No Longer the Correct Title

2006-01-19T19:48:00.000-08:00

Chocolate city? For the love of God, man. For the LOVE of GOD.

Due to his superior mental prowess, I hereby dub good ol' Hizzoner "Mayor Noggin." Go thou, and do thee likewise.

The Measurements of Victory

2006-01-16T20:42:00.000-08:00

Are conservatives winning? Yes we are. But we have not won yet. We will have won when...

1. The press no longer places a politician's sniveling about an entirely one-sided war in our favor on the front page, while the list of towns we've liberated that day goes on page 6b in the bottom corner (if it's in the paper at all)

2. Reporters think it's a good idea to mention good news (85% retention rate) as much as they mention bad news (25% failure to meet recruiting standards), especially when the two are so closely related.

3. Insane left-wing crazies are labelled just as often as the insane right-wing crazies.

4. It dosen't take the NYT years to fire a reporter that they know is just making up stories.

5. One can find a liberal blog that actually makes coherent sense.

6. One can find a liberal *in Congress* that actually makes coherent sense.

7. Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton are not even feasible options to be elected.

8. Neither is David Duke, for that matter.

9. Nobody considers race when hiring or applying to college.

10. Washington spends more time paying attention to people with jobs and lives than those that have little enough to do that they can spend weeks lying in a ditch in protest.

11. Paid reporters with college degrees and writing skills can report the news more accurately than a "news militia" writing from its basement.

12. People quit resorting to that "both sides" BS whenever one or the other party steps way, way out of line.

13. I can own a gun when I'm living in a place where the gangs aren't even afraid enough to stop wearing their colors in broad daylight.

14. The government dosen't take half of my paycheck to fund drug addicts and play social God.

15. The government quits trying to play God at all, really, and just leaves people to get on with their business.

16. Most of political debate will not be giving out information that people ought to know but the news refuses to report.

17. The biggest headache in my life can be caring for my family, not how I'm going to figure out the tax code.

18. Nine unelected people (literally unelected people) who cannot be fired and never have to worry about public opinion or reelection cannot give my personal property over to a corporation.

19. "I don't want the government to do it" dosen't mean "I don't want it to happen" and people don't assume such.

20. People will understand that voting without having researched the candidates is worse than not voting at all.

Anything I missed? Slap 'em in the comments for me.

Blog Update

2006-01-08T15:37:00.000-08:00

I've standardized the formatting of The Badge of Humility and changed all of the URLs into actual hypertext links. That should make it look nicer.

Oh, and I'm writing a book. Look for it in the next three years, and more details as they emerge. I'll be using some material from the blog as well.

He'll Be Back

2006-01-08T15:16:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/da9mt

Nonetheless, I remain supremely confident that the Hammer isn't hammered down just yet. He's a wily man, with a great number of good tricks up his sleeve.

Oh, and, yeah...

"Democrats, eager to take control of the House in November, reacted to DeLay's announcement with studied indifference."

Studied indifference my ass:

"The culture of corruption is so pervasive in the Republican conference that a single person stepping down is not nearly enough to clean up the Republican Congress," said Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader.

Added Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic campaign organization: "With the permanence of their special interest philosophy, a change in the Republican cast of characters simply doesn't matter."

Bah. But we'll have the last laugh:

"Democrats must gain 15 seats in November to win control of the 435-member House."

Eat that, Democrat.

"The 58-year-old DeLay, an exterminator before his election to Congress in 1984, said he intends to seek re-election next fall. "I plan to run a very vigorous campaign and I plan to win it," he told reporters in Texas."

And yes. He'll be back. Our precious Hammer is just going away for awhile... He's not a tame lion. But he is good.

Oh, and does anybody know where I can get a T-shirt of his mugshot? I just LOVE that picture.

Open Letter

2006-01-05T21:13:00.000-08:00

Dear Anonymous,

George Bush has wiretapped less than 300 people without their knowledge and consent. This has led to a few dozen arrests. Those arrested still got a trial, and I'd wager that some were let free because there was no confession and insufficient evidence.

More to the point, what instead would you have us do? Rely on some foreign power or the bunch of crackpots in the supreme court to handle this? Let these guys know that we're tapping them before we listen?

Look, in the kind of war we're fighting, by the time we're done with formalities half of California will be underwater, New York will be on fire and the Pentagon is going to be a memory. We simply cannot afford to give these guys the benefit of the doubt the way we would an organized, uniformed country fighting with the same rules of war.

The era of wartime honor is dead. Americans still stick to their guns as much as they can, because we're good people. We don't just kill indiscriminately, we don't hate an entire group of people just because they look or sound like our enemies, and we are powerful enough that we can afford to fight without bringing to bear our full, unrestrained strength. However, if we cripple the only effective lines of defense we have against the form of attack our enemies use, we'll be hit again and again.

People can play their phony blame games and point fingers at the president, his cabinet, whatever. They can say 9/11 was Bush's fault all they want. It's mere words. It would not change the actual reasons 9/11 happened or who was responsible. We got hit once, and we can get hit again. A bunch of people hopping up and down, blaming the president when it happens will be little consolation to the families of those who will die in that next attack, should we allow it to happen.

But the blame will fall squarely on the shoulders of those who have crippled a president who has done nothing worse than any of his predecessors have done.

From the 60s onward, some Americans have this dumbassed perception that winning a war should be free of sacrifices and compromises. But you know what? If we want to avoid death on a massive scale and achieve our great objectives, then we will have to sacrifice for it. We'll have to do things we don't want to do. We'll have to break our own rules from time to time. We'll have to do things we're not proud of sometimes.

But we'll win. That is what is important in war. This is not a Disney movie. We are not playing football. Those who play their hardest and lose anyway do not walk home with their heads high. They bow down and have their heads cut off. These are the stakes. So quit whining and pipe down, stand up for your country and stand tall, or stand up with the enemies of your country and be branded its enemy in turn.

But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Wiretap Dancing

2006-01-04T19:57:00.000-08:00

Yes, yes I know. Quit your whining. I'm back now.

It seems the Democrats have a difficult time accepting the idea of the government covertly spying on people who were found via al Queda's callers' list. You know what? I just don't even care any more. Let them cry like blubbering babies. One of two things is going to happen:

1. They'll bitch to their oligarchal masters, the Supreme Council of Nine Emperors, who will decide the fate of the nation.

2. They'll take a good, hard look at the evidence and keep crying anyway, but avoid the Supreme Court.

Honest answers, here. I don't forsee even the Supreme Court ignoring all of the precedent here. Bush is not the first president to spy on those who have a great likelihood of being terrorist operatives. God willing, he won't be the last. We can hope, at least.

Iyman Faris is a US Citizen. His calls were interecepted and he was arrested based upon this information. Guess what? Despite the triumphant crowing, Faris has admitted that he was planning to help destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. Gee. Does that mean it was a victory for Bush? Short answer: Yes. Long answer: HELL Yes.

And Faris isn't the only one. The assumption of the media, here, is that evil BusHitler is going to wiretap random people irresponsibly and arrest all of them. That's not even remotely true. Bush is merely listening for clues to where the magical Moonwell is hidden and how to bypass its magical barrier of protection, so that he might glean its ruinous power for to wreak an unstoppable force of magic upon all Democrats everywhere.

But seriously, for the love of God, if the Dems keep trying to cripple the nation's defenses we're going to get hit again, and we'll know exactly who to blame.

Hasn't NO Suffered Enough

2005-12-04T20:19:00.000-08:00

God forbid...

http://tinyurl.com/864ap

You'll recall that this is the man I showed the picture of in an earlier blog post. Isn't it eerie?

North American Mannequin-Boy Love Association

2005-11-22T13:57:00.000-08:00

Yes. They caught a boy getting amorous with a mannequin. For the full story (and the beginning of a list) check out IMAO's November 21, 2005 article by RightWingDuck. As RWD brings up, the boy ought to have given some excuses to the police instead of just going quietly. Here are my incredibly humble additions to the list:

- What seems to be the proble... this isn't my girlfriend!

- Look, I *paid* the store manager for an hour, and I'm gonna *get* an hour.

- I was *not* humping that mannequin. We were making love.
(Yes, I own that shirt)

- This is an ACLU sting operation! Hands off unless you want to make it worse for yourself!

Any more suggestions? Add 'em in the comments!

Imperialistic French Trample Rights of Citizens

2005-11-09T19:03:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/an3od

I would like to roundly condemn the actions of the pig-dog French. This is just more proof that Chirac is just like Hitler. He isn't even popular with his people at this point, and this kind of imperialistic idiocy is proof of why. He's just a cowboy, rounding up his own people into concentration camps and branding them. CHitlerac should admit that he's an unelected sham leader who tramples the rights of his people. Rather than unilateraly taking action to ensure the safety of his country against insane, murderous muslims he should've gone to the UN for help. Only by forming a multilateral coalition can France hope to overcome such a staunch and frightening foe.

Also, the UN ought to be involved every step of the way. If I were leading France, I wouldn't be getting my law-keeping officers killed in a hopeless quagmire. I'd be going to the UN for help. France needs the UN to investigate carefully these riots and their root causes before taking any action to ensure its safety.

Plus, I have the sneaking suspicion that CHitlerac is just opposing these disadvantaged muslim youths so that he can steal their oil. I also have the feeling that Israel is behind this. Somehow.

Democrats Prove Their Intellectual Superiority

2005-11-04T12:27:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/cqtdp

Could someone please explain to these people what hyperbole is? Lord God, they're stupid.

Apologies to Boz Scaggs...

2005-11-02T20:38:00.000-08:00

Alido Shuffle

Alido hasn't seen a vote upon the hill
But the Democrats are pissed,
And that was Dubya's will
A hispanic guy in a power tie, so tall and svelt
With years upon the bench thrust beneath his belt
Just like Scalia, Junior's an Italian, but what's that show?

He says no more bench legislation,
No more activist elation...
No more Roe!

Alido, woah-oh-oh-oh
Reid thinks he's crazy, Rush thinks he's gold
Replacing Sandra Day O...
Alido, woah-oh-oh-oh
He says no more bench legislation
No more activist elation
No more Roe!

Alido's dear mom has the dems on the run since she let us know,
"Of course he's against Roe," and that was all she wrote
Wait till big Teddy K lets his fury rage and he'll end the show

Take your pro-life stance and defend it,
Lefties don't really get it...
No more Roe!

The Truth Escapes

2005-10-26T21:03:00.000-07:00

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003780.htm

Don't let Michelle Malkin and the other conservatives fool you. This is just more proof of the Bush Whitehouse's magical powers. Sure, Bush is a storm-conjuring wizard and Roveistopholes is his consort with Satan, but Condi is the demonic overlord sent to watch over them both.

On the other hand, maybe someone just made her mad. I mean, I've known women who were good at THE LOOK before, but... jeez. That has to be a record.

The Krazy Cindy Show

2005-10-26T20:55:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/dca3b

So I remember suggesting that Cindy Sheehan's exploits would make a dandy sitcom back when we were at Camp Casey 1. Now I think it'd be more appropriate to make a Jackass-style show. Remember that episode of South Park where Kenny decides to do all sorts of crazy stuff for money and it culminates in him climbing up into a bus driver's womb for six hours? Yeah, I'm thinking a woman willing to "die" for four days and chain herself to a fence until the war is over is in the same dumbassed boat.

Oh well. Hopefully she'll cause herself plenty of misery for absolutely nothing in the process. Or maybe her mighty army, 300 strong, will finally change the president's ideas on war. Because God knows she's scarier than all of the terrorist cells and rogue nations the president and his advisors had to carefully weigh and consider before going to war.

Let's not complain too much that she's back in the news. Instead, let us rejoice that she will continue to show people the complete insanity of the American liberals, and at the same time make her and her hippy friends plenty miserable in the process.

New Link

2005-10-24T15:27:00.000-07:00

Look for an update soonish. In the meantime, check out Jeremiah Stoddard's sweet blog. He linked to me a long time ago and I've been meaning to link to him forever, but... just kinda got to it now. It's very good, although it dosen't have much of a readership for whatever reason... he updates, like, 3 times a day, too, so there's always plenty to read.

The running map is the crucial mapmap map.

2005-10-21T08:09:00.000-07:00

Using AltaVista Babel Fish, I translated my post entitled "The Weapon of Race" into German and then back into English. Enjoy the results.

---------------------------------------

Democrats are the party of the projection. This means that their opinion of the world colors the way, which they see the people. Since democrats are spoonfed their faith of ready schools, universities and the means, them that republicans are, spoonfed their faith in addition accept. The idea of coming to somebody faith by careful view is a foreign concept to them. Democrats all in good and evil see, accuse them of expressed just as there of republicans of of-same. Most importantly, since democrats see everything expressed in running, they assume that everyone. The running map is as old as the condition. The fact that the 3/5 compromise was necessary, examines that rassische discussion was so long a part of politics of our country, as that Politiken existed. However that does not change the fact that it can be taken possibly the haesslichste political inexpensive shot one is. If the figurative political war between liberal and conservative one a material war should be, running would be our core arsenal. Everyone wishes the running advantage. Nothing dezimiert so indiscriminately or so completely. If it is buried under rassischen statements, one always becomes a racingists and at all marks, all the same which one does after, or how innocent one is from the loadings. And every time the running map is played, it damages the whole society and the whole world. The running map is the crucial mapmap map. It is held and caused like a talisman. Together with the participation from less favourable evaluation-hungry means, running, map lay things into "converts, extremely rassische expenditures", which can be never explained or with at all concluded it are you a liberal minority are. By forming black against white of holes and causing the spiritless rage, which aluminium Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and other one worked so strongly, in order to promote, each possible expenditure can be closed to the rational discussion immediately. Fair view with Mumia and its Kinsmen OJ and Rodney king. Instead of the expenditure of, ", which the fairest way would be to continue?" we clung with "WHITE MAN HATE BLACK PEOPLE!" From instead of calm examining facts, we interviewen people, which who've clay/tone bites heard and goddamn a word of the attempt did not see its official position is, ", whatever it the black man accused of, it did it are not. By which racingism the white men were accused of, they did it. Everyone, who is, is a racingist." Political arguments, in a perfect world, exist, in order to explain and refine political discussion, uncovering new angles and different facets or approximations to political ideas. Instead the running map, like many modern political arguments, exists the water to muddy and makes the expenditures indistinct and forms appropriate and free discussion on an impossible topic. All liberals must do are the high soil to win and their argument-freezing running map to then use. Everyone, which reacts afterwards, is worse a racingist or (if it worse everything gives). As political tactics it is bright. When possible influence on discussions, which could affect national policy, which hold into the balance millions of lives, it is goddamned frightening. If I were, to which to be delivered maledictions to have, I would want to know their name become at least that I had done something to earn it. Too frequently, it does not indicate such thing like a law-massive discussion whether or not someone is a racingist. If an individual line of the speech of a conservative one is taken far away from context to the means racistic something, it is a racingist. Not innocently to proven guilty or indeed guiltily to proven innocent. There is no such thing such as innocence for it. No resemblance and no joy. Its name for is connected with the KKK and Hitler as the worst Froemmler of all time. An innocent man could have helped its career and life has destroyed because of the climate of the rassischen ultrahypersensitivity, liberals to cause. However the material tragedy was not still investigated. The real victims of the running map are not the politicians, who by her are aimed, or even the innocent people, who will get caught above in the racingism claptrap. The real victims are the minorities themselves. If everyone thinks the fact that "rassische sensitivity" helped African American class participant profit friends other running in the classroom was not them to a High School recently. Suitably in the part to the constant focus on the difference between running and the political Miasma of death, that the rassische expenditure surrounds and also in the part to the "black culture", the drug-offering for sale gangsters glorifiziert and calculation Cosby of vilifies, the majority of the black class participants effectively as is separated, if there were actually Weiss-nur fountain. In my High School in at least and those within the range, which I visited, the black class participants sit at their own lunch tables, speak in their own cliques and form their own associations. Class participants drew in, since a recent and tender age, the idea that those are running irreconcilliable. White class participants are constantly educated, in order to feel guilty for the last evils of the slavery and separation, while black class participants are educated, in order to believe that there is nothing, could it do, which cannot be blamed on any racistic factor. Black class participants bend also to avoid to speak white class participants because honestly most property meaning of the white class participants functions out only by the convictions of a guilty conscientiousness, and this marks for a very bad friendship. Instead of, promoting an opened and free discussion between running, the present policy divides us so deeply that the damage can take production, in order to recover. Finally one of the most important parts of the applicable friendship the ability are to be criticized. If I am requested to like everything, you, then my respect do not mean anything. There is an uncomfortable agreement between the two running, but only over a superficial and artificial level. Black class participants assume that each radix complement, which is paying them is straight empty mollification, while white class participants are afraid that, if they criticize their black schoolmates in any substantial way that they are marked a racingists. Obviously results in this very few applicable interracial friendships. How would a relationship long to last with someone that you could not with other MeinungSEIN, particularly if it it knew each other? Those is not friendship. That is sycophancy. We must open the dialogue between black one and white in this country. And the most important victory on this road is the abolishment of the running map as political strategy.

In the Court of Kings

2005-10-21T07:34:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/bu6vj

Yeah, yeah, I know. Everyone's covering this or is going to cover it. But I'm hardly even interested in the bigger article. Look at this part:

""We'll appeal it until the Supreme Court makes a decision. Hopefully by then the president will have a good conservative court up there that understands the will of the people," said Republican state Sen. Don Balfour."

God DAMMIT, he's even one of ours...

You know what, Senator Balfour? Go sit in the corner. It's time for a little quiet time.

Let me reiterate: THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE HAS NOT ONE &*&)(&^(* THING TO DO WITH THE SUPREME COURT.

There we go. The will of the people might be an important consideration for the legislature or the president, but NOT THE SUPREME COURT. Do you know what the SCOTUS is supposed to be worried about? Hmm? Anyone?

How about the CONSTI-FRIGGING-TUTION OF THE UNITED STATES?

Gah, this frustrates me. I'd expect this kind of idiocy from a liberal... maybe Barbara Boxer or Teddy Kennedy. But from a Republican senator? From GEORGIA!? Dammit, if there's anyone we should be able to count on to be a conservative, it's this guy.

*sigh* For the love of...

Just, ugh. I'm mad.

Up a Creek Without Integrity

2005-10-16T18:39:00.000-07:00

http://newsbusters.org/node/2199

I'm busy right now so I don't even have time to properly go through this.

Suffice to say, SCORE!

The Weapon of Race

2005-10-04T20:27:00.000-07:00

Democrats are the party of projection. This means that their view of the world colors the way they see other people. Since Democrats are spoonfed their beliefs from willing schools, universities and the media, they assume that Republicans are spoonfed their beliefs as well. The idea of coming upon one's beliefs through careful consideration is an alien concept to them. Likewise, since Democrats see everything in terms of good and evil they accuse Republicans of the same. Most importantly, since Democrats see everything in terms of race, they assume that everyone does.

The race card is as old as the constitution itself. The fact that the 3/5 compromise was necessary proves that racial discussion has been a part of our country's politics as long as those politics have existed. However, that doesn't change the fact that it's perhaps the ugliest political cheap shot one can take.

If the figurative political war between liberal and conservative were to be a real war, race would be our nuclear arsenal. Everybody wants the race advantage. Nothing decimates so indiscriminately or so completely. When buried under racial allegations, one is labelled a racist forever and ever, no matter what one does after or how innocent one is of the charges.

And every time the race card is played, it harms all of society and all of the world.

The race card is the ultimate trump card. It is held up and invoked like a talisman. Along with the participation of a ratings-hungry media, the race card transforms mundane things into "extremely complicated racial issues" that can never be explained or reasoned with, ever, unless you're a liberal minority. By pitting black against white and invoking the mindless fury that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others have worked so hard to foster, any issue can be immediately closed to rational discussion.

Just look at Mumia, and his kinsmen OJ and Rodney King. Rather than the issue of, "what would be the most just way to proceed?" we are stuck with "WHITE MEN HATE BLACK PEOPLE!" Rather than calmly examining facts, we're interviewing people who've heard sound-bites and haven't seen a goddamn word of the trial whose official position is, "Whatever it is the black man is accused of, he didn't do it. Whatever racism the white men were accused of, they did it. Anyone who disagrees is a racist."

Political arguments, in a perfect world, exist to clarify and refine political discussion, revealing new angles and different facets or approaches to political ideas. Instead, the race card, like many modern political arguments, exists to muddy the waters and obscure the issues, making reasonable and clear discussion on a topic impossible. All liberals need to do is gain the high ground and then employ their argument-freezing race card. Anybody who responds after that is a racist or worse (if there's anything worse).

As a political tactic, it's brilliant. As a potential influence on discussions that could affect national policies that hold in the balance millions of lives, it's goddamned frightening. If I were going to be consigned to those whose names have become maledictions, I would at least want to know that I had done something to deserve it. Too often, there is no such thing as a legitimate discussion on whether or not someone is a racist. If a single line of a conservative's speech is taken out of context to mean something remotely racist, he's a racist. Not innocent until proven guilty or, indeed, guilty until proven innocent. There's no such thing as innocence for him. No appeal and no joy. His name will forever be associated with the KKK and Hitler as the worst bigots of all time. An innocent man could have his career and life destroyed because of the climate of racial ultrahypersensitivity that liberals have helped to create.

However, the real tragedy has not yet been explored. The real victims of the race card are not the politicians targeted by it, or even the innocent people who are caught up in the racism claptrap. The real victims are the minorities themselves.

If anyone thinks that "racial sensitivity" in the classroom has helped african american students gain friends of other races, they have not been to a high school recently. Due in part to the constant focus on the difference between the races and the political miasma of death that surrounds the racial issue, and also in part to the "black culture" that glorifies drug-peddling gangsters and vilifies Bill Cosby, the majority of black students are more effectively segregated than if there were, in fact, whites-only drinking fountains. In my high school at least, and those in the area that I have visited, the black students sit at their own lunch tables, talk in their own cliques and form their own clubs. Students have, since a young and tender age, been fed the idea that the races are irreconcilliable. White students are constantly made to feel guilty for the past evils of slavery and segregation, while black students are made to feel that there is nothing they could do that cannot be blamed on some racist factor. Black students tend to avoid talking to white students, because honestly the most well-meaning of white students is only acting out of the convictions of a guilty conscience, and that makes for a very poor friendship. Rather than fostering an open and free discussion between the races, the current policies are dividing us so deeply that the damage may take generations to recover.

After all, one of the most important parts of true friendship is the ability to criticize. If I am required to like everything you do, then my respect means nothing. There is an uneasy agreement between the two races, but only on a superficial and artificial level. Black students suspect that every compliment they are paid is just empty mollification, while white students fear that if they criticize their black classmates in any substantial way that they will be labeled a racist. Obviously, this results in very few true interracial friendships. How long would a relationship last with someone that you couldn't disagree with, especially if they knew it? That's not friendship. That's sycophancy.

We need to open up the dialogue between black and white in this country. And the most important victory on that road will be the abolishment of the race card as a political strategy.

NYT to Remain Ridiculous Despite Cuts

2005-09-21T13:45:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/9ybcl

"In a memo to staffers, company chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. and CEO Janet Robinson wrote: "We regret that we will see many of our colleagues leave the Company; it is a painful process for all of us. We have been tested many times in our 154-year history as we are being tested now." They promised this would not impact the quality of the paper's journalism. "

Damn. There goes my optimism.

Modern Commentaries and the A.R.T. Movement

2005-09-19T17:50:00.000-07:00

Check out my new link, Modern Commentaries, birthplace of the A.R.T. movement. Everyone pitch in... it sounds like a good idea to me! Heck, anything to replace the pantywaists we have "representing" the Republicans in the senate right now. We need some real gutsy, powerful men in the congress to show america what real conservatives are like.

(Mind, not *all* of them are bad. Just, you know, most of them. We have the majority. It should *not* be a toss-up if something as simple as a republican President's nominee comes up.)

New Links!

2005-09-18T13:38:00.000-07:00

I've added links to two new blogs today! You may seem them on the sidebar there.

The first is Need A Light? At current it contains one post, but that one post alone is worth reading... and knowing the author, there'll be much, much more.

The second is Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC), another good blog. The author researches well, and likes to put up long posts in delayed bursts, so check for updates often.

And yes, they are both run by friends. I openly admit my bias. Now what are you going to do about it?

2005-09-18T13:29:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/7mo8p

I've been saying for years that ADHD dosen't really exist. It's a scam. There's no physical proof of any kind of physical or chemical disorder that causes it.

There's a lot of reasons to argue that it is caused by a complete lack of stability and discipline in a child's developing young life, though. A child without boundaries and without real discipline learns that there *are* no boundaries... he learns that he need not control himself or apply himself to anything if he dosen't feel like it. How are children to know the way if their parents will not show them?

Basically, every child I've ever known with ADHD has had a broken home and parents that don't bother to discipline. Commonly, they come from homes with divorce or other problems... and in every case the children have been of extraordinary intelligence.

Now how many children's lives are we going to ruin before we stop fooling ourselves and stop giving medication stronger than cocaine to young children because we don't feel like doing our duty as parents?

Eat Your Words, Bitches

2005-09-15T18:18:00.000-07:00

In light of Bush's latest address to the nation, I have one thing to say to his detractors:

Eat your words, bitches.

Sit back and watch the combined power of compassion and the market sweep your pissy little whining away.

US Government Aid

2005-09-15T16:14:00.000-07:00

Behold known racist Moslem and Green Party Rastafarian Malik Rashid. What is that he's leaning on? Why, where did THAT box come from? Perhaps the USDA!? Impossible. According to Malik and his buddies Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore, the US government hasn't done anything to help!

(props to Sweetness & Light, accessible from my links)

2005-09-05T20:09:00.000-07:00

George Bush is, by far, the coolest president ever. I can't believe he didn't bring it up during the election, but he has magic power! *cue Triumph*

That's right, magical power.

He can summon storms to smite his enemies! He can magically force things to happen in the past, like the Kyoto treaty not being ratified in a 95-0 vote! He can cause every member of Congress to vote for a war they don't agree with! He can mobilize a digital army of bloggers who are obedient to his every command and can horribly smear people by reporting what they say! He can hide all of the damning evidence about an obviously evil nominee to the SCOTUS in a few hundred pieces of paper protected by a powerful Lawyer-Client Privilege hex that not even the darkest of black wizards in congress can dispel!

Take Katrina, for example. Bush wisely gave the wealthy and affluent time to move away, so that only the welfare queens who voted for Kerry would die. Then he summoned Katrina on the last day of the month, so that welfare dependents wouldn't leave because they would be waiting for their check. He transformed upwardly-mobile Cosby blacks into slavering, evil savages overnight with his magical Bush Mind Meld. By this fell stroke, those few poor black people that didn't die from the storm would shoot each other to death.

In short, the enemies of Bush will die by the storm. Fear him, for his wrath is all-powerful! He can even control the sun, which has shown much more activity since the 1940s than in the last 1150 years before that combined! It is by his will that the cosmos blasts the Earth with its rays! It is by his pleasure that you live, and by his displeasure that you die!

Truly, he is the coolest president ever. We need more mages in the whitehouse.

As the great and talented Liz illustrated:

Hats off!

2005-08-31T21:30:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/aw2gu

My hat's off to you. The title alone is worth the lookout.

The Bastards Deserved It

2005-08-31T14:33:00.000-07:00

http://tinyurl.com/8chj2

You heard RFK, Jr. Those stupid, stupid bastards spontaneously created global warming by not signing Kyoto. It's therefore appropriate that hundreds of people under their jurisdiction die horrible deaths.

My favorite part is the comments. Oh, it's rich.

Let's set a few things straight:

1. Global Warming exists.

2. Mankind's influence on global warming is negligible at worst.

3. Every time a volcano goes off, it produces more greenhouse gasses than all of the evil republican corporations in all of history

3b. Volcanoes have been going off for millenia, and the Earth is still here and capable of supporting life.

4. China, the biggest producer of pollution in the world, did not sign the Kyoto treaty.

5. In the 1970's, the hippies claimed that the world was in a downward spiral of global cooling, and that if man didn't stop polluting the world we were headed for a fatal ice-age.

5b. Those predictions also claimed there would be blizzards in Texas by the year 2000.

5c. None of their prescriptions for the problem were followed, and none of the ill effects they claimed have ever come close to happening.

The Earth naturally goes through cycles of heating and cooling. It's idiocy, pure and simple, to assume that a trend will go on forever and ever. There *is* no proof that man is causing or perpetuating global warming in a very meaningful way. Anybody who can provide me with proof that man has caused and perpetuated global warming in a significant way will be the first to get me to recant this whole post. I promise.

For example: The temperature this morning was ten degrees cooler than the temperature this evening. If this dangerous trend continues, we'll all be dead some time tomorrow.

It's a *cycle* people. The temperatures were warmer in the 1300s than they are now, and there were no evil cars, corporations or republicans to cause it to happen then.

Even assuming that man (especially those goddamn republicans) creates global warming, are we seriously effing stupid enough to believe that in the time between the Kyoto treaty and now we would have caused enough improvement in the ecology to stop this hurricane? It's sick, sadistic and a political cheap shot that reeks of braindead logic.

Higher Gas Prices Herald Coming of the Beast

2005-08-28T23:20:00.000-07:00

http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/D8C98OK80.html

...

Oh fiddlesticks.

What happened to the good old days when a hurricane hitting the south coast meant that politicians in Florida got to use taxpayer money to make themselves look compassionate by remodeling the mansions of obstinate millionaires who stay on the coast despite the yearly hurricanes?

Now it means gas will be even more expensive. Thank God I live within walking distance of work, school, and my girlfriend. In any event, the good old USA is in no real trouble, I'm sure. Although if this keeps up we're going to have to start processing the souls or more children in order to make more crude oil.

You see, if glancing at MSNBC every so often has taught me anything it's that crude oil dosen't actually come from the ground. Evil Republicans just do that so that they get to spoil precious, pristine empty wastelands. Crude oil really comes from a Rush Limbaugh Jesus Israel Tax-Cut Pact that refines the live immolation sacrifices of adorable little children, fluffy bunnies and mewling kittens into energy to fuel their evil war machines.

In any event, the most amusing thing about the news story was the apocalyptic tone: "Gas prices are higher, and some stock market analysts are claiming it is, in fact, the dawning of the age of the beast. Hellfire is expected to shoot from the bowels of rural Nebraska and slay all God-fearing men within the hour."

Get a grip, people. As my father has pointed out, if gas shot up to six bucks a gallon it would be about a 2% increase in the general cost of business, although you can bet the news reporters would be smugly reporting the 60-100% increase in gas prices relative to their older resting point just for the bigger numbers.

I predict that this is part of a drumbeat-of-death news campaign that's going to be hell in '06 and '08. If the gas prices don't make you want to tear your hair out, the endless repetition of them will. You're going to hear all kinds of assertions about how the war in Iraq and Bush's evil storm conjuring (just like the Typhoon, which Bush summoned to smite the enemies of America, because by not signing the Kyoto treaty he *immediately created* global warming) made the American people suffer, how it's all the right's fault, and how that's a good enough reason for the American people to never, ever vote for a conservative again without investigating the beliefs of the opposition.

I bet you it will be one of those artificial little campaign issues that the media creates out of thin air, just to get any kind of upper hand it can fabricate for the left.

Comments?

I Am But a Simple, Humble Lad (Why This Blog Exists)

2005-08-28T22:41:00.000-07:00

From a young age, I've been told that I am special. I'm smart. I'm more skilled and talented than all of my peers. That I've been blessed by God with the ability to do whatever I want with my life because I got that damn lucky.

It was only recently I really started believing it.

It was surprisingly easy. I have always held a grudge against the majority of my peers; how stupidly they can be led by the nose from fad to fad, all the while believing that they are rebels. How uniform and simple their thoughts remain as they consider themselves great and powerful superminds. How immature and stupid they are, all while believing that their stupid parents don't know anything.

And for that matter, my schoolteachers. My history and current events teacher, who calmly informed his class that the leader of North Korea is "Kim Jong the Second." The substitute English teacher I was forced to endure for a term and a half, who couldn't write a meaningful sentence if her job were to, for some strange reason, depend on it. The biology teacher who drew me into an open classroom debate on the relative merits of evolutionary creationism and the theory of intelligent design, and whose rebuttal consisted entirely of calling me a toothless hick who dosen't believe in gravity. My counselor, who revealed my identity to a student I had turned in for peddling marijuana on terms of absolute anonymity.

What claim do my peers have to superiority? What makes my teachers so much smarter than I, when I can best them in debate in their chosen fields?

No. Thanks to left-wing control of the school system, I am at current a dreadnought amongst skiffs. While my contemporaries are shoveling coke into their noses, getting piss drunk and watching Drawn Together reruns, I'm reading the news, analyzing classic American literature and polmicking the daylights out of internet hippies.

It's not always easy, being so much better than everyone else (save a few who are quite worthy of my mutual friendship). The temptation to get a big head about it is everpresent. However, I am so good that I have consistently and masterfully quelled even this urge.

In that spirit, I have granted myself the Badge of Humility. It is amazing, the magnitude of my humility. First, you must imagine (if you can) the sheer magnitude of my greatness. Now, on top of that, the achievement of resisting the urge to brag about said greatness, made exponentially harder by the sheer volume of greatness we are herein discussing. Therefore one can understand the sense in granting myself an award for such hard work, of course.

It is with great gravity that I bestow upon myself the Badge of Humility. However, I am not only humble. I am also exceedingly generous. Ergo, I have created this blog, so that my incredible wisdom and knowledge can be shared with all of the lesser peoples of the world. Consider this the commencement of the Badge of Humility blog, dedicated to expressing my greatness by demonstrating my skillful command of current events, and to foster, breed and rear intelligent conversation on said events.

Hopefully, those having read thusfar have understood the facetiousness of this blog's style. Those who don't know what I just said, good. It's time for you to learn.

Graciously yours,
-The Apologist