December 31, 2003


New Jobless Claims Lowest of Bush Tenure

Now will Dean shut up?

Posted by CD at 10:03 PM | Comments (2)

Last Fisking of the Year

This is a good day. I got to make fun of Howard Dean, and now I'm going to fisk an editorial I found on The Smirking Chimp.

It's from the St. Petersburg Times, it's by Bill Maxwell, and it's called A citizen's duty is to ferret out the truth.

Everybody ready? It's fiskin' time.

(Note: thanks to extended entries, I am now able to write much longer posts than I could with Blogger. This one is a good example.)

As a journalist, I have a simple New Year's resolution: During these times of flag-waving and ultrapolitical correctness and conservatism, I will continue to be a good American citizen and a patriot.

Did I really just read a sentence saying that political correctness is a conservative idea? In a time where people can't display the American flag at work because it offends their anti-war coworkers, and students can't enter a float in a parade because it depicts the ousting of Saddam Hussein, this man believes political correctness is a conservative tactic? Brilliant.

Being a good citizen and a patriot during 2004 means unequivocally and unapologetically expressing what I consider to be the truth and the reality about our national politics, our federal policies and President Bush.

"What I consider to be the truth and the reality..." That's classic liberal thought right there. "If I believe it, it must be the truth! Truth is just opinions that people say out loud...unless they're evil, bigoted conservatives, those hateful liars!"

News flash: You don't "consider" something to be the truth. The truth is what's true, not what you believe. It doesn't take a philosophy scholar to figure that out.

Let us start right now.

Ready when you are.

Since the terrorists attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush and his fellow Republicans have redefined what being an American means. In almost all of his speeches justifying his international policies and many of his domestic policies, Bush plays a cynical political game of exploiting the memories of 9/11.

It seems to me that Democrats are the ones redefining what being an American means. They're the ones who say that the only way to be patriotic is by questioning everything the administration does and calling people who support them "chickenhawks" and "war-mongers."

He has spawned a national siege mentality that fluctuates on the security alert scale between "Code Yellow" and "Code Orange."


Without feeling under siege, how else can we account for the fact that most Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the World Trade Center disaster...

Anyone who believes that is an idiot, and anyone who believes that "most Americans" believe it is an even bigger idiot. Bush never said that Hussein was responsible for 9/11. He quite clearly stated that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were to blame. Have you been reading The Onion lately?

...that we are safer because U.S. soldiers pulled the bedraggled fallen dictator out of a filthy hole in the ground?

Actually, we should feel safer, because he's telling us the locations of terrorists who were attacking our soldiers. I feel safe knowing that the people defending my freedom are safe.

Bush can get away with this cynical game because too many Americans have no sense of what being a real citizen of a democracy means.

I'm not even going to get into that whole "America is a republic, not a democracy" argument, but I'll let this sentence represent how I feel.

Poll after poll indicate that most Americans have been willingly duped into believing half-truths and outright lies.

How many times must I use the phrase "cognitive dissonance" on this blog? These people honestly don't believe that most Americans disagree with them, so they rationalize it by claiming that The People™ have been "willingly duped into believing half-truths and outright lies." Did it ever occur to you that you could be...GASP! WRONG?!

What else explains the fact that most of us trust Bush's leadership despite evidence that he dissembled to win support for the war in Iraq and that he has no discernible postwar exit strategy?

Did you miss that whole thing about writing an Iraqi constitution and leaving by June of 2004, or does that not count? You can't have an exit strategy until you accomplish the mission, jackass.

Real citizens demand the truth because they know that the first principle of living in a democracy is their obligation to know the truth.

Unless "the truth" supports the claims of Republicans, in which case, they've been duped by fraudulent intelligence.

Real citizens do not wait for their elected officials and their opinion leaders to tell them what they need to know. Instead, they seek what they need to know, demanding the truth when they ask for it.

...Writes an opinion leader who was asked by nobody in particular to tell them the truth, as he seems to be trying to do. Need I say it? I must!

...Hooray for consistency!!!

We have allowed Bush to routinely mislead us, thus relinquishing our obligation to know.

If you "know" that he misled us, then it seems like we weren't misled. Oh, I get it. He's talking about the "sheeple" that only watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh. You can almost smell the elitism.

The most obvious result - which we will regret for a generation - is the secrecy with which the administration surrounds itself. Such secrecy has led to the erosion of the country's civil liberties on a scale not seen before.

Such as...? I have the same freedoms I had before. In fact, I just started this blog in September, so I actually have MORE freedoms than I did before Bush took office. I hope the brownshirts don't find me!

As writer Marianne Means points out, the "Bush administration has removed millions of documents from public view, stiffened resistance to press inquiries and stonewalled congressional requests for information."

It's called "classified information," and it's been around since man invented the written word. I guess we can't allow government access to personal information that could help prevent terrorism, but we should let everyone see what information the government has, even if it could give away sensitive intelligence.


Let's hear it for journalistic integrity.

...therefore, have no reason to give a damn about the public interest, and the public, through acquiescence, does not seem to care much about its own interest. We should be demanding that someone in the Bush administration tells us the truth.

It seems like that's all people are doing, including yourself. Once again, the mythical liberal hero must come to the aid of the poor, uneducated commoners who have been fed a string of lies by the Evil Conservative Empire.

Someone, perhaps the trusted Colin Powell, should have told us that Iraq had not purchased "yellow cake" from "an African country..."


We were told that Iraq SOUGHT URANIUM!!!!!! Nothing about purchasing yellow cake was ever mentioned, except in the news.

...that no credible evidence suggested Hussein had stockpiles of WMD...

"NOTE: Miles and miles of documents found in Iraq DO NOT count as credible evidence."

...that Bush was hell-bent on going to war.

I like a president who stands up for what he believes in.

The best comments I have read on the relation between the public interest and democracy are those of Israeli commentator Ze'ev Sternhell: "What is the nature of the public interest and who serves it better - someone who exposes the truth about government actions, or someone who helps whitewash the facts? Is the public interest better served by someone who hides behind an administrative hierarchy and clings to dry regulations, or by someone who decides to act in breach of the regulations and thereby ensures that the public is informed about crucial facts?

I still can't get over how funny it is that they can't accept anything that comes straight from the administration as fact. If it's impossible to gain credible information from a firsthand source, why should I listen to anything you're saying? Shouldn't I get someone to "expose the truth" instead of taking it at surface value?

"It's worth reminding those who may have forgotten that the government is a trust owned by the ordinary citizen and that those who hold government positions are no more than trustees. Therefore, to know the facts is not only the right of the citizen, it is his duty and obligation, so that he will be able to carry out his role as owner of the trust. In a democracy that is worthy of the name, the citizen is active day in and day out: His role is not confined to casting his vote every few years. It follows that without the free flow of information, democracy is voided of most of its content."

Hey, no arguments here. The problem is the way we apply these ideas when we believe that everything the government says is a boldfaced lie.

Unfortunately, much of the press - the White House's natural and necessary adversary - has been steamrollered into giving the president a bye when we should be all up in his face.

Apparently, you've forgotten about...


Except for a few court stances on environmental issues and the Democrats' refusal to confirm the most extreme of Bush's judicial nominees...

"NOTE: Extreme=Christians and conservative minorities."

...the wrongheaded arrogance of this administration goes virtually unchecked.

Who's the liar now? People just like you are questioning the administration every day. There are 9 people who want Bush's job, and they question him every time they get behind a microphone. Do you want a democracy or a frickin' pep rally?

Where is what the legendary Walter Lippmann referred to as the "indispensable opposition"?

Hmmm...last time I checked, they were on the campaign trail. You might want to look in Iowa or New Hampshire.

For 2004, more citizens need to resolve to be part of the indispensable, loyal opposition to protect the public interest.

Once again, we have the statement that the only true patriots are those who oppose the president. Not just question, mind you, but OPPOSE.

I guess that means Saddam Hussein is a national hero.

Posted by CD at 09:23 PM | Comments (4)

Education as Indoctrination

Read this. It's the scariest thing I've seen in quite a while. Here's an excerpt:

The provost, Roberta Matthews, termed the idea that colleges should focus on transmitting knowledge "a very outdated notion."

I'm going to go investigate further. Feel free to join me.

Posted by CD at 05:15 PM | Comments (8)

Howard Dean is Still an Idiot

NOTE: If you came here from Google, Yahoo, or a similar site by searching for something like "Howard Dean is an idiot" or similar phrases, I encourage you to look around for a while. This blog has a lot of anti-Dean material, and it's the #1 search result for "Howard Dean is a douchebag." Check it out. Thanks.

Why won't this guy just go away? Every time he makes a speech, he seems to have more and more in common with the loons at Democratic Underground. Let's look at a few examples from this article entitled "Dean Labels Bush 'Reckless.'"

From Iraq to homeland security to public health, President Bush's "reckless" habit of placing "ideology over facts" has resulted in "the most dangerous administration in my lifetime," Democrat Howard Dean charged over the past two days.

"Ideology over facts?" Kettle, pot. Pot, kettle. Have you two met before?

As for this whole "dangerous" thing, this is exactly what I've been talking about. It's not enough to call Dubya a bad president. He's apparently a threat to the nation.

Like most other articles, this gets better. Check this out:

...the former Vermont governor said developments both abroad and at home give credence to his assertion two weeks ago that the United States is "no safer" with the capture of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "If we are safer, how come we lost 10 more troops and raised the safety alert" to the orange level, Dean said...

Yeah, and how come supposed terror attacks in France, Saudi Arabia, and Las Vegas have been investigated and possibly prevented? How come Saddam Hussein is telling us where guerilla leaders are? Yeah, I sure don't feel any safer knowing that we took action and are actually making progress. I'd much rather debate with the UN for a decade or so. That's the Dean way!

"All the other Democrats pounced on me and beat me up and said how ignorant I was about foreign affairs," he said. "I think most people in America agree with me today and it's only two weeks later."

If most people in America agreed with you, you'd be ahead in the polls, now wouldn't you? Maybe most of what you consider America agrees with you, but I think you need to open your eyes and realize that you represent the so-called "angry liberal," not the average American.

Far from backing off his earlier comment about Hussein, Dean has broadened the critique, adding mad cow disease, the national deficit, HIV-AIDS and homeland security to the list of safety failures during Bush's tenure.

Mad cow disease? MAD?! COW?! DISEASE?! THERE WAS ONE F***ING COW, YOU MORON! Oh, and by the way, it came from CANADA!!!! Is he really this ignorant?

"National security and economic security are the touchstones of the election," he said in the interview after a rally Monday in Green Bay, Wis. "I think the president has been fairly reckless in just about every area I can think of."

Yeah, that's why we're safer than we were before and the economy is better. Doesn't all that cognitive dissonance give him a headache? Maybe that's why he's always so angry.

"We've made progress" on strengthening defenses at home, he said. "The problem is, on the things that are enormously important to us we have apparently made no progress. That is the ultimate nightmare of the so-called dirty bomb or a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States."

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait! "We've made progress?" Didn't he just say that we're no safer than we were before? And then right after that, he suddenly goes right back to saying that we're threatened more. WILL YOU MAKE UP YOUR MIND?!

As president, Dean said he would initiate bilateral negotiations with North Korea, purchase the entire uranium stockpile held by the former Soviet Union and shift more money into security programs such as cargo ship inspections. "Why aren't these things being done now?" he said. "Why have we dillydallied for 15 months?

Is this guy living in the friggin' Matrix? Does he think he can just magically do anything he wants? I'll cover each point separately.

#1: We're in the process of negotiating with NK already, but remember that Kim Jong Il is CRAZY. We have to be careful, because he might just decide to try out one of his little toys.

#2: He wants to buy the uranium stockpiles from the former Soviet Union? I didn't realize they were a threat. Wouldn't that just be a total waste of money?

#3: Cargo ship inspections? He wants to inspect ships. Most terror attacks are coming from landlocked countries, and he wants to inspect ships? Have you heard of this magical device called an airplane? It flies through the sky and generally explodes much more spectacularly than a ship. Terrorists seem to like them...planes and buses seem to be more viable targets than ships.

Dean, leading in many polls in early nominating states such as New Hampshire and Iowa, is also on the verge of setting a Democratic fundraising record of $40 million.

Party of the people, yessiree.

Dean received glowing praise Monday from Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle and the endorsement of Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), the dean of the Congressional Black Caucus. "I am proud to state and stand with the man that's ahead of everybody else, that is raising money from the little guys to the shock of everybody who thought it should always be the big fat cats," Conyers said at a Detroit rally Monday afternoon.

Do you really think he's going to stop there if he gets the nomination? I've got 2 words for you, Conyers: George. Soros.

On domestic policy, Dean said the current $500 billion deficit and losses of nearly 3 million jobs have created widespread economic insecurity. If elected, he promised to raise the national minimum wage to $7 per hour, up from $5.15. "Our philosophy is give the working people a little more money and they might be able to go down and spend something on Main Street," he told the audience of labor and African American activists here in Detroit.

Okay, I'm not real good with economics, but I know that if you give the working people a little more, their employers will have less. That means that they'll have to lay off certain people in order to pay the others. Great way to end unemployment, idiot. Guess the proletariat has to rise up against capitalist oppression, right?

A physician, Dean also accused the administration of stubbornly ignoring warnings about mad cow disease and blindly promoting an abstinence-only sex education program that "is not a good solution at all for teens who have decided to have sex."

Dean, you frickin' douchebag, that's exactly the point. We want abstinence education because less teens would have sex. That means less STD's, less pregnancy, less abortion...I'm glad to know that a so-called doctor doesn't care about teen health issues.

It may not be fair to blame the president for the recent mad cow case, Dean told Iowa audiences, but Bush is responsible for failing to enact broader cattle testing requirements, he said. "Ordinary farmers in Iowa can't sell their calves right now because the president of the United States did not take the precautions that we could have easily predicted," he said.

Dang it, Dean, you are an idiot. THE. COW. CAME. FROM. CANADA. It was already sick when it got here. It should be Canada's job to inspect their cows. By the way, notice the key words THE and COW. THERE WAS ONE INFECTED COW, and it poses little to no actual danger.

Also, why is it the president's fault that farmers in IOWA can't sell their cattle because ONE cow that poses LITTLE danger came here from CANADA? Read this article. It's very informative.

By choosing "ideology over facts," he added, the Republican administration is "not only a failure, but the most dangerous administration in my lifetime."

It seems to me that Dean is the one choosing "ideology over facts." You see, he seems to think that we're less safe, less financially secure, and less free than we've ever been. If he'd look at the facts instead of standing behind a podium shouting at a captive audience, he might be aware of that.

I told my dad about Dean blaming Bush for mad cow and wanting to raise the minimum wage. His response was, "They're all idiots." It's good to know someone agrees with me.

Also, he made an interesting point about the minimum wage idea. He pointed out that Democrats want to turn the minimum wage into a living wage, when in reality, it's called minimum wage for a reason. Good point.

Posted by CD at 04:52 PM | Comments (7)

Just in Time

Man, am I glad I left BlogSpot. I can't even get to the old site now. MuNu rules!

Posted by CD at 03:48 PM | Comments (2)

December 30, 2003

I Rest My Case

Hey, remember that essay I wrote less than 24 hours ago about irrational Bush hatred and conspiracy theories? Here's a good example of what I was talking about.

(Hat tip to Right Wing News)

Posted by CD at 09:30 PM | Comments (2)

"Bisecksual Cheec"

NOTE FROM CD: I have purposely changed the spelling of that phrase because I was getting too many hits from Google. I want honest hits, not random searches.

What the frick is wrong with people? I was going through some of the articles on Fark, and I happened to come across an article entitled S. Florida teen girls discovering ['bisecksual cheec'] trend.

Now, before I rant about this, let me once again remind you, simply as a disclaimer, that I am a conservative Christian and probably don't have the same views as many of you about things like this. I am not "homophobic." I just happen to think that homosexuality is immoral. Everybody understand? Good.

Now that that's out of the way, let's get back to the article and go through the usual routine of analyzing some choice quotes. For example, this one:

"Kiss! Kiss! Kiss!" A group of teenagers is gathered at a party. Music's playing; smuggled booze is flowing. Two girls grin sheepishly at each other as a crowd goads them on. Finally, the teens relent, rewarding their audience with some mouth-on-mouth action. It's not an unusual scene, according to South Florida high school students, who say the newest trend for teen girls isn't wearing the latest designer jeans or driving a cool car, but declaring themselves to be [bisecksual.]
Yes, folks, this is what it's coming to. "Experimenting" with same-sex eroticism is now a fad. Let me repeat that...IT'S A FRIGGIN' FAD!!!!

You may not understand why this article upsets me so much. Allow me to cite some clarifying examples:

"Some do it for attention. Some do it because guys like it. And some do it just because they can. It's definitely a fad," says Stranahan High student Christy Shalley, president of the Fort Lauderdale school's Gay Straight Alliance.
Here's where you should start asking questions. Why is the "Gay Straight Alliance" so concerned about this if it's nothing more than something people do for fun?

Wait just a minute...could it be that that's EXACTLY why they're concerned with it? After all, anything that makes people accept sexualized behavior associated with gays must be a good thing, right? Teen girls making out with each other at parties are going to help cast off the chains of oppression that the Evil Straight Patriarchy™ has imposed for years!

Let's read more about how this "trendy" behavior came to be:

Note to parents: If this seems particularly shocking, try turning on a TV to see why most kids aren't as fazed. There's the infamous kiss between Britney Spears and Madonna at the recent MTV Music Video Awards. There's the popular singing duet Tatu, two Russian teenage girls who, depending on whom you believe, are really in love with each other or just part of a brilliant marketing scheme that simultaneously appeals to gays, misunderstood adolescents and the Lolita lust of straight men.
Hmmm....didn't I just blog about this a couple weeks ago? I'd link to it if my archives were here, but you'll have to take my word for it.

There is a trend in the media to make any kind of behavior acceptable. It's obvious when you really look at it. And from the reactions of the people they talked to, it seems like more than just coincidence or some kind of reverse laissez-faire thing. This is an active effort to normalize deviant behavior. Want more proof? Read on:

Despite this constant stream of images, students say moms and dads generally are clueless that it's really happening. "Nobody's parents know," says David Sternberg, a senior at Spanish River High in Boca Raton. "And if they think they know, they really don't know."
Of course. God forbid we let The Grownups™ know about it. They might want to join in and relive the free-love generation.
He adds that some girls may truly be questioning their sexuality, but others just want to be perceived as hot. "Girls go for the whole mystery thing. And guys usually think it's attractive. It's a turn-on. It's more of a teasing thing. At parties, girls randomly kiss, and guys are like, `Oh! That's awesome!'" he says.
Contradictions...hurting...brain! So, the way to get guys to like you is to make it look like you're attracted to girls? That makes so much sense! I know I'm always looking for the hot lesbian chicks!

Let me briefly go back to the normalization point, too. Notice how something that was once a taboo is now portrayed as a turn-on, as well as something to make you more popular. It's no longer just "okay to be gay," but better!

Sharon Friedlander, head of guidance for Broward public schools, says adults in the school system are well aware of students' growing flirtation with [bisecksuality.] But she doesn't necessarily see it as an entirely new phenomenon. "The questioning process is part of growing up," she says.
"The questioning process?" Make up your minds! If it's part of growing up, why is this just starting to become commonplace? Were people in past generations afraid to go public because the Evil Straight Patriarchy™ might ostracize them?

By the way, there's a difference between "questioning" and "experimenting." If you're engaging in bisecksual behavior, you've made up your mind already.

In the past, young people may have waited until college to explore their sexuality. Today, it's common for that process to start at a younger age, Friedlander and other educators say.
We knew that. That's why underage girls can get abortions without telling their parents. We must protect The Children™, but not the Children's children!
"It's really just straight children acting out that natural pubescent rebellion, of stepping out of the boundaries the previous generation set up," says Clarence Brooks, a teacher at Bak Middle School of the Arts in West Palm Beach.
...a member of the previous generation who doesn't seem to be imposing any boundaries whatsoever. Hooray for consistency.

Now, we come to the media bias section of our program, where we show you, the loyal reader, how the media are actively participating in the normalization process. Let's look at the TWO dissenting opinions given in the article:

"It's wrong. God made us male and female for a reason," says Jenny Saint Jean, 15, a freshman at Fort Lauderdale High.

Karla Núñez, 16, agrees: "I don't go to those kind of parties.

Did anyone not see that coming? The first girl who disagrees is religious, so of course her opinion will be considered equally valid. And the second girl doesn't go to parties, which means she's no fun and her opinion doesn't matter either! Kiss on, bisecksuals! Kiss on!
Stephanie Forman, a sophomore at Cypress Bay High in Weston, says the trend is sort of "disgusting," but she's used to seeing it. "Guys are like, `Kiss, kiss, kiss!'" she said, adding that some behavior carries over onto campus. "Parents shouldn't freak out. It's just for fun."
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought parents are supposed to instill MORALS in their children, not make sure they're having lots of fun. And by the way, there's that word again!

"Join the bi/homosexuals and have more fun! It's not called 'gay' for nothing!"

From one perspective, Sternberg sees the trend as a sign of greater tolerance toward gay people. He came out with an article in his school newspaper this year and says most people have been accepting. On the other hand, he says, the girl-girl trend, and the relative casual reaction to it, also shows how males aren't allowed the flexible sexuality females are.
And there you have it. Here's proof that the homosexual community is treating this as some sort of battlefield. First, it's just experimentation to get attention and have fun, and now it's turned into a sign of greater tolerance. Let me repeat that oft forgotten mantra...


"More accepting" does not equal "more tolerant." In fact, there's actually less tolerance, because there's nothing to tolerate if you accept someone's behavior.

Now, they go into some odd discussion of how this helps all kinds of people. See if you can figure it out:

"It's all fine and good for women, but if a guy is experimenting with a guy, he'll feel the consequences," Sternberg says. "Someone could really hurt you or make a point of humiliating you." The double standard is part of the reason Gilliam doesn't think the fad will do much for gay rights in the long run.
They're not trying to help gay rights. They said it themselves. However, since this increases so-called "tolerance," everyone's being encouraged to jump on the bandwagon. Also notice how they manage to turn this into an instance of gay men being oppressed because they don't have the same freedoms.
"It's a bisexuality that's focused on heterosexuality in that it's still focused on pleasing a man, a heterosexual audience, and in that sense it's not progressive," she says. "Sexism plays into it. Girls in our culture aren't supposed to have a sexuality on their own terms."
Ahem...I believe people like Madonna, Britney Spears, and Christina Aguilera make their own choices, not the heterosexual elite. Thank you.

The last part isn't quite as easy to respond to, but here's a sample:

The very idea of "real" vs. "fake" [bisecksuality] is controversial. Some people don't believe bisexuality exists -- believing that those who say they are [bisecksual] are either experimenting straight people, or homosexuals who aren't fully ready to admit their orientation.
Or maybe they're just so "tolerant" that they can have equal amounts of "fun" with either gender, since there's absolutely nothing wrong with it anymore.
"It's important to take [bisecksuality] as a serious identity. It's a myth that [bisecksuality] is a phase," counters California-based Denise Penn, president of BiNet USA, one of the oldest advocacy and network groups in the nation for [bisecksuals.] "Maybe these girls aren't faking it. Maybe `[bisecksual cheec'] gives them a way of exploring their [bisecksuality] without committing to it. They can say, `Oh, we're just playing.'"
From the looks of things, that's all anyone is ever doing. There's no such thing as a serious relationship. Everyone's just "playing" or "experimenting." They never have to commit to any one person or gender, because then they wouldn't have as much fun, and they wouldn't be able to explore their sexual diversity.
Penn says, it doesn't really matter who's faking and who's not. She thinks the entire issue conveys a larger message. "People like to categorize us, label us, so they can frame their thinking about us. But sexuality is so complex," she says. "Everyone is different."
That says a lot. This is an active effort to remove all labels of sexuality. After all, life is just a competition to see who can get laid more often. Commitment and restraint are archaic concepts that were used in the past to keep women and homosexuals in their place.

This is serious. I've read "Brave New World." I know where this is headed. Eventually, the people who dare to be involved in serious relationships will be looked upon as outcasts who don't want to have fun. Any sign of preference toward one person will be called intolerance, and the offender will lose most of their friends in the process.

Don't believe me? Look around. It's already starting.

Posted by CD at 06:35 PM | Comments (12)

Beyond Criticism

I've wanted to write about this for a long time, but I never really had the chance to fully outline my thoughts. Now that I have some free time, I can finally give my opinion of some of the most dangerous and irrational hatred coming from the left.

Lately, a couple editorials, such as this one, have surfaced. The one I just linked talks about the double standard applied to criticism from different sides of the political spectrum. For example, it's wrong for Rush Limbaugh to criticize the media because it sounds racist, but it's perfectly okay to call President Bush a Nazi. Most people have noticed this.

However, there are other implications beyond the obvious double standard. When we live in a country where people openly compare the leader of a constitutional republic to a murderous dictator who committed genocide against millions upon millions of people, what does that say about their grasp of reality? Why are we just letting this go and dismissing it as delusion from the fringe?

The level of vitriol and invective coming from certain members of the left these days is truly appalling. It's ridiculous how insane some of it is, but people listen to it. They believe it. A few examples: Bush knew about 9/11; Bush orchestrated 9/11; Bush stole the election; Bush already knows where bin Laden is; Bush knew where Hussein was for months; John Ashcroft wants to put immigrants in internment camps; Dissent is being crushed everywhere; The PATRIOT Act is equivalent to Mein Kampf...

The list goes on. And this isn't just from the crazy people (although some of it originates with them). I could give multiple sources pointing to people who believe and spread these accusations without even thinking about how dumb they sound. A theory may start with Michael Moore or Democratic Underground, but lately, they've been making it as far as Howard Dean. What does that say about the state of political discourse in this country?

Of course, they sometimes go back to the old standard of, "well, Clinton hatred was just as bad. Why do you dish it out if you can't take it?" Correct me if I'm wrong, but was Clinton hatred ever this ridiculous?

I'm a bit young to remember the major political events of that time period. In the 1992 election, my mother told me that "we want Bush to win," and that's basically all I knew. However, since I started following politics about a year and a half ago, the majority of hateful statements have been directed toward Bush, and even the residual anger aimed at Clinton seems justified. After all, he did LIE UNDER OATH. Funny how disinformation, the purposeful distortion of the truth, is ignored by the left, but misinformation, the passing on of inaccurate information that is thought at the time to be true, is now looked at as grounds for impeachment.

In addition, look at some of the little "nicknames" people come up with for Dubya (other than "Dubya," obviously). They call him a monkey, a moron, a Fascist, a Nazi, a racist, a terrorist, a dictator, etc. Did people say these things about Clinton? Last time I checked, the worst names he got on a regular basis were "hillbilly," which isn't exactly nice but doesn't compare him to murderers, and "adulterer," which is TRUE.

There were obviously worse things being said, but very few people made signs comparing him to Hitler. Of course, I've seen Hillary called "Hitlery," but I seem to remember her allegedly making some comment along the lines of "f**king Jew bastard." Hmmm...

One more interesting point: if we use Google as a measure of how popular or common an issue is on the Internet, we find some interesting things. For example, if I search for "Clinton hatred," I get 873 results. Seems like a lot, right? Well, let's try "Bush hatred." I come up with 4,240. Perfectly equal, isn't it?

However, as distressing as some of this is, there is another aspect of leftist hatred that some people seem to be lumping in with the rest, even though it's much more dangerous. Many people are saying that the Bush administration is actively and purposely destroying America.

For example, I just did a Google search for "Bush hates America," and I got back 3,870 results. Just for comparison, I also searched for "the left hates America." That gave back 3,690. That means (in an admittedly unscientifically determined way) that the people who are constantly talking about their patriotism being questioned have actually questioned the patriotism of their own president hundreds more times on the Internet. Interesting, isn't it? Even "Bush is a dictator" gets 390 results. "Bush is a Nazi" gets 934. That's a lot for "fringe opinions."
(you'll have to trust me on this unless you do the searches yourself, but "Democrats hate America" got 104 results, "liberals hate America" got just over 1,000, and "Clinton hates/hated America" got less than 1,000 each)

People actually think that President Bush is trying to destroy the country. Want specific examples? How about HILLARY RIPS BUSH: WARNS OF 'IRREPARABLE HARM' TO NATION, an article which quotes Hillary Clinton as saying that Bush is "making America less free, fair, strong, smart than it deserves to be in a dangerous world." Not only does she believe this, she thinks he's doing it on purpose!

Or what about the Orwellian accusations made by Al Gore a while back? In this article, the former vice president is quoted as saying, "They have taken us much farther down the road toward an intrusive, 'big brother'-style government -- toward the dangers prophesied by George Orwell in his book '1984' -- than anyone ever thought would be possible in the United States of America," and that the administration has "recklessly put our country in grave and unnecessary danger."

The editorial I linked in the second paragraph gives us another example. Jesse Jackson, while referring to the policies of the Bush administration, said, "If this were Germany, we would call it fascism. If this were South Africa, we would call it racism." PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS. (UPDATE: Here is another version of that quote: "In South Africa we'd call it Apartheid. In Nazi Germany we'd call it fascism. Here we call it conservatism." -Jesse Jackson)

It's not just Americans, either. Surely you remember this little pearl of wisdom from Ken Livingstone, reporting that he thinks Bush is the "greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen."

Furthermore, what about the so-called "peace rallies" and anti-war protests? People held up signs saying that Bush is a Nazi and a racist, and I'll always remember the one that said, "The difference between Bush and Saddam is that Saddam was elected." That's re-freaking-pulsive.

Now, what does all this mean, aside from the fact that some people prefer a murderous dictator over a democratically elected president? In my mind, it means that some people don't see Bush and his administration as American. They think that the government has been hijacked in some brilliant coup to destroy America.

I've seen plenty of evidence. Bush has been called a dangerous right-wing extremist, a threat to democracy, and other such names. Last time I checked, Bush was the least conservative Republican president we've had in quite some time, so I still haven't figured out where this is coming from. If he moves much further to the left, he'll be the Christian version of Joe Lieberman.

Speaking of religion, there's another area that the haters like to exploit. When most people look at Dubya, they see a devout, born-again Christian. Some, however, see a fanatical extremist who thinks he's on a mission from God to force his beliefs down everyone's throat. People have even compared him to Osama bin Laden, saying that the only difference is what they call their god. Never mind the fact that bin Laden's "god" tells him to exterminate Westerners. That's just a minor detail.

In the end, it seems like it all comes back to the "Bushitler" rhetoric. People will find any method they can to compare the President of the United States to the most evil human being in the history of the planet. Ted Rall, for example, likes to illustrate Bush and his administration with SS uniforms and make blatant comparisons between the Iraq war and Nazi invasions. He also wrote an editorial
called "The Real Link Between Bush and Hitler." It isn't in its original Yahoo! archive, but you can read it here.

Let's not forget about all the talk of "regime change" and "taking back the White House." Howard Dean likes to use this tactic. Think of "Dean for America." He's trying to portray himself as some kind of freedom fighter. I saw a pro-Dean flyer distributed around my college campus that said something to the effect of "We have the power to take back America." Uh, excuse me, but when was America "taken" from you? If I may emulate Rachel Lucas for a second...


How was anything taken? This is all part of their strategy to portray Bush as an occupier who took office illegally. I've seen DUers calling him "pResident Bush." Michael Moore still calls him "Governor Bush."

Now, to get back to the Hitler comparisons, what makes them say this? Well, let's look at an example. From CounterPunch, we have Bush and Hitler: The Strategy of Fear. Obviously, CounterPunch isn't exactly the voice of the liberal majority, but the logic used in this article sounds strangely similar to what people like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton are saying. Allow me to analyze a few choice quotes:

"A permanent state of American panic, fortified by regular doses of terror attacks, hijackings and building demolitions by crazed Muslim fanatics is exactly what Bush needs to stay in power, win re-election in 2004, stack the federal courts, gut the Bill of Rights, and enrich its corporate sponsors."

If I read that right, the author seems to be saying that Bush WANTS terrorist attacks to continue. In fact, he NEEDS them, because keeping the American public in a constant state of fear and paranoia is the only way to get them voting for Republicans, and he can use his war profiteering schemes to send money and contracts to Dick Cheney's buddies at Halliburton. Also, notice the mention of Dubya's intention to "gut the Bill of Rights." Apparently, Bush wants to create a police state, and terrorism is the only way to do it. But wait, there's more:

"If Bush truly wanted to reduce the threat of terror against Americans, he would not be harassing Arab-Americans and Muslims at random and deporting people for minor alleged visa violations after secret hearings and detentions (a teriffic way to create blood enemies!)...He would not be holding back funds for legitimate homeland defense efforts, such as bolstering fire departments and police departments..."

Once again, the author wants us to believe that Bush is ACTIVELY making America unsafe, and that he wants more terrorist attacks. Like I said, this is a bit of a fringe source, but notice how similar it is to what the politicians are saying. Remember all that talk about "violations of civil liberties?" This is what they mean. It gets even better, too:

"The sad thing is that Americans, fattened up and soft of muscle from their diet of McDonald's Whoppers and dim-witted from an overdose of "reality" TV shows and entertainment programs posing as news, suck up this kind of fear-mongering (all of which is eagerly played up by ratings-hungry media executives). If one plane gets highjacked, plane travel plummets. If a few letters are found to be contaminated with anthrax spores, people across the land stop opening their mail, or start zapping it first in their microwaves..."

Yet again, the idea is that Bush planned all this and wants Americans living in a constant state of fear so they won't object when he takes their liberties away one by one. I always love it when people refer to "fear-mongering." It creates a sort of "Wag the Dog" image of a leader who has to invent wars in order to gain public support.

Last time I checked, anthrax attacks and airline hijackings were a legitimate cause for concern. I'm sorry if you want to continue existing within a complacent little bubble of security, but reality is going to pop it sooner or later. The world changed after 9/11, and there's a big difference between security and "fear-mongering."

Now, how does this relate to Hitler, you ask? Here's the CounterPunch answer:

"If we Americans value our society, our polity, our rights and liberties, and our security, we must begin exposing George W. Bush and his War Party for what they are: craven usurpers aiming at nothing less than the undermining of all those things that most of us hold dear...Comparisons of the Bush Administration's fear mongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels on the German people and their Weimar Republic are not at all out of line."

So, there you have it. Bush and his "War Party" want The People™ to be afraid so that they won't object to his plans to usurp the very fabric of democracy. They're almost turning him into a megalomaniacal James Bond villain who sits in his maximum security evil lair and plots to take over the universe. People really think that President Bush wants to control the world like Hitler tried to do. Allow me to emulate Rachel Lucas once more...

This. Kind. Of. Thinking. Is. Dangerous. And. Destructive. To. Democracy.

How delusional must you be to believe that a man in charge of 280 million people wants nothing less than the total elimination of their security and civil rights? How far gone do you have to be when you compare George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler, simply because both supposedly created a climate of fear?

Here's something you might want to think about: HITLER CAUSED THE EVENTS THAT MADE PEOPLE AFRAID!!!!!!! I'm sorry if they can't grasp the subtle difference between heightened security after the worst terrorist attack in history and military mobilization to conquer surrounding territories and clear the way for the "master race," but they need to shut the f**k up until they're able to make a decent analogy.

Of course, few people really believe that Bush is the same as Hitler. A lot of it is just hyperbole meant to generate attention and make people turn against the president. However, some of their accusations still make me think that they don't understand how government works.

In my efforts to get inside the minds of these lunatics, I've realized that some of them really do expect America to turn into some sort of police state. They're waiting for the glorious revolution when they rise up against Bushitler's Fascist military coup, led by the Ashcroft Dissent Crushing Squad.

By the way, a few commentators have brought this up, but isn't it strange that people go on NATIONAL TELEVISION to complain about dissent being stifled? Look at the Dixie Chicks. They insulted the president, and it got them MORE attention. I also remember Sean Penn saying that America is just as much of a dictatorship as Iraq was. However, they don't seem to realize something:


And that's not all. Most of the Democrats in Congress would be dead or in torture chambers, including all the presidential candidates. In fact, there would be no presidential candidates, because there would be NO ELECTIONS.

Of course, they have an answer for this, too. They believe that "BushCo." have paid off Diebold to rig the 2004 election so it looks like a fair vote, when in reality, all Democratic votes will be discarded or changed. THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS.

In addition, they look at the so-called recession that we recently went through, and they believe that Bush caused this. Not only that, they believe he MEANT to cause it. This isn't quite as widespread as the "dissent" myth, but some people seem to treat his tax cuts as a deliberate effort to destroy the financial security of everyone except The Rich™, who are, of course, the only people who REALLY vote Republican.

The overall attitude is that everything Bush does is a deliberate attempt to undermine the security, health, and safety of the American people. You can even look at how they discuss his so-called "failures" while ignoring his successes (best economy since Reagan, anyone?). Some people don't even look at them as failures. They think that he meant for the economy to temporarily suffer. They think he's trying to make life horrible for everyone except the legendary "upper 1%."

After all, why else would he have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? Why should we bully other nations with our jingoistic foreign policy when we can just defeat them over a period of 200 years or so with sanctions and UN resolutions? Sure, innocent people will die, but at least it won't be our fault. A million deaths from starvation and torture are better than one death from an AmeriKKKan bullet. If we just leave them alone, they'll leave us alone. The only reason we get attacked is because they feel threatened!

Here's what I'm getting at: Bush hatred has gone beyond criticism and harmless joking. It's even gone beyond calling him a "miserable failure." Some Bush critics think that he really wants to take over America, and that's why he implements policies they don't agree with.

Just for comparison, how does criticism of liberals generally go? They say something stupid, they're rebuked, and then they complain that they've been censored. However, not only are they not censored, their ideas are genuinely refuted instead of being reduced to "creeping socialism" or "neolib propaganda."

Even when they are accused of socialism, it's usually justified. Look at Howard Dean and his promise to repeal the Bush tax cuts. If he honestly believes that the money still belongs to the government, that's socialism.

At the same time, I don't believe that Howard Dean has flawed policies because he wants to take over the country, and I doubt many of my fellow conservatives do. I believe that he has the country's best interests in mind, but he doesn't realize that his ideas won't work.

And there's the difference.

When people criticize liberals for implementing destructive policies, they're not implying that liberals want to destroy America. They're simply pointing out the fact that many liberal policies haven't worked out too well in the past, and maybe we should try something different.

For example, look at affirmative action. I think it's racist, but I don't accuse those who support it of trying to start a war between the races. I call affirmative action racist, because it is, but I don't equate them with the KKK or Hitler because they don't realize how racist the policies are.

On the other hand, as soon as someone like Rush Limbaugh or Trent Lott says something that can be interpreted as racist in any way, they're called hateful, bigoted neo-Nazis. Nobody even stops and says, "You know, maybe they didn't mean to sound racist. We should give them the benefit of the doubt." Why should they? Everyone knows the Republican party wants to kill everyone who's not rich and white. They couldn't possibly have made a poor choice of words. They must be bigots!

Once again, I think affirmative action is racist, but I don't call its proponents neo-Nazis, because they obviously don't realize how stupid this whole "diversity" thing is. In contrast, most of the "Republicans are all white supremacists" crowd seems to expect negative and bigoted speech and policies, and they can basically interpret anything to be biased against whatever "oppressed" group they're rallying behind that week.

The same applies to Bush hatred. When he implements a policy that they don't agree with, they don't stop and think that maybe, just maybe, he has a different idea of what's best for the American people.

Instead, they immediately jump to the conclusion that he DOES know what's best for the American people, but is actively DENYING it. Their egocentric worldview makes them believe that anyone who doesn't implement liberal policies, both domestic and foreign, must be on a mission to destroy America. Why else wouldn't they embrace the wonderful leftist philosophy that's led to so much prosperity in the past?

Here's the point of this excessively long essay: George W. Bush and his administration are not on a quest to turn America into the 3rd Reich. As much as some people want to believe this, it's just not true, it's never been true, and it will never be true, no matter how convinced Ted Rall happens to be.

If Dubya's policies seem destructive, maybe it's because he has a different idea of how to run the country. Maybe he even knows a better way to do it than most liberals.

In any case, when I see leftist politicians trying to pass harmful legislation, I may say that it's wrong, dangerous, and destructive. I may say that it hurts America. I may even say that it hurts specific groups.

However, I will NEVER say that they are purposely trying to tear apart the fabric of the United States. There's a difference between being misguided and being on a quest to ruin the nation.

Even when issues like speech codes and hate crime come up, I don't jump to the conclusion that they're trying to turn America into Nazi Germany. I may call them the Thought Police or Big Brother, but at least that's an accurate comparison. When you punish people for their opinions, that's Orwellian. When you criticize people for their opinions, that's democracy.

At the same time, when people like Howard Dean insist that we pull the troops out of Iraq, I don't claim that they're trying to make us less secure. I simply claim that it WILL make us less secure. The problem is in Dean's not being aware of this. It's a mistake, not a calculated move to get us all killed.

In conclusion (...and there was much rejoicing...), the blind hatred of the Bush administration needs to stop now. There's no neocon regime trying to stick its evil, jackbooted foot in Uncle Sam's face. There's no secret plot to keep us all in a state of paranoia so we support the war. There just happens to be a difference of opinion, and by the look of things, I'm pretty sure I know whose opinion is the right one.

Thank you.

Posted by CD at 12:22 AM | Comments (9)

December 29, 2003

Coming Attractions

Just an update, folks. I'm currently in the middle of an essay about Bush hatred. It's going to be fairly long, but I've wanted to write it for a long time. I guarantee it'll be posted by tomorrow. Until then, please check out the Donktionary®. Thanks.

The essay's finished! It's incrediby long (compared to what I usually do), but it was worth it. I just have to proofread, re-read, and possibly rewrite a few sections now. It'll be up by tomorrow morning. I promise.

Posted by CD at 08:13 PM | Comments (3)

Why War Works

Saddam Gives Info on Weapons, Funds

And this is from REUTERS!

Just a symbolic victory, right, Dems?

I do have actual content to post today. I want to write something about a particularly delusional kind of Bush hatred I've seen lately. More on that later.

Posted by CD at 04:17 PM | Comments (3)

December 28, 2003

The Complete, Unabridged Donktionary®

NOTE: The Donktionary® is a living document, and I occasionally add definitions. Any definitions added after the original post date will be noted. Thank you.

It's been awhile, but I said I was going to put together a complete list of English to liberal translations, and now it's ready to go.

The following list of words and definitions was created mostly by me, but several members of The Alliance of Free Blogs helped out, and their entries are identified with links going back to their respective blogs.

Before you click the extended entry, I want to make a quick note. I went through Democratic Underground to get some ideas for this, and it made me think of something : Remember the version of hell presented by the movie "What Dreams May Come?" You know it's just in your mind at first, but if you stay there too long, it sucks you in and you become part of it, and your mind essentially creates hell for you. Maybe that's what happens to DU posters who seem to have massive tinfoil hat syndrome. They go there expecting rational debate, but the idiocy is so strong that it assimilates them. Just a thought.

And now, ladies and gentlemen of the blogosphere, I give you...


Abortion: Medical procedure that allows women to exercise their personal freedom and prevents them from being forced to become incubators for future members of the Evil White Patriarchy™.
ACLU: Ashcroft Crushing Liberals United.
Adultery: Archaic term used by neocons to make people feel guilty for enjoying sex.
Affirmative Action: Policies designed to keep the Evil White Patriarchy™ from taking over the world.
Anti-American: Agreeing with President Bush.
Appeasement: The solution to all foreign problems.
AWOL: The default status of any National Guardsman whose service is not completely and flawlessly documented. (definition added on 2/4/04)
Baghdad: Quagmire central.
Bigotry: Disagreeing with liberal ideas.
Bill Clinton: Once thought to be the Savior of America, Clinton was unjustly persecuted and crucified impeached by the evil Romans Republicans.
Brain Damage: Condition that causes one to become a conservative. (taken from Democratic Underground)
Campaign: Contest in which the participants try to come up with the best way to belittle the opposition without forming their own set of policies.
Censorship: 1. Criticizing liberal ideas; 2. What conservatives do whenever they state one of their delusional viewpoints without including the obviously superior liberal viewpoint as well. (#2 from Frizzen Sparks)
Chad: Small piece of paper used by Republicans to rig an election.
Civil Rights: The freedom to do anything, anywhere, at any time, and with anyone without criticism. If someone even thinks that what you're doing is wrong, your civil rights have been violated.
Constitution: Set of rules and regulations that protects people's freedom to burn the flag, keep extremist judges out of office, and do anything they want in private. Also used to keep people from being offended by nasty words and displays of delusion religion. NOTE: Because the Constitution is a living document, it no longer guarantees the right to bear arms. That was only used when the entire country was full of backwoodsmen who needed to protect themselves and their homes. These people are now isolated to certain parts of the deep South.
Death Penalty: Genocidal conspiracy against African-Americans.
Dissent: Calling Republicans fascist monkeys.
Diversity: 1. Killing whitey; 2. Combining people of many races and ethnicities; 3. Having every color of the rainbow in your organization. NOTE: White is not a color. (#3 from Bad Money)
Electoral College: Definition is unclear, but we're pretty sure it's a school where people learn how to vote. They must have skipped class in 2000.
Elitist: Someone who believes that majority opinion should influence public policy.
Establishment Clause: Part of the Constitution that protects people from born-again bigots who think they can shove Jeebus down everyone's throat.
Europe: 1. Model for the ideal society; 2. Continent populated by intellectuals, innovators, and people who are generally better than Americans.
Evil White Patriarchy™: Right wing males.
Extremist: Politician with religious convictions.
Facist: The proper thing to call conservatives on the Internet. You must spell it this way, because the other spelling is usually capitalized for some reason.
Forgery: Document that supports Republican claims.
Fox News: Republican propaganda agency. See also Faux News.
France: A country that recently came up with exciting new strides in the field of geriatric care in adverse temperatures. (from Frizzen Sparks)
Free-Speech Zone: 1. Unconstitutional tactic used by Republicans to keep protestors away from the president; 2. The only way to protect minorities on college campuses from the hatred and bigotry of right wing protest groups.
Fundamentalist: 1. Christian who believes in God and reads the Bible; 2. Anyone that thinks anything is wrong. Ever. (#2 from Physics Geek)
Gender: Myth invented by the Evil White Patriarchy™ to keep women out of the workforce.
George W. Bush: 1. The Antichrist; 2. The single greatest threat to life on this planet; 3. An evil genius who was smart enough to steal an election, fool the American public into supporting an illegal racist war for oil, and create the illusion of an improving economy with tax cuts, but too stupid to chew a pretzel or pronounce the word "nuclear;" See also Chimpy, Dumbya, Hitler, Mephistopheles, Shrub, and *.
Global Leadership: Imperialism. See also PNAC. (definition added on 2/4/04)
Governor: The highest elected office ever held by George W. Bush.
Halliburton: Dick Cheney's evil empire. See also Helliburton.
Hate: Whatever comes out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth.
Hero: An American soldier who shoots his officers. (taken from an anti-war protest)
Hollywood: The Mecca of liberalism and the closest America will ever be to Europe.
Homophobia: Offending homosexuals in any way, even if it has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.
Idiot: A Democrat who votes for a Republican candidate. (taken from Democratic Underground)
Illegal Alien: An unfortunate non-citizen. (*submitted by a reader who heard Al Gore actually say it*)
Imminent Threat: What Bush* obviously meant to call Iraq in his SOTU speech, even though he never said it.
Imperialism: Attacking any country that has oil.
Individual: [No results] (from Anger Management)
Is: Definition varies from person to person.
Islam: A religion of peace, tolerance, love, respect, tradition, and other non-violent things.
Jerry Falwell: A public figure who represents the majority of Christians in America and accurately outlines Biblical teachings. See also Pat Robertson.
Jingoism: Flying the American flag during a war.
John Ashcroft: See Heinrich Himmler.
Karl Marx: The second most brilliant thinker in recent history (even if he was a bit of a centrist).
Kim Jong Il: World leader who will probably be the next victim of The Shrub's terrorist plot.
Liberalism: Killing whitey Standing up for underrepresented groups, murdering children protecting women's right to choose, persecuting Christians defending religious freedom, and taking your hard-earned money away from you balancing the federal budget with reasonable tax policies.
Lie: Anything a Republican says.
Logic: An outmoded form of argument popular among 18th Century thinkers. Has since been superseded by clever chants. (from Anger Management)
Mainstream: Liberalism.
Meanness: Personality trait caused by lack of empathy and refusal to throw money at social problems.
Media: Cheerleaders for the Shrub administration who are covering up the quagmire in Iraq and the massive economic recession.
Miserable Failure: See George W. Bush.
Multiculturalism: 1. Making sure that at least 10% of the people you meet in an average day can't speak more than a dozen words of English; 2. Celebrating any kind of cultural heritage except American.
Narrow-minded: Having an opinion.
Nazi: Redefined to mean any assertive conservative. The old definition of a heavily anti-semitic national socialist party is now redefined as "Progressive Democrat." (from Frizzen Sparks)
Neanderthal: Conservative judge.
Niger: See Africa.
Noam Chomsky: The most brilliant thinker in recent history.
NPR: 1. Underground resistance fighters speaking out against the neo-fascists. Don't tell them where the radio station is! 2. Non-partisan, Progressive Radio.
NRA: Neocon Racist Assassins.
Offensive: Any statement that someone might disagree with, even if they don't actually say that it offends them.
Oil: The root of all evil and the cause of all Republican military action.
Orwellian: The type of society we have thanks to the PATRIOT Act.
Patriot: One who blindly supports the neo-fascist government out of fear.
Patriotism: Defense record.
Peace: Avoiding conflict at all costs, even if it results in our annihilation.
Persona Non Grata: White politicians who dare to defy their African-American masters.
Photo-op: Republican appearing in public.
Police Brutality: Arresting minorities.
Quagmire: The result of deposing a murderous dictator and freeing millions of oppressed people.
Quota: Buzzword conservatives use to make diversity sound like a bad thing.
Racism: 1. Disagreeing with affirmative action and welfare, and/or belonging to the Republican Party; 2. Anything done by any white person, anywhere. (#2 from Physics Geek)
Recession: The economy under a Republican president.
Redneck: Epithet that makes fun of people because of their skin color, but isn't racist because it's true and applies only to white people. Damn crackas.
Republican: Racist, sexist, fascist, homophobic, warmongering, anti-choice, fundamentalist bigot.
Responsibility: Ree-spon-si-bill-lit-tee??? (checks in mental dictionary around "ragamuffin" and "rapscallion") Nope, not in the liberal language. Sorry.
Second Amendment: See murder.
Sheep: See Americans.
Sought: "President" Bush's pronunciation of the word "bought."
Southerners: 1. Racist, trigger happy, homophobic Jesus freaks; 2. Respectful, devout, tolerant men of the land with a sense of history. (definition varies depending on Howard Dean's location).
Speech Codes: The only way to protect the feelings of minorities on college campuses, since most college students have never been exposed to other cultures and are therefore intrinsically racist.
Suicide Bomber: Heroic freedom fighter. See also martyr.
SUV: Evil machine used for the sole purpose of destroying the environment. It's okay when celebrities use them because...well, because they're famous.
Taxation: The solution to all domestic problems.
Terrorism: American assassinations of foreign enemies. (defined by my writing professor)
Tolerance: 1. Agreeing with everyone all the time (unless they're conservative); 2. Not immediately beating the crap out of any damn cracker-ass honky who starts spouting racism. (#2 from Bad Money)
Uncle Tom: Black Republican.
Unilateral: Any coalition that doesn't include France and Germany.
United Nations: Organization created to keep U.S. power in check. Also has the magical ability to make illegal wars legal.
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: The cause of every problem taxes and appeasement can't solve.
Victim: 1. Anyone who has been forced to endure the hardship of not being completely happy 24/7; 2. Someone who is not given something they want, even if they don't deserve it; 3. Someone whose feelings are hurt. See also minority.
Vietnam: Adjective used to describe a soldier's death (there may have been a war with a similar name at some point).
Weapons of Mass Destruction: 1. Red herring invented by Republicans to distract people from their imperialism; 2. Anything not found in Iraq (excludes evidence of a WMD research program). (#2 from The Idiot Villager)
Whitewater: (place hands over both ears) I'M NOT LISTENING! LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!
Yellowcake: See uranium.
Zionism: See Joooooooooooos!

So, there you have it. I'll probably be adding more definitions as time goes on, and I'll post them on the front page before putting them here.

For even more definitions from The Alliance, follow this link.

Posted by CD at 07:54 PM | Comments (2)

Back to Work

Blogging has been very light for the past couple weeks, but I want to start posting on a regular basis again. After all, I did make a list of things I wanted to have here before the end of vacation, and I intend to stick with that.

The first thing I'm going to do is post the complete Donktionary®, but I have to go through all the entries and pick out a few submissions from other blogs before I can put it together, so it's not quite ready yet.

After that, I want to write an essay of sorts about religion and society. It's probably going to closely resemble what you would find in David Limbaugh's "Persecution," but I haven't read that (yet), so all thoughts contained within will be mine.

There are a few other things on the agenda after that, but I still have to figure out how to put my thoughts together and get intelligent writing out of them. However, I found something on another blog that I think everyone should read while they're waiting (/pretending people are anxious to see what I'll post next).

Guardian WatchBlog doesn't seem to get a lot of attention, but I really enjoy some of the content there. The newest post is particularly good, because it talks about Coward Howard Dean's recent "religious" comments.

I don't know why I totally ignored that issue, being the "Bible-thumping fundie" that I am, but this guy basically says what needs to be said about the issue. Click the above link and read "Howard Dean: Suddenly Spiritual." It's a great analysis of Dean's raging elitism and patronizing view of the American public.

Posted by CD at 04:20 PM | Comments (2)

Another 4 A.M. Post

Dang it, where are my BlogSpot archives? I want to permanently sever my connection to that craphole, but I can't because my old posts aren't here yet!

Sorry about that. Anyway, I'm posting at 4 in the morning again, simply because I can. I actually don't have anything particularly important to say, but I do want to pass on a bit of knowledge that I've learned this week.

Over the past few days, I have spent some time reading the blogs of Steven Den Beste, Bill Whittle, and Rachel Lucas.

As a result, I now know why I only get 30 hits a day. It's not because I haven't been around very long, although that's part of it. It's not even because I was on CrapSpot.

It's because my writing just isn't as powerful as theirs. It's that simple. These people know how to write a friggin' blog. They get your attention, they write an informative and/or entertaining post, and they do it with unique style. There's some special quality on blogs like this that I have yet to master. I'm impressed.

...I think that's about it. Goodnight/morning to you.

Posted by CD at 04:12 AM | Comments (4)

December 27, 2003

Who Wants to Laugh?

Okay, I'm going to do 2 things that it's probably in my best interests not to do. First of all, I'm posting at 5 in the morning (I think I mentioned that I sleep late; now you know why). Also, I'm going to post something from Democratic Underground and make fun of it.

I was going to try and ignore the idiots, but this caught my eye. Check out these two sentences, written by the same person, and see if you can spot the irony:

" the murder of children that don't look like them..." (referring to the war in Iraq)

"Children learn hate from the President right down to their crazy redneck uncle..."

Interesting. You just made fun of somebody because he doesn't look like you, right after you implied that we only attacked Iraq because they don't look like us.

Are these people really that dumb?

Obviously, the answer is no. They're even dumber.

I should probably go to sleep soon.

Posted by CD at 05:10 AM | Comments (4)


Yes, that spelling is intentional. Before I explain it, I'm making an announcement: This URL is now my official blog base. I was going to wait until my BlogSpot posts were archived, but why should I do that? I want to post here now. I have a list of my personal favorite posts written over at the other blog, and according to Sitemeter, everyone who has come there since I put it up has looked at more than one page (some looked at 5 or 6), so my Right Wing News link won't go to waste (have I mentioned that I'm linked on Right Wing News yet? I may have forgotten to mention that I'm linked on Right Wing News, so in case I forgot to mention that I'm linked on Right Wing News, I'll remind you that I'm linked on Right Wing News).

I'm still going to do a little tweaking when my archives upload, but I'm tired of CrapSpot, and I want out. Now. So I'm using this as my official blog from now on.

All right, now that I got that out of the way, I can go back to what I was going to write about. Click the extended entry for my thoughts about "chickenhocks."

Earlier tonight, I went to my younger brother's varsity hockey game. It was the first time I had been to a school hockey game in a couple years, I believe, so I had forgotten about some of the...atmosphere at these events.

Anyone who's ever gone to an athletic event where the parents of the players make up 95% of the audience knows what to expect. They yell. A lot. At their kids. And at other people's kids. And sometimes at the other team's kids. So, as I sat there listening to middle-aged women yelling...






...and other bits of information, I realized that some people could refer to these parents as "chickenhocks." They obviously want their team to win, and they show up to support them. They even yell things at them when they feel inclined.

However, the reality is that they probably wouldn't be able to do most of the things they want their kids to do. They stand up and yell "FASTER! FASTER!" but you know perfectly well that they wouldn't be able to skate even half that fast if they were on the ice.

In addition, they probably know that their kids can't even hear them. I used to play hockey (before I developed my current "weight problem"), and I can tell you that nobody hears what the parents are yelling. Nobody.

The parents may think they're helping, but they probably know this as well. They're just expressing themselves and getting into the game because it's their team, their child, and their pride on the line.

If they're allowed to do that, then why are these stupid "chickenhawks" accusations still being thrown at those of us who support the military and approve of the war in Iraq, but aren't actually members of the armed forces? It's my country, my fellow Americans, and my freedom on the line, so why shouldn't I be able to express my support of them and give my opinion of their progress?

This analogy goes a bit further, because just like the parents, I know that I probably wouldn't be able to handle the military (again, see "weight problem"). I respect them, and they're deserving of a lot more respect than me because they lay down their lives so I can sit here and write about it.

Unfortunately, for some reason, a few people have decided that this is wrong, and you should join the military if you support military action. That's idiotic. The parents at the game may have never played a sport, and they're certainly not capable of keeping up with the action.

In addition, their kids are the athletes, and they're the parents. There are different roles here. The people who are capable of playing the game play the game, and those who are too old, or in my case, too unathletic, simply sit in the stands and cheer on the team.

That's the way it works with military action. Those who are brave and strong enough to defend our country go out and do it, but that doesn't mean that us civilians can't cheer them on and even give our opinions of their actions.

We know that we're really yelling to ourselves, but why should we be criticized for that? The parents know that their kids can't hear them, but they have an opinion and they express it. In the same way, "chickenhawks" can think critically about the issue even though it doesn't really do that much good. It's called discourse.

You can also look at it this way: What would morale be like if the entire country was either anti-war or silent because they weren't fighting the war? It would be the same as having a hockey game where nobody showed up except fans of the opposing team.

What would happen to morale? It would hit rock bottom, because support is necessary. You have to know that there are people standing in the bleachers cheering you on, because it makes your job that much more satisfying.

In the same way, soldiers need to know that they're making people safer, more secure, and more proud to be Americans. If everyone who supported the war went off to fight it, there would be nobody left but protestors, and many of the people fighting wouldn't be fit to serve.

Now, I don't want to become the subject of a Tom Tomorrow strip and act like pro-war bloggers are somehow part of the military effort, but the chickenhocks analogy seems to suggest that support is fine as long as you realize that the people you support are doing a lot more than you.

The soldiers who are fighting in Iraq right now are stronger than me, braver than me, and certainly deserving of a lot more praise than I've earned in a lifetime, but that doesn't mean that some of that praise can't come from me. They're over in the Middle East fighting evil so that people like me don't have to fight it here.

And I would fight it here. Believe me. If those f***ing terrorists attack us on our own soil in any sustained way, I may just join the military, but that's a last resort. Until then, it seems to me that people who are totally cut out to defend freedom should do that, but somebody has to cheer them on and acknowledge that their sacrifices make us all better off.

Here's one more thing to think about: The people calling us chickenhawks think that we should join the military and experience it for ourselves before we form an opinion, but by their own logic, they should support the war and then use that experience to show why supporting the war is wrong. They've never supported the war, so who are they to judge those of us who do?

See how stupid that sounds? They think that joining the military will either back up our beliefs with experience or make us question them because we've experienced it, but they form an opinion without being in the military or being in favor of the war. It's the same leaky friggin' boat.

In any case, I know that my support really doesn't do that much to help us fight terror, but it's my country that's fighting, and I have a right to cheer them on from the sidelines.

My name is CD (well, my initials are), I'm a chickenhawk, and I'm proud of it.

Posted by CD at 01:19 AM | Comments (7)

December 26, 2003

Christmas Aftermath

I seem to be posting a lot at 2 in the morning lately. My circadian rhythms are going to be really screwed up when I go back to school and have to get up for 8:30 AM Spanish classes four days a week.

Fortunately, that's still a couple weeks away. Right now, I want to update briefly, as I often do. First of all, this was a good Christmas for me, and I hope it was as good for the rest of you. Nothing particularly out of the ordinary happened (other than my dad deciding to play a song parody called "Chipmunks Roasting on an Open Fire" in lieu of classic Christmas songs; I think teaching middle school has warped his mind).

Thanks to the magic of presents, I now own "Tales From the Left Coast" by James Hirsen. Since I'm an aspiring writer/director, I feel that I need to research the kind of people I'm going to have to deal with on a daily basis in a few years. This should be a good read.

I also have "Life On Display," the new CD from Puddle of Mudd. Maybe I'll review that along with Default's "Elocation." Both are pretty good, although I can already tell you that Default is going to get the more positive review.

But enough about my preference for neo-grunge. I want to keep writing about other things just because I can. I'm facing a rather interesting dilemma right now. After all the relatives left and things wound down, I went back to the blogosphere to surf around, and I ended up making what I would call a "blogger's blunder." What was this, you ask?

For some reason, I decided to read works by Steven Den Beste and Bill Whittle within the span of an hour. Thanks to this, I now have tons of things I want to write about, but at the same time, I know that I will never be able to articulate my thoughts as well as they can. DO YOU KNOW HOW IRRITATING THAT IS?

I really want to write about a lot. I've had some time to think lately now that schoolwork is over, and a lot of things have been occurring to me about politics and society that I never even thought about before (it's so much fun being 18 and trying to understand these things on a sophisticated level).

I mentioned in my audio update on CrapSpot that I want to write an essay about the marginalization of religion in society, but thanks to my choice of reading tonight, I now have tons of other things to think about, and I have no idea how to translate all of these thoughts into writing.

Again, since I'm basically planning on making a career out of writing, I think I should probably attempt to do something with all these ideas, but it's just too much to deal with at once. I don't think my mind has ever tried to wrap itself around this many topics at the same time. Also, since I have ADD, it's hard to concentrate on one thought, let alone dozens of individual ones that each apply to completely different topics.

What this basically means is that I need to take some time to try and figure out how I'm going to handle all these...I guess you could call them "insights" that I've been having. I'm trying to wait until my old posts are moved over here to start MuNublogging full time, but since Pixy seems to be having server trouble, I don't know how long that's going to be.

Since I have a link on Right Wing News to the BlogSpot page, I don't want to move the entire operation just yet. RWN was my inspiration for starting a blog in the first place, and I want to take full advantage of finally having a link there, even if it's just until Monday.

At that time, I plan to send John Hawkins an e-mail so I can find out how the fudge he knows about my site and basically suck up to him in the hopes that he'll give me a permalink. Seriously, I've wanted a link on RWN since the day I started blogging, and I'm still shocked about this. We'll see how it goes next week, I guess.

Well, once again, I've gotten off topic, but I never really had a topic to begin with, big deal. I think I'm about done though. I really want to start regular posting again, but this move has been priority one, and I don't know how long it'll be before I can start permanently using the new site, but the fact that I'm here now should count for something.

Before I go, if anyone's still reading at this point, I realize the majority of my blogging for the last week has been very self-centered and not incredibly interesting, but I do hope to change that. Like I said, I've got a lot of ideas. I just need to figure out how to express them properly.

Finally, I was bored before my aforementioned "blogger's blunder" and started messing around with my computer's minimal paint software, and I managed to create a really funny (in my opinion) picture of Kobe Bryant based on a Fark contest theme from a few days ago.

I really want to post it, but it uses certain illegal substances (which I don't advocate, by the way), and I'm not sure if it would be tasteful to post it. I changed the word "Lakers" on his jersey to "Bakers," and it just took off from there. I ended up adding a Phish hat and a bag of Funyuns, but there's also some more...illicit stuff. I probably won't show you that, but you can picture it for yourself. It still makes me laugh.

Sorry if that disturbed you, but that's what you get for clicking the extended entry. Heh.

...Thanks for stopping by.

Posted by CD at 02:44 AM | Comments (3)

December 25, 2003

Christmas Blogging

I have to go interact with relatives now, so I can't post much, but I'll try to get back here later tonight.

For now, I'm trying out a new tagline: "Dissent is healthy; Stupidity is deadly."

I may try other ones too.


Posted by CD at 04:09 PM | Comments (6)

Merry Christmas

I'm writing this at 2 in the morning, but it is officially Christmas.

This is a good day. Not only is it Christmas, it's also the 3 month blogiversary of Semi-Intelligent Thoughts!

Obviously, the birth of Jesus is a bit more significant than the birth of a weblog ( /massive understatement), but I still feel like I should mention that.

Anyway, I'm almost done working here. As soon as my BlogSpot posts are imported, I'll be ready to start blogging at this location full-time. Until then, enjoy the holiday, and thanks for visiting!

Posted by CD at 02:09 AM | Comments (4)

December 24, 2003

New Pics

Okay, for all you people who complained about my lack of a decent smile before, here ya go:

Happier CD

Oh, and Chad, here's one in response to your comment:

Angry CD

I really hope I can start posting actual content here soon.

Posted by CD at 04:20 PM | Comments (7)

The New SIT

Well, this is it. After 2 hours of going back and forth between the style sheet and the blog, I've finally gotten the look I was going for. What do you think? I'm trying to keep it as close to the old blog as possible for the sake of familiarity, but feedback is welcome.

Also, I'm still trying to come up with a new tagline, and I need to figure out how to make a banner. The standard title is boring.

I'm feeling good about the future. As soon as my old BlogSpot posts are loaded, I'll be ready to start blogging here on a daily basis.

Posted by CD at 02:22 AM | Comments (7)

December 23, 2003


Yes, blagging. It's the term I'm using to describe "blog bragging." Want to know why? Click the extended entry...


I kept it a little more low-key over at the CrapSpot blog, but since nobody reads the MT site yet, allow me to laugh in a victorious fashion.


Thank you.

Posted by CD at 10:26 PM | Comments (8)

I'm currently working on moving

I'm currently working on moving all posts over to the new blog. If the site looks unusual, that's why.

Posted by CD at 01:57 AM | Comments (3)

December 22, 2003

Big News

I just got an e-mail from Pixy Misa telling me that my new blog is ready. More details as they arrive.

Death to BlogSpot!

This truly is a good day. Semi-Intelligent Thoughts now has a brand new location powered by Movable Type. Unfortunately, I still have to work out all the bugs and import the old posts, so I probably won't make the complete transfer until after Christmas. At that time, I'll post a really big message at the top of the blog directing you to the new home of SIT.

Until then, keep coming back here for more, although I'll probably be spending most of my time getting the new site ready.

One more thing: If you have a link to Semi-Intelligent Thoughts, remember to update it after the move. My Ecosystem rating depends on it.

Posted by CD at 08:58 PM | Comments (3)

Audio Update

Check it out! I used my free trial post. You have to listen to get the latest updates about SIT (although it's pretty much a repeat of what I've said before).

Powered by audblogaudio post powered by audblog

On another note, I wrote in my "105 Things About Me" post that someone once told me I sound like Frank Sinatra. I have no idea if that's accurate, so would you agree (you don't need to answer that)?

Posted by CD at 07:28 PM | Comments (3)

Comic Question

Okay, this may be the dumbest thing I've ever posted, but I have to ask: Why does "Hagar the Horrible" have Christmas themed strips? Hagar the Horrible is a viking! Vikings don't celebrate Christmas! Why is someone who worships Thor or something celebrating the birth of Christ? It makes no sense!

Just a simple question. By the way, I've got a slightly important update coming up a little later, but I'll be using my free audioblog post instead of writing it. Keep checking back for that one.

Posted by CD at 06:30 PM | Comments (2)

Wesley Clark is a Joke

First, there was his claim that he would've run as a Republican if he had received a call from the Bush staff, then there was that time travel thing, then there was "I would've caught bin Laden by now," and just recently, there was the assertion that Howard Dean asked him to be his running mate.

Today, we have two other reasons why Wesley Clark is a joke. First of all, there's this:

Moments after praising his opponents in the Democratic presidential race as worthy running mates, Wesley Clark said, in no uncertain terms, how he would respond if they or anyone else criticized his patriotism or military record.

"I'll beat the s--- out of them," Clark told a questioner as he walked through the crowd after a town hall meeting Saturday. "I hope that's not on television," he added.

It was, live, on C-SPAN.

Brilliant. I wonder when John Kerry will weigh in on this. "That f***in' piece of sh*t! He thinks he can f***in' upstage me?"

Remember that "major league a**hole" comment that Dubya made a few years ago? I think the Dems have resorted to making themselves look stupid in public in the hopes that people will somehow connect that with a good president. Just a thought.

Also, there's this:

Democratic presidential hopeful Gen. Wesley Clark said Sunday that his old boss Bill Clinton - not President Bush - deserved credit for forcing Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi to abandon his weapons of mass destruction programs, even though Gadhafi's turnaround came nearly three years after Clinton had left office.

"It's a program of squeezing Libya that's gone on for more than a decade," Clark told a Derry New Hampshire audience, according to the Concord Monitor. "The Clinton administration was very much involved with this."

I love this. They actually expect people to believe them when they say these moronic things. Now, watch what happens when Weasely has to explain why bad things happened right after Bubba left office:
The retired general added new details to his charge that President Bush was responsible for leaving America vulnerable to the 9/11 attacks, saying that President Clinton tried to warn Bush about Osama bin Laden but Bush wouldn't listen.

"He wasn't paying attention," Clark complained. "He didn't do his job as commander and chief."

Okay, first of all, I hope that's a misquote, because the correct term is commander IN chief, but I'll let that slide for now. More importantly, how does he credit the success in Libya to Clinton while blaming 9/11 on Bush? It makes no sense.

Based on this article, here's my understanding of Clark Logic: "If something good happens three years after a president leaves office, he's responsible for it. If something bad happens 8 months after a president takes office, he's responsible for it." Want more proof?

The former NATO commander said that Bush deserves to be "fired" for not doing more to prevent 9/11.

"This is the way it works in the Navy, if you're the captain of a ship, and it runs aground, they only ask two questions: Did it run aground, and were you the captain?" he explained. "If the answer is yes to both, you're fired.

"But if the ship causes the leader of another country to give up its WMD program, the previous captain should get credit."

Congratulations, Wesley Clark. You are now officially a walking, talking, pathetic joke.

Enjoy the publicity while it lasts.

Posted by CD at 05:17 PM | Comments (3)

December 21, 2003

Showcase Vote

This week, my vote goes to The Politics of the Lord of the Rings from My Word.

Posted by CD at 09:22 PM | Comments (2)

December 20, 2003

Evil Glenn Strikes Again

This is serious! Not only does he murder hobos, he's attacking innocent partygoers now! Look at this!

Posted by CD at 11:17 PM | Comments (2)

105 Things About CD

All right, for those of you who want to know more about who's behind this blog, I've put together a list of 105 things about me that should give you more information than you ever needed to know. I used to have this list on a separate page connected to my BlogSpot site, but thanks to permalinks, I can now put it here. Read on:

1. I was born just outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on January 27, 1985.
2. I spent the first 18 years of my life in Plum Borough, Pennsylvania.
3. I’m currently attending Syracuse University (although I typed this list at my home in Plum).
4. I’m majoring in TV-Radio-Film.
5. I want to be a screenwriter/director.
6. The C in CD stands for Chris.
7. I’m not telling you what the D stands for, but there are a couple links on the blog to sites that give my full name.
8. I’m a Protestant Christian, but I don’t associate myself with any particular denomination.
9. I recently went through a year-long “semi-agnostic phase,” where I questioned pretty much everything I knew and/or believed.
10. I snapped out of that in August of 2003 and have been 100% Christian ever since.
11. I don’t currently go to church, but if I find one that hasn’t been taken over by postmodernism, I may reconsider.
12. I believe in the Big Bang, and I think the universe really is 14 billion years old.
13. I don’t believe in naturalistic evolution, but I think the fossil record is accurate.
14. Militant young-earth creationists really bother me.
15. I love fireworks, and if I have the chance to see them in any form, I will take it.
16. I’m a registered Republican.
17. I own a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle, a spring-powered BB gun, and a CO2-powered pellet gun. I haven’t used any of them in several years.
18. I was on my high school’s rifle team for 2 years, but I never made varsity and eventually quit.
19. I’ve been playing drums since I was 12.
20. I was the percussion section leader of the Plum High Mustang Marching Band during my senior year of high school, but I had little to no authority because nobody in the section listened to me. I recently finished a season playing bass drum in the Syracuse University Marching Band.
21. I’ve been playing drumset for almost 2 years, and I absolutely love it.
22. I also took 7 years of piano lessons, but I quit when I was 16.
23. One of my current goals in life is to play drums for a rock band.
24. I’ve written 10 songs, and I’m usually working on 2 or 3 new ones.
25. I’ve posted 3 of them on the blog. (the rest are posted on my SongBlog)
26. My favorite bands are: Creed, 3 Doors Down, Nickelback, Trust Company, Staind, Hoobastank, Theory of a Deadman, Puddle of Mudd, Default, 12 Stones, and Matchbox Twenty
27. My favorite songs are “Kryptonite” by 3 Doors Down and “Downfall” by Trust Company.
28. Bands I have seen live: Creed, 12 Stones, Jerry Cantrell, Theory of a Deadman, 3 Doors Down, Sugar Ray, and Matchbox Twenty.
29. I’ve only been to 3 rock concerts, but I managed to see all the above bands.
30. I don’t like Jerry Cantrell or Sugar Ray.
31. Rap sucks. Don’t argue with me. It sucks.
32. I don’t use profanity. Ever.
33. However, I do tend to use a lot of pseudo-swearing. When I’m talking casually, I usually use the words “crap” and “frickin’” in at least every other sentence.
34. I’m a little frickin’ better about crap like that when I write.
35. I have ADD.
36. I also have asthma.
37. I take medication for both.
38. I’m afraid of heights, spiders, and to a lesser extent, dogs.
39. I love cats, and I don’t care who knows it.
40. I’ve never broken any bones, and I’d like to keep it that way.
41. When I was 12, I had a benign cyst surgically removed from my right ear.
42. This was after months of people asking “what happened to your ear?” about 100 times an hour.
43. I’ve been to Washington, D.C. twice.
44. The second time, I lost one of those little individual boxes of Lucky Charms somewhere in Ford’s Theatre.
45. I’ve also been to Canada twice.
46. I liked Toronto, but didn’t like Montreal (French Canadians are more French than Canadian).
47. I collect sugar packets from restaurants and hotels when I travel. I have a container of at least 30 from various places I've visited.
48. States I’ve been in: Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan, Florida, and probably a couple others.
49. I’ve only flown twice in my life.
50. The first time was from Pennsylvania to Florida (Disney World, actually), and the second time was from Florida back to Pennsylvania.
51. This was before 9/11.
52. Speaking of which, on the morning of September 11, 2001, as the bus was pulling into the parking lot of my school, I distinctly remember saying to myself, “I have a feeling something really good is going to happen today.”
53. I have since learned not to trust my predictions.
54. I've been to Ground Zero. While we were there, one of my brother's friends wrote "F**k the Middleast (sic)" on the memorial wall.
55. My grandfather was in World War II, but he didn’t see any combat.
56. His job was to send fake radio transmissions to confuse the Japanese.
57. He always claims that he fought “mosquitoes and women.”
58. I am absolutely horrible at math.
59. I am a master of Simpsons trivia and can answer just about any question from before the last couple seasons when the show started to go downhill.
60. I own every episode of Monty Python’s Flying Circus and have watched them dozens of times each.
61. I’ve had a learner’s permit for almost 3 years, but I don’t have a driver’s license because I’m too lazy to practice driving.
62. My favorite movie is Gettysburg.
63. I’ve only visited Gettysburg once. I’ve also been to Antietam.
64. I love astronomy.
65. I own a telescope, but I can’t use it because I lost the eyepiece.
66. I’ve seen less than 50 meteors in my life, but I did manage to see one small “fireball” when I was 17.
67. I watched the 2002 Leonid meteor storm, but I only saw about 25 meteors because it was cloudy that morning.
68. Spelling and grammar mistakes make me incredibly angry. Especially my own.
69. I’ve been on television a few times.
70. Most of those were on the local station that only Plum Borough receives.
71. I was on an actual Pittsburgh news broadcast once.
72. It was a 2 second shot of me playing snare drum for the national anthem during the Veterans’ Day parade.
73. The cameraman got right up in my face to get the shot, so I knew I was probably going to be on TV.
74. I have it on tape somewhere.
75. My parents still haven’t seen it.
76. My parents don’t know that I have a blog.
77. Neither does my younger brother, my roommate, or anyone I know.
78. I’ve had the same haircut for the past 6 or 7 years.
79. I’ve also worn the same kind of shoes for about that long.
80. Almost everything I wear is made by Reebok.
81. I used to want to be an actor, but I changed my mind in high school.
82. In 8th grade, I was in a musical called “Hollywood Hillbillies.”
83. I played a “reformed” hillbilly named Charles Seabury. My role was almost entirely sung.
84. I hate singing, and haven’t done any since my voice changed 4 years ago.
85. Somebody once told me that I sound like Frank Sinatra (talking, not singing). I’m not sure if they were right.
86. Speaking of my voice, I have a slight Pittsburgh accent, but I don’t use Pittsburgh dialect (yins guys, nebby, n’at, etc.).
87. I am terrified of phones, and will do anything I can to avoid using them.
88. This includes making up lame excuses, procrastinating for hours, and sending e-mail to people who specifically tell me to call them.
89. Speaking of procrastination, I do it a lot.
90. I graduated from high school with a 3.9 GPA.
91. The last time I was tested, my I.Q. was 151.
92. My father is a music teacher, my mother is an English teacher, and my brother wants to be a history teacher.
93. I used to play hockey and baseball, and I was never very good at either one. Hockey is still my favorite sport, though.
94. I have a bit of what you might call a “weight problem.”
95. I’m 5’7” and I weigh 210 pounds.
96. I’m going to try and lose it next summer.
97. I’ve never had a girlfriend (as if you hadn’t figured that out by now).
98. If you give me a video camera, I will find a way to make any subject interesting.
99. I have about 15 VHS tapes, 14 VHS-C tapes, and 12 digital video cassettes that I can use as evidence of this.
100. My favorite colors are orange and dark green.
101. My favorite foods are cheeseburgers and pizza.
102. Coke is infinitely better than Pepsi. Oh, and it’s called pop, not soda.
103. I consume massive quantities of Dentyne Ice chewing gum.
104. Mega Warheads (the sour ones) are the greatest accomplishment in the history of candy.
105. Before deciding to study TRF, I wanted to be a hockey player, a baseball player, a computer programmer, an actor, a novelist, and a cartoonist (not necessarily in that order).

Posted by CD at 06:55 PM | Comments (5)


Okay, so I haven't posted much for the last couple days. I'm on vacation here, people (/pretending people actually care and/or notice). However, I do have a few things planned for the next couple weeks, but I haven't actually gotten around to them yet.

So, that being said, I'm going to briefly list a few of the things I hope to do with the blog in the near future:

-First and foremost, I'm planning on moving from CrapSnot to Movable Type if Pixy Misa ever gets back to me.

-I still want to write a review of Elocation, the new CD from Default. It's pretty good.

-I've been planning to write a detailed analysis of the whole "South Park Republicans" idea and why it doesn't apply to me, but I keep putting it off.

-I also want to write something about this "chickenhawks" thing that's been flying around the 'sphere lately. I have some good analogies in store to debunk that one.

-I want to do one of those "100 things about me" lists to replace the current "about me" section on the intro page, but I'm not sure if I can come up with 100 things.

-I'm going to try and write a few more songs with ideas that relate to my blogging topics, like abortion and personal responsibility. I've already written one verse of the abortion one.

-Three words: More. Alliance. Assignments.

-I still have a free audioblog post to waste.

-The complete Donktionary®, including my favorite definitions from other blogs.

There's probably more, but that's the stuff I can remember right now. I may or may not post again today. We'll see.

Oh, and happy Hanukkah to my Jewish reader(s?).

Posted by CD at 05:59 PM | Comments (2)

December 19, 2003

Who's the Liar Again?


Joe Kelley from The Sake of Argument has pointed out this error in the comments of the linked post. Go check it out!

Posted by CD at 06:46 PM | Comments (2)

Friday Afternoon Stuff 

Coming up with titles is really hard. Anyway, I just have a few things to post right now. First of all, I went to my old high school last night to see my brother play in the holiday concert. It was pretty boring, although I did get to see a few of my old friends, which was nice since I DON'T HAVE ANY IN COLLEGE!

Sorry about that. Anyway, I noticed something interesting about the program. They played...GASP! CHRISTMAS MUSIC! They actually played Christmas songs in a concert at a public school! Not "holiday" songs, but CHRISTMAS SONGS! Was anyone offended? Did anyone complain? Was there any mention of "separation of church and state?" No, there wasn't. Why? Because very few people are actually offended by that kind of thing. I'm glad the Thought Police™ haven't gotten to Pennsylvania yet.

Now, on to less important things. I have a question for my readers: Has anyone else had their house taken over by frickin' ladybugs? They're all over the place! I actually saw one crawling across my desk as I was typing this, but I decided to just throw it out the door instead of killing it. It'll probably be back later.

Seriously, this is ridiculous. I saw an article a couple years ago that said this particular kind of ladybug exists for the sole purpose of finding a way into houses and then relaying the information back to the others. Nature can be very strange.

And now, some blog related business: I still have a free 1 minute audioblog post, and I may use that later tonight. I don't really know what I'm going to do with it, but free is free. We'll see what happens. Finally, I just took one of those Myers-Briggs personality tests, and it was actually accurate for once. I'm going to post my results simply because I can.

ISFP - "Artist". Interested in the fine arts. Expression primarily through action or art form. The senses are keener than in other types. 8.8% of total population.
Take Free Myers-Briggs Personality Test
�Conscious self
Overall self
Take Free Enneagram Personality Test
Enneagram Test Results
Type 1 Perfectionism |||||||||| 34%
Type 2 Helpfulness |||||||||| 38%
Type 3 Ambition |||||||||||| 42%
Type 4 Sensitivity |||||||||||| 42%
Type 5 Detachment |||||||||||||||| 70%
Type 6 Anxiety |||||||||||||| 58%
Type 7 Adventurousness |||||||||| 34%
Type 8 Hostility |||||||||||||||| 62%
Type 9 Calmness |||||||||| 34%
Your Conscious-Surface type is 5w6
Your Unconscious-Overall type is 6w5
Take Free Enneagram Personality Test

These really describe me well. I'm surprised. Usually, these stupid online personality tests give me answers that describe the exact opposite of my personality. You should try this one. It's pretty cool.

Posted by CD at 04:56 PM | Comments (2)

December 18, 2003

Photoshop Phunniness 

Allah has another great Photoshopped comic thingy, which you can see here.

Then again, most of you have probably seen it already because you don't sleep until 2:30 in the afternoon...

Posted by CD at 04:54 PM | Comments (3)

What The...?!

The friggin' comments are down! GET ME AWAY FROM BLOGSPOT NOW!!!!!!!!!

Okay, the comments are back, but I still want to get away from CrapSpot. Hurry up, Munuvians!!!

Posted by CD at 04:22 PM | Comments (2)

TV News Observations

Not much to blog about yet today (I just got up an hour ago), but I do want to mention my brief TV news experience today. I turned on the TV and went straight to Fox News, and their big story was:

"Michael Jackson Joins Nation of Islam"

I didn't really need to hear about that, so I decided to check CNN just for the heck of it. They were talking about Saddam Hussein's daughter and how she was traumatized by his capture. Apparently, she heard that he may have been caught, and when it was verified, she broke down in tears. One of their little bottom headlines said that she "lost her brothers, Uday and Qusay, in a firefight."

Does this seem strange to anyone else? "No, Saddam wasn't a tyrant. He was a loving father, and we brutally separated his daughter from the rest of the family. Oh, and his sons, they didn't do anything to deserve their deaths. That's why they were 'lost' and not 'brought to justice.'"

Frickin' Clinton News Network...

Posted by CD at 03:25 PM | Comments (2)

December 17, 2003

The Democratic Campaign Circus Continues 

Clark: Bush lacks will to find bin Laden; Democrat says he would have had the al Qaeda chief by now

If I may offer some insightful commentary...


...Thank you.

Posted by CD at 10:41 PM | Comments (2)


All right! I'm up to 2000 hits!

...That's about all I have to say, actually.

Posted by CD at 10:19 PM | Comments (2)

Freedom of Speech 

I have a really fun issue to deal with now. Thanks to this post at Tongue Tied, we have yet another example of unconstitutional free speech violation on campus. The story in question is a couple weeks old, but I covers it when I finds it.

According to an article from the Georgetown Hoya entitled Anti-Gay Protester Removed From Red Square for 'Offensive Speech', certain types of speech aren't protected. According to the article:

The Department of Public Safety removed an individual from Red Square who was distributing offensive material against homosexuality on Nov. 20...They also solicited signatures on a petition that requested an overturn of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lawrence v. Texas.
Sounds good so far, doesn't it? A group presents a view that doesn't match the views of the university, so they're kicked out. Actually, these people weren't even associated with the school, according to the article, so why exactly did Public frickin' Safety have to get involved? Do they consider them a threat to someone? Here's more:
Red Square is a free speech zone for the campus community,” [Todd Olson, interim vice president of student affairs] said. “Even given that, the messages this group was espousing were, in our view, grossly offensive and inflammatory and thus not protected in any case.
Do you hear that? It's the sound of contradiction! "This is a free speech zone, but this particular kind of free speech makes some people uncomfortable. We can't have that. What? Yes, I know we're always saying that students should move out of their 'comfort zone' and embrace diversity, but you're not listening! It was OFFENSIVE!"

This is wrong. If you designate an area as a "free speech zone" (which, I might add, is unconstitutional in the first place because it suggests that America itself isn't one), you can't suddenly decide that some types of speech aren't protected. Want more? I'll give you more:

Olson’s e-mail emphasized that the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community enjoys “the right to study, work, and live in a campus environment of respect and protection,” he wrote. “Intolerance and invective have no place at Georgetown. As a Catholic, Jesuit university, we live our commitment to respect, tolerance, inclusion, and care for the whole person.”
"...Unless they disagree with us, in which case, they're bigots and must be removed before they endanger our valuable LGBTQ community." This gets even better, if you can believe that. Check out a few quotes from people they interviewed:
Elena Stewart (SFS ’07), who identified herself as bisexual, confronted the protesters after they asked her to sign their petition. “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students felt particularly isolated that day...I don’t give a damn about the wackos who came here,” she said. “But I do give a damn about the people who live here.”
Here we go again. You can't suggest that homosexuality is wrong without being accused of inciting hatred, but you can be called a wacko, and that's apparently fine. Let's all sing the Double Standard Song (or, if that hasn't been written yet, my song entitled "Tolerate") as we move on to another quote from this enlightened and tolerant individual:
Recognizing that opposing viewpoints exist, she said, “Argue with us using an intellectual argument, but don’t lose sight that you are talking to people, not ideas or representations.”
Uh, excuse me, Ms. Bisexual, but isn't that EXACTLY WHAT THE SCHOOL DID?! How is it an intellectual argument when you forcibly remove people from the campus because they disagree with you? Also, if their views were "offensive," then I guess the school did decide to deal with "ideas and representations." I love how they don't extend their tolerance to people they disagree with...of course, that's the only kind of tolerance there is, in case you didn't know. Otherwise, it's acceptance. Here's even more hilarity:
“They were here to incite hatred and there is a major difference between free speech and inciting hatred,” [one student] said, speaking of the TFP.
And that would be...what? Didn't someone else just call them "wackos?" Couldn't you consider that to be "inciting hatred?" Where do you mindless PC drones draw the frickin' line, anyway? I guess this quote is partially true. It's free speech if it doesn't offend anyone, and it's "inciting hatred" if the Thought Police™ don't like the sound of it. I'm glad we could clear that up.

I was going to cover more, but I think you get the point. Read the entire article to get the full picture. One last thing about it that interests me is the fact that, near the end, they suddenly decide that the protestors were removed because they weren't associated with the university. Yet again, we see the PC Police changing their reasoning to make sure they can't be accused of double standards. I'm sure that if students had done the same thing, they would've also been removed.

"Red Square" indeed.

Posted by CD at 06:05 PM | Comments (2)

Wednesday Roundup 

I have real things to blog about this time. Honestly.

Anyway, there are a few news items that I want to briefly touch on. First of all, "emergency contraceptives" are now available without a prescription. I was going to rant about this, but Patriot Paradox has it covered. I left a comment expressing my feelings if you want to see what I was going to write here, but to briefly express my thoughts...


Is this some kind of response to the partial birth abortion ban? "Oh, we can't kill the babies later, so we'll kill 'em before they look human! No compassion for the unwanted babies! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

Just to make things clear, I believe a fetus is human at conception, so this still counts as murdering innocent children. Of course, I think Jimmy Fallon expresses another interesting aspect of this pretty well. What are people going to think when someone buys morning after pills over the counter? He suggests it will sound something like this..

"I need a price check on the whore pills! Come on, we got a drunk girl in a prom dress here!"

Or something like that.

Secondly, the Democratic presidential candidates are basically at each other's throats now (which is good for Dubya, I guess), each trying to undermine the others' positions. Howard "Angry American" Dean and John "I was in Vietnam" Kerry seem to be the latest feud.

Apparently, Dean said that he would've approved of the war in Iraq if it had international support. Kerry came back and said that he doesn't believe we need permission to go to war. Then Dean said he was misinterpreted, and he just wanted international support and approval.

Is it just me, or is that the same thing? Why do we have to depend on other countries to tell us how to fight our wars, especially when some of those countries may have been SELLING WEAPONS TO THE ENEMY?! In any case, I don't think Dean would've approved of the war even if his buddies in France had given us the a-ok.

Guess what? I have another post in the works. This one's about free speech violations! WOW!

Posted by CD at 05:17 PM | Comments (3)

Dentist Rant 

I'm back yet again, and I have a few random topics to cover. First of all, on the non-political front, why do they play such crappy music at the dentist's office? It's bad enough that I have to have some bubbly woman with a high-pitched voice scraping my teeth with sharp metal instruments. At least give me something good to listen to.

"This is Light Rock 92.9 FM..."

I don't like that station. They chose some great music for my visit. First of all, the second I sat down, they started playing that "Brown Eyed Girl" song by Van Morrison. I can't stand that song. It always gets stuck in my head (it's in there now, actually), and it's generally too hippie-ish for my liking.

Of course, the best part of going to the dentist is that rotating tooth polisher thingy that they use. Everyone loves that, right? So, she turns that thing on, and it combines with the sounds from the radio...


"You've lost that lovin' feelin'..."


"You've lost that lovin' feelin'..."

I'm really glad I only have to go through that every 6 months.

Okay, once again, not only have I probably bored you to tears, but I've used up too much space. I'm going to start another post for political topics.

Posted by CD at 05:08 PM | Comments (2)

More Fun With Google 

Okay, I'm back again. Sorry about that unscheduled day off yesterday, but I really didn't have anything to write about. Fortunately, I do have some political/social stuff to cover today, but I have a dentist's appointment in a few minutes, so there's no time for that right now.

However, I did get a couple more strange Google search terms bringing people to my site over the last few hours. Here they are:

cartoon of a hillbilly shack

pictures of hamsters exercising

Have you people heard of Google Image Search? Stop looking through text for weird pictures, dang it!

All right, that's it for now. Frickin' dentist...

Posted by CD at 03:20 PM | Comments (2)

December 16, 2003

More Renovations 

You may have noticed that I haven't posted yet today. There are two reasons for that. Number 1: I can't think of anything to write about; Number 2: I'm in the process of going through my archives and adding line breaks to some of my earlier posts. Those big chunks of text were getting annoying. Feel free to check out the progress if you want. I'm working on October right now.

Posted by CD at 04:10 PM | Comments (2)

December 15, 2003

More "Religious Tolerance" Hypocrisy 

A little while ago, I read this post at Tongue Tied, and just now, I finally got around to reading the article it was referring to, which you can see here.

This is ridiculous. It's absolutely, positively, unfathomably ridiculous. Here are just a few choice selections from this story:

Church officials in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, were told by the town's public library last week that their posters could not be displayed because they pertained to a "religious preference group". It emerged yesterday, however, that a party to celebrate Eid, the breaking of the fast of Ramadan, had been held there less than a week previously.
Well, at least this didn't happen in America, for once. I'd expect this kind of thing in Europe. However, it's still ridiculous. If you can't advertise for one religious event, how can you justify celebrating another one? Oh, but wait, it gets much better.
Bridget Adams, 57, a school teacher and a member of the choir at All Saints church, High Wycombe, asked to display a poster stating the dates and times of its Christmas services. She was refused permission. 'I was told the council had a policy of allowing no religious material from any faith,' she said.
Apparently, she doesn't understand the lingo of anti-Christian PC types. You see, "religious" means "Christian," and "faith" usually means either "gullibility" or "fanaticism." Unless it applies to Muslims, of course. They're just misunderstood and oppressed. Did that seem a little exaggerated? Read on.
Margaret Dewar, the councillor who is responsible for libraries, said: "I am appalled at the attitude of these so-called Christians making such a fuss about this policy. The way they have reacted to the children's party is just shocking."
No, what's shocking is your complete lack of comprehension concerning consistency, you frickin' moron. What's with the "so-called Christians" crap, anyway? Oh, now I remember, faith is a personal, private thing and should never be spoken of, displayed, or even alluded to for fear of offending the sensibilities of those around you. Idiots. Here's the hilarious money quote:
"It is quite a different thing having a party organised by a library to promote cultural understanding and accepting notices for religious services.
Hmmm...let's see...cultural you're saying that it's okay as long as the religious festival is part of a culture? Have you heard of a thing called the FRIGGIN' CHRISTMAS SEASON?! How can she possibly summon up enough cognitive dissonance to say that advertising an event at another building is wrong because it promotes religion, but actually holding an event in the library is okay because it promotes cultural understanding?

This is what happens when you take multiculturalism too far. You lose the ability to separate religion from culture in every society except your own. This makes no sense, and I'm going to continue to waste space ranting about it. I really don't understand how she can say any of this with a straight face (maybe she didn't, actually). They can host an event that's obviously religious, but they can't even advertise another one at a different building. Do people even realize that Islam is a religion anymore, or do they just assume that Muslims are some sort of ethnic group? Wait for gets even better.

"The policy is that we do not display posters on our noticeboard. If we accepted one poster, we would have to them from everyone. We have to draw the line somewhere."
Wait...just...a...freaking...minute. First, they can't display it because it's religious, and all of a sudden they can't display it because it's a poster? I bet if it had been any other kind of poster, they would've accepted it. Or, alternately, if the Christians had come back with a regulation message, they still would've been denied.

This reminds me of another story I saw somewhere a few days ago. Apparently, a child brought a Bible to school to read during quiet time, but he was told to put it away. However, the school said that he couldn't read it because it was "too thick," or some crap like that. So, the next day, he brought a smaller religious booklet, and he was still forced to put it away. Why? Because it might offend other students.

By the way, another part of the article I just responded to mentioned that the "multicultural" Muslim party "...was advertised with leaflets distributed at the library." Isn't that strange? So they were even allowed to advertise that? Fascinating.

Here's one more question I've been meaning to ask for a really long time: HOW IS THE DISPLAY OF CHRISTIAN MATERIAL OFFENSIVE TO OTHER RELIGIONS? That whole "offense" argument never made sense to me. I'm a Christian, but I don't get offended when I see things related to other religions. Is my religion somehow more offensive than others? Am I offending people right now just by saying that I'm a Christian? OH NO! I'M SORRY! I'LL NEVER MENTION MY BELIEFS AGAIN! THAT WOULD BE SO INTOLERANT OF ATHEISTS, BUDDHISTS, MUSLIMS, JEWS, SCIENTOLOGISTS, UNITARIANS, PAGANS, WICCANS, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, MORMONS...and so on.

Does that make sense? Out of all the religions I just listed, none of them offends me simply by existing or making its presence known. I may disagree with them, but they have a right to be acknowledged, and Christians should have that same right.

By the way, try going through that story and flip-flopping it so that all references to Muslims refer to Christians, and vice versa, and think about whose side the library would take. I'm pretty sure the library would display the Muslims' poster for fear of being called Islamophobic.

Think about it.

Posted by CD at 11:03 PM | Comments (2)

Showcase Voters 

Well, once again, the Miserable Failure Coalition beat us in the showcase, but we're getting closer every week. VOTE, PEOPLE! Anyway, as usual, I'm taking the code from Bad Money and giving some totally useless linkage to the people who voted.

Anti-Idiotarian Rotweiler (537 links) - 4135 visits/day V
Flying Chair (174 links) - 3332 visits/day V
IMAO (552 links) - 3261 visits/day V
Blackfive - The Paratrooper of Love (292 links) - 2017 visits/day V
annika's journal & poetry (125 links) - 260 visits/day V
Bad Money (155 links) - 253 visits/day V
Colorado Conservative (65 links) - 231 visits/day V
Ramblings of Silver Blue (167 links) - 230 visits/day V
Patriot Paradox (126 links) - 220 visits/day V
Being American in T.O. (94 links) - 218 visits/day V
Leaning Towards the Dark Side (70 links) - 211 visits/day V
The Inscrutable American (97 links) - 191 visits/day V
Practical Penumbra (230 links) - 186 visits/day V
the evangelical outpost (149 links) - 186 visits/day V
The Alliance (174 links) - 175 visits/day V
Pardon My English (92 links) - 170 visits/day V
From the Halls to the Shores (68 links) - 169 visits/day V
Absinthe & Cookies (190 links) - 162 visits/day V
angelweave (133 links) - 122 visits/day V
An Englishman's Castle (60 links) - 104 visits/day V
dogtulosba, ink. - soapiate of the masses (50 links) - 100 visits/day V
Who Tends The Fires (113 links) - 94 visits/day V
Judicious Asininity (118 links) - 84 visits/day V
Five Wasps (56 links) - 81 visits/day V
Idiot Villager (59 links) - 77 visits/day V
physics geek (72 links) - 74 visits/day V (39 links) - 70 visits/day V
The S-Train Canvass (66 links) - 64 visits/day V
Le Sabot Post-Moderne (79 links) - 58 visits/day V
VRWC, Inc. (89 links) - 52 visits/day V
Left Coast Conservative (142 links) - 47 visits/day V
Semi-Intelligent Thoughts (71 links) - 44 visits/day V
The Gleeful Extremist (59 links) - 42 visits/day V
Wince and Nod (84 links) - 39 visits/day V
Frizzen Sparks (54 links) - 36 visits/day V
Civilization Calls (56 links) - 35 visits/day V (55 links) - 34 visits/day V
Homicidal Maniak (60 links) - 31 visits/day V
Grim's Hall (58 links) - 30 visits/day V
curi's domain (59 links) - 30 visits/day V
Pinto's Blog (44 links) - 27 visits/day V
Cavalier Attitude (47 links) - 24 visits/day V
Elegance Against Ignorance (73 links) - 20 visits/day V
Single White Male (48 links) - 19 visits/day V
Ninjababe's Ramble (59 links) - 17 visits/day V
Hypocrisy and Hypotheses (63 links) - 17 visits/day V
Cannon's Canon (57 links) - 15 visits/day V
Irreconcilable Musings (58 links) - 15 visits/day V
The Conservative Cajun (42 links) - 15 visits/day
Shameless Self-Promotion (55 links) - 14 visits/day V
Hoppings of Roxette Bunny (63 links) - 14 visits/day V (39 links) - 11 visits/day V
Newmanisms (57 links) - 11 visits/day V
CandyUniverse (89 links) - 3 visits/day V
Interested-Participant (115 links) - visits/day V (58 links) - visits/day V
Ripe Bananas (70 links) - visits/day V Political Commentary (132 links) - visits/day V
The New American Revolutionist (54 links) - visits/day V



Posted by CD at 09:27 PM | Comments (3)

Precision Guided Humor Assignment: Campaign Slogans 

This week's Alliance assignment is to write campaign slogans for the Democratic presidential hopefuls. I couldn't pass this one up.

So, here are a few of my ideas. I'm sure they're just variations on what everyone else has come up with, but I guess that when people make themselves into stereotypes, all you can do is play the stereotypical angle for comedic purposes. Wow, that sounds dumb. Anyway, here are the slogans, in no particular order:

Howard Dean: Votes for Republicans make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...what? What do you mean the Hulk already used that? I'LL KILL HIM! HE KNEW ABOUT 9/11! RRROOOORGH! DEAN SMASH...IN A MODERATE...SENSIBLE WAY...THAT WILL NOT OFFEND ANYONE! RRRROORRRGH!!!

Al Sharpton: A vote for me is a vote for racism...I mean AGAINST racism! AGAINST!
...Damn crackas.

John Kerry: I will f**k up George W. Bush, just like I f**ked up the enemy in Vietf***ingnam! Sacre bleu! I for me!

Dick Gephardt: Come on! You know you want your head of state to be a Dick!

Crap Weasel: I must become president, because only I know the secret codes that will defeat the evil psychic wombats of Krelnak 9! Thu flubadu tehy gralbulnarg (that's Krelnakian for "vote Kucinich in '04")!

Joe Lieberman: I can talk about my religious beliefs without being called an extremist! Vote Jewish in '04!

John Edwards: Move it along, folks. Nothing to see here. Except dead people. Lots of dead people. That died because GEORGE W. BUSH SENT THEM TO IRAQ! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
...oh, wait, that's John Edward that sees dead people. My bad.

Carol Moseley Braun: I'm a black woman. You HAVE to vote for me, or else the Evil White Patriarchy™ will destroy the world.

Wesley Clark: I was in the army, but I'm a Democrat, so it's okay. A think-tank in Canada assured me of that.

Hillary Clinton: No, really, I'm not running in 2004. But I encourage you to write my name in anyway, because if you don't, I'm sending Janet Reno to your house. You don't want that.

Looks like some tough competition for Dubya, but I'm sure he knows how to handle it.


Posted by CD at 06:33 PM | Comments (2)

The Tag Team Fisking is Complete! 

If you've been following this, you know what I'm talking about, and I don't feel like making a bunch of hyperlinks right now, so you can scroll down if you're confused.

Anyway, the fisking has now been completed, with the last 20 or so reasons to elect Howard Dean covered by another member of the team at Random Nuclear Strikes.

Check it out. It's really good, and it covers some of the more complex economic stuff that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

I don't like economics.

Posted by CD at 05:31 PM | Comments (3)

More on the Hussein Capture 

Yes, I know it's 4 in the afternoon and I haven't posted yet. Get used to it, because I sleep REALLY late when I'm on breaks. However, I do tend to stay up until around 5 in the morning, so my schedule may begin to reflect that.

Now that I've gotten the disclaimer out of the way, I want to talk a little more about the capture of Saddam Hussein. First of all, Dubya briefly spoke about what's going to happen to him, and he said he wants to turn him over to the Iraqis, but that the trial must withstand "international scrutiny."

What the crap is that? Who cares about world opinion at this point? That didn't stop us from going to war in the first place. Besides, did Hussein respect "international scrutiny" when he murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people? Did he care what the U.N. thought when he was gassing the Kurds and shoving people into plastic shredders?

I'm sorry, but from what I see, no punishment that would withstand international scrutiny could possibly be sufficient to punish that psychotic freak. I say get as much information out of him as possible (after he stops saying that "his people are in bondage"), then turn him over to the Iraqis and let them handle it. I'm sure they'll know what to do.

Now, I was watching the news to see what had developed since yesterday, and one of the stories on my local channel (which was actually broadcasting the national news from NBC, I believe) was about a pro-Saddam rally in Iraq. Want to know how many people attended the rally?

30. 30 people. And they covered it. It was only a 10 second spot, but they covered it. I find that interesting considering their lack of coverage of the anti-terror rally which was attended by THOUSANDS OF FRICKIN' PEOPLE! Media bias, anyone?

One more totally unrelated topic before I stop: I wasn't going to reveal this yet, but it's too good to keep it a secret; I may be leaving BlogSpot soon for greener pastures, i.e. Movable Type. I'm in the process right now of joining the Munuvians, who would provide me with a totally free MT blog. We'll see if that works out. Just know that if you have a permalink to SIT, you may have to change it in a couple weeks.

Hopefully, that's what will appear in your browser when you're reading this page sometime next month.

Posted by CD at 04:02 PM | Comments (2)

December 14, 2003

More Tag Team Fisking 

Mike the Marine took the first ten, I took the next ten, and now the tag team fisking of 51 Reasons Why Americans Should Elect Howard Dean continues at Random Nuclear Strikes. Check it out, and feel free to volunteer for a round. There are still 20 more reasons to cover!

Posted by CD at 09:29 PM | Comments (2)

Google News 

I know this isn't exactly an important bit of information on a day like today, but I just wanted to point out that I am the number 2 Google search result for "Kucinich sucks." Check it out.

Posted by CD at 05:52 PM | Comments (3)

Good Way to Start the Day 

Okay, this is interesting. Now that I'm home, I can sleep in until 2 in the afternoon like I used to. After taking advantage of this until about half an hour ago, I got up, went downstairs, and started making a ham sandwich. I know, really exciting, isn't it? But what happened next was great.

So, as I'm doing this, my dad walks into the kitchen with some rather important information.

"Did you hear the news?"

"What news?"

"We got Saddam."


That was my reaction, at least. I don't know about the rest of you. Anyway, WE FRIGGIN' GOT HIM! HA! I can't wait to see what this does for the overall effort. I wish I could write more, but I have to see what other bloggers are saying about this. Later.

By the way, has anyone else noticed that Hussein looked a lot like Karl Marx with that shaggy beard he had when they caught him?

Don't ask why I noticed that. Frickin' AP European history class...

Posted by CD at 02:37 PM | Comments (2)

December 13, 2003

Okay, I'm Not Quite Done Yet

I have to tie up a couple loose ends before I end the day. First of all, I forgot to mention that I now own the new CD by Default and will be reviewing it in the next week, for those of you who like post-grunge rock.

Finally, this search term somehow brought someone to my site from Google today:

"pictures of satan with a santa clause hat on"


Posted by CD at 11:43 PM | Comments (2)

Home Again

Whoa. I just got back to Pittsburgh about an hour ago, and upon checking my stats, I noticed that I got 44 hits today. That may not seem like much, but it's the most I've ever gotten on a Saturday. I checked it out, and it appears I got a "Mikealanche" from Mike the Marine's blog.

Also, I've gotten a couple offers for alternate hosting services so I can get the crap away from BlogSnot before it's too late. I'm seriously considering those. Anything to get me outta here.

Anyway, I don't think I'll post anything else tonight. I need to take a quick break from blogging, but I'll be back tomorrow. Of course, now that I'm on Christmas vacation, I'll have lots of time to do all kinds of new things, so SIT should provide plenty of quality material in the near future. I even signed up for a free 1 minute audioblog post, which I will waste as soon as possible just because I can. Until then, continue to blog safely.

Posted by CD at 10:55 PM | Comments (2)

BlogSpot Sucks. Get Me Outta Here!!!!

Seriously. I got linked on like 3 different pages tonight, and the frickin' thing shut down. I only got 2 HITS ALL NIGHT!!!! This could've been my biggest day so far, and the F***IN' IDIOTS SHUT DOWN THE HOSTING SERVICE!!!!! Anyone want to host a blog on their domain? I'll pay you back in a few years...

Anyway, this is my last post until around 10 PM on Saturday. I'm going back to Pittsburgh for Christmas vacation. Once I'm there, I'll have all kinds of cool posts for you. That's a guarantee.

Posted by CD at 02:47 AM | Comments (3)

December 12, 2003

Tag Team Fisking

Okay, Mike the Marine got the ball rolling, and now it's my turn to pick up where he left off. The article in question is this: 51 Reasons Why Americans Should Elect Howard Dean. It's my job to fisk numbers 11-20, which I will!

11) There is nothing in Dean's proposals that would weaken our military or intelligence forces.
That's because he hasn't made any proposals other than doing the opposite of what the current administration is doing.
He supports a strong and vigilant military.
Unless a Republican is in charge of it, and/or it actually has to be deployed at some point.
12) Dean had a bad back and provided that evidence to the draft board assessing his fitness for duty. Though he continued to participate in physical activities afterward, like skiing, the draft board felt his physical infirmaties disqualified him from service and granted him a medical deferment. He broke no laws, he did not fake the records and he did not defect to escape service.
Ooookay...wouldn't it have made more sense to REST if he had a bad back instead of frickin' SKIING? Just because he didn't break the law doesn't mean he didn't deceive anyone, but I guess "Dr. Dean" knows best, right?
His critics suggest he acted dishonorably...
Why ever could that be?
...while neglecting to mention that evidence exists that Bush failed to report to duty after a military transfer and spent the last of his time in service working on another man's campaign for office, while technically AWOL. One got a legit deferment. One skipped out in violation of the law, during a time of war.
Actually, this "evidence" you speak of is nothing more than a myth that has been debunked multiple times, like here, for example. Are you familiar with these things called "facts?" Get used to 'em.
13) Dean was raised with a privileged family background, as was Bush. No evidence exists to suggest that Dean's parents intervened when he got into police trouble, while evidence suggests Bush's father did that for him. In Bush's business endeavors and government service, it appears that political supporters of his father provided him a great number of favors or direct financial assistance. That does not indicate anything unethical occurred but it contrasts with Dean's record of self-sufficiency in his medical and political careers.
And your proof of these claims is...where? Are you criticizing President Bush for having connections? I'm a communications major, and they teach us that connections are a good thing! Have I been lied to, just like the horrible neocons lied to America? OH NO! I feel so victimized! Sarcasm aside, I don't see how this proves the superiority of one candidate over the other, especially since there's no evidence presented. Have you people heard of hyperlinks?
14) Despite Dean's privileged background, he well recognizes that part of the American Dream requires access to opportunity.
Unless you're rich already, in which case you're an un-American thief and should immediately surrender your hard-earned cash to the government so they can redistribute it among the proletariat lower classes.
And that a critical key to opportunity comes from the access to broad educational opportunities. Due to the rising costs of college education, he recognizes that college is becoming less affordable and that opportunity has been threatened or lost to many. And he'd like to correct that.
REALLY? I thought he wanted to make it worse! Thank you for once again stating the obvious without actually explaining why Howie would do a better job. By the way, aren't a lot of universities private? How exactly is he going to control the funds of private organizations? Hmmm...
15) Dean also recognizes that in preparation for secondary education that a solid primary education is needed.
Yet another valuable bit of knowledge. I thought effective primary education consisted of hitting kids in the head with bricks and feeding them ground up gym mats (shameless Simpsons ripoff).
Yet he feels, correctly, that there are fundamental flaws in the No Child Left Behind Act which have proven to be an ineffective reponse to the problems. Rather than imposing a "top down" prescription to correct the problems some schools have, Dean would turn to educators and parents to seek workable solutions likely to yield greater successes.
Such as...? My understanding of Democratic educational policy is as follows: "If the students aren't learning math, teach them about diversity. If they're not learning English, teach them about tolerance. If they're not learning science, teach them about multiculturalism."

Just to be fair, my parents are teachers (and Republicans, incidentally), and they don't like the No Child Left Behind policies either, but give us an alternate solution instead of just saying that Dean would do it differently.

16) Howard Dean is not some 'tax-and-spend liberal...'
This is called redundancy, children. his opponents keep trying to claim. He has an exemplary record of balancing budgets as the longtime Governor of Vermont. He is fiscally thrifty; he returns from the campaign trail and does his own laundry when he can clearly afford to have it sent out. There's an admirable quality to that sort of self-disciplined behaviur...
Way to check your spelling. Must be that liberal edumacashun.
...that come to him reflexively. And while he recognizes that a President has to advance the best interests of the nation and that sometimes requires deficit spending, he's watched this President turn the country's largest surplus in history into its largest deficit in just three years. He thinks that's wrong, as I do.
Well, you know what? I think you're wrong, as they do:
Stocks End Up, Aided by United Tech, Coke
Factory Growth Fastest in 20 Years
US manufacturers hit 20-year record pace
2004 Will Be the U.S.'S Best Year Economically in Last 20 Years...
Oh, and don't forget about the Dow Jones going above 10,000. "Tax increases for Amerikkka!"
17) He's spoken in favor of repealling the tax cuts Bush provided, because they've contributed to that deficit at the wrong time, while the benefits have largely gone to the wealthy who need it least.
There are so many problems in that sentence that correcting them all would give me a fatal aneurysm.
Rescinding a poorly timed tax cut may be spun as a tax increase, but it's more correctly called the rescinding of a bad choice.
'Paying-as-you-go' is a responsible fiscal practice that requires the capacity to raise taxes and lower taxes at different times, according to need.
Can you say "socialism," boys and girls?
Dean's record of fiscal responsibility, including two income tax cuts and a sales tax cut, clearly earns my trust over the biggest deficit-spender in our history.
Wait, now tax cuts are good and spending is bad? Would you like some syrup with that waffle?
It doesn't take a math genius to figure out, either.
A simple review of the records of Bush and Dean would demonstrate this to anyone who spends a couple of hours researching them.
Well, so much for your argument. Good luck dealing with the nonexistent economic quagmire.
18) From the time Bush began the buildup to the Iraq war, oil and gas prices have soared.
Examples? Sources? Anything? I haven't even heard this one yet.
For most Americans the small amount gained from the tax cuts has been spent entirely on increased fuel costs.
Uh, family spent the tax cuts (or "refunds," as they used to be called) on furniture. I don't remember us ever having a gas budget.
Dean knows this and knows that without the war and without the tax cut, most would still have the same amount of available income.
WITHOUT the tax cut, they would have MORE money? Dean must know something most of us don't. It must be nice living in your own little world.
19) Dean does crossword puzzles. So does my Mom. I like that in both of them.
Hey, Dean's also a douchebag. So was Bill Clinton. Neither of them is president. I like that in both of them.
20) Dean doesn't come across as an authoritarian issuing stern pronouncements from on high. He comes across like a normal guy, displaying emotions like anger and sadness and hopefulness and happiness like regular folks do when discussing things important to them.
Many politicians are more measured and cautious, sometimes erudite and pontificating, sometimes arrogant and threatening. Dean comes across like a passionate Joe Everybody.
Joe Everybody? That sounds a lot like a reality show. Actually, when you think about it, Dean is like a reality show. He gets your attention, draws a large audience, and then does whatever he has to in order to keep them, even if it means pandering to the lowest common denominator or fabricating stories. And, just like a reality show, most intelligent people tire of him sooner or later as they realize that he's nothing more than a novelty and move on to things that really matter.

This is fun.

Posted by CD at 08:01 PM | Comments (2)

And Now, in the "People Who Are Funnier than Me" Department... 

Check out this post from Allah Is In the House. It's friggin' hilarious!

Posted by CD at 06:26 PM | Comments (2)

Filthy Lie Assignment: The Final Comment 

Okay, I've decided to actually participate in this week's filthy lie, What was that final comment that made Evil Glenn snap?

It seems our friend Evil Glenn used to have comments on his blog, but one day, somebody left a comment so damaging that it forced him to eliminate reader participation.

Well, I did a little fabrication fact-finding, and I discovered some very interesting information. First of all, Puppy Blender used to use BlogSpeak for his comments, just like me. It made my skin crawl when I discovered that I have something in common with The Evil One, but I forced myself to continue for the good of The Alliance.

What I found was amazing. It wasn't one, but three comments that drove Glenn over the edge! What's more, I was able to find a long-lost link to the comments themselves.

Ladies and gentlemen of the blogosphere, I give you...THE FINAL COMMENTS!

So, now we know some of Evil Glenn's weaknesses: he can't pay his bills on time, he can't stand sad little children, and he apparently likes to watch grown men perform Britney Spears routines.

This is a sick human being, folks.

I just noticed something about the comments. Evil Glenn is so bad at managing his services that he made it look like those were posted this afternoon. Don't be fooled by the date and time! These are completely fake authentic!

Posted by CD at 04:34 PM | Comments (4)

Showcase Vote 

Okay, I'm back once again with my vote in this week's showcase. Here it is:

The Iraq War will be a Success from Anti-anti

I know, I'm a sucker for pro-war stuff, but this really is an awesome post, and I learned a few things while reading it. Check it out immediately.

Posted by CD at 02:38 PM | Comments (2)

Just for Fun... 

Here's what the SIT tagline looks like when you put it through the iGhetto Jive Translator:

"Yo' ass be now enterin' da damn realm o' semi-intelligent thoughts. Wank,
wank. Keep yo' mind jimmey an' yo' mout' shut!"

Yes, I've been done with college work for 2 hours and I'm bored already.

By the way, I need a new tagline. The one I'm using is fine, but it's just a random phrase that I wrote on the inside cover of the original "Book of Semi-Intelligent Thoughts" and doesn't really mean anything.

Suggestions? I just might use a good one...

Posted by CD at 02:13 PM | Comments (3)

It's Over! 

I got up at 7:30. I took the philosophy final. I came back. I finished my writing portfolio. I turned it in. And now...


Sorry about that. I've never lived through an entire semester of college before. It's good to be done for now.

Anyway, I'll be going home tomorrow, so don't expect any new posts between 2 PM and 10 PM. Today, however, is now totally free, so some new stuff might come up. Apparently, Mike the Marine is fisking part of that "51 Reasons Why Americans Should Elect Howard Dean" thing, so I don't know where that'll go. I may cover parts of it, and I may cover my favorites at random. I've already come up with some good responses to some of it, but I want to wait a little while to actually post anything.

I actually don't have anything new to write about at the moment. I just wanted to brag about being done with work. Only 3 and a half years to go!

Posted by CD at 12:58 PM | Comments (3)

Strange Google Search Terms to End the Day 

Hey, how about something a little lighter? Here are a few search terms that somehow brought people to my site today:

"excuse letter sample for non remittance of homework"

"here are some song lyrics i wrote"

"charlie daniels the fag song lyrics"

"charlie daniels band lyrics fag song"

"'Mickey Mouse Monopoly' marxist theory"

Don't ask me why they came here from any of those. Except for the second one. I actually used that sentence. I don't know why someone was searching for it.

Okay, I have a philosophy final at 8 AM tomorrow (yes, 8 AM), so I have to study now. I'll end with one more question: What is this "Charlie Daniels fag song" they're looking for? Anybody know?

Posted by CD at 12:20 AM | Comments (3)

December 11, 2003

Up for Grabs 

Dang it, dang it, dang it, I wish I had time to fisk this, but I have a writing portfolio to work on. Anybody up to the challenge?

51 Reasons Why Americans Should Elect Howard Dean

If nobody else takes it on, I'd be happy to do it when I go home this weekend. We'll see.

Posted by CD at 09:33 PM | Comments (3)

Useful Advice 

Okay, people, here's a tip: If you're going to sign the guestmap, make it seem like you actually read something and aren't just trying to draw people to your own page. If you mess with the map, you will be banninated (Homestar Runner, anyone?) and your entry will be deleted. I interpret that as traffic whoring and will not tolerate it. Thank you.

Posted by CD at 08:51 PM | Comments (3)

Abstaining from Common Sense 

I knew that if I surfed long enough, something would make me angry. I came across this post at Bark Bark Woof Woof through a link at the Miserable Failure Coalition page. It's about a new abstinence education grant or something that's going to some schools. I'm about to respond to it. Isn't that exciting?

First of all, the post is entitled, "The Religious Reich Is Endangering the Lives of Our Children," so you can tell what perspective it's written from, but I need to cover both sides of this issue. The post provides an excerpt from the grant, taken from this source. Here's a sample:

Eligibility is open to public and private entities, including faith-based and community organizations, which develop and/or provide an abstinence program consistent with the definition of "abstinence education'' in section 510 of the Social Security Act. In addition, the entity must agree not to provide a participating adolescent any other education regarding sexual conduct in the same setting.
All right, I think abstinence is definitely the way to go, but there's a problem here, namely the fact that they're not allowed to teach anything else. There are some good lessons in the program, such as these points:
(C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only
certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted
diseases, and other associated health problems;
(D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the
context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
(E) teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage
is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
(F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have
harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society...
Definitely good things to learn. I'll cover that later, but again, the problem is that they're only teaching abstinence and nothing else. You have to educate students in the basics so they at least know what to abstain FROM.

I was going to write about this in a different context earlier, but I can use it here for now. This kind of thing reminds me of the Knights Who Say "Ni" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. You know...

"Don't say that word!"

"What word?"

"I cannot tell, suffice to say 'tis one of the words the Knights Who Say Ni cannot hear!"

"Well, how can we not say the word if you don't tell us what it is?"

That seems like a pretty accurate parallel. Once again, as a conservative Christian, I'm all about abstinence, but sex education needs to be taken far enough that people know the facts about sexual behavior and have full knowledge of what to do, what not to do, what the consequences are, and so on.

Now, on to the other side of the argument. Like I said, the post in question is obviously against abstinence education, but uses much different reasoning to come to that conclusion. The poster, as you can see by reading it, sent a letter to a Planned Parenthood volunteer (don't even get me started on those sick freaks), and has their response on the blog. Some of the information given there is interesting and demonstrates the lack of knowledge that necessitates sex education programs, but once again, the logic is all wrong.

But I must tell you that to go into our clinic on a Thursday afternoon is to see how needed real information on sexuality is, as well as a source for getting either the pill or condoms (we give the latter out for free). That's the day for our Teen Clinic and the waiting room is standing room only with little room to move.
Now, the question is, whose fault is that? Is it the fault of education programs that don't give people the proper information, or is it the fault of a general lack of common sense in the younger population, or a lack of moral messages, or lack of parenting, etc.? This blogger seems to have an answer:
This is what our government, at the behest of the Religious Reich, is doing to "protect" the morals of our teenaged children: teaching ignorance and preaching abstinence. The teachers can't even talk about anything else, and meanwhile the HIV / STD infection rate is on the rise again...
Yes, that's right, it's all because of abstinence education. It couldn't possibly be because the entertainment world has decided that all a woman has to do to be a famous singer is go on stage half naked and dance around like an idiot.

It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that children are being bombarded constantly with messages from society and the media that tell them that if they don't go out and f**k everything with a pulse, they're a social reject and will never be able to live a happy life, so they might as well just go live in a monastery. Using the word "virgin" as a derogatory term is a sign of social progress!

It couldn't be because too many parents are trying to relive the "free love" period and don't even know the definition of restraint or morality. It's not their fault, even though they have no idea how to talk to their children about these issues because they made the wrong decisions years ago but don't want to seem like "prudes."

It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the fact that we're teaching more and more detailed sexual education programs to younger and younger children. Check out another quote about the recommended curriculum from Planned Victimhood Parenthood:

...the individual teachers can request a session that [our educator] gives to her junior high and upper grades. The age that should be getting it is, of course, fifth grade or sixth at the latest. But that's pushing it.

Honestly, this is ridiculous. My philosophy TA said that his school distributed bags of condoms when he was in fifth grade. Yes, he really did say that. Yes, I remembered it correctly. No, I'm not exaggerating. BAGS...OF...CONDOMS...TO...TEN...YEAR...OLD...CHILDREN.

The rise of AIDS couldn't have anything to do with that. And don't even mention homosexuals. They're not at risk at all. If you even imply that gays are responsible for ONE case of the disease, you're a homophobic bigot and should be locked up for your horrifyingly intolerant views.

No, none of those has anything to do with pregnancy, AIDS, STDs, or any other problem. It's the abstinence. It's always the abstinence. Here's the money quote from our ignorant liberal blogger friend:

Condoms have a failure rate of less than one percent. The failure rate of abstinence is a lot higher.
Wrong. DEAD. WRONG. First of all, birth control pills have a failure rate of less than one percent. Condoms can go anywhere from 75% to 95% effectiveness, but there's no consensus that I know of. That's called a myth.

Oh, and the failure rate of abstinence is always 0%. As soon as you have sex, it's not abstinence anymore.

It's ignorance. Pure and simple.

Posted by CD at 08:33 PM | Comments (2)


Have you ever had one of those days where you couldn't think of anything to write about, so you just wrote about not having anything to write about?

So have I.

Posted by CD at 03:22 PM | Comments (2)

Best. Nigerian Scam E-mail. EVER! 

I know. It's 2:40 in the morning (at least it is if you're in New York like me), but I just got what is possibly the best spam e-mail I have ever seen. I'm not even going to say anything about it. You have to see it for yourself.


From:Mr.David Mark
Telephone number:27727765670.

Ref. Nnumber: 132/756/4007
Batch Number: 538901527-BB67


We are pleased to inform you of the result of the Lottery Winners
International programs held on the December 1st,2003. Your e-mail address attached to ticket number 27511465896-6410 with serial number 3772-510 drew lucky numbers 7-14-88-23-31-45 which
consequently won in the 1st category, you have therefore been approved for a lump sum pay out of US$ 1,000,000.00 (One Million United States Dollars)


Due to mix up of some numbers and names, we ask that you keep your winning information confidential until your claims has been processed and your money Remitted to you. This is part of our security protocol to avoid double claiming and unwarranted abuse of this program by
some participants.All participants were selected through a computer ballot system drawn
from over 20,000 company and 30,000,000 individual email addresses and names from all over the world. This promotional program takes place every three year.

This lottery was promoted by the software corporation to compensate some few individuals with website and email addresses,we hope with part of your winning you will take part in our next year USD50 million international lottery. Remember, all winning must be claimed not later than 23 December 2003.After this date all unclaimed funds will be included in the next stake.Please note in order to avoid unnecessary delays and complications please remember to quote your reference number and batch numbers in all correspondence. Furthermore, should there be any change of address please inform me as soon as you receive this mail.Congratulations once more from our members of staff and thank you for being part of our promotional program.Please kindly Forward me Your Full name and your Telephone and Fax numbers,Contact Address,Any I.D of yours as soon as i receive this
details,I will gave you the contact of your payment centre who will pay you.

Note: Anybody under the age of 18 is automatically disqualified.

Sincerely yours,

Mr.David Mark
Lottery Coordinator
Telephone number:27727765670.

Posted by CD at 02:40 AM | Comments (2)

Even More Song Lyrics 

Well, once again, I was going through some of my old posts, and I really think that I was writing better material in October than I am now. Maybe after finals, I can come up with something better. I do have a lot of stuff planned, and I'll give you a preview on Friday.

However, I want to end the day with another song that I wrote over the summer. This one's about tolerance and how it's been twisted to be synonymous with acceptance. Remember, I do want to use these lyrics someday to form a rock band with a conservative edge (you don't see many of those), but being a drummer and everything, I couldn't sing 'em, so that's kind of a problem. Here's another song by CD (remember, these lyrics are my intellectual property, and if you steal them, I will find you and severely hurt you. Just thought I'd let you know ;)

Here come the Thought Police, trying to stamp out all the bad words
Enforcing their beliefs and setting such a double standard
Anything goes and all opinions are okay
As long as it's something they would say
It's always so one sided, they have all the control
So why should they stop now when they're on such a roll?
But they can't get rid of me, 'cause I'm on a mission
And this is what I have to say to all this division
I'd rather live in the past than in a future where I'm silenced
You try to shut me up with your childish verbal violence
So call me old fashioned, call me what you will
Just spare me the insulting overkill
Crying and denying speech when someone else offends you
Doesn't make you right even though you may pretend to
Win a victory when Big Brother takes your side
And you'll lose in the end no matter how hard you have tried
What you don't seem to realize as you rant and complain
And claim that you can feel everyone's pain
Is that you're even worse than the people you've been fighting
When all you ever want to do is run around inciting
Protest and unrest and making a huge mess
When it comes to intolerance, it's simply no contest
You won't even let the other side have a voice
And yet you go on calling it "freedom of choice!"

I can't tolerate your tolerance
When I disagree you take offense
Why is it that you can call me names
But you get upset when I do the same?
You'd better learn to accept my philosophy
'Cause not everyone lives in the world you see
So I'll keep speaking my mind and letting my thoughts free
And you'll just have to learn how to tolerate me.

Anyone interested in singing and/or playing guitar for a right-wing rock band?



I didn't think so.

Posted by CD at 12:11 AM | Comments (3)

December 10, 2003

New Syracuse Related Link 

All right, I have a communications final in 5 hours, so I have to do a lot of reading, but I've got a brand new link for you to enjoy. After months of preparation, the SU drumline website is finally up. Unfortunately, the media section isn't done yet, but the member section is complete and ready to go. Check it out if you want. There are some pretty funny quotes in the member bios. Plus, you can find out what the "D" in "CD" stands for (if you didn't know already) by going to the bass drum bios. Isn't that exciting? Of course it is. Check it out if you want. I'll let you know when the media section is done. Here's the link (which I'm also adding to the sidebar):

SU Drumline

Posted by CD at 02:04 PM | Comments (2)

Final Thought For the Day 

Okay, I'm probably annoying the crap out of my roommate by still being on the computer now, but I had to post some observational college humor, direct from Day Hall at SU.

Anyway, here's the scenario: The RA's on my floor put up a sign for finals week telling people, among other things, not to congregate in the hall. A couple hours ago, 5 or 6 people gathered in the hallway to talk, directly in front of the sign telling them not to congregate in the hall.

I love college.

Especially finals.

...okay, maybe not finals.

...I'm going to sleep now.

Are you still here?

Posted by CD at 03:26 AM | Comments (3)

December 09, 2003

More Song Lyrics 

All right, as promised, here are some song lyrics I wrote over the summer. I've already posted my pro-war song, "Justified," which you can read here, so I figured I might as well put up some more.

This one isn't a war song, but it does have some political aspects to it. However, it's mostly about my view of post-modernism and moral relativism. There's no particular reason that I'm posting it at this specific time other than the simple fact that I need something new on here. I'm also planning on posting another song I wrote about so-called "tolerance" and why it's intolerant. Remember: if you disagree with any of my opinions, that's why they're mine and not yours. Here's another song for you:

Spirit of the Age
When did our compass go astray, with people choosing their own way
Deciding what is best for them, with no fear of their choices being condemned
They say there is no wrong or right, and accuse others of being too uptight
But what makes you happy isn't always the way to go, as any look at our society will show
Right to privacy is their rallying cry, telling us to just let sleeping dogs lie
If you think it's right, then it must be true, and you can't tell anyone else what to do
Because their opinions are valid too, even if they hold a contradictory view
But it's impossible for everyone to be right. Do you think day is the same as night?
I just can't relate to this post-modern state where everything is relative and truth is out of date
The age in which we're living seems entirely too forgiving
I wouldn't be surprised if everything was legalized
That didn't cause a person pain, even if it seemed insane
After all, the whole purpose of this life is personal gain
All people seem to care about is what they possess
They forget about the ones they destroy in the process
But whatever makes you feel good can't possibly be bad
At least that's what they want us to believe, but we've been had!

It's the spirit of the age, it's a sign of the times
Everybody gets away with their victimless crimes
It's all about your preference and the rules don't apply
If you're not hurting anybody, there's no need to ask why

Okay, there's another one of my songs. Again, if you disagree, remember that this is coming from a conservative Christian viewpoint. Also, if the idea of an 18-year-old male preaching morality and restraint frightens you...then I have accomplished my mission.


Posted by CD at 05:56 PM | Comments (3)

Just Killin' Time 

I managed to read for an entire hour before I got bored and had to go back to the computer. The interesting thing that I realized earlier, however, is that I'm trying to avoid reading and writing guessed it: READING AND WRITING. Blogging for procrastinational (is that even a word?) purposes doesn't make a lot of sense when you look closesly at it.

All right, just a few quick things to put here in order to keep the blog going. First of all, I noticed a post at the Miserable Failure Coalition page about Dubya. Apparently, they don't like the fact that he gets all his news from aides, and because he receives information "secondhand," he can't be considered informed. Well, I've got news for you: Unless you're actually there to witness an event, any information you get from the news IS secondhand. Think about that. I'd rather get my news from members of my staff than some closet-commie newscaster.

Also, there's a new article at DU about "Bush hatred" and why it's really just people expressing their dislike for the president. The article then goes on to "justify" this by calling President Bush an evil neocon with no mental ability (not their exact words, but the general sentiment is there). I'm not going to link directly to it, since that would make me partially responsible for loss of stomach contents as a result of someone else reading it, but you can go there through the "silliness" links on the right and see for yourself.

That's it for now. I'm going to go get something to eat. When I come back, I'll post some more song lyrics that I wrote over the summer that I think express my views of morality pretty well.

Posted by CD at 04:57 PM | Comments (2)

An Observation 

I don't have anything to do tomorrow (another one of the few positive things about final exam week), so I was going through some of my older posts just to compare them to the current ones, and I realized that I wrote some of my best stuff in my first 2 weeks of blogging before I had any readers. That can't be a good sign.

I don't know if there's a point to this, but it struck me as something worthy of posting. Since I have to read all day tomorrow (big communications final Wednesday night), I recommend taking a look at some of the older stuff. I know most people coming by here only read the front page, but I really do think that I wrote some of my best material when I started, since I hadn't worn out any issues or opinions yet and didn't think anyone was actually seeing it.

That's all for now. Sign the guestmap (yes, I am going to keep putting that at the end of posts).

Posted by CD at 02:15 AM | Comments (3)

December 08, 2003

Showcase Voters 

As I do every week, I'm taking the code provided by Bad Money and putting it here so everyone who voted in the showcase will name displayed on my site, I guess. Seriously, check out some of these other blogs. They're probably better than mine. Probably...

IMAO (550 links) - 3517 visits/day V
Anti-Idiotarian Rotweiler (494 links) - 2941 visits/day V
Blackfive - The Paratrooper of Love (230 links) - 1382 visits/day V
Flying Chair (120 links) - 1159 visits/day V
Anger Management (136 links) - 483 visits/day V
Simon World (69 links) - 403 visits/day V
Patriot Paradox (123 links) - 279 visits/day V
GS-7 (44 links) - 245 visits/day V
The Inscrutable American (100 links) - 244 visits/day V
Ramblings of Silver Blue (138 links) - 218 visits/day V
Bad Money (146 links) - 215 visits/day V
Practical Penumbra (229 links) - 194 visits/day V
The Alliance (164 links) - 188 visits/day V
the evangelical outpost (125 links) - 183 visits/day V
Being American in T.O. (87 links) - 164 visits/day V
Who Tends The Fires (106 links) - 105 visits/day V
Pardon My English (90 links) - 102 visits/day V
An Englishman's Castle (59 links) - 94 visits/day V
BigStick (67 links) - 85 visits/day V
The S-Train Canvass (62 links) - 79 visits/day V
physics geek (69 links) - 74 visits/day V
Idiot Villager (53 links) - 70 visits/day V
Frizzen Sparks (55 links) - 68 visits/day V
Left Coast Conservative (139 links) - 64 visits/day V
From the Halls to the Shores (68 links) - 57 visits/day V
The Everlasting Phelps (65 links) - 56 visits/day V
TacJammer (86 links) - 54 visits/day V
VRWC, Inc. (90 links) - 49 visits/day V
The Patriette (84 links) - 47 visits/day V
Semi-Intelligent Thoughts (68 links) - 44 visits/day V
Wince and Nod (83 links) - 39 visits/day V
BLATHER REVIEW (81 links) - 39 visits/day V
Five Wasps (52 links) - 38 visits/day V
Civilization Calls (51 links) - 38 visits/day V
curi's domain (57 links) - 37 visits/day V
Grim's Hall (52 links) - 29 visits/day V
Cavalier Attitude (43 links) - 29 visits/day V
CandyUniverse (84 links) - 28 visits/day V
The Gleeful Extremist (45 links) - 27 visits/day V
Elegance Against Ignorance (67 links) - 22 visits/day V
Hypocrisy and Hypotheses (59 links) - 22 visits/day V
All Encompassingly (59 links) - 21 visits/day V
Hoppings of Roxette Bunny (58 links) - 21 visits/day V
Irreconcilable Musings (54 links) - 18 visits/day V
Shameless Self-Promotion (49 links) - 14 visits/day V
Newmanisms (53 links) - 11 visits/day V
Cannon's Canon (54 links) - 10 visits/day V
Pinto's Blog (37 links) - 7 visits/day V
Interested-Participant (106 links) - visits/day V (54 links) - visits/day V Political Commentary (117 links) - visits/day V
The New American Revolutionist (51 links) - visits/day V


Sign the guestmap.

Posted by CD at 11:04 PM | Comments (3)

Good Reading 

John Hawkins of Right Wing News has his list of Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States for 2003. Go check it out.

Posted by CD at 06:19 PM | Comments (2)

Another Random Update 

I don't like being up this early when I don't have to be, but that's a long story, so I'll spare you the details. The important thing is that, thanks to some more Alliance blogrolls, I'm now a "Marauding Marsupial" in the Ecosystem! I'm moving up toward the major leagues now.

In other, less positive news, the Miserable Failure Coalition beat The Alliance in the Showcase, but we got 52 out of 101, which is some of the best participation ever (Frank didn't vote until I threatened him with monkeys). Maybe next week, we can win.

All right, I have a Spanish final at 12:30, so I should probably be studying for that. Hasta luego.

Posted by CD at 10:34 AM | Comments (2)

December 07, 2003

John F***in' Kerry 

Why are they making such a big deal of John Kerry's use of profanity? From the way they're portraying it, you'd think he went all South Park on Dubya. It was just one word! "Kerry Blasts Bush!" No, he didn't. Stop giving the French-looking idiot so much attention. If people find out that he doesn't like Bush, they might vote for him. Oh, and he served in Vietnam.

Posted by CD at 11:51 PM | Comments (2)

Posting Again

And it's about friggin' time, too. I couldn't get to the publishing page for SIT all afternoon. It kept telling me there was an error or it couldn't connect. I really don't get it. Anyway, I just have a real quick update.

Thanks to some new Alliance blogrolls and a little cleaning up at TTLB, I am now an "Adorable Little Rodent" in the Ecosystem. I guess that's a good thing. I'm still eligible for "best Flappy Bird" in the Wizbang Blogger Awards though, since those are based on ranking as of the beginning of the month.

One more thing: I strongly encourage you to sign the guestmap on the right. That is all.

Posted by CD at 06:09 PM | Comments (3)

Posting for the Sake of Posting 

Okay. It's 1:30 in the morning, and I figured I should probably update the blog. I was going to write something earlier, but that never materialized. The problem is that I felt inclined to write something funny, but then I remembered that humor isn't exactly my strong suit. Oh well. Anyway, just a couple quick updates.

First of all, there's something I should've posted earlier, but never got around to. I haven't mentioned it yet, but I love Fark Photoshop contests. This one, however, is quite possibly the best ever, because they made fun of Howard Dean. Check it out immediately.

Secondly, I've been included in the collection of Studmuffins of Conservatism over at Evangelical Outpost. I've never considered myself a "stud," but hey, I'm available, ladies.

That was just sad. I think I'm done for the day, and probably the week (more or less). Yo tengo que estudiar mucho para los examenes finales (Spanish is on Monday). I'll try to update at least once a day, but don't expect anything huge.

Posted by CD at 01:30 AM | Comments (2)

December 06, 2003


HA! Syracuse beat Notre Dame! Has YOUR team beaten Notre Dame?

...actually, judging by their performance this year, your team probably has beaten Notre Dame...unless your team didn't PLAY Notre Dame...which would mean that your team HASN'T BEATEN NOTRE DAME! HA!

Sorry. I'm tired and hungry. I'll be back later tonight.

Posted by CD at 05:20 PM | Comments (2)



Posted by CD at 01:09 AM | Comments (3)

That Was Unexpected (+ a VERY IMPORTANT message)

Wow. I've been nominated for best "Flappy Bird" blog in the 2003 Weblog Awards (thanks to Susie for the nomination). I didn't see that coming! So, knowing that, go over and vote using the link I'm providing at the bottom of this post (and eventually somewhere in the template). You don't have to vote for SIT, but if you're a fellow blogger or enjoy the blogosphere, you should participate in this. I will if I get the chance.

On that note, I should inform you now that blogging will be extremely limited for the next 7 days. I have to perform at the football game tomorrow (which you should watch on ABC at 1 PM EST), and then I have final exams for the next week. Therefore, I need to stop blogging all day and study. A lot. I mean A. FREAKING. LOT. I have to read 2 books, learn about Spanish conjugation, come up with intelligent responses to philosophical questions, study the development of television, advertising, and the Internet, evaluate my writing from the semester... ... ... you get the point.

I don't really enjoy having to take time off at this particular moment, I can tell you right now. If you'll tolerate some shameless self-promotion, I think I'm starting to really "break out," so to speak, in the blog world. The combination of the Carnival of the Vanities, the Donktionary, and now the award nomination has gotten me a lot more hits, and new people are starting to link to the site. I had over 40 visitors today. ON A FRIDAY! I usually get less than 20 on Friday. I have a slight fear that slowing down now will put my chances of moving up in serious jeopardy. However, my college education is slightly more important than dispensing free ice cream to a few dozen people a day, so I've made my choice.

In order to make up for the coming lack of posting, I will be blogging a lot over Christmas break. Starting December 14, I will be at home basically all the time with nothing interesting to do, so I'll basically be at the computer for most of my waking hours. I have a lot of stuff planned. For example, I'm going to try and participate in all the Alliance assignments. I also have an extended piece I'm planning to write about why I'm NOT a "South Park Republican." In addition, I want to post some more lyrics from songs I've written just for the heck of it (although I may end up doing that this week to save time). In other words, don't abandon SIT this week. Just be patient, and I promise I'll kick it up a notch later in the month. Really.

Okay, I have to stop now. Band practice starts at 8:00 tomorrow morning, so I should get some sleep. Remember to watch the game. It should be good. Now, here is a link to the contest. Check it out:

2003 Weblog Awards

Posted by CD at 01:08 AM | Comments (2)

December 05, 2003

Votes N'at

Don't know what "n'at" means? Don't be a nebby jagoff. It just means you're probably not from Pittsburgh. Anyway, I'm casting some votes for the TTLB showcase so The Alliance doesn't get overtaken by the League of Miserable Failures again.

I'll be perfectly honest here; The showcase is very unimpressive this week. Seriously. The only good political post is the current leader, which basically makes Al Franken look like an idiot. I'm all for that, but it was edited after submission for voting, and that's just not right. I'm sorry, but I just can't vote for a post that had to be changed in order to impress more people. Also...USE BLOCKQUOTES, DANG IT! I can't tell where Franken stops and the fisking begins.

So, because I can't vote for any of the political stuff, I'm going NP. My first vote is for a short but hilarious post from Ripe Bananas entitled Vegan Marshmallows Roasting Over an Open Fire. Be sure to read the post directly under this, too. Good stuff.

My second vote goes to an entry that seems to have been totally ignored by everyone else, so I'm going to give it a little attention. Check out the entry from Dogtulosba, ink. (whatever that means) entitled Right Behind Me. Honestly, I disagree with a lot of the other stuff on this particular blog (WESLEY CLARK?!!), but anyone who's willing to fight against ignorant cell phone users is worthy of my vote.

Have I mentioned that I F***ING HATE CELL PHONES?

Okay, I have to go back to enjoying 24/7 quiet hours, the only good thing about final exam week. Later.

Posted by CD at 10:44 PM | Comments (3)

Totally Random Thought

Okay, still not much to blog about other than the fact that I got to see one of the new $20 bills up close and personal for the first time (looks a bit Canadian...), but I did have an interesting thought while I was walking around earlier.

If President Bush was assassinated, shot down over Iraq, etc., what would be the general reaction from the left? Would they be...
A) Respectful?
B) Mournful?
C) Indifferent?
D) Outwardly respectful and mournful, but secretly happy?
E) Happier than a Palestinian on 9/11?

Just a thought.

Posted by CD at 07:00 PM | Comments (2)

Important Message

I have 3 hours to write a 5 page paper on terrorism, so I won't be blogging this afternoon. I'll be back tonight with whatever I can come up with. Also...

Posted by CD at 01:25 PM | Comments (2)

December 04, 2003


To whomever came to my site by searching for "hobos are frickin awesome" on Google...I feel sorry for you.

Posted by CD at 08:39 PM | Comments (2)

Reminder #2

Hey, sorry I'm not posting much, but there's not a whole lot going on. Anyway...


Posted by CD at 05:44 PM | Comments (2)

Random Updates

Coming up with titles is hard. Anyway, just a few quick things for now. First of all, I got over 100 hits yesterday thanks to the Carnival of the Vanities. I'll definitely be participating in that again. Also, the Donktionary definitions are up at Alliance headquarters, so be sure to go over and check those out. I'll be going through the entries and picking out some of my favorites for the complete Donktionary sometime after final exams.

Secondly, something interesting happened in my communications lecture today. We were talking about the Internet, and the professor briefly mentioned blogs. I figured he would ask if anyone in the class had a blog, and...I was right. He said, "does anyone in here blog?" And NOBODY RAISED THEIR HAND BUT ME! That's amazing. In a class of 78 COMMUNICATIONS students, I'm the only one with a blog. I feel special. It's interesting that most of the class had never even heard the word "blog." They call it a "live journal," and only one other student has one of those. I'm not sure if they're the same. The TA said to "check out," so maybe a few new ones will be popping up soon.

And finally, in the stupidity department, I slept through my Spanish audio exam this morning, so now I have to call my professor later and arrange to take it on Monday. I HATE TALKING ON THE PHONE! I can never understand people on the frickin' thing. Of course, my professor has an accent, so that's going to make it even harder. That just sucks.

I have to go to philosophy now, so I'll wrap this up. By the way, my philosophy professor made me very happy the other day with something he said in class. He spends a lot of time in Paris, and he said that, in his opinion, too many French people are "racist and anti-semitic." He's black and Jewish, so I guess he would know. Stupid France.

Posted by CD at 12:46 PM | Comments (2)

December 03, 2003

Whatever Happened to Subtlety?

CNN, I have just one thing to say: YOU. SUCK. I was looking at the headlines on the Apple homepage, and one of them was this: Seven-year-old boy corrects Bush.

First of all, it was sandwiched in between stories about cannibalism, war, and murder, so that says a lot about the priorities of the idiots compiling these lists. However, what really makes me mad is the fact that they chose not only to point out that, according to the article, "Young Terrance Martin could not let President George W. Bush get away with mistakenly saying he was just 6 years old when he was really 7," but to make it the focus of the story.

THEY MADE IT THE FOCUS OF THE STORY! If you read the article, you'll find this line: "It happened in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on Tuesday when Bush signed the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003, which renews tax credits for adoptions and encourages families to find homes for more than 500,000 children in foster care."

So, the fact that Bush was corrected by a 7 year old is more important than the fact that he signed the aforementioned legislation? That's interesting. Why don't they just make the headline: "Our President Has the Mental Capacity of a Child." THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY!

Why is the president's one mistake more important than the legislation he signed? Why can I not think of any way that could possibly be justified? Oh, wait...IT CAN'T BE JUSTIFRICKINFIED!!!! They actually put the story about the Adoption Promotion Act in the corner as "related news." Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Anyone who thinks the Clinton News Network isn't biased should read this and shut the F up.

Oh, by the way, the Syracuse University drumline will have a brand new website sometime next week. I'll be providing linkage when that happens.

Posted by CD at 09:08 PM | Comments (2)

Reminder #1 

I almost forgot about this: I'm going to be reminding readers every day this week that...


Posted by CD at 02:36 PM | Comments (2)

Afternoon Multi-rant (unnecessarily long and slightly "homophobic" post warning) 

Holy crap, I'm in the middle of a Carnivalanche, courtesy of the Carnival of the Vanities over at Begging to Differ. It may have something to do with the fact that Evil Glenn mentions it each week, which also means that a few people that have been here were originally on Instablender...which means I'm stealing his readers for a few seconds! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Sorry. I do have real things to talk about. First of all, here's a fun experience I had this morning that some of you may be able to identify with: I woke up really early for some reason, but since I was awake and hadn't looked at the clock, I immediately figured that it must be 7:45, the time I usually get up. When I checked the clock, it said 4:21. Unfortunately, I wasn't really paying attention, so I only saw the :21 part and figured that it was actually 8:21, which would make me almost late for class. In a drowsy panic, I got out of bed and quickly started getting dressed. I had changed everything but my shirt before it occurred to me that it was still dark outside, which is when I noticed the 4 in front of the other two numbers. After that, I sat there for a second contemplating the depths of my idiocy, and then I changed clothes again and went back to sleep. That was the first time this has happened since I started college, but I did it a few times at home, too. Strange.

Okay, now that I've once again chased away all uninterested parties with my rambling, here's the important stuff: The topics of gay marriage and homophobia came up once again today, but this time, they were part of a discussion in my sociology class (which I've mentioned a few times before). We have to write a paper for Friday about a social problem and how it can be solved, and the professor decided to use "homophobia" as an example for the purposes of discussion. He said that one way to solve the problem would be to put homosexuals in positions of authority. For example, he said that police departments should "make it their policy to hire officers who are openly gay and lesbian."

What is wrong with these people? My first problem was the fact that he's overlooking qualifications, but he eventually said that the officers in question would be fully qualified. Great, but you're still hiring them based on who they're attracted to. That's friggin' asininity. Apparently, he thinks that putting homosexuals in positions of authority would eliminate their marginal status and make them members of the "normal" community.

So, here we go again with the "gays aren't fully human or American" crap. I don't get it. Hiring gay cops will not change my position on homosexuality. The problem is that "gay" has become an identity in and of itself instead of being a part of someone's identity. Just because people don't agree with homosexuality, it doesn't mean that they think homosexuals can't hold positions of authority. They're two completely different things. Homosexuality, in my view and in the view of many more people than you may think, is immoral.

Putting gays in positions of authority because some people are "homophobic" would have the same effect as putting burglars in positions of authority because some people lock their doors when they leave their houses. It's not irrational to disagree with something you see as immoral, but it is irrational to give someone preference just because you think that behavior is acceptable and want to prove others wrong. Show me how homosexuality is morally acceptable and equal to heterosexuality, and then you'll change "homophobic" opinions. Until then, stop pretending that gays are somehow deserving of special privileges just because they like to have sex with their own gender.

Of course, gay marriage was also covered, and the professor's approach was to portray homosexuals as being deprived of rights because they can't marry (shocking, isn't it?). I've explained my position on this a couple times before on the blog, but I didn't feel like arguing with another professor, so I stayed quiet in class and tried to commit as much of the discussion as possible to memory. First of all, I'm tired of it being called "gay marriage," because that's one of the ideological fallacies mucking up the debate. It's not "gay" marriage that's in question, but same-sex marriage. Gays are not being discriminated against, but since they're the only ones who WANT same-sex marriage, it sometimes seems that way. It's not like straight people of the same gender are allowed to marry each other, but they clearly don't want to.

I'm not going to get into that topic again because I've covered it already, but I do need to address another aspect of the discussion. One girl said she doesn't understand why two people who "love each other" can't get married because they're the same gender, but a man and a woman can marry even if they're not fit for it. I am sick of that argument. Heterosexuals who marry for reasons other than love bother me just as much as homosexuals who want to get married, so I don't think that's really the issue.

Of course, another student pointed out the slippery slope argument that people could use that justification to marry a goat if they claim to love it. I'm not sure if she was being sarcastic, but that is a valid argument. If we use love as the only validating factor in marriage, we should be able to marry anyone and anything, but that's clearly not the issue.

I can't even write about this anymore. I'm just tired of people claiming that gays are somehow being discriminated against when we don't allow same-sex marriage. I'll say it yet again: everyone has a right to marry, it's just a matter of how we define marriage. I think the current paradigm is working pretty well. As for "civil unions" and all this other crap, that's just going to give heterosexual couples more excuses to avoid marriage, so it's probably not a real good thing either. I want to close by directing you to a couple of commentaries by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason, because he articulates this a lot more effectively than me. Here they are:
You Can't Marry Your Canary
Ellen Degeneres Comes Out
Equal Rights for Homosexuals
If you want more, go to Christianity at its finest.

Posted by CD at 02:11 PM | Comments (3)

December 02, 2003


Friggin' Supreme Court...This is ridiculous:Supreme Court Refuses to Confirm Constitutional Right to Bear Arms

Apparently, their "interpretation" of the Constitution is a perversion of the 2nd Amendment, since they ("they" being, in this case, the 9th Circuit Court) believe "the amendment's intent was to protect gun rights of militias, not individuals." WHAT?!

The amendment says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

How difficult is this to understand? The right of the PEOPLE, you frickin' idiots! What do you think "militia" means? If it just meant military and law enforcement, it would frickin' say that! A militia, by definition, is an army of civilians. How could it possibly apply to anything else? Keep in mind that when the Constitution was written, farmers were defending their homes against British troops. THEY WERE DEFENDING THEMSELVES JUST LIKE PEOPLE NEED TO NOW! Just because we no longer refer to armed civilians as militia doesn't mean that it's unconstitutional to allow gun ownership.

Of course, this is from the people who inject fictional principles like "separation of church and state" and "right to privacy" into the Constitution to suit their agenda.

Mindless wastes of space, those judges. This is what happens when you take "interpretation" too far.

I really wish I didn't have a mental profanity block right now. I wonder if Misha has seen this yet.

Posted by CD at 11:53 PM | Comments (2)

More Definitions for the Donktionary® 

All right, I came up with some brand new words to define! I'll probably be adding more as time goes on.

Abortion: Medical procedure that allows women to exercise their personal freedom and prevents them from being forced to become incubators for future members of the Evil White Patriarchy™.
Affirmative action: Policies designed to keep the Evil White Patriarchy™ from taking over the world.
Campaign: Contest in which the participants try to come up with the best way to belittle the opposition without forming their own set of policies.
Dissent: Calling Republicans fascist monkeys.
Elitist: Someone who believes that majority opinion should influence public policy.
Extremist: Politician with religious convictions.
Forgery: Document that supports Republican claims.
Illegal alien: An unfortunate non-citizen. (*submitted by a reader who heard Al Gore actually say it*)
Meanness: Personality trait caused by lack of empathy and refusal to throw money at social problems.
Narrow-minded: Having an opinion.
Niger: Alternate name for Africa.
Neanderthal: Conservative judge.
NRA: Neocon Racist Assassins.
Photo-op: Republican appearing in public.
Police brutality: Arresting minorities.
Responsibility: Ree-spon-si-bill-lit-tee??? (checks in mental dictionary around "ragamuffin" and "rapscallion") Nope, not in the liberal language. Sorry.
Sought: President Bush's pronunciation of the word "bought."
Speech codes: The only way to protect the feelings of minorities on college campuses, since most college students have never been exposed to other cultures and are therefore intrinsically racist.
Unilateral: Any coalition that doesn't include France.
Victim: Anyone who has been forced to endure the hardship of not being completely happy 24/7; someone who is not given something they want, even if they don't deserve it; someone whose feelings are hurt; see also minority.
Yellowcake: Alternate name for uranium.

Posted by CD at 09:50 PM | Comments (3)

When Atheists Attack 

This article is great: An Allegiance to Dissent: Man's Challenge to 'Under God' Is One of Many -- Including a Pivotal Custody Battle Over Daughter Good old Michael Newdow is still at it. The guy who is offended by "under God" still hasn't given up. You need to fill out a couple things before you can read this article, but it's really good once you've gotten past that. It shows just how ridiculous some people can be. I don't want to go too in-depth, but here are a few examples of what the article says: his view, the judge is enforcing an "egregious, unconstitutional" system of family law. "This whole thing is a crock of dung," he told the counselor during a Nov. 5 session.
Why does it not surprise me that he said that? He's trying to get involved in the life of a child he doesn't have custody of, and he had said child with his girlfriend. I believe that means he legally has less of a role in her life, but he apparently thinks that's unconstitutional.
The Rev. Dr. Michael A. Newdow, Esq. -- physician, lawyer and founder of the First Amendmist Church of True Science -- has a restless, uncompromising mind, a mind that dissents radically from many widely accepted aspects of American life, from the pledge to family law to gender-specific pronouns in the English language. In his own writing, Newdow uses "ree" instead of "he" or "she," and "rees" instead of "his" or "her."
The guy is a nut. Why don't they just say it? There's a difference between "uncompromising" and "crazy."
To supporters, Newdow is living proof that, with enough determination, you can fight City Hall.
No, he's living proof that the legal system in this country is far too accepting of ludicrous cases.
Fatherhood is not a role Newdow initially relished. He has asserted in court that the child was conceived when Banning forced him to have sex during a trip to Yosemite National Park...Newdow has joined a movement against "forced fatherhood" led by the little-known National Center for Men.
If he didn't want to be a father, why is he suddenly so concerned about his daughter? Could it be...THE "G" WORD?! "Those fundamentalist bigots can't force their beliefs down the throat of the child I refused to acknowledge as my own daughter and never actually wanted in the first place!" Jackass.
The pledge conveys the message to Newdow's daughter that "her father's beliefs are those of an outsider, and necessarily inferior to what she is exposed to in the classroom," the 9th Circuit ruled.
Hey, guess what? Eliminating the phrase "under God" conveys the message to religious people that their beliefs are those of an outsider! WOW! I guess we have to pick one, don't we?
Americans United for Separation of Church and State had asked that it be allowed 15 minutes at oral argument, separate from Newdow, to present the case against "under God," but the court denied that request yesterday.
How exactly is this an issue of "separation of church and state?" It's irrelevant anyway, since that phrase IS NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION! Furthermore, I was thinking of something: some people say that the phrase in question was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, so of course that's what he MEANT to put in the Constitution. You know what? Jefferson had slaves, too, but we got rid of that when we realized it was wrong. Why should we read something into the Constitution because one of the founding fathers may have implied it in a totally separate document?

All right, that's enough, but I want to point out one more thing: This photo of Michael Newdow. Look at him. He actually looks exactly the way I pictured him when I first heard about the case. He's got the classic atheist scowl (popularized by George Carlin) and the "I'm smarter than you" expression... ... ... Have I mentioned that vocal atheists annoy the crap out of me?

Posted by CD at 07:52 PM | Comments (3)

The DO on Tolerance 

I'm a bit late, but I have an excuse: I'm currently working on another entry for the Donktionary®, which will hopefully be posted later tonight. I'm having trouble coming up with new words, but it's looking good so far.

Anyway, there are a couple things I want to cover in this post. First of all, our friends at the Daily Orange have provided another great letter to the editor for me to make fun of (and I'm actually providing a link this time). Here's the original: Letter: 'Tolerance' not enough for LGBT community (you may have to sign up to read it online). I'll just do the usual quote/response minifisk. Let's begin:

The response to the recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling has caused me to question something. It seems that more and more often, we are hearing the word "tolerance" in reference to attitudes toward the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community. Although this might sound like positive language that is taking a step in the right direction, I find it offensive as a member of the LGBT community to simply be "tolerated."
That's always a good start. I think everyone can see where this is going already: tolerance is now considered offensive, so even suggesting that homosexuals are different will soon be considered bigotry. Hooray for freedom of speech. I hope this guy represents a minority opinion. dictionary definition of the verb "tolerate" is "to put up with something or somebody unpleasant." So, when the word is used in reference to LGBT people, it implies that our community is in some way unpleasant, which furthers an oppressive message that we are somehow inferior.
FYI: The entire planet is not obligated to like you just because you're gay. Why is that so shocking? It must be nice to belong to a protected group so you can say that you're being oppressed when someone doesn't want to be your special friend. Seriously, not everyone likes homosexuality (not "homosexuals," per se). That's just the way it is.
...This goes to show how far away we still are from acknowledging, accepting and appreciating LGBT people as human beings.
This is yet another subtle jab at "fundies" such as myself, I believe. I don't view homosexuals as inhuman, and I don't enjoy people implying that I do. Also, I certainly think they're morally inferior, but that doesn't take away from their humanity. As Dubya once said, "we're all sinners." If someone disagrees with you, it doesn't follow that they think you're not human. If that were true, then I could say the author of this letter is calling me inferior because I don't agree with him. See how it works?
And until certain heterosexuals can stop using their privilege to deny the 1,049 federal rights and protections that they enjoy to 10 percent of their loving, tax paying, fellow Americans, I guess I'll just have to "tolerate" them.
And of course, he closes with the classic misconception that homosexuals are being denied some sort of right. Once again, I will point out that same-sex marriage laws apply to EVERYONE, not just "LGBT people" or whatever they're calling themselves these days. The only difference is that heterosexuals don't want to marry individuals of the same sex. If we legalized everything that someone wanted to do, we would have chaos. And by the way, that "10 percent" crap was disproven years ago. As I understand it, only about 3 percent of the population is exclusively homosexual, and it's 6 percent at the most (fun fact: in my dorm, there's a board with various "facts" about the world's population if it were reduced to 100 individuals, and one of the "facts" is that there would be "11 homosexuals." Exaggeration, anyone?).

I think that's about enough of that. I've decided to go ahead and start a new post, since this one seems to have run on again. I'll be back.

Posted by CD at 06:45 PM | Comments (2)

December 01, 2003

Best. DU Thread. EVER.

If you're one of my 4 regulars, you may be aware that I enjoy going over to Democratic Underground every couple days and laughing at them. Well, I was checking out their "fair and balanced" (as in "only progressive Democrats") message board to see how they were responding to the positive economic trends, and I happened to notice this thread: Is anyone else getting sick of the Dean/Clark Bashing?

You really need to go over and read this thread. It's not as entertaining as I thought it would be, but it's interesting to see statements like this...

It's getting downright nasty and I'm getting sick of it...If you feel the need to write something negative about your opponent, please show some respect for those who support him or her.
...coupled with statements like this:
None are perfect, but ALLALLALL are better than duck-anus.
These people need help. However, they also need fiskings every so often, and since I don't know much about psychology, I'll settle for that.

Posted by CD at 11:02 PM | Comments (2)

Showcase Voters

Okay, the League of Liberals Cheating Douchebags won the sponsorship contest again, but The Alliance is closing in, especially after the whole Sitemeter scandal. I think that if we really work at it, we can win this week. Everyone's back to work and on a normal schedule (hopefully), and there are updates posted at headquarters every so often, so members have NO EXCUSE for not voting. If you're an Alliance member, and you're reading this, and you didn't vote...WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?! IT TAKES 10 MINUTES! NOBODY IS SO BUSY THAT THEY CAN'T SPARE 10 MINUTES OUT OF A 5 DAY PERIOD! VOTE! IT'S FOR THE GOOD OF BLOGGERS EVERYWHERE!

Anyway, I'm once again posting links to all the people who voted (courtesy of Bad Money). I've said it before, and I'll say it again: when you vote in the showcase, insignificant blogs with 4 regular readers link to you. You know you want the publicity. Actually, Frnak and Misha are going to link to everyone who votes this week IF The Alliance wins back sponsorship. This is our chance. Don't screw it up.

Here are this week's voters:

IMAO (554 links) - 2135 visits/day V
Blackfive - The Paratrooper of Love (166 links) - 1350 visits/day V
The Inscrutable American (59 links) - 175 visits/day V
Ramblings of Silver Blue (98 links) - 173 visits/day V
Leaning Towards the Dark Side (38 links) - 155 visits/day V
Madfish Willie's Cyber Saloon (110 links) - 153 visits/day V
Bad Money (134 links) - 152 visits/day V
Practical Penumbra (200 links) - 147 visits/day V
The Alliance (155 links) - 134 visits/day V
Colorado Conservative (21 links) - 120 visits/day V
Serenity's Journal (126 links) - 118 visits/day V
angelweave (100 links) - 106 visits/day V
Pardon My English (55 links) - 87 visits/day V
Being American in T.O. (44 links) - 72 visits/day V
physics geek (38 links) - 71 visits/day V
BigStick (41 links) - 60 visits/day V
An Englishman's Castle (11 links) - 55 visits/day V
The S-Train Canvass (30 links) - 48 visits/day V
curi's domain (18 links) - 48 visits/day V
Left Coast Conservative (99 links) - 46 visits/day V
VRWC, Inc. (54 links) - 45 visits/day V
Wince and Nod (50 links) - 40 visits/day V
Who Tends The Fires (56 links) - 39 visits/day V
The Patriette (50 links) - 35 visits/day V
Five Wasps (21 links) - 31 visits/day V
BLATHER REVIEW (46 links) - 28 visits/day V
CandyUniverse (45 links) - 28 visits/day V
Frizzen Sparks (16 links) - 24 visits/day V
Semi-Intelligent Thoughts (35 links) - 21 visits/day V
Grim's Hall (15 links) - 19 visits/day V
Cavalier Attitude (10 links) - 14 visits/day V
Cannon's Canon (20 links) - 11 visits/day V
Single White Male (14 links) - 11 visits/day V
Hypocrisy and Hypotheses (25 links) - 9 visits/day V (10 links) - 7 visits/day V
Interested-Participant (71 links) - visits/day V
Cannot find server (6 links) - visits/day V (16 links) - visits/day V Political Commentary (70 links) - visits/day V
The Dimmick Institute (1 links) - visits/day V
The New American Revolutionist (23 links) - visits/day V
pstupidonymous (8 links) - visits/day V


We can do this. General Douchebaggery must be stopped.

Posted by CD at 09:34 PM | Comments (2)

WMD Update 

Crap! Why does stuff like this always come up when I want to take a between-class nap? I was about to go to sleep for an hour or so, but then I saw two stories that I HAD to blog about. First, there's this:
Saddam sought missile factory, Iraqi files show.
What are the moonbats going to say now? I highly recommend reading the entire article, but here's a sample:

For two years before the American invasion of Iraq, Saddam's sons, generals and front companies were engaged in lengthy negotiations with North Korea, according to computer files discovered by international inspectors and the accounts of Bush administration officials. The officials now say they believe that those negotiations -- mostly conducted in neighboring Syria, apparently with the knowledge of the Syrian government -- were not merely to buy a few North Korean missiles. Instead, the goal was to obtain a full production line to manufacture, under an Iraqi flag, the North Korean missile system, which would be capable of hitting American allies and bases around the region, according to the Bush administration officials.

NOW DO YOU BELIEVE THE FRIGGIN' ALLEGATIONS? HE WAS TRYING TO GET MISSILES LITERALLY WEEKS BEFORE THE FRIGGIN' INVASION, IDIOTS! You know what else this shows? #1: Hussein was working with terrorists (North Korea). #2: Hussein worked with Syria, which strengthens the case for existing WMD being there now (as I believe). The only problem with the article is the fact that it uses lines such as "according to the Bush administration officials." That basically renders the entire message useless to the opposition. I got briefly involved in a comment discussion on another blog once, and I used some stuff from that infamous Weekly Standard article to point out evidence for Bush's case. The token liberal in the discussion came back with something along the lines of, "You're asking me to believe information from government officials that supports the government's position. I just can't do that." This is what we're dealing with: cognitive dissonance. If the evidence goes against your position, rationalize it away.

On the other hand, there's this: AP: Iraqi Scientists Lied About Nukes. To briefly quote this article:

Iraqi scientists never revived their long-dead nuclear bomb program, and in fact lied to Saddam Hussein about how much progress they were making before U.S.-led attacks shut the operation down for good in 1991, Iraqi physicists say.

So, there's one article that supports an accusation, and one that goes against a different one. However, the interesting thing about this is the fact that the scientists had to lie about the program. This means that Hussein did, in fact, want nukes. GASP! Really? Not the Saddamster! I always thought he was such a nice guy!

Is it possible that Hussein thought he had nukes when he really didn't? If so, that might explain his behavior toward the weapons inspectors. In any case, the other article clearly shows that he was seeking ways to attack people. He just wanted it to look like other countries were behind it. I really hope that this evidence holds up, because it would devastate this whole "Saddam didn't pose a threat" argument. We'll see.

Posted by CD at 01:48 PM | Comments (2)