From this article:

At the fund-raiser, Kerry defended his anti-war activism as "an act of conscience."

"You can judge my character, incidentally, by that," Kerry said. "Because when the time for moral crisis existed in this country, I wasn't taking care of myself, I was taking care of public policy. I was taking care of things that made a difference to the life of this nation. You may not have agreed with me, but I stood up and was counted and that's the kind of president I'm going to be."

There's not a part of this that I don't like. Let's break it down, shall we?

Kerry's anti-American politicing was "an act of conscience" that you can "incidentally" judge his character by. However, as anyone who's noticed his abortion views is aware, we can be sure that Kerry's conscience won't play a part in his policy. If you can allow murder, then condemning your own treason while supporting it should be simple. Even if Kerry's conscience commands that he accuse his compatriots of war crimes and oppose a war that he is utterly convinced is unjust, then he can still, as an elected officer, support the war unconditionally and affirm that his child-raping compatriots are positively Deific. It's been four years since Clinton was in office, isn't it time to return dishonesty to the White House?

"Because when the time for moral crisis existed in this country, I wasn't taking care of myself" because it's clearly not the role of an individual moral actor to make judgements on the ethicality of an act. The idea of "duty to self" or "individual responsibility" is folly; "public policy" and "things that made a difference to the life of this nation" are clearly more important. Whether an individual is doing what is right is adiaphora; what *really* matters is what a lot of individuals at the polls are doing, and how much of their freedom is controlled by the holy voice of the State. The Repub-lie-can conspiracy wants you to think that a single rational being can discern the duties of the moral law and follow them without coercion, but don't listen to those fools; the notion of anything less than a monolithic worldhistorical State being able to act correctly is a barbarism of language, confusing the myth of an objective good with the accolades due the only Right, the State.

So, this november, remember to do the entirity of what a good American should do: Just show up! The State is the best judge of how you earn and spend your money, where your health is maintained, whether or not you can move sand on "your" property (not really your property, of course; it's rightfully owned by the State alone), and what "right" behaviour is. The perfect American need only show up and be counted, letting the Most Holy State handle the rest. Shouldn't we elect a man who assures us that "I stood up and was counted and that's the kind of president I'm going to be"?

Empty Vessel

Interesting ideas come to me when I have free time with a clear mind. Sitting on the porch and smoking is one of those times. Mowing the lawn, too - it takes very little mental energy to push the mower around the yard, back and forth, over long stretches of grass. Now I get to commit these thoughts to the blog. Consider yourself privileged.

The first is the less interesting one, at least to me. It's too concrete and too practically important. I was thinking about the effect of illegal music downloads on the music industry. It seems to me that there are two sorts of illegal downloads: those that replace a purchase and those that do not. What I mean by this is that a person can either download a song illegally instead of purchasing a compact disc with that song on it, or paying for a legal download, or a person can download a song he never would have bought anyway. The first kind of illegal download will have an effect on record company profits. The second kind of illegal download is immaterial to this discussion, since I cannot assess how many downloads are of this kind.

Now, presumably many downloads are of the first kind and hurt the profits of record companies. I find very few people shedding tears over this, but perhaps those people ought to consider what effect this will have on music. It is assumed, and quite correctly, that record companies really won't feel the effect of a few illegal downloads. However, there is some effect. Profits are depressed and the companies have less money to work with in producing future records. Obviously record companies will always allot enough money to the big-name artists associated with their labels to produce their records. If profits decrease, however, the companies will have less money for less popular, less well-known, and new, unproven artists. The companies certainly will not be funding well-known and successful artists less, so it only makes sense that they will be able to devote less money to new talent.

Another consequence of illegal downloads is that it favors the biggest record companies. Larger companies can better tolerate a reduction in profits whereas a similarly small reduction in absolute profits may be fatal to a smaller company, and even if the reduction in profits is proportional, a smaller company will still not likely be able to survive (having less margin for error).

I am speculating and don't have the facts to support my claim, but what I say is at least plausible. If I am correct, then illegal downloads will tend to create an oligopoly among record companies and musical talent.

I really went into some detail with that...so I'll leave the second random thought for a later entry.

Thoughts

Rush is on vacation.

Michael Savage is on vacation (or just not doing his own show at the moment).

Talk radio: the next best thing to paying attention to the road. Though, I must say, I'm getting sick of hearing about the Swift Boat Vets. The Swift Boat Vets are heroes. They're tools of the Bush campaign. They're telling the truth about Kerry. They're liars intent on destroying a brave and competent man. Whatever story you accept...

I NO LONGER CARE.

All that can be said about them has been said. Naturally this means we'll hear it all over again, just in case.

Nicotine is a wonderful drug. You won't hear many people admit that openly, because cigarettes are Evil. Lung cancer is a small price to pay for increased mental acuity, though. I get more done in less time when I have that burning chemical in my blood. Too bad about the whole "causes death" thing. Shame, really.

Actually, this brings up an important issue. If anyone were to say what I said, he'd be shouted down with knee-jerk anti-tobacco platitudes. But, really, why are cigarettes smoked if they have no beneficial properties? Beyond the pleasure of it, cigarette smoking does produce some nifty results. It's a stimulant that relaxes the nerves, it seems to help one focus better, and it just...gives your hands something to do. Smoking two packs a day and killing yourself at fifty is a terrible tradeoff for those meager benefits, really, but that's not the point. Were I to suggest that someone have a cigarette every once in a while to relax, I'd get the same raving denunciation.

Alcohol is lovely as well. Give it a chance. Some people, shockingly, understand and practice moderation.

What Campaign Finance Reform?

I'm not entirely sure what McCain-Feingold was supposed to accomplish, nor what it did accomplish. President Bush seems equally baffled that signing that bill into law has not kept large amounts of money from being donated to causes whose sole purpose is to influence the election. And that assessment is generous: some of the groups (MoveOn much?) clearly support one candidate over another and have even had some of their members working for current presidential campaigns.

I'm not really terribly worked up over such organizations' existing and exercising their free speech rights. But, of course, McCain-Feingold was passed, so I did expect it to have some other effect than allowing liberal 527s to flourish and run ads full of lies. "The Iraq War will cost x dollars. President Bush went in alone, so...blahblah." I don't really think John Kerry will echo Bush's call for a condemnation of these ads, since most of them favor Kerry (by rabidly hating Bush and demanding his defeat in the election; I must confess that I am shocked at the strategy not of supporting any candidate, any principle, anything at all, but merely campaigning to get someone defeated. Is this really a rousing message: "Anyone but Bush; no matter that other candidates may admittedly have worse prospects for conducting just those affairs that make us hate Bush so much - Bush has to go."?).

People buy it, of course.

I hate democracy. Anyone in ancient Greece who was not a mindless pawn of the demagogues or a demagogue hated it.

The more I think about John Kerry, the more I can't stand him. He truly is a traitor.

I’m Telling the Truth, and I WILL NOT Prove It

I was always taught, as a young boy, that I should abstain from even the appearance of evil. Even if I am personally doing nothing improper, hanging around with reprobates or placing myself in compromising situations could certainly trump my (legitimate) claims of innocence.

For instance (and this is purely hypothetical), should my parents have accused me of smoking pot, denying them the right to search my bedroom at that moment, regardless of my innocence, would put me in a very bad light. If, for whatever reason, it was suspected on a trip to the store that I was shoplifting, refusing to empty my pockets would be rather damning. If indeed I was guilt-free, I would have thought it best to quickly and easily establish my innocence, and then question the reasoning and motives behind such insulting claims. I am a man of principles (certainly out of the norm for today’s society), but the principle of not answering what are, in my mind, insulting accusations can have serious negative repercussions. Sometimes it is best to destroy the charges and perhaps even make a power play out of it, rather than repeat “I am telling the truth” while offering no evidence to back it up.

Equally damning is Kerry's refusal to sign Form 180. If everything is as he says it is, and he is being maligned by people out to destroy him through any means for personal reasons (or through coordination with the Bush Campaign, why not?), what harm is there in releasing these records and destroying the libelous SBVT? The only reason any rational person can come up with is that he is indeed hiding from the truth. Such rational beings (i.e., me, Verny, and John Derbyshire) also realize that, should Kerry actually prove his veracity beyond a doubt (with a Form 180 disclosure backing up his claims) he would certainly destroy SBVT and probably even extend the destruction to the Bush campaign. We are forced to conclude that, in light of such a tantalizing and easily achieved political power play, Kerry is a lying sack of shit.

I would extend this recommendation of full disclosure to his divorce records. It was fine and dandy for the Democratic Machine to destroy Jack Ryan by demanding the unsealing of his divorce records, because of the embarrassing information therein contained. If Kerry has no such skeletons in his closet, why does he not prove it, now that his own party has established such practices as acceptable?

Kerry refuses to release any documents explaining, in credible and unambiguous terms, any of the controversial aspects of his past. Furthermore, he refuses to discuss any details of his plans for America in both domestic and foreign arenas, except to say he would do it "better." Apart from the fact that he isn't Bush this man is unknown, secretive, and very suspect.

Finally, to change the subject slightly, given the lack of a statute of limitations on war crimes, I think it would be nice to see him brought before a tribunal, using his own testimony under oath as evidence. Either he is convicted of the crimes he claimed, or else he's convicted of perjury. Either way, it's a win-win situation for America, with him sitting in a federal penitentiary and someone else sitting in the Senate Chamber (not that Kerry did so all that often anyway, but you get the idea).

Memo to Chris Matthews

The two phrases “Shot himself” and “Self –inflicted wound” are not at all synonymous.

Read that over and over, you drooling moron, before attacking anyone in your disgusting, ill-informed, and incredibly arrogant fashion.

For example, Kurt Cobain ‘shot himself.’ I hate to delve too deeply into grammar here, because most of today’s kids have no clue what grammar is, but the ‘himself’ makes the verb ‘shot’ reflective. That is, the verb (in this case ‘shot’) reflects on the subject (in this case, ‘Kurt Cobain’). This reflectiveness is indicated by the associated reflective pronoun, which ends in ‘-self.’ So, in the above example, someone (Kurt Cobain) shot something (in particular), and as the verb is reflective, the subject shot exactly the subject. Kurt Cobain shot Kurt Cobain. Without any associated adverbs, such as ‘accidentally,’ the verb shot almost always implies an intentional act.

On the other hand, let’s assume that I am sighting in my M1 Garand, and an errant shot ricochets off of a nearby wall (ok, it is an extremely unlikely scenario, but bear with me) and strikes me in the leg. Obviously I am wounded, and since I inflicted this wound on myself (accidental though it may be), there is no way to describe the wound other than “self-inflicted.” This phrase basically has an assumption that the self-infliction was accidental. A stray .30-06 shell bouncing off a wall and striking me is accidental; placing the butt of a shotgun between your feet and shooting your face off is not.

Chris Matthews, in his infinite stupidity, berated and attacked Michelle Malkin for accusing John Kerry of shooting himself while in Vietnam. In actuality, she was discussing charges made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that Kerry was awarded a Purple Heart for a self-inflicted wound. There is a difference between being shot by enemy forces, being injured (accidentally) by your own actions, and intentionally wounding yourself. To my knowledge, the SBVFT never once claimed that Kerry tried to injure himself; it just seems that he didn’t understand how to safely operate a grenade launcher (remember, rules and such don’t apply to people like him). When he aimed at a target too close, part of his own grenade struck him. This is, therefore, ‘self-inflicted.” He didn’t try to hurt himself (or at least that isn’t the claim here). But he did (according to SBVFT’s claims).

The problem is that Kerry then made sure he was awarded a medal for accidentally hurting himself – a medal which is reserved exclusively for people wounded by enemies. If Chris Matthews would have allowed Ms. Malkin to talk, rather than shouting at her in a most ridiculous and juvenile fashion, this could have been cleared up.

His actions were inexcusable, and likely have something to do with his recent abysmal ratings. Maybe he’ll get canned altogether. Good riddance. His disappearance would reduce the number of untalented liberal party-line hacks on TV by almost 0.00125%. Hurray.

UPDATE: I sent this post to Hardball's feedback e-mail address (hardball@msnbc.com). If I recieve a response, which I doubt, I will be sure to share it. If you find his antics disgusting, I suggest you let him know as well.

Randomness-goro

Lately, I have been too fried from working full time with a high school marching ensemble on top of my regular job to actually do any serious thinking or writing. My head has, however, become cluttered with different and random musings, so I put them here for you.

ATHF R.I.P. … err…, well…, R.
Cartoon Network decided to end the Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Oh well. When the series started, it was so fresh and off the wall that it was funny. The first Mooninites episode, for instance, was hilarious. But, after the first season, the series “jumped the shark” as the saying goes. The writers spent huge amounts of time trying to recycle the three funny jokes from the first few episodes rather than just writing new stuff. The rest of it was down hill from there. Shake and Meatwad became parodies of themselves, and, given how annoying they were to begin with, this made them nearly insufferable. The series ended with two entire seasons without so much as a notable line, let alone a memorable episode. It is high time the series was ended, and I wish CN good luck on the creation of a new non-sucking show to take its place.

Funny Joke (some assembly required)
I haven’t had the energy to refine this, but I have collected all the ingredients for a moderately funny joke. John Edwards has recently been making fun of the Bush campaign’s slogan about “turning the corner.” However, just around the corner for Edwards is… puberty. He probably can’t wait.

XS Energy Drink
I was given a carbonated energy drink. It is in one of those slim cans, coming in at only 8.4 fluid ounces. The flavor, Electric Lemon Blast, though far from bad, wasn’t exactly something to write home about. All in all, it was a regular energy drink that got me through a 6 hour drive. What caught my eye was what I read in the Nutrition Facts on the side of the can. Though this drink has 0% of the daily value of vitamins A and C, as well as 0% of calcium and iron, it does have a full 100% of vitamins B3 and B5. Vitamin B6, though, comes in at 300% of the recommended daily allowance. Perhaps I have led a sheltered life, but I don’t recall ever seeing a 300% on the side of food packaging. But this is just the start. Drinking this beverage will ensure that I never develop pernicious anemia, since vitamin B12 weighs in at a whopping 4900% of the recommended daily allowance. Yes, that is 4.9*10^3. I have never seen anything proclaim to have 4900% of the daily value (though I think I may have hit that once or twice with vodka). I just thought this was somehow newsworthy. 4900%.Wow. Whatever.

The Olympics…
Suck. Big time. I love having my life interrupted for two weeks or whatever because a bunch of activities that are very generously called sports send a million talking heads into a frenzy all over the TV. Most of that crap isn’t even a sport, and a majority of those that are certainly aren’t worth watching. Furthermore, the big name sports such as basketball and tennis allow professionals to participate. I can’t wait for this moronic spectacle to be over.

That’s all. For now. Once the intro to the marching band season is over I will have more time to actually create better posts. Until that time, I am sure Verny will keep you all entertained and informed.

I'm Boned

I recently registered for the LSAT. I also got to answer some questions about my self for the Candidate Referral Service, so law schools can actively recruit me if I fit what they want.

But I'm white.

And heterosexual.

Yes, questions about race and sexual orientation did come up. "Want information about African-Americans and the law? Hispanics? Finno-Ugric lesbian dyslexics?"

I'm sorry, I'm bland. Plain. I'm not in a suspect class.

It's pretty distasteful even to be asked such questions, but (private) law schools have every right to discriminate. If they want phony "diversity" based merely on skin pigmentation while having a lockstep corps of identical minds, that's their business. I'm just trying to get in.

I wish I could hear a valid justification for this kind of "diversity." They don't owe that to me or to anyone, really, but if "diversity" is to be something other than an arbitrary standard, it needs justification. Intellectual diversity seems to be entirely ignored, though a degree-granting institute should make it a priority. It would seem necessary to provide the best education.

And yet...all this attention on the reflected light off your skin and what equipment gets your motor running.

I wonder if schools ever bother to get down to...teaching.

Reverting

We've come a long way, haven't we? Humans, I mean.

Maybe not.

Who else is entirely unsurprised that this woman's training is in psychology? I mean, if I had heard that Carl Jung thought something, I'd be suspicious of it on its face. I tend not to trust the word of a psychotic, after all (quick question - why are psychologists so crazy? Jung was a psycho and Freud was so neurotic he had to claim that everyone was, at heart, a neurotic, or else he'd have to admit that his shortcomings were beyond the pale.). However, when your discipline calls Carl Jung a genius and a god among men, anything he says is likely to be viewed as sacrosanct. So if Carl Jung has a crazy belief, then even a skeptic begins to doubt that the belief is so crazy.

Poor woman. Philosophy is so much easier, since we seem to have no problem calling a philosopher nuts if he says something nuts. Philosophers do not constitute a big happy brotherhood, and internecine quarrels are one of those perks we hold dear. A Treatise of Human Nature was nothing more than a big "Fuck You" to the rationalists.

I suppose we have to be so sensitive to someone's crazy beliefs that science is intolerant. Now let's see some quotes.

Astrology is based on the positions occupied by the sun, moon and planets, relative to the Earth at the time, date and place of a person’s birth. So popular “sun sign” horoscope columns that only use the sun are neglecting 90 percent of the chart, Seaman says. “That’s why sun sign columns are pretty meaningless.”

Funny - I thought sun sign columns were meaningless because it's silly and childish to believe that the observed motions of the sun, other stars, and planets could possibily have any relation to one's fate. Obviously, though, I'm the silly one. It's good to see that she has some discernment - no two-bit astrology for this lady! No, we have to be precise and accurate when conducting bullshit pseudoscience.

A member of MENSA, the international high IQ society...

Even geniuses can deceive themselves or simply be insane. Noam Chomsky comes to mind.

Quoting Richard Tarnas, Ph.D., a Harvard University professor, she says, “Psychology textbooks of future generations will look back on modern psychologists working without the aid of astrology as being like medieval astronomers working without the aid of the telescope.”

My respect for Harvard professors was pretty low already. I suppose the good professor missed his own joke; belief in astrology reminds me much more of the credulous and superstitious people of the Middle Ages than of anything profound. And, after all, since the invention of the telescope was simply one ascept of the Scientific Revolution, that narrow-minded time where people began believing in objective facts and the rigors of the scientific method (in opposition to subjective fantasy and baseless conjecture), then why act as if that invention was an advance of any kind?

Kant said it best: "Contemplation of the world started from the most splendid spectacle that could ever be put before human senses and that our understanding could ever bear to pursue in its vast range, and it ended - with astrology. Morals started with human nature's noblest property, whose development and cultivation point to infinite benefit, and it ended - with fanaticism, or with superstition."

Now, I’m No Conspiracy Nut...

…but consider this.

McGreevey is going to, eventually, resign his position as governor of New Jersey. To that, I say “cool!” Apparently, it is because he cheated on his wife with a gay lover. This is what he told everyone. Ummm… way to go McGreevey.

Now, we all know that marriage infidelity is nothing to resign over. Sure, it opens up a character issue, which could possibly be insurmountable come reelection time, but it barely calls for a resignation. Obviously, there is something else behind it. Now, most pundits have been talking about an impending sexual harassment case from a former state employee, but it is odd that McGreevey would be sued for harassment (which is the current claim) without a lawsuit being filed against the office first. In all situations with which I am familiar, sexual harassment in the workplace is dealt with in the workplace first. I am not used to such cases resulting in a civil suit first.

So, consider this. I am not saying that this is the true scenario, or even that I believe it is true, but just consider it. We know that both parties have rather complicated inner workings, and both are darn strong machines. The past week has seen the Democratic machine come under attack not only by the Administration and other Republicans, but by other independent entities as well, such as the Swift Vets, not to mention Congressman Alexander’s switching parties. Kerry responded to all charges with horrible blunders, lies, fighting, and strategic mistakes. The Democrats need something to help them.

Furthermore, McGreevey was a rather unpopular and horribly ineffective governor, plagued by scandals (some bordering on the obscene). Since the Democrats needed some way to divert attention from Kerry’s blunders, I don’t find it that implausible for them to select a lower-ranking member of the party and tell him to take a public fall – to “take one for the team,” as it were.

Now, McGreevey is out there, making an ass of himself, and soaking up all the press time. All attention is diverted from Kerry’s blunders (alienating his anti-war base, answering Bush’s baiting question, posing ridiculous counter-questions that expose him as an idiot, contradicting himself over and over, performing character assassination on other Vietnam vets for the heinous crime of *gasp* not supporting him, &c.) while McGreevey steals all the headlines. His eventual resignation shouldn’t be headline news in places like Oregon, the way Kerry’s moronic bumblings should be, but McGreevey will undoubtedly take the spotlight. So, the Democrats get a three-for-one out of this deal: Kerry’s mistakes are hidden by the media, the Democrats can try to look like a party that actually has morals since McGreevey claims he is resigning over a moral issue, and McGreevey himself is effectively eliminated from the party. Not bad, eh?

I do realize this is merely a conspiracy theory, and like I said, I really don’t take it too seriously. But consider one more little piece of the puzzle. He is resigning because he is a “Gay American” – and this happens the day (or was it the day after?) the California Supreme Court bitch slaps San Francisco mayor Newsome and the rest of the illegal-gay-marriage crowd. Now it will be easier to cover up that horrible defeat for the fringe liberals, and try to evoke a few sympathy points for the gay marriage cause (“the governor had to resign because he is GAY” – I can hear it already).

In a day and age where Democrats accuse the Republicans of adjusting terror warnings for political gain, this whole resignation ordeal seems just too surreal and perfectly timed to be what it seems. I think there has to be something crazy underlying the issue, and my little scenario sadly doesn’t seem too far-fetched.

I Needed to Know This

Gov. James E. McGreevey is a gay American.

I'm not entirely sure what that means. Actually, I have no idea in hell what the governor meant by that. I suppose he just chose a random attribute to attach to "gay;" it would have been just as well if he had said he was a gay man, or a gay Scotsman, or a gay incompetent-governor-who-was-still-too-good-for-New-Jersey-voters, those-ignorant-sacks-of-liberal. Any one would do.

All right, who bought that? Probably the same people who play slots for five hours straight at Atlantic City and just know they're going to hit ($1000 later, they hit! The story is "I won $500 at Atlantic City!" Simple arithmetic is far beyond the capacity of the average gambler, and when you factor in the mind-dulling atmosphere of the Garden State...well, the losses tend to get ignored and the wins get exaggerated). Jimmy is playing identity politics. He is a gay American as a black is an African-American. We can't just be Americans; no, we have to associate ourselves with a group, an oppressed group.

You can't really blame McGreevey for wanting to characterize himself as a gay man (because all gay men have identical interests and political views, right?); the alternative is to allow the public to judge him on his abysmal record in a state where malaise is real, here-and-now, instead of a relic of years past.

How bad is New Jersey? You have to pay to get out, but not to get in. Don't believe me? Try taking I-78 into, then out of, Jersey. Do the same with the George Washington Bridge. Only have to pay one way on each of those routes.

And what experiences do you have that would be an asset to our company?

This is a question for which people must prepare if applying for high positions of management in a corporate setting. Impressive credentials would be management experience, even at a slightly lower level. One rarely gets to be the head boss of a huge business without lots of prior management experience.

The same applies for the President, America’s CEO. It is not unreasonable to expect a President to have some previous governing experience. In fact, let’s see what experience they had.

George W. Bush: Governor of Texas
Bill Clinton: Governor of Arkansas
George H. W. Bush: Former Vice President (for Reagan)
Ronald Reagan: Governor of California
Jimmy Carter: Governor of Georgia
Gerald Ford: Former Vice President (for Nixon)*
Richard Nixon: Former Vice President (for Eisenhower)
Lyndon B. Johnson: Former Vice President (for Kennedy)
John F. Kennedy: Senator -- no previous governing experience
Dwight D. Eisenhower: General of the Army (5 star), Military Governor, U.S. Occupied Zone, Frankfurt, Germany
Harry Truman: Senator – no previous governing experience**
Franklin Roosevelt: Governor of New York
Herbert Hoover: Cabinet member – no previous governing experience
Calvin Coolidge: Governor of Massachusetts
Warren Harding: Senator – limited governing experience as Lieutenant Governor of Ohio
Woodrow Wilson: Governor of New Jersey
William Taft: Cabinet member – no previous governing experience
Teddy Roosevelt: Governor of New York
William McKinley: Governor of Ohio

So we can see, out of the 18 elected Presidents in the past century (which excludes Ford), all but five had governing experience. Only three were former senators, and one of them, Truman, was only elected to the Presidency after being promoted upon the death of FDR and serving nearly a full term. So, only two senators were actually elected to the White House straight form the Senate in the past 100 years (one of them with a short term as lieutenant governor). This makes sense; is it not advisable to have as chief executive of the country someone who was either second in command to a chief executive, or a governor elsewhere before? Would this not provide the President a wealth of governing experience from which he may draw?

Now, we are faced with a choice between a sitting president who was also a governor, and a senator (with only a few years, over two decades ago, as a lieutenant governor). Granted, this puts Kerry slightly higher on the experience tree as that other raving liberal from Massachusetts, but also behind 13 of the 18 elected Presidents of the 20th century.

Historically, senators are not elected to the Presidency. Let’s make this one tradition to keep alive and well.


*It is worth mentioning that Gerald Ford was never elected to the Presidency
** Yes, Truman was the Vice President (for FDR), but only for 82 days. He was reelected to the Presidency with a full term of governing experience.

IMHO

IMHO.

Nope. You'll never see me post that nor will you hear me say it.

My opinion is never humble. It's not that I'm always right (though my fallibility is a secret, so don't let it get out!); no, I just see no purpose expressing an opinion with any undue deference. If I have a disagreement with someone on a subject in which he is much better versed than I am, I will not offer an opinion at all, humble or not. I will ask many questions of him and defer to his superior knowledge. Even when I have an inclination toward one view or another, if I am not confident in my knowledge I will reverse judgment and learn from the masters. This is proper and avoids the embarrassment of proclaiming on issues about which you know nothing. The experts will eat you for lunch (even worse if this is done publically and an entire room or website gets to view your exposed ignorance).

On the other hand...when I know I am right, or have a reasonable belief of it, my opinion will come out and it will have no humility attached. Make a stupid comment about Immanuel Kant and I will tear you a new noumenon. I happen to be fairly well-educated and I have a great amateur interest in a variety of fields, meaning it is quite likely that you will run into a field where I have at least some expertise. Do not expect to be given any quarter. I am vicious when I am right, you are wrong, and you insist on arguing.

Fair warning given.

Since When do Democrats Care about War Records Anyway?

I mean, seriously?

Though bloggers better than I have already touched on this issue, I do want to state it again. Kerry is running primarily (and it often seems completely) on his four months of service in Vietnam. This combat experience, in the eyes of the liberals, makes him a far superior candidate to Bush, regardless of anything else either of them ever did.

This is, however, a horribly huge departure for the liberals. Remember, the Democrats are the party that routinely votes to downsize the military and its funding, that protests all the good that the military does, and paints the entire armed forces as criminals based on the actions of a very few unsavory (and properly punished) individuals.

Furthermore, in the past four elections, the Democrats very aggressively downplayed military service as a qualification for President, and went so far as to claim that it should not be a campaign issue at all.

Al Gore served as a reporter for five months in Vietnam, and, occasional mentions (and a single misleading photo of Gore with an M-16) aside, his service was not discussed as a Presidential qualification. Bush’s service was, of course, criticized, because apparently the National Guard isn’t really a part of the military (and because of those fabricated AWOL charges). The Democrats did their best to stay away from military service as a campaign issue in 2000. Gore was, after all, a vocal protestor of the Vietnam War before his stint as a military journalist.

It is well established that Bill Clinton managed to dodge the Vietnam draft (using a series of loopholes and a timely out-of-country status). Bob Dole served in World War II and “was hit by Nazi machine gun fire in the upper right back and his right arm was so damaged that it was unrecognizable.” He earned two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star. He is, by all definitions, a war hero. The liberals did their best to make military service a non-issue in the election of 1996.

We know about Clinton’s evasion of military service. On the other hand, his opponent in 1992, George H. W. Bush, served honorably as a pilot in World War II. He “had flown 58 combat missions for which he received the Distinguished Flying Cross, three Air Medals, and the Presidential Unit Citation awarded San Jacinto.” Again, the Democrats made every possible effort to downplay Bush’s military service, and somehow convinced a plurality (not a majority) of voters that Clinton’s complete lack of a service background was still better than reelecting an honored war hero for Commander-in-Chief.

In 1988, the Democrats gave a half-hearted attempt at using Dukakis’s military record as a campaign issue, but dropped the ball big time with that goofy picture. And there they left it, instead focusing their energy at downplaying Bush's service. In fact, without having researched this issue beyond the reading I have done the past few nights while composing this entry, I would surmise that this started the Democrats’ tendency of avoiding military service as a campaign issue, and doing their best to prevent the Republicans from using it either. I think it was essentially a “Well, if we can’t do it, we won’t let you either” mentality. However, now that they have a candidate that actually has a real war record (has it been 16 years already?) they are trying to use military service as a campaign issue again, in a 3.141592653… radian reversal of more than a decade of precedent.

I understand the concept of adopting a strategy that you feel will help you accomplish your goals. It makes sense for things like home improvements and defensive schemes in the NFL. However, when it is a sudden reversal of more than a decade of downplaying military service and trying to decimate the military itself, I find it hypocritical that the Democrats are now acting in this fashion. After all, it isn’t like the Buffalo Bills acted as if the 3-4 Defense was the sacred and holy structure upon which all of football was built. I guess that I am just wary in general of suddenly changing principles, not necessarily practices.

Unfortunately for them, I feel that the Democrats may have miscalculated again. Sure, Kerry spent four months in Vietnam, where he apparently lied, exaggerated, earned some dubiously awarded medals, and still found the time to become a war criminal and commit atrocities (BY HIS OWN ADMISSION). At least he had the decency to return those ill-gotten medals to the government before embarking on his campaign of propaganda and demoralization, which I think happens to fall under section 2387 of the US Criminal Code, under Chapter 115: Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities. Those four months might have mattered in 2000, but Bush is (as he says, unfortunately) a wartime President, which certainly trumps both National Guard service (oh, the shame!) and a one-third length Vietnam tour. Bush now has the experience and has always had the clarity to command the military. Kerry has four months of service in Vietnam (where he won three Purple Hearts!!!! Did you hear?!?!?!?) which should be overshadowed by the following twenty years of anti-military service in the Senate.

Memo to the Democrats: show some consistency in your beliefs, ever. To the rest of us, make the smart choice.

~

More news to me:

-racism was invented by whites. Here's a thought - if the Egyptians were "black," then perhaps they were justified in using the Hebrews as slaves? No, I'm sounding too much like Farrakhan, and there are limits to sarcasm. I cannot express even with my tongue firmly in my cheek what others openly, proudly, proclaim.

-only those in power can be racists. Without power, then, hatred...turns to nothing, I suppose. Hatred is perfectly fine as long as you don't have the power to inflict pain on the hated group. When this is said, of course, it is understood (perhaps one day I will compile a list of the Axioms of Leftism; since logic is merely a relic of Western oppression and thus invalid, these axioms need not even be consistent among themselves! Fun, fun...) that whites are in power and blacks are definitely not in power. But racial preferences and such are supposed to be instruments of power counterbalancing the (supposedly) majoritarian interests of legislatures. When a minority uses, for instance, the judiciary to inflict an arbitrary rule to the detriment of some race, or class, or whatever, is this not institutionalized discrimination? Are not racial preferences racist? A better question would be why racism is not racism without power; I happen to despise race-based hatred no matter what group is hating what other group(s), and no matter the relative influences those groups have on legislation and administration of government.

Let's go a bit deeper. Is it all right for racial preferences and racially gerrymandered congressional districts to exist to balance the supposed pro-white bias of legislatures? The dynamic balance such measures strike is dangerous, and it only serves to balkanize our country even further. Why can we not work together, as one, instead of making sure to keep pouring more liquid into this group's glass, then this group's glass, in order to keep every faction equal? Why not eliminate, as far as is possible, racial factions altogether?

Ah, but the Democratic Party benefits quite nicely from balkanization. Manipulate minorities by creating an enemy, the Majority, the Whites, and then sharpening the contrast between minority and majority. Willful incitement of racial tension to manufacture votes.

More than unpleasant - it is disgusting.

-anti-Semitism can be couched in euphemism and get a free pass. Call the enemy, not a Jew, but a Zionist, or, better yet, a neocon.

Oy.

My Take

My take on more RWN goodness:

Under new Moral Equivalance Logic (not to be confused with formal logic, that tool of chauvinist Westerners), questioning the value of race-based preferences is no better than Hart's blatant and repugnant racism. Therefore, Hart is merely a Republican who has the courage to say what all Republicans really think.

Other results of MEL: War is peace, freedom is slavery, A is ~A, etc.

Forget All You Ever Learned

I've heard some news that will be startling for some of us.

-You've heard it over and over - Bush went into Iraq alone. It's true. Britain, Italy, Spain, and most of Eastern Europe were destroyed by asteroids roughly twenty years ago. The media have been fed phony information about those countries for decades, and as a result, only a few people (all of them working for the Kerry campaign) know the shocking truth. Fortunately, TV ads are working to educate people about the nonexistence of these countries by making it clear that Bush attacked Iraq unilaterally, playing on the ignorance of most of the population to create phony allies. Tony Blair is actually an actor from Australia, and a damned fine one, but he's no PM.

-September 11th was a gigantic hoax. Never happened. Bush made it all up, staged the footage, and killed several thousand people (mostly homeless, children, and the elderly; you know, the people Republicans like to torture and kill anyway) just to have an excuse to launch his phony war (see previous point). Those who believe that we were attacked are baffled when Democrats point out that there was never a war under Clinton, but the Democrats have a point. Since 9/11 never really happened, we should simply conduct ourselves as we did during the Clinton administration. What actually happened on 9/11 is not proof that Clinton was derelict in protecting the country but merely proof in how gullible the American people are to believe such an obvious hoax. I mean, most people actually think JFK was shot by a random nut instead of believing the truth, that a chain-smoking alien from Mars working with the CIA and Fidel Castro replaced JFK with a clone four months before his "assassination" and had to stage his murder because the clone was almost discovered by the FBI. Don't let "evidence" and "simplicity" fool you - that's just what they want you to think.

-John Kerry was brainwashed by the NVA during his tour in Vietnam. This explains his references to nonexistent American atrocities. Fortunately, Senator Kerry recently recovered and is now quite proud of his service. This is decidedly not a case of Kerry flip-flopping because he has no morals and no platform. Pay no attention to that Massachusetts liberal behind the curtain.

-The Catholic Church reversed a centuries-old policy of requiring members to be Catholic, thus allowing John Kerry to support abortion and remain a member of the Church. Some Catholics were confused as to why the senator was not excommunicated after taking a position differing at all from the Pope's, but recent changes to the Church explain this readily. The press release was simply in Latin and most people could not understand it, including many high school Latin students who complained that "there ain't no macrons on them letters! How'm I s'posed to figger the cases out?"

Core Issue

This entry will be relatively simple. The entire presidential campaign is this simple, at heart, though it is so covered in lies, non sequiturs, and vanities that one can hardly discern the Being for the Notion (don't ask).

It has been three years since we were attacked, merely a visible sign of a war that had been raging for years before we took notice. President Bush has vowed to destroy our enemies, and many terrorists are now dead, and several bodies sponsoring terror have been eradicated. There is little to fault in the conduct of the war; minor issues have arisen, but the war continues, and we are winning. Our liberty is more secure and we have freed two populations from fascism and theocracy.

The War on Terror is the most important issue of our day. Do you think John Kerry will conduct that war as well or better than President Bush has? Has John Kerry given anyone any indication of what he would do if elected?

What will John Kerry do, anyway? He has been reticent. He also seems to take for granted that President Bush has not done well, though the record clearly indicates otherwise.

Why vote for Kerry? Who throw Bush out after so much success?

Nothing else matters right now. Gay marriage, the economy, judicial nominees - what are these next to the security of our country and the lives of its citizens?

I Apparently Hate Cars and Driving in General…

…because I am not in favor of eradicating every speed limit. I actually believe that some driving habits need to be regulated.

I also hate all of education, it seems. This is because I think that we shouldn’t tinker with the SATs. Since I am in favor of keeping these standards in place, I apparently want every single child to grow up completely ignorant of everything.

While we are on the subject, I hate the entire information age in general. This obviously follows from my displeasure with certain aspects of the Windows operating system.

This is stupid and illogical, you say? I would tend to agree, if it weren’t for so many people telling me that I absolutely hate all homosexuals because I think that the definition of marriage is worth preserving.

That’s all I really want to say about it right now, since the spineless Republicans in the federal government seem to have given up the fight (along with about every other fight). Thanks guys. Learn to play hardball, ever.




Oh, and as far as my discussion of Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM the other night, well, when I woke up Monday the topic was frankly not nearly as interesting as I originally thought. Just another kook making an appearance in order to keep truckers awake, I guess. I just hope that they never come up with medicines that keep everyone young and healthy. Some people simply need to die (and for some, the sooner the better).

Cause for Hope, Not Yet Celebration

RWN tells us what the liberal media will quickly be trying to downplay - Kerry's poll numbers after the convention didn't get the boost they should have. This is great news for Bush supporters, since our convention is next and if Bush gets even a moderate bounce he should win this election.

I'm not convinced. The Republicans have the chance to mobilize their base, but they also have a chance to alienate that base. Whether Republicans can also sway moderates will depend on their strategy. The important thing, though, is to get those conservatives voting.

For the conservatives:

-point out the great difference between Bush's handling of the war and what one would expect from Kerry (one can only guess, since Kerry essentially said in a recent interview on Fox News that his plan for Iraq was really nobody's business, and he had so much experience that he would definitely get things right; in other words, screw you, commoners, you could not possibly understand my position, and I don't owe you an explanation, even before an election! What a campaign. They'll vote for him, though)

-we know Bush will continue to fight terror; what else will he do? We still need tax relief, and Bush should do more than throw a bone to his base; he should have a clear plan for cutting taxes during his next term, not just a nebulous promise of tax relief.

-make the Democrats' continuing to block judicial nominees a big issue here. This may well translate to greater gains in Congress, as conservatives will realize that Bush cannot hope to get even a moderate judge in place without a firm hold on Congress.

-Iran and North Korea delenda est. Nuff said.

For the undecideds, moderates, and other fence-sitting goons:

-get McCain up there as a foil to Kerry. McCain was in Vietnam but, unlike Kerry, didn't slander his country and his fellow soldiers when it was all done. We might also get some of those who served with Kerry, since a large plurality can't stand the guy, most of them have no comment, and only a small minority actually supports him.

-they don't want to hear about gay marriage. Don't mention it. At all.

-I hate to say it, but these people are the types who want to feel safe without being safe so tell them you're going to increase the bureaucracy to protect the country at home.

-these people are worried about Iraq. Make a point that the Iraqi people are better off now. Talk about Libya.

The convention has to be strong and conservative, or Bush will lose in November. Republican voters don't want to see any more compassion; compassion doesn't kill Saddam and compassion doesn't cut taxes to get our economy rolling again. If the convention turns into a moderate love-in, conservatives won't bother showing up in November, which means bad news for Bush and all Republicans trying to get elected.

Go Us?!

As the immortal Inspector Gadget is fond of saying, “Wowzerz!” I just got back from a most wonderful (and deserved) vacation with my wonderful (and most undeserved, surely) lady-friend. (She lives near Syracuse, which could be closer for all I care.) I just drove back from upstate New York to central Pennsylvania (only stopping for a pitcher of Yuengling once! -- it was a $3 special), and the first thing I am doing is updating. Wow do I suck.

Anyway, Verny and I have been running TNS for all of what? Three weeks? I think it has been going reasonably well, and we do have at least three people who check in on a regular basis. Yep, we are going places. However, an honor of honors was granted today. I checked the Right Wing News, a regular read for me (as it should be for you) and one of the biggest reasons I am blogging myself, and I saw that we had been linked for providing traffic. I'm sure it is just the good folks at RWN giving us a break, but, for the hoards of you new fans, welcome. For John H. and everyone at RWN, thank you so very, very much.

We still don’t know what the hell we are doing, but damn if we aren’t doing it well. I’ll get bored at work tomorrow and comment on something I heard that kook Art Bell talking about as I was driving home tonight. I desperately need sleep.

Mobile Vulgus

It looks so bad, doesn't it? I've heard nothing good about it in reviews, even when the reviewers were positively glowing. It's a perfect remake for Hollywood and the Left (not quite identical groups, yet). Take a silly old movie with Commies as the villains - but, of course, for many in the Left (and many in Hollywood now and especially back then), the Commies were never real villains. The real evil ones are those vicious corporations. Communism only killed a hundred million people or so; corporations actually sell products and employ workers. How can they get away with stuff like that?! Chilling, simply chilling.

I really wanted to see this movie, but I likely won't. I wanted to see it, compare it to the original, fire some volleys at the Left, and make some good journalistic hay on the whole deal. I can't bring myself to see it. I just don't watch movies. I hate movies. Some people have to see nearly ever movie ever released; not I. There's really no principle behind this - I'm not going against my inclinations to protest Hollywood. I simply have no desire to see most of what that awful place churns out. I see hackneyed premises, cornball dialogue, and the replacement of skillful montage and mise-en-scene with computer-generated special effects. It is no longer ars gratia artis, but ars gratia...populi (correct my grammar, which has lapsed over the years). The public is notoriously devoid of taste, preferring the gross to the subtle, and movies appeal to that directly. Movies are no longer art but entertainment. My aversion to the media is not conscious, either; I unconsciously shun films in general because I have had so much experience of so much that is terrible.

I don't hate Hollywood for being Leftist; there are so many better reasons to hate it.