There seems to be a new talking point spreading through the left now that Iraqis have voted. You may have seen something like this:
"Sure, it's great that Iraq is free, but we didn't go there to liberate people! We went looking for weapons of mass destruction! That was the only reason we went to war, and Bush lied!!!"
To that, I say:
The war was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Unless that meant that we were going to "free" the WMD, I'm pretty sure we invaded with the intention of eliminating Saddam so Iraqis could have a democratic country.
I mean...come on. I'm probably one of the most cynical, pessimistic people on this planet, and even I think the neolibs need to lighten up.
Well, the people have spoken in Iraq. Despite the best efforts of terrorists, democracy has won. But why take it from me when you can hear from Mohammed and Omar, Ali, Alaa, Hammorabi, and many other Iraqi bloggers who have a voice for the first time? This is truly a historic day.
Just a word of advice: Don't go to DU unless you want to hear about "puppet governments" and assorted tinfoil hat crap like that. Trust me on this.
Every time I think I've become desensitized to the mind-boggling stupidity of people, something else catches me totally off guard.
For example, this:
Cheney's Green Parka and Boots Stand OutVice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s utilitarian hooded parka and boots stood out amid the solemn formality of a ceremony commemorating the liberation of Nazi death camps, raising eyebrows among the fashion-conscious.
Cheney replaced the zipped-to-the-neck green parka he sported in Thursday's blowing snow and freezing wind with a more traditional black coat — red tie and gray scarf showing underneath — for his tour of Auschwitz on Friday.
Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan described Cheney's look at the deeply moving 60th anniversary service as "the kind of attire one typically wears to operate a snow blower."
"Cheney stood out in a sea of black-coated world leaders because he was wearing an olive drab parka with a fur-trimmed hood," Givhan wrote in Friday's Post, also mocking Cheney's knit ski cap embroidered with the words "Staff 2001" and his brown, lace-up hiking boots. "The vice president looked like an awkward child amid the well-dressed adults," she said.
Is this a friggin' joke? With all the problems facing the world today, you @sshats are criticizing the vice president for wearing a green f**king coat?!
I don't even know what to say at this point. Just...get a life, you wastes of space.
Okay, totally unrelated to anything I've written lately...
When you get a song stuck in your head, and you can't remember what it's called, do you ever have the experience where you think, maybe just for a split second, that it's possible to find out the name of the song with Google?
"Hmm...I can't remember what this song is called. Maybe if I use 'doo doo da doo dee doo doo da da doo' as a search term, I can find out..."
No matter how many times this happens, I still have the moment where I believe that it's possible to do a sound search (and no, I haven't actually tried it). Someone needs to get to work on this.
Well, it's January 27. As some of you may know, today is my 20th birthday.
20 freakin' years. That's...two decades. Whoa.
I honestly don't have much else to say. I just think it's cool that I finally get a different number in front of my age. That "1#" business was getting old.
I don't officially turn 20 until 9:58 PM, but I don't think a few hours make that much of a difference, so...yeah. I should be going to sleep now.
So...
I'm now officially a member of the Syracuse College Republicans.
...And that's all I have time to write at the moment. Bye.
I was reading a PDF for my history class, and something didn't seem quite right. Check out the screen shot below, and see if you can find the rather amusing mistake:
Typo, or Freudian slip? You be the judge.
There's an interesting article/opinion piece in today's Daily Orange that illustrates the mindset of the liberal "activist" fairly well. Check it out:
Students protest inauguration with music, hopeThe morning after the presidential election last November, I cried, screamed and finally became numb to the insane amount of disappointment, anger and sincere distraught of Bush's re-election.
I noticed a lot of this. All the liberals were acting like their parents had just died or something. This is the first characteristic common to them: Being way too emotional about politics. Seriously, if Kerry had won, I would've been upset, but I wouldn't have let it ruin my friggin' day. These people need to stop being so melodramatic (this is part of the Grand Theory of Leftism, which will be posted when I find the time to finish it).
Yes, he was re-elected fair and square - as far as I know. I admit it.
Planting tiny seeds of doubt won't change it, you know.
But on the eve of his inauguration last Thursday, I decided to join hundreds of other Bush foes from across the nation in Washington, D.C. We planned to gather and march in protest of his anti-environment, anti-reproductive rights, anti-gay, pro-war policies.
"Hundreds...from across the nation." Wow, sounds like quite a turnout...*stifled laughter*...
Anyway, we're about to see another problem: The belief that making noise and generally acting silly will lead to change. These morons actually thought they would make a difference by disrupting a formal event that was going to take place no matter what they did. I really don't understand it, but let's see if we can get some insight..
After some last minute scrambling, my friend and I bummed a ride at about 1:30 a.m. on Friday with a Syracuse University student who was headed down there. Our friends here told us it was pointless to go. Why bother protesting an elected president? What would it prove? And why risk getting stranded on the highway in the blinding snow?
Well, if you were inclined to make logical decisions, you wouldn't be a moonbat, so I guess those problems didn't factor into the final decision. Protesting Bushchimpler™ is worth it!!!
I recognized their points...
Could've fooled me.
...and almost decided to stay in Syracuse.
See my above comments.
But for a reason I couldn't pin down, I felt a burning need to go.
It's called "paranoid schizophrenia," and it can be treated by a qualified professional.
So we ignored our critics...
Hey, sounds a lot like what Bush did.
...and left. We arrived in the capital around 9:30 a.m., and we made our way to our meet-up point with a crowd of protestors. They milled around in an incredible jumble of color and anti-Bush paraphernalia, signs, shirts and stickers.
"It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
...Sorry. I was feeling very Shakespearean after reading that last part.
We couldn't stop craning our necks, pointing to the phrases that pleased us the most.
Now, we begin to see another problem: They're enjoying it. Looking for "phrases that [please them] the most." At one point in history, protesting was the only way oppressed people could bring their grievances before their leaders. Today, it has devolved into a way for stupid people to gather together with other stupid people and engage in a festival of self-congratulation and revelry. Ladies and gentlemen, the human race is doomed.
Some people took the makeshift stage set up on some rocks near the side of the park, and revved up the audience with their words. We found other Syracuse-area residents who had made their way down on two buses that were chartered from Binghamton.
Once again, note that they're talking not to Bush, but to each other. They're just doing this to feel good about themselves, because they know it won't change anything. Did it ever occur to them that if they need to seek constant validation of their beliefs, they might be wrong?
About half an hour later we joined the protestors' march as it passed by the park. A small crowd was pounding some homemade drums and shaking homemade maracas. People began chanting, clapping, whistling and dancing.
Oh yeah, that'll show the evil Chimperor what the people think. He's such a horrible president that he's caused them to break out in public displays of song and dance That b@stard.
In the middle of my hopping and shaking...
Once again: PROTESTS. AREN'T. SUPPOSED. TO. BE. FUN. You people are a huge joke, and you're too dumb to realize that we're all laughing at your expense.
...one woman thrust an empty water bottle filled with pebbles into my hands. "Do you need a shaker?" she asked. I took it and found an unreasonable amount of glee in joining the completely spontaneous, beautiful ruckus.
I don't think something planned in advance using buses and pre-determined meeting points really counts as "completely spontaneous," but once again, logic doesn't seem to matter to neolibs. If it felt spontaneous, it obviously must have been.
We marched, and the crowd stretched on and on. People in costumes, masks, bandannas, adorned with more and more signs, surrounded me.
Look, children, it's the circus!
I joined in the chants, "Welfare, not warfare..."
I guess they don't have a problem with class warfare.
...and "This is what democracy looks like."
If this was referring to the inauguration, then I guess it was true.
The sun emerged, bathing us all in the warm glow.
"...but we didn't need to cover our eyes, because we'd already been blinded by ideology."
For people who were so miserable about the president, his election and his policies, we were a happy crowd.
So...if Bush being president somehow makes you happy...shouldn't you be supporting him? Hey, it makes just as much sense as most of the crazy crap you believe.
We marched not because we thought the election was rigged or inaccurate. The result of that democratic process we grudgingly accept. We marched because we have the right to peacefully gather and demonstrate our great discontent - a democratic process we passionately embrace.
If you were demonstrating your discontent, then WHY THE EVERLOVING F**K WERE YOU ACTING HAPPY?! "Let's melt their icy hearts with our smiles!"
We marched to remind Mr. Bush that almost half of America is not happy with his actions and his decisions, and that he represents our views as well.
Since the only "view" you seem to have is "Bush is bad," I kind of doubt he shares it.
And we marched to remind ourselves, and those who share our views, that...
"...we might be wrong, but at least we can have fun!"
...we still have the ability to hope and work for a better America - especially in the next four years.
Right. By dancing, wearing random costumes, making semi-literate signs, and shaking bottles full of rocks. Good luck with that.
I know I'm kind of mutilating a beaten horse here, but I really want to get back to the problem of protestors acting happy. What's the deal? I noticed the same thing with a lot of anti-war protests: Many of the participants in these things are smiling, dancing, and generally having a good time.
Take a look at some of these pictures. Do they look serious to you? It seems to me that the only reason they assemble is to be around people who share their views, and they really don't care if it accomplishes anything.
I guess that's more important to liberals than change. After all, making a difference might involve work.
You know, a lot of people are calling the recent weather a "blizzard," but...come on. I'm in Syracuse right now, and we just call it "winter."
However, I figured I'd jump on the bandwagon and share a few snow pictures I just took from my window. Click 'em for full size:
Wide angle shot of the parking lot outside my dorm
Close-up of some cars
A house on the other end of the lot
Icicles on the house
Just an average day around here.
I've been wanting to fisk an editorial in today's New York Times since last night/this morning, but I kept getting distracted by...well, everything. Stupid ADD.
Anyway, I finally decided to give it a shot. It's by Orlando Patterson, "a professor of sociology at Harvard," so you pretty much know that it's going to be full of moonbatty goodness. Let's take a look:
The Speech Misheard Round the WorldSince 9/11, President Bush and his advisers have engaged in a series of arguments concerning the relation between freedom, tyranny and terrorism. The president's inaugural paean to freedom was the culmination of these arguments.
The stratagem began immediately after 9/11 with the president's claims that the terrorist attacks were a deliberate assault on America's freedom.
Last time I checked, killing someone counted as threatening their freedom.
The next stage of the argument came after no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq...
Other than sarin and mustard gas.
...thus eliminating the reason for the war...
Did you forget about violated U.N. resolutions, defiance of weapons inspectors, nuclear ambitions, aggression against other countries, support of terrorists and terrorist organizations, state-sanctioned rape and murder, and various other crimes against humanity, or are you just too lazy to build a decent straw man?
...and it took the form of a bogus syllogism: all terrorists are tyrants who hate freedom.
Oh, there's the straw man. Nice. Look, I'm sorry that your underdeveloped moonbat mind is too weak to comprehend anything more than a basic summary of any given idea, but at least try to make it sound like you're listening to Bush's speeches, okay?
It's not that all terrorists are "tyrants who hate freedom." The idea is that all terrorists are murderers who threaten the security of the U.S. and other countries, and therefore should be killed and/or brought to justice. However, as we'll see soon enough, many of them actually do hate freedom.
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who hates freedom.
Not anymore. Now he's a prisoner who stands accused of numerous crimes against the Iraqi people and the world. Heh heh.
Therefore Saddam Hussein is a terrorist whose downfall was a victory in the war against terrorism.
You don't get it, do you? The problem wasn't that Saddam was a terrorist himself (although that certainly is true). The problem was his ability to give financial aid and weapons to terrorists, who would then use them against us, as well as his influence on the continuing violence in the Middle East. I guess "nuance" isn't in style anymore, since it apparently all boils down to whether or not Saddam had stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
When this bogus syllogism began to lose public appeal...
I wonder how it did that, considering it was never made in the first place by anyone other than people like you.
...it was shored up with another flawed argument that was repeated during the campaign: tyranny breeds terrorism.
If you look at the countries the terrorists are coming from, I believe you'll find some truth in that "flawed argument."
Freedom is opposed to tyranny. Therefore the promotion of freedom is the best means of fighting terrorism.
Once again, compare the number of terrorists being supported by tyrannical regimes to the number being supported by democratic regimes. I think you'll notice quite a difference.
Promoting freedom, of course, is a noble and highly desirable pursuit. If America were to make the global diffusion of freedom a central pillar of its foreign policy, it would be cause for joy.
"If?" "IF?!" This should be good.
The way the present administration has gone about this task, however, is likely to have the opposite effect.
Tell that to all the people who voted in Afghanistan.
Moreover, what the president means by freedom may get lost in translation to the rest of the world.
Especially if it keeps getting filtered through and distorted by the MSM.
The administration's notion of freedom has been especially convenient, and its promotion of it especially cynical.
I'm always amazed at the use of the word "cynical" to describe Bush's policies. If anything, they're overly idealistic, which would be the opposite of cynicism. But I guess the heroic liberal elites don't want to associate idealism with Republicans. It might make it harder to pretend that they have ideas.
In the first place, there is no evidence to support, and no good reason to believe, that Al Qaeda's attack on America was primarily motivated by a hatred of freedom. Osama bin Laden is clearly no lover of freedom, but this is an irrelevance. The attack on America was motivated by religious and cultural fanaticism.
Let's think about this for a few seconds. Osama bin Laden is a Muslim extremist, as are most of the terrorists we're fighting right now. They believe that the entire world should be Muslim, and that all who refuse are infidels who should be killed in a jihad. "Islam" means "submission," which is the opposite of freedom. They hate us because we refuse to submit. Therefore, they do, in fact, hate freedom.
Second, while it may be implicitly true that all terrorists are tyrants, it does not follow that all tyrants are terrorists.
However, the ones who kill hundreds of thousands of their own people, pay off suicide bombers, and invade neighboring countries tend to fall into that category.
The United States, of all nations, should know this. Over the past century it has supported a succession of tyrannical states with murderous records of oppression against their own people, none of which were terrorist states - Argentina and Brazil under military rule, Augusto Pinochet's Chile, South Africa under apartheid, to list but a few.
Once again, nuance apparently doesn't matter anymore. I'm not an expert on any of the above situations, but I'm pretty sure they weren't the same as Iraq.
Today, one of America's closest allies in the fight against tyranny is tyrannical Pakistan, and one of its biggest trading partners is the authoritarian Communist regime of China.
It's called "foreign policy." Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, we're trying to set an example for others while taking action against those who create conditions under which change is impossible, and those who are the greatest threat to national security? Every country isn't the freakin' same.
Third, while the goal of promoting democracy is laudable, there is no evidence that free states are less likely to breed terrorists.
...No comment. It just wouldn't be worth it.
Sadly, the very freedoms guaranteed under the rule of law are likely to shelter terrorists, especially within states making the transition from authoritarian to democratic rule. Transitional democratic states, like Russia today, are more violent than the authoritarian ones they replaced.
The key word there is "transitional." Once they actually reach the state of freedom, terrorism declines. And keep in mind that a truly free state punishes terrorists, rather than rewarding them as Saddam and the Taliban did.
And even advanced democratic regimes have been known to breed terrorists, the best example being the United States itself. For more than half a century a terrorist organization, the Ku Klux Klan, flourished in this country. According to the F.B.I., three of every four terrorist acts in the United States from 1980 to 2000 were committed by Americans.
You're still missing the freakin' point: Free states do not approve of terrorism. Nobody has claimed that freedom eliminates terrorism completely, but in a free country, terrorists are more likely to be brought to justice, and less likely to be part of a culture that believes in murder as a way to achieve a goal. And I'll also mention, once again, that none of those acts were financed or rewarded by the U.S. government.
The president speaks eloquently and no doubt sincerely of freedom both abroad and at home. But it is plain for the world to see that there is a discrepancy between his words and his actions.
Unless "the world" means "leftist sociology professors," I kind of doubt that.
He claims that freedom must be chosen and defended by citizens, yet his administration is in the process of imposing democracy at the point of a gun in Iraq.
See, the problem is that the citizens of Iraq couldn't "choose" freedom under Saddam, because they would end up in a mass grave. The Iraqis are having elections soon, and then they'll get to choose their own way. The U.S. simply eliminated the thing that was keeping them from choosing freedom in the first place. And you're forgetting that a key part of Bush's philosophy is the idea that most human beings would choose freedom if given the choice, but other human beings, like Saddam Hussein, deny them that opportunity.
At home, he seeks to "make our society more prosperous and just and equal," yet during his first term there has been a great redistribution of income from working people to the wealthy...
Actually, there was a "redistribution of income" from the government back to the people who gave some of their income to the government in the first place.
...as well as declining real income and job security for many Americans.
And I'm sure it's all Bush's fault, right? It couldn't have had anything to do with that "recession" thing.
Furthermore, he has presided over the erosion of civil liberties stemming from the Patriot Act.
WHAT F**KING EROSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES, YOU PARANOID F**K?!
...Sorry. I just get really angry when people accuse Bush of taking away civil liberties and then provide...let's see here...no examples whatsoever to prove it.
Is this pure hypocrisy - or is there another explanation for the discrepancy, and for Mr. Bush's perplexing sincerity?
It could be that you're criticizing him for things he hasn't done, but that's just my opinion.
There is no gainsaying an element of hypocrisy here. But it is perhaps no greater than usual in speeches of this nature. The problem is that what the president means by freedom, and what the world hears when he says it, are not the same.
Once again, I find it odd that a sociology professor presumes to speak for the world in general.
In the 20th century two versions of freedom emerged in America. The modern liberal version emphasizes civil liberties, political participation and social justice. It is the version formally extolled by the federal government, debated by philosophers and taught in schools; it still informs the American judicial system. And it is the version most treasured by foreigners who struggle for freedom in their own countries.
Sounds an awful lot like what Bush is promoting.
But most ordinary Americans view freedom in quite different terms. In their minds, freedom has been radically privatized. Its most striking feature is what is left out: politics, civic participation and the celebration of traditional rights, for instance.
What? I'm confused here. Is he saying that these things have been taken away, or that nobody cares about them, or that they're no longer being defended...or...all of the above...?
Freedom is largely a personal matter having to do with relations with others and success in the world.
Which is fine in a nation that gives people freedom under the first definition.
Freedom, in this conception, means doing what one wants and getting one's way. It is measured in terms of one's independence and autonomy, on the one hand, and one's influence and power, on the other. It is experienced most powerfully in mobility - both socioeconomic and geographic.
It sounds like you're describing things like voting, free choice of career and education, etc. I still don't see why the two definitions are somehow mutually exclusive.
In many ways this is the triumph of the classic 19th-century version of freedom, the version that philosophers and historians preached but society never quite achieved. This 19th-century freedom must now coexist with the more modern version of freedom. It does so by acknowledging the latter but not necessarily including it.It is not that Americans have rejected the formal model of freedom - ask any American if he believes in democracy and a free press and he will genuinely endorse both. Rather it is that such abstract notions of freedom are far removed from their notion of what freedom means and how it is experienced.
I see what you're trying to do! You're using a bunch of big words in the hopes that people will read it and assume that you're right without trying to figure out if those words actually mean anything! I'd hate to see the essay questions on your exams.
I still don't understand why we can't promote the first kind of freedom and let people discover the second kind once they're no longer being raped and killed by despots.
The genius of President Bush is that he has acquired an exquisite grasp of this development in American political culture, and he can play both versions of freedom to his advantage. Because he so easily empathizes with the ordinary American's privatized view of freedom, the president was relatively immune from criticism that he disregarded more traditional measures of freedom like civil liberties.
The fact that he hasn't threatened civil liberties could have something to do with that as well.
In the privatized conception of freedom that he and his followers share, the abuses of the Patriot Act play little or no part.
Once again, no examples at all. Look, Bush may walk around arbitrarily imprisoning and torturing Arabs and liberals in your fantasy world, but in the real world, the PATRIOT Act really hasn't changed much.
(There are times, of course, when the president must voice support for the modern liberal version of freedom. The inaugural is such a day, "prescribed by law and marked by ceremony," as he ruefully noted.)
I love the implication that Bush doesn't actually believe in that version of freedom, despite the fact that he's promoting it in a couple countries right now.
Yet while these inconsistencies...
WHAT inconsistencies? Did I miss some of your big, scary inta-ma-lectual words a couple paragraphs back?
...may not bother the president's followers or harm his standing in America...
...Especially since they don't exist anywhere but in the minds of moonbats.
...they matter to the rest of the world. Few foreigners are even aware of America's hybrid conception of freedom, much less accepting of it. In most of the rest of the world, the president's inaugural address was heard merely as hypocrisy.
Let's review: Because Bush supposedly doesn't believe in classical liberal freedom, it's not possible to bring it or any other kind of freedom to other countries, even though the entire argument to prove that he doesn't believe in freedom is supported only by hyperbole, rumors, and outright lies.
...Is it any wonder Republicans control the government? Holy crap.
For any neolibs reading this, allow me to summarize my view of what Bush is doing in foreign policy:
The United States has become the most powerful and prosperous country in the world by being the most free country in the world. Therefore, it stands to reason that if other countries were more free, they would be more prosperous as well, and the world would be safer. However, since some countries are controlled by murderous dictators who crush all dissent, it's necessary to eliminate them, often by force, in order to promote the freedom that leads to prosperity. In addition, because we were attacked on 9/11, we realized that being free doesn't make a country safe unless enough other countries are free that it's impossible for terrorists to get the support they need to commit mass murder against their fellow human beings. Due to these circumstances, we're engaged in a war to eliminate dictators, promote freedom, and make the world safer.
But that's just the way I see it.
I just watched Brainwashing 101. As a filmmaker, I have to say that it's not very well done (too many talking heads), but as a conservative, I highly recommend it. It's a disturbing look at free speech double standards and intimidation of conservatives on college campuses. Check it out.
Holy crap, is there anything the Bush administration doesn't get blamed for? Check out this ridiculous letter:
Re "Diet Guidelines Aren't Enough" (letters, Jan. 18):Yes, we need policies that curb increased junk food consumption.
Here's an idea: DON'T EAT TOO MUCH JUNK FOOD. In the spirit of my last question, is there anything these children trapped in adult bodies won't run to the government for?
To move in this direction, we need leaders who will stand up to the Big Food lobby.
Apparently, there's an entire group of people dedicated to making Americans obese. Who knew?
The secretary of health and human services, Tommy Thompson, has called for individual responsibility.
How dare he suggest that people can think for themselves!!!
(OT: Tommy Thompson is a hilarious name)
This does not address a major component of the problem: food corporations contribute to the obesity epidemic with irresponsible practices like the aggressive promotion of junk food.
Because those corporations force feed their evil, yet delicious, products to unsuspecting citizens! Give me a break. If this "blame the manufacturer and pity the user" strategy failed to stop the production and sale of cigarettes, how do you expect to use it with food???
The Bush administration's unwillingness to take on the food industry is not surprising.
You see, they're busy dealing with this thing called "terrorism" right now. If you think coerced overeating is a more urgent issue, you may have watched Se7en one too many times.
Altria, which owns Kraft Foods, contributed to the inauguration, and the chief executive of Cargill, the food processor, was a big donor to the Bush re-election campaign.
And there you have it, folks. The reason Bush isn't standing up to the "food lobby" has nothing to do with the fact that it's a WASTE OF F**KING TIME. It's all because of his evil corporate cronies.
And then, there's this nauseating irony at the end:
The writer is executive director of Corporate Accountability International.
It's a bit strange that the director of "Corporate Accountability International" doesn't seem to have any understanding of individual accountability. Because blaming people for their own unhealthy eating habits would be wrong.
On the other hand, maybe I can pay for this semester's books if I sue the "food lobby" for making me overweight. Hmmm...
You know what I love more than anything else? Going to the bookstore and finding that every book I need for my history class is sold out. Fan-freakin'-tastic.
(Inauguration? What's that?)
Hey, if you're in the Syracuse area, and you happen to hear a faint sucking sound in the distance, that's my classes for this semester. Holy crap. I have to buy about 15 books for 4 freakin' classes, and my professors all think they're high school teachers. One of them talks to us like we're retarded and refuses to let anyone leave the room, another one wanted to make a seating chart, another one forced everyone to sit near the front, and they all tell really lame jokes and then laugh as if they were actually funny.
Holy crap. They should be paying me to deal with this.
</rant mode>
What kinda fucked up parallel universe am i in
Apparently, one where Google will answer that question.
Okay, I want you all to take a look at this picture:
In case you can't tell, that's ice. On the inside of my dorm room window. A window which has been closed all day.
...Yeah, I really don't have anything else to say about this. I just thought it was weird.
Dear douchebags,
F**K OFF.
Your pal,
CD
Well, I'm back in Chimptown Syracuse, and my first class is at 9:30 AM tomorrow. Uh...yay?
Okay, here's the deal: I'm heading back to school around 9 AM tomorrow, and I never posted the Grand Theory of Leftism, even though I said I would. This is what happens when you make procrastination a way of life.
However, I will have it up at some point. It's outlined and planned already, but I still have to add a few things and organize it. I'm not sure how long it'll take, or when I'll get around to it. It could be an hour from now, for all I know. But it will be done eventually.
This post contains one of the funniest comment threads ever. Check it out.
This NYT Letter is just odd:
In "Exit, Snarling" (editorial, Jan. 9), you mention that "The Daily Show" is "especially popular with young people."I am 83 and make sure to stay up to 11 p.m. to hear my buddy Jon Stewart and his talented friends.
First of all, I doubt that Jon Stewart is your "buddy," but I'll let that slide.
He not only is a breath of fresh air but also makes me laugh out loud.
That's kinda his job.
We surely need more of that in this "scary" world President Bush has dumped us in so he can stay in power.
Why the quotes around "scary?" Is this author making a mockery of her own beliefs? In any case, the second half of this sentence is a bit ridiculous. Does this woman seriously think Bush is some sort of power-hungry despot whose only concern is staying in the White House and oppressing The People™? It never seems to occur to some liberals that maybe, just maybe, a lot of Americans agree with the president.
It is sad that we have to go to this "fake news" show to get the truth.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the root of the problem. If you believe everything you see on The Daily Show to be "the truth," you have some freakin' issues. Although Jon Stewart is probably more credible than CBS.
The "Question of the Day" from a couple days ago could use some more input. I responded to what's there, but I didn't feel like spending a lot of time on it, so if someone else wants to pick up the slack...go ahead.
It's 70 degrees outside right now. It's supposed to storm later. Then it's supposed to drop down to 38 degrees and snow.
...
...
Wow.
You probably don't know this, but Syracuse has a Facebook group called "I Fucking Hate George Fucking Bush." It's basically for...well, students who hate Bush. There's also a group called "I Fucking LOVE George Bush," which is obviously for people who love Bush. As someone who only mildly supports Bush a lot of the time (thanks to things like "amnesty lite"), I kind of feel left out of the whole Facebook rivalry thing.
Luckily, I just found out that there's another group called "I Fucking Hate Michael Moore." This is something I can get behind! Counting me, there are now 28 members, so it's good to know there's some sanity at SU.
I don't even want to know what they were expecting to find with that one.
This is kind of a repeat of something from a post I wrote in November, but since it didn't get any comments...
I've been pondering something lately. People often complain that laws against same-sex marriage, abortion, and other things should not be be passed, because this would require politicians to "legislate morality." However, these same people often claim that the war in Iraq is immoral and should therefore be stopped. Why is it wrong to legislate morality in some circumstances, but perfectly acceptable to insist on legislation of morality in others?
I'd really, really, really like a logical answer to that one, but logic doesn't seem to matter these days.
Allow me to paraphrase the majority of NYT Letters about the CBS forgery situation:
Yeah, maybe CBS screwed up, but that's no reason to stop pretending that Bush's National Guard Service is relevant to current political issues! And by the way, the war in Iraq is still wrong! HA! We win!
How do these brainwashed sycophants summon up enough mental energy to operate a keyboard?
...HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
...HA!
Yes, I really am so cynical that I see nothing wrong with laughing at the despair of the neolibs. If they have nothing better to do than hold signs and cry, they deserve to be ridiculed.
You know, I just realized that a few Democrats made colossal idiots of themselves yesterday, and I didn't blog about it. I will now remedy that situation.
This WAPO article (registration required) gives a good summary of the freak show that took place:
Invoking rules that sometimes seem as quaint as quill pens, the House and Senate yesterday certified President Bush's reelection despite a rare objection, which was intended to spotlight voting irregularities in Ohio and elsewhere.Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) interrupted the ritual roll call of each state's "certificate of electoral votes" in a joint session of Congress, contending that Ohio's results were not "regularly given." The presiding officer, Vice President Cheney, followed constitutional guidelines and sent lawmakers to their respective chambers so that each house could debate the matter for two hours.
They just don't get it. Kerry conceded, the recounts only reduced Bush's lead by a couple hundredths of a percent, there was no credible evidence of intimidation or tampering, and they still won't let the election end. Pathetic.
The outcome was never in doubt. With Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) having long ago conceded Ohio and the Nov. 2 election, Boxer and Tubbs Jones said their only goal was to highlight Ohio's Election Day problems, which included long voting lines in several minority neighborhoods compared with short lines in affluent areas.
Oh no! Long lines! The horror! THE HORROR!!!
Give me a break. Why would you hold up a Constitutional procedure because of freakin' lines? I have to wait in line to get food at school, but I don't assume that the dining hall is trying to starve me. It just so happens that some places operate less efficiently than others. Deal with it. People who feel threatened because they have to wait in line to vote really shouldn't be voting, in my opinion.
Boxer told colleagues that Americans have fought for social, economic and criminal justice, and she said, "Now we must . . . fight for electoral justice."
You could start by not screwing with the certification process, moron.
On the House floor, Tubbs Jones said the objection was "the only immediate avenue to bring these causes to light."
That's funny, because I remember hearing about this crap even before it happened. Aren't self-fulfilling prophecies great?
Skip a few paragraphs...Aha! Here's more fun:
Earlier in the day, more than 100 protesters rallied in front of the White House to demand and, ultimately, celebrate Boxer's decision to join Tubbs Jones in protesting the Ohio vote.
Why do I get the feeling that some of those protesters didn't actually vote?
They gathered in Lafayette Park, where speakers including Jesse L. Jackson, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and former Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb portrayed the November election as having been compromised by error and fraud, and demanded that the Senate do something about it.
Because when people think honesty, they think "Jesse Jackson." Seriously, I understand concerns about poll workers not knowing how to do their jobs, but this "fraud" BS just needs to stop. If the Republicans really did steal the election, why would they do it in the exact way the Democrats said they would? Wouldn't the VRWC come up with something more creative? The moonbats were complaining about this stuff last freakin' year. If there really was a huge conspiracy to commit election fraud, they wouldn't have done it the way they've been accused of doing it since 2000. That's just poor planning.
"Some senators . . . have gone to Ukraine to investigate that election," Jackson said. "They've gone to Iraq. But not one has gone to Columbus, Ohio."
I was going to try and come up with a witty response to this, but...why bother? It fisks itself.
We also have this little nugget from National Review:
...a friend watching e-mails: "I just watched [Rep. Jon] Conyers on c-span praising Michael Moore as a truth teller."
B-b-b-b-b-but I thought Michael Moore was an extremist who had no influence whatsoever on national politics! Isn't that what liberals say every time someone condemns him for making fake documentaries? Oh, I'm so confused!
These useless idiots won't be happy until Bush is impeached for being a poopy-head.
(Hat tips to The Wardrobe Door and Ace of Spades HQ)
I've mentioned in the past that Ann Coulter scares me a bit, but I did start reading How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) for the sake of open-mindedness.
So far, it's actually not bad. I think Coulter is basically the kind of writer Michael Moore claims to be. She's obviously exaggerating, but expects her readers to be intelligent enough to know the difference. Or maybe she really does think that all liberals are evil. Hm.
Anyway, the book is more or less a collection of her columns from the past few years, including a few unpublished and unedited ones. I was not aware of this until I read the introduction. There is some new material, particularly in the first part of the book, which gives some information on how not to talk to a liberal. I've only read about 35 pages so far, but even that gives me a pretty good idea of the tone of the book.
Like I said, it's kind of extreme in places, but I think it's meant to be that way so it will be more entertaining. And she makes a good point about the way liberals use the word "lie" to describe anything they don't like, regardless of whether or not it's true. My main criticism so far is that she really, really needs to get her details straight. For example, she makes a reference to the short-lived Parker-Stone production, That's My Bush, but calls it "There's My Bush." She also seems to think it was a bad thing. I don't know about the rest of you, but back in the days when I actually watched television, I thought TMB was a decent show. Also, she refers to the game of pinochle as "peanuckle." If you don't know why that bothers me, you haven't been paying attention.
So, in conclusion, this seems like a decent book so far, but if you're looking for a down-to-earth, 100% accurate takedown of the liberal worldview, you're probably not going to get it from Ann Coulter. I'll have a more detailed review if I manage to finish it before I go back to school (which, incidentally, isn't for another 10 days), along with my own "Grand Theory of Leftism" that I've been hyping for a while.
Some of you may be aware of the gun control discussion that took place at Mountaineer Musings recently. One of the only anti-gun commenters gave the following rationale for not owning a weapon (note the ellipses, and read the whole thing if you must):
The gun stuff still makes me nervous. Just WHAT do you need a gun for? I would like to know that...WHO do you want to shoot? And are they a threat to your every day life…to the extent that you must be prepared for their “attack”? Yikes! I would not like to live in such fear.... I choose peace. And no bullets.
Notice anything? The entire argument revolves around the commenter's world view. She doesn't believe in owning a gun because she would never want to use one.
Where am I going with this, you ask? Well, I found an interesting story in the Post-Gazette today:
Fax/copier repairman paralyzed by attack in Downtown parking garageHis wheelchair pulled almost to the rail of the jury box, Michael Lahoff told jurors how he tossed his wallet toward the pair accosting him in a Downtown parking garage, and then felt the sting of one bullet, then a second, which severed his spine.
Oh no! He's paralyzed because of guns! That should support the anti-gun view, right? Let's look at the specifics of the incident:
Lahoff, a fax/copier repairman, had returned to his car at the Smithfield-Liberty garage to check on some needed spare parts and was sitting on the back bumper of his car looking at a manual when he noticed what he believed were a man and woman passing by. The two shortly headed back toward him."I thought, 'Maybe they want to ask me a question, maybe they're lost,' " he said. "Then I noticed immediately a gun pointed at my head."
He raised his hands over his head, and backed between his car and another. The gunman, he said, told him, "I want it all."
Lahoff said he was purposely looking at the ground to try to convey to the pair that he wasn't trying to identify them. That's why he could not give police a good description or identify the two defendants on trial -- Lamont Fulton, 19, of Crafton Heights and Marty Armstrong, 20, of Springdale. He also incorrectly thought one was a woman at the time of the shooting.
Lahoff said he told the gunman, "No problem, my wallet's right here." He testified he tossed it to the shorter of the pair, who caught it.
"Then I looked up at the gunman and I could see in his eyes that he was aiming. I said, 'No, don't do that, you don't have to do that.' "
Then he heard a bang and felt a sting in his left shoulder.
"I shouted again, 'No, don't do that, you don't have to do that.' "
Then he felt a second gunshot and he collapsed onto the pavement.
Lahoff is now a quadriplegic and is in a nursing home in Baldwin Township.
Sorry about the long excerpt, but I think it was necessary to get the whole story. Anyway, let's review:
The guy cooperated with his assailants, even to the point of trying to look like he wasn't committing their appearance to memory. He gave them his wallet, then tried to reason with the shooter. He chose peace. And no bullets. And now he's in a wheelchair.
Now, I'm not trying to blame Mr. Lahoff for his condition. That falls squarely on the shoulders of the @sshole who shot him. On the other hand, do you think he would still be like that if he had pointed a gun right back at the guy? Or at least had one on him? Maybe, maybe not. But in any case, I think we can all learn one thing from this incident: Choosing peace only works if everyone else does the same.
People are stupid and violent. It's better to have a gun and never need it than to be unarmed when you need to defend yourself. Unless human nature itself changes, that's the way it's always going to be.
I used to think some people were living in a fantasy world, but now it's become clear to me that they actually inhabit an entirely separate universe in which many events are the exact opposite of what they are here. Take, for example, the following letter to the New York Times, which somehow found its way from their reality to ours:
Re "So What Happened in That Election, Anyhow?" (Week in Review, Jan. 2):What happened in the election was that Democrats continue to play politics as if it were a gentleman's game.
See what I mean?
They are polite to the opposition and, despite a decade of vicious abuse, expect Republicans to be polite to them.
Unbelievable. Unbefrigginlievable. In the aftermath of an election where the former vice president compared Bush to Hitler, numerous politicians lied about their patriotism being questioned, a news anchor attacked the president's service to the country with forged documents, a Democratic group called for the death of Donald Rumsfeld, and the actual Democratic candidate called the Republican party crooked liars, people are trying to claim that Democrats are too nice.
The preceding rant was brought to you by the letters W, T, and F. Now, let's move on...dot org:
Democratic pundits booked onto news programs smile at their adversaries and make reasoned arguments;
Once again: Parallel freakin' universe. Why does the phrase "pack of lies" keep popping into my head when I read the above sentence? Hmmmm...
...their counterparts on the right smile back and then spew a torrent of lies and invective.
Such as...what? Unless you think that James Carville and Chris Matthews are hardcore conservatives, I really don't follow this line of reasoning at all.
(And before anyone mentions O'Reilly, remember that he's just a narcissistic douchebag, not a conservative)
John Kerry politely overlooked the distasteful facts of George W. Bush's first term...
Yep. That's exactly what I thought when he said, "This president doesn't have a record to run on, but a record to run from." Unless "overlooked the distasteful facts" means "didn't bother to cite any facts in the midst of his attacks," you're pretty much still living in another universe.
...starting with the bald lies about committing our troops to war.
Oh, you mean the "lies" he endorsed, repeated, and voted for? Those ones?
Why didn't Mr. Kerry pound on the administration's lies day after day?
Because, much like you, he chose to make up his own lies instead of criticizing things that had actually happened.
Why didn't he scream from the mountaintop about its hubris and unbelievable incompetence?
Because if people wanted that, they would've nominated Mad How. It was an election, not a frickin' movie.
It wouldn't have taken much to defeat George Bush, just the truth.
And, to further solidify my "parallel universe" argument, we have this last line. It seems to me that the truth was exactly what caused Bush to be re-elected. Truths like "Iraq and Afghanistan are free" and "the economy is recovering." You know, true truths.
On another note, I just realized that all my political posts are about the election, even though it's been over for two months. I can't seem to get interested in anything else that's happening. I strive on conflict (I am an aspiring screenwriter, after all), and without an election on the horizon, it just doesn't seem exciting enough sometimes. Hmm. Oh, well. The inauguration is coming up soon. There will be lots of ignorant protesters to ridicule.
Heh heh.
As of January 3, 2005, Semi-Intelligent Thoughts officially endorses Firefox 1.0 as the best. browser. EVER.
Thank you.
(Yes, I know I'm a couple months late with this, but my stupid computer wouldn't install it properly until yestereday)
I just added a ton of new quotes to the random quote generator. There are now 135 in all, so check 'em out.