🏷️ politics

Well, I guess it was coming. Not that I'm ready to be a loony lefty or anything, but I think the time has come to (like Josh) jump ship. Josh is going to mail out the form for me today sometime.

I have spent some time talking to people who try their best to argue that Creationism should be taught in science class because, well, we aren't 1000% sure about Evolution, so Creationism should be taught side by side in science class, even though the gulf in evidence is so enormous, and even though Creationism isn't science.

Oh, and those same people seem to think that since certain lessons are taught in the Bible, which may or may not have anything to do with how our legal code was created or developed, then it gives SoCons license to inject the Bible into our legal code with no limits. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, they say, and they totally fucking miss the point over and over that people who escaped religious persecution in Europe came here to NOT deal with people like the SoCons.

After years of having to swallow embarrassing federal marriage amendments, the Schiavo case, Larry Craig, Embryonic Stem Cell money, potential abortion bans, abstinence-only sex education - all "for the party", to "prevent Liberals from taking over", now since a Moderate is in the running now they want to take their ball and go home, arguing against the party loyalty and "getting in line" that they demanded from us since the mid 90's.

Now they talk about a brokered convention, shoving Huckleberry down our throats against the will of the people who voted. Now they say that as long as they don't get 110% of what they want, they will turn away or vote against the party because we don't bow down to them this time. They don't want to be blamed for their own failures. They feel entitled to votes in ways they won't allow others to feel. I say SCREW THEM.

The Republicans no longer advocate limiting the size and scope of the government. They no longer represent people who want to be good stewards of the public's money. Like the Liberals, they selectively choose which ways they want to defend the public and which ways they want to use government to be intrusive and naughty. They spend like trophy wives. They represent everything I can't stand about government now, and if they want to be a little niche party, unable to affect or change anything because of their narrow, bigoted world view then they are welcome to it. They can mean dick if they want to mean dick. It's okay.

So now I am an (I) - Dad is going to be thrilled until I tell him I'm still not voting for Obama.

In case you did not see it, Jim Wallis made an appearance on The Daily Show. The interview is up on streaming video (look under "Coming Up Next").

HRH Hillary is as disingenuous, ruthless, conniving, manipulative and dishonest a politician as we have in the USA. New York is addicted to celebrity. Brit is right about her negatives. Shit, even if we weren't a sexist nation she would still have severe problems connecting with normal Americans.

I don't think Gore should run. Why potentially ruin your sterling reputation with the Euros and UN Diplomats? Why take the pay cut? I believe he is a far more happy and productive person doing what he's doing. I also just cannot imagine that someone preaching the end of our world would suddenly put that on the back burner for politics. That would send the wrong message, no?

I liked John Edwards compared to Kerry. I think if he gets the nod in 2004, he is our President. Unfortunately people went with Kerry, who inspired nobody. Edwards' voting record is, by comparison, rated as being more moderate than Obama's voting record, hovering somewhere around 60 to 70 percent by the ADA. Instead of making pitiful excuses about his War vote, he apologized. I understand why people like him, even if he does carry the stench of slip and fall lawyer.

Bloomberg - well, he is the dictionary definition of RINO. I think it is possible the game has passed him by this time around. Maybe not. If he decides to run I think it is an interesting footnote, but who will actually vote for him? He can spend and spend, which helps I suppose - one year he gave away over 700 mil and still ended up positive for the year. Yikes.

Me being center-right, I could be convinced to vote for Obama if he were actually center-left. Whether it is the National Journal, Americans for Democratic Action, or whoever, his voting record aligns him with the most Liberal of all of our Congresscritters. Republicans who are crossing over are either uninformed of this, or purposefully are not taking into consideration whether or not he agrees with them on the issues.

There will be a time (hopefully?) when he will have to explain his votes and his stances on the issues, and give us something beyond the political rhetoric and endless platitudes. I think he inspires people. Heck, I enjoyed his most recent speech. Whether or not he is a "uniter" of people outside of the Democratic bubble depends on whether people give a damn about his Liberalism, which will certainly be put under the spotlight by whoever the Republicans run.

Personally, I think people are fed up with the political class in Washington - I read a good article in the Daily Mail about the similarities between ourselves and Britain in this respect. Obama represents something that is probably more important than whether or not he is a Liberal, and I'm not talking necessarily about whether or not he can make history. He represents a shift away from the typical Washington way of doing things. He represents a shift away from bitter, divisive politics. He represents for us a new brand of politician, at least we all hope so. THAT is what is so attractive, and what in my view makes him better than the 60's throwbacks and empty suits.

I don't have a problem with anything you guys have said re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell. To be fair to Clinton, he supported an openly gay approach early on, but eventually he compromised.

I would bet heavily on this one thing - if someone who isn't used to being around gay folks and feels uncomfortable, or even if they are out and out homophobe, gets their backs watched and saved by a gay soldier, their minds will change in a hurry.

Maybe I'm being a bit generous there. My gut feeling is, and this may not be completely true, that homophobia is pretty damn common in the military. If it weren't, there would be no need for a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, and we would be doing the fair thing already.

Interesting how the Republican candidates phrased their answers - most of them avoided the fairness issue altogether and talked about how the military brass thought the policy was working.

It is true that the Army first integrated african-americans into the military ranks. The thing is, they did not come up with the idea or suggest it to Truman - he issued an executive order demanding it, and was fairly flexible with the commanders in how they implemented the policy. The cynical view would be that he used the military as a tool of social experimentation, but I like to think that he was a forward thinker in this regard. It wasn't all that long after the Korean War before things came to a head in the civilian population.

Do I think the Army was ready for it? Thank you for asking. I can't imagine that opinion the military was all that different from civilian opinion - there were probably people who supported the policy and those who didn't support the policy. I think it is obvious the net effect has been nothing but positive.

Who wants to bet me that Don't Ask, Don't Tell comes up in the next Democratic debate, whenever that is? That Hillary sure is sharp. She's nothing if not cunning and clever, transferring ownership of the issue between parties. Turns out there were multiple people who, let's just say they never had any inclination to vote for anybody on stage to begin with. I'm not sure how anybody can believe that CNN didn't know what was going on. I guess the "paranoia" was justified. If I'm a Democratic, I'm grinning from ear to ear and having a cheeky laugh.

I guess if it were possible to enforce such a policy, I wouldn't mind if the opposition got a voice in the primary debates. The reason why I don't support it is because it is pretty plain to see that it just won't work that way. I wouldn't want to put shackles on the media like that anyway. The only answer is to do what the Democratics did with Fox (minus Kucinich) and avoid going to unfriendly places.

....liberals asking the questions. At least one of them (who knows how many more we'll find out about) is associated with a Democratic running for President currently. Which candidate? I'll give you one guess.



This would be equivalent to someone from a Republican candidate's team being permitted by the media to ask the Democratic candidates what they are going to do to preserve traditional marriage, or what they are going to do to protect the unborn. The fairness of Don't ask, Don't tell is a question that, while it may be relevant in some circles, definitely is not a hot button or important issue to any Conservative, or even most Republican voters.

That kind of a question is, to me, only in context in the general election. It is not even close to being on the map for a Republican primary. Do I want tough questions from the other party in a primary debate? No, I don't, whether it is Democratic or Republican. This is for THEIR supporters to decide which of THEIR people is good for THEM, not good for the opposition. I don't think anyone is really surprised by this development, but the pervasive stupidity of the electorate ensures that somehow this results in Hillary becoming more popular.

The irony in all of this is the simple fact that a very popular and beloved Democratic put Don't Ask, Don't Tell in place. Do you know which one? I'll give you one guess.



To me, this is a complex question that weighs fairness against reality. The fair thing is to allow people to be who they are openly. I consider a gay soldier to be just as brave and worthy of my respect as a straight soldier, possibly even more so. They do not deserve violence and harsh treatment from anyone. Cold, hard reality slaps you in the face, and lets you understand that this isn't just a military problem, it is a social problem, something that isn't easily fixed in an organization such as the US Armed Forces. Homophobes will be homophobes, no matter what you tell them, and some of them WILL treat gays differently. I trust military people to understand what will work and not work with the military far more than a politician vying for votes. This Hillary plant gives one version, and it is worth listening to, but I would think this is something that has to be reviewed carefully, not reduced pitifully to a gotcha moment on TV.

If I were gay, I wouldn't serve. Period. I'd try to serve the country in another way, because I just don't think this is going to be settled anytime soon.

As of a few weeks ago, after seeing the Republican forum moderated by that worm Chris Matthews, I think the best choice from the Republican side is Mitt Romney. He is so damned Presidential. Even hard core Libs I interact with begrudgingly give him respect. On the Democrat side, I like Biden the best. He is probably the most likely not to be confused for a European.

Of course, we also know that due to our culture of celebrity worship and absolution there is no chance in hell that the President won't be either Rudy or Hillary (puke).

How anyone can support Hillary and keep a straight face I have no idea. I don't think we want to trade a king for a queen, a liar for a liar, an imperial President for an imperial President. Some people hated it with Bush and love it with Hillary, betraying common sense and consistency. She freaked out the other day when Tim Russert actually called her on her usual double speak and insincerity. Imagine how she would react to any kind of non-compliant Press member at the White House? Yikes.

Rudy, well, he can't keep on living off of 9/11 and the Yankees forever. I like how he goes after Hillary, but Josh and I both agree that pimping 9/11 and the baseball analogies over and over and over are becoming very boring very quickly. He leads most polls but I think, like Hillary, he is one of the weaker candidates for his party. I liked him at first because he's a moderate, but it seems he is out of his league, and if he can't be bothered to talk about something else I can't be bothered either.

So I think for now, overall I am supporting Mitt, but I am not marrying myself (get it, polygamy, ehehe, ehehe. ehmmm). Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are great in theory, but are both impish, leprechaunesque figures who don't quite have the cult hero, celebrity worship appeal that Rudy and Hillary have.

The election is still a year away....................anyone else think the election season is far too long?

Giuliani Moves Closer To Presidential Run:


Hmm. As far as his politics are concerned, he is without question closer to me than any other politician I can think of. The problem is that supporting him opens me up to hypocrisy because of his, ahem, lack of fidelity and discretion in the past.

Clearly something has to give. I am not ready to simply acknowledge that it is acceptable for people, even the alleged best and brightest of us, to take an oath of fidelity and trust, then turn around and act like it doesn't matter.

To me the ability to cheat exhibits a number of serious character flaws, some of them applicable to how you view your profession. I don't think this applies in all cases, nonetheless it is worrisome when you're talking about someone in the filthiest profession we've invented, and also in the position of potentially leading our nation.

No, I don't think I can give that up because I don't think Rudy G, nor any politician, is worth giving up my principles for. As much as I would like to see someone who thinks like me in office, I don't think I can in good faith support Giuliani.

Looks like it's gonna have to be McCain by default.

Gavin Newsom. I know that many of you are fans of his, after all he did break California law in marrying homosexual couples, an example of what some would call an act of bravery. I call it being an arrogant dickwad, and doing the right thing the wrong way, and setting your cause back somewhat.

He seems to be in the news again, this time for sexing his campaign manager's wife!



I am not going to be like Josh and gratuitously slam San Francisco. There are good and bad things about it, like anywhere else in the world. This is a very sad turn of events. I will wait until they vote him in again before mercilessly ripping them apart with my teeth.

Newsom deserves no sympathy whatsoever. I hope his political career goes straight down the toilet. It's nice that he apologized to the public, but what about the family he ruined? It's the PRC, so if they divorce she will probably clean her husband out anyway. Maybe if there were actual legal consequences for being a cheating whore these things wouldn't happen so frequently.

NAUGHTY!


I feel for the guy in the middle, whose boss (and mayor) fucked his wife. The guy's life is in rags. I can't imagine being in his place, not being able to trust someone who is supposed to be your greatest friend and partner in life.

Say what you want about Byron Brown - he would never embarrass us in this way. In a sense, I've got a greater appreciation for our own mayor today.

Interesting news this morning from the Financial Times:



What is especially shocking is the revelation that Apple is one of 160 companies who are in trouble for giving the executives extra-sweet deals on stock options. Of course, the company's board, knowing they did something wrong, said something to the effect of: "Well, he didn't benefit enough from it, so what's the big deal?" WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.


Oh, and here's an interesting tidbit concerning the Russian polonium scandal:

When you get caught doing something bad, what do you do? Blame a Jew of course! How very European. No wonder the Israelis are suspicious of Europe.

Interesting Link:

I'm not sure if we'll see a NAU in my lifetime, but from where I sit the evidence points towards something like this happening inevitably.

Think about it for a moment - both the Democrats and the Republicans are doing whatever they can to ensure that US Citizenship means jack and shit. The Dems, and to a smaller degree (not by much) the Repubs as well, are advocating an open borders policy, and amnesty for the scum who willingly and knowingly break our laws. A Democratic candidate in San Diego went as far as to tell people how they can fool the system and vote, even if they aren't a Citizen (personally, it would be shocking to me if someone could pull it off, but then again maybe in San Diego it wouldn't be so shocking). As Mr. Corsi states, the current Administration is enhancing and furthering NAFTA, which by my estimation isn't so hot politically nowadays when plants move south of the border, costing Americans their livelihoods.

With a new Democratic Congress moving into place, we should probably see more movement in this direction, with the pseudo-liberal McCain and the uber-liberal Kennedy recently agreeing that US Citizenship is sort of overrated in their quest to reward people who give the USA the finger. At least it will be overt, rather than murky and hard to pin down for most of us.

Who is controlling this? Most of the buzz deals with the hopelessly misplaced "humanism" that is so popular in Liberal circles, and is championed by some Republican Moderates as well. We are well aware that Laws mean nothing. The real story though, and the thing that really does have the most impact for all of us, is the way Big Business has their hands around the throats of the Politicians, manipulating them into screwing hard working folks right here in the USA. I don't think there is a chance in Hell the Democrats are going to do anything substantial to fix this, although they will get in front of a Microphone and jabber on about how upset and enraged they are. Their pockets are lined with the same money.

How long will it be until the NAU is formalized? I'll take a stab - 50 years or so, because it is not a hot prospect politically, and because it will take some time to put the things in place economically and socially which will make it the obvious thing to do.