January 31, 2004

Reich's Liberal Revolution

Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it sounds cool. I've put this off for a while, but I want to cover the latest editorial by Robert Reich. While it doesn't provide quite as much material as other editorials I've fisked, it does show that Reich seems to misunderstand a few concepts, and it also repeats the "conservatives have taken over the country" meme. Let's take a look:

The Dead Center

The dismal fifth-place showing by Senator Joseph Lieberman in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday serves as both reminder and motivator to the other Democratic presidential candidates on what it will take to win in November. For so long now, everyone has assumed that recapturing the presidency depends on who triumphs in the battle between liberals and moderates within the party.

Uh, I think they have to triumph over the CURRENT president as well, but I could be wrong.

Such thinking, though, is inherently flawed.

Like I said...

The real fight is between those who want only to win back the White House and those who also want to build a new political movement — one that rivals the conservative movement that has given Republicans their dominant position in American politics.

Let's see here...budget deficit, medicare expansion, Amnesty Lite™, 0 vetos, NEA funds, lack of support for Israel...sounds real conservative, doesn't it?

Senator Lieberman's defeat on Tuesday could be a good indicator of which side is ahead. To their detriment, Mr. Lieberman and the perennially dour Democratic Leadership Council have been deeply wary of any hint of a progressive movement, preferring instead an uninspired centrist message that echoes Republican themes.

Wait, so the dominant conservative movement has gained power by echoing centrist themes? I'm confused already.

On the other extreme is Howard Dean, who could be called the quintessential "movement" Democrat. His campaign is both grass-roots and reformist, and is based on the proposition that ordinary people must be empowered to "take back America."


Similar threads can also be seen in the campaigns of Senators John Edwards and John Kerry. (Full disclosure: I've been helping Senator Kerry.)

Helping Senator Kerry? What do you do? Style his important-looking hair? Administer his botox injections? Maybe you're the guy that reminds him before every debate that he was in Vietnam, but he shouldn't mention what he did when he got back.

It was no accident after last week's caucuses in Iowa that a beaming Senator Edwards told supporters they had "started a movement to change America."

From what I've seen of Edwards' policies, that's a very bad thing.

I hope that Mr. Edwards and the others will stay on message — and movement. After all, Democrats have seen what the Republican Party has been able to accomplish over the years. The conservative movement has developed dedicated sources of money and legions of ground troops who not only get out the vote, but also spend the time between elections persuading others to join their ranks.

Wow! Isn't democracy fascinating? You'd almost think more people agree with conservatives! How crazy is that?!

It has devised frames of reference that are used repeatedly in policy debates (among them: it's your money, tax and spend, political correctness, class warfare).

If you liberal idiots would stop relying on things like political correctness and class warfare, conservatives wouldn't have to mention 'em so much.

It has a system for recruiting and electing officials nationwide who share the same world view and who will vote accordingly.

It's called canvassing, stupid.

And it has a coherent ideology uniting evangelical Christians, blue-collar whites in the South and West, and big business...

Yeah, only rich white Southern fundies vote Republican!

...an ideology in which foreign enemies, domestic poverty and crime, and homosexuality all must be met with strict punishment and religious orthodoxy.

Whoa! You're out of line there, Reich. Why'd he lump homosexuality in with terrorism and crime? I don't know about the rest of the "conservative movement" (formerly known as the VRWC, I assume), but I don't think it's the business of government to "punish" homsexuality, and I really don't think there's any "religious orthodoxy" involved. Does setting limits on government endorsement of romantic relationships count as punishment in Reich World?

In contrast, the Democratic Party has had no analogous movement to animate it. Instead, every four years party loyalists throw themselves behind a presidential candidate who they believe will deliver them from the rising conservative tide.

Ah, yes, the "anyone but Bush" movement. Isn't this a great country?

After the election, they go back to whatever they were doing before. Other Democrats have involved themselves in single-issue politics — the environment, campaign finance, the war in Iraq and so on — but these battles have failed to build a political movement.

Does the term "Deaniacs" ring a bell for you?

Issues rise and fall, depending on which interests are threatened and when. They can even divide Democrats, as each advocacy group scrambles after the same set of liberal donors and competes for the limited attention of the news media.

How dare they compete in the marketplace of ideas! What is this, some kinda free country?

As a result, Democrats have been undisciplined, intimidated or just plain silent.

Undisciplined, maybe, but not intimidated or silent. Let's review a few statements made by "just plain silent" Democratic candidates:

-"Life begins with the mother's decision."
-"The capture of Saddam Hussein has not made the Iraqi people safer."
-"The Iraqi standard of living is a lot lower now." (this may not be an exact quote)
-"I'll beat the sh*t out of [anyone who questions my record]."

They have few dedicated sources of money, and almost no ground troops.

What do you call all those people going to the caucuses?

The religious left is disconnected from the political struggle.

"The religious left?" What does that even mean? Maybe he's talking about Episcopalians...

One hears few liberal Democratic phrases that are repeated with any regularity.

-"Bush lied, people died!"
-"No war for oil!"
-"Where are the WMD?"
-"[This many] soldiers have died since Bush declared the end of major combat operations in May."
-"The Patriot Act is unconstitutional!"
-"Bush is a [racist/fascist/Nazi/homophobe/etc.]

Nope, haven't heard any liberal Democratic phrases like those.

In addition, there is no consistent Democratic world view or ideology.

Sure there is. It's called "Panderism."

Most Congressional Democrats raise their own money, do their own polls and vote every which way. Democrats have little or no clear identity except by reference to what conservatives say about them.

"The evil conservatives are spreading lies, and there's nothing we can do because Ashcroft will question our patriotism!"

Self-styled Democratic centrists, like those who inhabit the Democratic Leadership Council, attribute the party's difficulties to a failure to respond to an electorate grown more conservative, upscale and suburban.

Has it ever occurred to you that the American people in general have become more "upscale and suburban" because of tax cuts? I guess your conservatism increases with money or something. He needs a mathematical formula to go with this whole "Reich Theory of Conservatism":

$ + † = (R)

This is nonsense. The biggest losses for Democrats since 1980 have not been among suburban voters but among America's giant middle and working classes — especially white workers without four-year college degrees, once part of the old Democratic base. Not incidentally, these are the same people who have lost the most economic ground over the last quarter-century.

Interesting...could it be that those people have realized that Democratic economic policies are the reason they've lost so much ground? Maybe if they would concentrate on job creation instead of throwing money at every social problem, the lower classes would be more successful.

That's just the first page of the column. Jaws will probably post his thoughts as well, and I've covered about all I can handle. Also, it's 1:50 in the morning. I can only blog for so long.


Posted by CD at 01:58 AM | Comments (5)

January 30, 2004

Larry's Roundup

Hi, folks. Larry the Liberal here. I've got a lot more to talk about this week, so pay attention!


Well, I've just been informed that I am, in fact, typing. Therefore, you aren't actually listening, and you can't see this as I'm writing it. Why didn't you tell me that before, CD? Do you realize how much longer it takes to write a blog entry when you add hand gestures and dramatic pauses?

I guess I should still write my roundup. Let's start by talking about this weekend's big athletic event, the Super Bowl. The Carolina Panthers are playing the New England Patriots. Think about that for a second.

Is there ANYONE who doesn't see what's going to happen? A team called the Patriots is in the Super Bowl! There's no way they'll lose! Pretzeldent Shrub probably paid off the Panthers to let New England win. You have to be delusional to believe that the NFL (Neocon Football League) will let a team called the Patriots look bad. That would be...well, unpatriotic!

Here's another story: U.S. Military 'Sure' to Catch Bin Laden. I love how this fraudministration is pretending that we don't have Osama yet. My guess is we'll be "catching" him near the end of October. Then, Bushfoon can say that we won the war on terra. He's so predictable, especially after we just happened to catch Saddam while he was signing Patriot Act II (a.k.a. "All your civil liberties are belong to us"). Of course, considering we armed bin Laden in the first place, I wouldn't be surprised if our Commander and Thief has been working with him this whole time. It would explain 9/11.

Now, let's look at this story: Dean Shakes Up Reeling Campaign After Losses. Like I said before, I'm a Kucinich supporter, but I still feel for Dean right now. After all, I can see what's happening, even if you sheeple can't. The corporate media was setting Dean up for failure all along! They portrayed him as the frontrunner, giving impressionable Americans the idea that he represents the average Democrat.

Then, they focused all their energy on exploiting his speech in Iowa, which made his poll numbers go down and caused him to lose in New Hampshire. Now, most Americans think that Democrats are out of control! This character destruction by the media is disgusting. How can you not realize that Shrub has them all wrapped around his finger? Just wait. Soon, they'll be ignoring John Kerry's heroic protests during the Vietnam War.

Have you heard about this on the news? I didn't think so. How are Democrats supposed to support him if they don't know about all the patriotic things he did? If you're interested, you can see it here. Don't let the corporate media shills fool you into thinking that Kerry is a warmonger!!!

I want to talk about this story next. Now, you may have read Conservative Douchebag's take on the whole thing, but you have to keep in mind that when he says "I'm not a racist," he means "I hate the inferior brown people of Mexico."

Really, I can't believe we're still using archaic terms like "illegal alien." They're trying to dehumanize immigrants by comparing them to beings from other planets! In my opinion, immigrants should automatically become American citizens when they enter the country.

We should at least stop calling them "illegals." The only crime they're commmitting is not being white. Oh, well. I guess that if we can go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan for their horrible crimes of being minorities, we can go after anyone. You racists make me sick.

Next, I'll quickly mention the fact that David Kay admitted that Saddam had no WMD's when we brutally attacked him. I'm still not satisfied though. When Dumbya admits that he knew all along and then begs for impeatchment, I'll be happy.

Finally, there's this story, which says that Shrubya is going to increase funds for the National Endowment for the Arts. Interesting. Know who else was a big fan of the arts?


That's it for me. I hope you feel better about yourselves now that you know the truth about these issues. Remember, if you have any questions, or if you just want to tell me how much smarter and cooler I am than CD, you can e-mail me at impeachthechimp2000@yahoo.com.

See you next time.

Posted by Larry the Liberal at 10:58 PM | Comments (1)

Friday Roundup

Okay, I am now way behind on blogging. To begin, I'll give you a timeline of my day to explain why.

1:30- Got out of bed and went to lunch.
2:00- Read a few other blogs.
2:45- Went to my one Friday class.
4:00- Returned to find my roommate watching Family Guy DVD. Watched that for a while.
4:30- Roommate turned off the TV and left, so I went to the computer ready to post. However, I discovered that my ResNet connection had failed for some reason. Spent the next hour bored out of my mind.
5:30- Ate dinner.
6:00- Came back and discovered that my Internet connection was back on, but my roommate was talking on the phone and watching Conan O'Brien, making it impossible for me to concentrate on writing.
6:45- Roommate turned off the TV and left again. I logged on and began looking for news to write about.
6:55- Started writing this post, but accidentally unplugged the computer with my foot. Was forced to wait a few minutes to reboot, then write the post all over again.
7:00- Typed this sentence.

So, that's why I haven't posted yet today. I have a lot of things planned, fortunately. While I work on those, here's something I've been wanting to write about all day:

This story is idiotic. Check it out:

For Jerry Gonzalez, the term "illegal immigrant" packs as much vitriol as some racial slurs.

Many Latinos, he said, find it offensive.

"It's easy to dismiss someone when you use a disparaging term such as 'illegal immigrant' or 'illegal alien,'" surmised Gonzalez, who oversees the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, an Atlanta-based political action committee.

"I can't speak for other immigrant groups," he said, "but on behalf of the Latino community, many people I speak to on a day-to-day basis think it serves to dehumanize the person, makes them less than human. Similar to the way the n-word was used to dehumanize African-Americans."


This is political correctness gone bat-sh*t insane (if it wasn't that way already). How dumb do you have to be when you think that calling someone an illegal alien/immigrant is racist? Are they saying that only Latinos come here illegally? Friggin' morons...oh no! Does calling this guy a moron make me a racist too?

Just to make sure I'm not an evil, anti-Latino racist, let's analyze the so-called slur they're concerned about:

Illegal= Something that is against the law.
Immigrant= Someone who leaves their native country and takes up residence in another country.
Alien= Not native to a given area.

What exactly is racist about that statement? Luckily, one person they talked to seems to get it:

"I don't think so at all," said Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of "Mexifornia: A State of Becoming." "It doesn't describe a person in a negative, pejorative way. It means they don't have U.S. citizenship and that they didn't come to the United States in a lawful manner."

EXACTLY. Is anyone else depressed by the fact that some people need to have an authority explain the term "illegal alien?" First, the African-American thing, and now this. I think I'll start wearing a button on my shirt that says "Ask me how I lost my faith in humanity," and then when people ask, I'll show them articles like this.

I hope I'm not biased against the human race for saying that!

Believe it or not, this gets even better.

But Mexicans who make illegal border crossings for job-rich cities like Atlanta "have no choice" but to break the law, said Victoria Chacon, founder and president of the South East Hispanic Media Association.

Wow. Just...wow. So, with a single statement, this person has simultaneously destroyed the concepts of free will, personal responsibility, citizenship, and COMMON F**KING SENSE!!!!!

I don't understand how anyone can say that illegal aliens have no choice but to break the law. Did someone force them to come here illegally? Did Mexico start kicking people out? Someone enlighten me.

In La Vision de Georgia, the Spanish language newspaper she publishes Monday through Friday, Chacon has adopted "undocumented workers" as the term of choice.

What about the ones that don't have jobs? Are they "undocumented slackers?"

"I don't think it's illegal to come here, work hard, and live in peace," she said. "They come for their family, risk their lives to find a better lifestyle."

I had to read that sentence a couple times to make sure it actually said what I thought it did. Unfortunately, after a few readings, it still said "I don't think it's illegal to come here, work hard, and live in peace."

Let me explain something to you, idiot. It doesn't matter how you live your life when you're here illegally. You could be a janitor, a taxi driver, a teacher, an engineer, a CEO...it doesn't matter. If you're not an American citizen, and you don't have legal permission to be here, YOU'RE STILL BREAKING THE LAW.

By using the phrase "I don't think it's illegal," you have implied that either you only follow laws you agree with, or you don't know how the American legal system works. You may think that the law is wrong, of course, and still keep your sanity. After all, people disagree with a lot of laws. However, if the words "I don't think it's illegal" come out of your mouth, you lose all credibility.

This is yet another example of how dangerous political correctness is becoming. Again, you can compare this to the incident where a white student from South Africa was suspended for correctly calling himself an African-American.

In PC Land, the truth isn't as important as protecting everyone's precious feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings. Allow me to join in the rousing chorus of "Orwell was right." Truthfully stating that "undocumented workers" are illegal aliens is doubleplus ungood. Or something. I haven't read 1984 since I was 15.

I was going to put another topic here, but I'll save that for another time. I seem to have gotten caught up in this one story.

Posted by CD at 07:45 PM | Comments (3)

January 29, 2004

Yet Another Completely Random Thought

Okay, I'm a little less tired now, and I decided to go searching for something to blog about. Eventually, I came across a New York Times editorial by Robert Reich. It's very long, but I'm planning on fisking at least part of it (and if I can't handle the whole thing, the rest is reserved for Jaws if he wants it).

Anyway, I'm still in the early stages of that one, but I did notice a bit of information stating that Reich wrote a book called Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America. This got me thinking: If liberals end up "winning" America, will they even continue to call it America?

That might be offensive to other cultures, because it reminds them of our horrible imperialist past! So, until I'm done with my next big post, here's a list of potential names for America under liberal authority (I'm writing these off the top of my head, so don't expect them to be brilliant):

-The United States of the International Community
-France II
-Oceania (you never know)
-TCFKAAWE (The Country Formerly Known as a Warmongering Empire)
-South Canada
-USSWM (The United States of Stupid White Men)

...Or maybe they'll just make the name into an apology for the Iraq war, such as...

-OMG 1r4q15 LOL vv3r3 50 50rr'/ vv3 dr0p3d t3h 80m8z 0n U! vv3 4r3 t3h 1337 5ux0rz!!!111!!11!

Feel free to add any of your own.

I got tired again. The fisking will be ready sometime Friday afternoon or early evening. Also, don't forget to check back later for Larry's Roundup. I'm going to sleep now.

Posted by CD at 09:50 PM | Comments (5)

Almost Forgot About This

I have to mention something else that happened (or didn't, in this case) today. We're studying persuasion and propaganda in my TRF class, and the professor showed us a small portion of a Hitler propaganda film as an example. After that, we spent several minutes discussing what techniques it used and why it was effective.

Now, I know what you're probably expecting, but you may be surprised: Nobody made any George W. Bush comparisons! I couldn't believe it either, but it's true.

A hint of sanity in a university setting: yet another reason why I love Syracuse.

Posted by CD at 07:20 PM | Comments (1)


Sorry. I'm too tired to blog right now, so here's my visited states map (click the extended entry):

create your own visited states map
or write about it on the open travel guide

As you can see, I haven't really traveled much. I've also been to Canada, but that's obviously not on here.

I may or may not be back today.

Posted by CD at 07:04 PM | Comments (2)

Update Thingy

I have some advice for my statistics TA:


...I'll be blogging again by tonight, but I have a TRF paper to write now.

Posted by CD at 11:23 AM | Comments (4)

January 28, 2004

One More

Okay, I just want to post really quickly here, because something just popped into my head. I'm sure somebody else has realized this, but it just hit me a couple minutes ago.

You know how some people are against the war because the U.S. supposedly "made" Saddam Hussein? Isn't it strange how a lot of those people also think that we should impeach President Bush?

Hey, you may be unhappy, but we made him what he is.

Heh heh.

I have to go watch De Eso No Se Habla for my Spanish class now.

...That movie was f**ked up.

Posted by CD at 06:35 PM | Comments (2)


...but I'm still busy. I probably won't be able to post anything major until Thursday night. Until then, go check out the Carnival of the Vanities.

If you just came here from the COTV, welcome. First of all, Larry the Liberal does not represent the usual tone of this blog. Second, feel free to browse the archives. Thanks.

Posted by CD at 06:16 PM | Comments (1)

Public Service Announcement

One more thing for now: The more I use Mozilla, the more I realize how pathetic Internet Explorer is. That is all.

Posted by CD at 01:49 AM | Comments (4)

In the Words of Frnak, ME BUSY!

Titles are still hard. Anyway, I have an insane amount of work to do over the next couple days, so don't expect a lot of new stuff until Friday. I'll try to at least fisk the DO if they give me something good to work with. We'll see about that.

Posted by CD at 01:00 AM | Comments (2)

January 27, 2004

Made it Another Year

NOTE: I am keeping this post at the top of the page for the whole day. Scroll past it for newer stuff (AFTER you read it, ya ungrateful ingrate!). My birthday, my rules. Heh.

Okay, it's now after midnight, which would make it January 27th. Why is that important, you ask?

Well, if you remember the updates, you may know that today is my 19th birthday. On this day in 1985, at 9:58 PM, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, CD entered the world. Since then, he has apparently decided to start referring to himself in the third person for no apparent reason.

Anyway, this is my first birthday away from home, so it's a little strange. However, if you want to help out, all I ask is that you sign the guestmap if you haven't done so already. Or send traffic. Traffic is good.

I'll also point out yet again that it would be really cool to know the identity of the Syracuse student (I'm assuming you're a student by the syr.edu domain) who has been coming here from Google just about every day. I'll probably stop saying that pretty soon, but it's just a suggestion...

I still have work to do, so that's it for now. I'll leave with a question that I've been pondering for a while: Is there any real milestone associated with turning 19? You drive at 16, you vote at 18, you're no longer a teenager at 20, and you can drink at 21 (although I don't plan to). Is there anything special about 19, or is it just another digit?

...I think it's a good question...

Posted by CD at 11:59 PM | Comments (10)

Birthday Bonanza

Wow. This is kind of pointless, but I have to share it. Look at all this stuff my family sent me for my birthday:

View Image

It was fun carrying that up the stairs, let me tell you. The best part was when I went to get all of it from the front desk. The girl working there looked at me and said, "Is it your birthday or something?"

I felt like saying, "No, I just get cakes sent to me at random every few days," but that would've been rude. Funny, but rude.

You may now return to your lives.

Oh, and don't ask me why the cake box says "BOOK" on it. I don't know either.

Posted by CD at 04:29 PM | Comments (2)

Yet Another "Brief Thoughts"

Okay, I have class soon, but I want to make an entry here really fast and cover a few points.

First of all, most of us have seen David Kay's report that Iraq probably didn't have WMD when we went in. I'm still not quite convinced, as I think they moved whatever they did have to Syria, but IMO, the humanitarian reasons for going into Iraq were the #1 priority anyway. I think Dubya just talked about WMD to try and convince the "international community" that was so excited about actually taking action against a threat. That's my two cents, anyway.

Also, let me just say that I love my psychology class. First of all, the professor demonstrated how past experiences can alter our perceptions by playing the "candy bar in the swimming pool" scene from Caddy Shack. That was pretty effective. We also looked at some optical illusions, which I happen to really enjoy.

The best part was his demonstration of how we form perceptions of things we can't see based on other information. He had a girl reach into a bag, choose an object, and describe it to the class. I'll try to script out how it went here. Keep in mind that the object turned out to be a banana:

PROF: Describe what you feel.
STUDENT: Uh...it's kind of smooth and hard...but it's also squishy. And you can squeeze it...
(scattered laughter from the class)
PROF: What else?
STUDENT: It's curved...and it has a bruise...
(more scattered laughter)
PROF: Keep going.
STUDENT: It's...uh...kind of long.
(laughter increases)
PROF: How long is "kind of long?"
STUDENT: ...Five...inches?
(laughter gets louder)
PROF: She's just describing it. I don't know why you're laughing!

...You get the idea. I hope. This professor is really entertaining. First of all, he looks like a cross between Steven Spielberg and Tom Green, but he sounds kind of like Andy Dick. And his name is Larry. No relation to Larry the Liberal.

Posted by CD at 12:32 PM | Comments (2)


I love experimenting. I was doing some Spanish homework, and I happened to slip while typing an accent mark. As a result, I found out that I just have to push Option+R to get this: ®. No more of that HTML crap!

Also, I discovered a few other new functions enabled by the Option key. Namely:

œ ∑ ´ ® † ¥ ¨ ˆ ø π å ß ∂ ƒ © ˙ ∆ ˚ ¬ Ω ≈ ç √ ∫ ˜ µ ¡ ™ £ ¢ ∞ § ¶ • ª º ≤ ≥ ≠ … æ «⁄ € ‹ › fi fl ‡ ° · ‚ á é í ó ú ñ ¡ ¿ ü ”’»

I'm using a Mac, by the way, so this may not work for many of you.

Posted by CD at 01:36 AM | Comments (6)

January 26, 2004

Stat Issues

Is anyone else's Sitemeter about an hour behind? I'm just finding out about visits I got at 7:30.

Posted by CD at 08:40 PM | Comments (6)

Dr. Dean's Diagnosis

This is utterly ridiculous:

"You can say that it's great that Saddam is gone and I'm sure that a lot of Iraqis feel it is great that Saddam is gone," said the former Vermont governor, an unflinching critic of the war against Iraq. "But a lot of them gave their lives. And their living standard is a whole lot worse now than it was before."

What an idiot. I guess that since he knows he'll never be president, he's just saying the first thing that pops into his head. And that thing, of course, is "I hate George W. Bush."

Howard Dean, please go away. Now.

I was testing the idiot link, and I happened to come across this:

LEBANON, NH—The following is the statement of Governor Howard Dean, M.D.:

"Thirty one years ago, the Supreme Court recognized that American women have a constitutional right to control their own bodies. But the right to choose hangs in the balance of the 2004 election. If George W. Bush gets to appoint even one anti-choice justice to the Court, the era of safe, legal abortion in the United States will end.

"As a family doctor, a Board Member of my local Planned Parenthood and Governor of Vermont, I have worked my entire adult life to promote women's health. If elected President I will defend the right to reproductive privacy and fight to keep politics out of medicine."

So, let's summarize the statements of "Doctor" Dean:

-Women are exercising their right to control their own bodies by causing the destruction of a completely separate body.

-Anti-choice judges are so blinded by ideology that we can't possibly trust them to make decisions on ANY issues, let alone abortion-related ones.

-Dean has promoted women's health by advocating a procedure that, if successful, results in the death of at least one person.

-It's necessary to keep politics out of medicine. This, of course, doesn't apply if a judicial nominee is pro-life.

Why must Dean be such a douche?

Posted by CD at 07:53 PM | Comments (4)

Another Brief Thought

You probably know this, but it's very hard to write an extended blog entry on 4 hours of sleep. Thus, "brief thoughts."

I was reading through the Daily Orange to see if there was anything to write about, and I came across this article about the speaker coming to SU tonight.

That's right, Chuck D. of Public Enemy is coming to Syracuse to SPEAK. Not to perform, but to SPEAK. Once again, draw your own conclusions.

Anyway, one sentence in particular stood out from the rest of the article:

"We were looking for diverse speakers," said Dennis Jacobs, chairman of University Union Speakers, "and we thought it would be interesting for someone from the music world to speak rather than perform."

"Diverse speakers." Interesting terminology. You know, I've noticed that every time the school talks about diversity, they basically mean "black people." I know that's not really an accurate analysis of the entire "diversity" plan, but I've noticed a tendency to refer to "diverse speakers," such as Chuck D., Phylicia Rashad, and James Earl Jones.

Notice how all three of those people are, in fact, the same color? That doesn't seem very diverse. That really bothers me, especially considering the point I've made in the past that there are only 2 ways to have a "diverse speaker."

The first way, according to the actual definition of "diverse," is to have a speaker who changes color, gender, or physical form in some way throughout the presentation. I still haven't seen the advertisements for Optimus Prime's big visit.

The second way for a single speaker to be diverse is if "diverse" means "not white."

...You can find a more interesting analysis of this terminology here.

Posted by CD at 02:37 PM | Comments (5)

Brief Thought

I have very little to write about today. Sorry.

I do want to point out one thing, though. I was looking on John Kerry's website to try and figure out where he stands on various issues, and I noticed a statistic claiming that hate crimes rose 3.5% between 1999 and 2000.

First of all, why is he using a 4 year-old statistic? Second, does that actually indicate that there's more hatred now?

Think about this: If you're in charge, and you decide to make blinking illegal, couldn't you then say that blink crime has gone up 100%? That's my problem with hate crime statistics. When you define hate crime as "bad things that people do to minorities," you're going to have a lot more hate crime.

In any case, hate crime laws are idiotic. By the logic they use, we could vary the sentence for breaking and entering depending on how much the intruder was planning to steal, even if they didn't get away with it.

See what I mean about critical thinking? If everyone learned to make logical distinctions like that, there'd be no more liberals, and Rachel Lucas' dream could be a reality at last!

Posted by CD at 02:08 PM | Comments (4)

Dean Link

Go here. You'll like it. Trust me.

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

January 25, 2004

More Search Term Hilarity

I think I'll end the day with another roundup of search terms that have brought people to my old site over the past few days. Here we go:

-intelligent celebs-

Isn't that an oxymoron?

-chappelle they deserved to die and i hope they burn in hell-


-what a person can eat and drink if the ths person is suffering from gas and fatty liver-


-Critical essays for "Creationism Isn't Science"-

You came to the wrong place for that. Heh.

-michael moore "false pretenses"-

Someone gets it.

-9th circuit court study shows minorities are too stupid to use voting mac-

I think it was supposed to say "machines." Either way, that's funny.

I hope you've enjoyed this edition of "Hilarious and Stupid Search Terms." I'll be back around noon tomorrow.

Posted by CD at 11:44 PM | Comments (3)

College Observation

You know what's great about having a roommate who talks to his family and his girlfriend on the phone every single night? You get to hear one side of the exact same conversation 3 or 4 times in a row. Too bad I'm not getting tested on that information.

Posted by CD at 09:20 PM | Comments (3)

Analyzing John Edwards

Like I said, I want to look at the policies of John Edwards, who seems to be gaining popularity over Dr. Hulk and Wesley "Anti-American Propagandists Endorse Me" Clark. I'm kind of curious myself, as I haven't really taken a close look at him. I've been too busy making fun of Mad How and Crap Weasel.

To make up for that, I'll look at a few of his positions from this page on his campaign website and the related links. I won't be linking to individual pages here, but you can check my quotes for yourself if you want by clicking on the above link and going to the appropriate sections.

First of all, as far as his economic policies go, I can't say much, being more or less economically illiterate. However, he does want to repeal the Bush tax cuts, and he makes a lot of references to the legendary "Top 1 Percent" of Americans who supposedly don't pay taxes. Basically, he wants to tax the crap out of rich people. Pretty standard left wing stuff there.

Now, we come to civil rights, which is more or less my favorite area of politics because of how warped the whole concept of civil rights has become. Let's look at a few of Edwards' ideas:

Ensuring Fair Admissions To Colleges And Universities
Edwards has fought Bush administration efforts to weaken affirmative action programs, and personally signed a brief that urged the United States Supreme Court to uphold affirmative action at the University of Michigan.

Well, that answers the question of what he thinks about racial preferences.

At the same time, Edwards has encouraged colleges and universities to make college admissions fairer by eliminating legacy admissions that favor the wealthy.

Eliminating legacy admissions=good. Doing so just because they "favor the wealthy"=stupid. You people really take that "money is the root of all evil" stuff to heart, don't you?

Fighting For Judges Who Will Support Our Civil Rights Laws
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Edwards has questioned, and later opposed, judicial nominees who would put their personal views above the law, including Charles Pickering, Bill Pryor, and Miguel Estrada.

And the current judges haven't put their personal views above the law? What about your support of the UM affirmative action plan? That didn't gain popular support, but you seem to want the judges to institute it anyway. Once again, we end up positively drenched in liberal elitism. "Only we on the left know what's best for The People™, and if you disagree with us, it's only because your personal views are blinding you to the truth!"

By the way, why would Miguel Estrada, a Hispanic judge, be against civil rights? Does he hate himself? What about Bill Pryor, who is very religious? Does he not want civil rights for Christians?

Moving ahead...

Punishing Hate Crimes
Edwards supports legislation to punish crimes motivated by hatred of people based on their race, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

Of course, the lawyer wants to make sure that his profession has plenty of ridiculous cases to keep them employed. What is it with liberals and focusing only on motivation?

-"Bush only went to war for oil!"
-"The tax cuts were only meant to help the rich!"
-"You only murdered him because he's black!"

Ensuring America Is Strong And Free
Edwards believes that we don't have to sacrifice our liberties or our equal rights in order to preserve our security. America cannot allow this administration and John Ashcroft to use the war on terrorism to take away our civil rights, take away our liberties, and take away our freedom.

What exactly has Ashcroft done, anyway? That's one of those "abuses of the Patriot Act" situations. They always claim Ashcroft wants to take our rights away, but can't actually provide an example. Incidentally, why would you be worried about your own rights because of policies designed to catch terrorists? Have you been hanging around Al Qaeda types lately?

There's more, but it's all about frickin' taxes again. I really need to take an economics class. Let's move on to his education policy, which contains one of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen, known as "College for Everyone."

Offer "College for Everyone"
Edwards will provide one year of free tuition to public universities and community colleges.

In return, students will be required to come to college academically prepared and to work or serve their communities for an average of 10 hours each week.

Idea...so...stupid...that...I...can't...stop...using...ellipses! How can you possibly think that's a good idea? Do you see this? He wants to pay a year's worth of tuition for EVERYBODY. Do you realize how freaking expensive that would be? Where does he think this money is going to come from? Why, the "Top 1 Percent," of course. That explains it.

I didn't know about this policy until a few minutes ago, but I can already tell that it's horrible. I don't get it. Did it ever occur to him that some people just weren't meant to go to college, and those who were can usually afford it if they really try? Why don't we just take the next logical step and make college compulsory and government-funded. Gotta control the uneducated masses, right? Moron.

End "Legacy" Admissions
Many colleges are more likely to admit students whose parents attended. The "legacy" admissions preferences stack the deck against students who may be the first in their family to go to college.

While strongly supporting affirmative action to open the doors of college, Edwards believes colleges and universities should eliminate legacy preferences.

This really bothers me. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm against legacy admissions AND affirmative action. How can you be for one and against the other? APPLY THE SAME STANDARDS TO EVERYONE!!!!!!

Since there's still a chance this guy might be president, I'm glad I already got into a private university. These policies are insane.

Moving on to foreign policy...

Protecting the safety and security of the American people. * Winning the war on terrorism. * Maintaining the world's best military. * Winning the peace. * Forging a global coalition against weapons of mass destruction. * Promoting America's highest values - democracy, freedom and human rights - around the world. * Rebuilding relationships with America's allies and friends. * Working to resolve conflicts. * Revitalizing institutions that make America stronger.

Edwards apparently supports the Iraq War and the WoT, so there's not a lot to say here. I still don't know if I can trust him, but he at least seems to realize that we have a military for a reason.

Moving on again to health care, I'll just cover one main problem:

A plan that will work
It is wrong that 12 million children are without health insurance. My plan will, for the first time in history, cover each and every one. It takes care of our most vulnerable adults. It helps regular Americans who work their hearts out pay for the high cost of health care. It does so in a way that families and the country can afford.

Draw your own conclusions. Frickin' socialism.

Edwards looks fairly sane on homeland security, and unlike Dr. Douche, he has an actual plan to fight terrorism. Sounds slightly better, but I still think Dubya has the right idea and doesn't need to be replaced at the moment. Now, we move on to the "women and families" section, where I will quickly cover his views on abortion:

Supporting Roe vs. Wade, Fighting For a Federal Freedom of Choice Act
Edwards is a strong supporter of Roe vs. Wade and a woman's right to choose. At a January 2003 NARAL event, Edwards said he would "help lead a fight to pass a federal freedom of choice act so that your right to choose is guaranteed and protected no matter what the court does."

I feel nauseous already. "Let's make murdering unborn children an undisputed right!" Crap, this disgusts me.

He has voted against Republican efforts to prohibit funding for choice for federal employees, DC residents and women overseas at international family planning centers.

If it's a frickin' choice, don't make the government pay for it. If these women are so set on killing their kids, let's see them do it with their own money.

He also voted to eliminate a ban on abortions at overseas military facilities, which would ban abortion even if the woman paid for it herself.

"Even if." Well, I guess he really does think the government should pay for it.

Opposing a Global Gag Rule
Edwards opposes President Bush's reinstatement of the "Mexico City policy" or "global gag rule," which prevents an organization from receiving federal funding—or UN funding—if they provide abortions or counsel patients about abortions.

I don't know what to say. He really does want abortion to be a government-financed right. Tell me, when did you realize that you hate children?

Opposing Anti-Choice Nominations
Edwards, a member of the Judiciary Committee voted against the nominations of John Ashcroft, Priscilla Owen, and Bill Pryor each strongly opposed by pro-choice groups such as NOW, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood.

Why, exactly, did you do this? I don't understand that at all. What is it about being anti-abortion that automatically makes someone unfit to be a judge? If I can offer a bit of related commentary, what does it say about the moral state of this country when people who OPPOSE the destruction of innocent children are considered extremists? Think about it.

Anyway, that's just a small sampling of the information available on the Edwards website. My first impression:

He's good on homeland security and national defense, but he seems to hate anyone with money, he can't see the problems with racial preferences despite his opposition to legacy admissions, he wants to socialize health care and college, and he's about as pro-abortion as you can get.

CD gives John Edwards a thumbs down. The rest of you can make your own judgments. I'll analyze Johnkerrywhowasinvietnam another time.

Posted by CD at 07:18 PM | Comments (3)

Sunday Stuff

Yeah, I took an unannounced day off. There was nothing to write about yesterday, and I only got about 40 visitors, so it wouldn't have made much of a difference. I'm surprised Larry didn't come back.

Anyway, I do have some stuff planned for later. I want to dissect the policies of John Edwards and John Kerry, the two candidates who are now looking more like potential Democratic nominees. I'll start with Edwards later today, and Kerry will follow eventually. Until then, here are a few things that have been on my mind:

-Do people in college dorms realize that it's possible to close a door without slamming the frickin' thing? This is especially annoying during the night. I was trying to go to sleep around 4:30, and the idiots must've slammed the same door 10 times in half an hour. It's not that hard to hold the door while you close it!

-Cell phones. They're annoying. I was at a meeting today for my TRF class with 2 other people. The meeting lasted about 25 minutes. During those 25 minutes, both people got a cell phone call. That's just sad.

-While I was typing the following point, I accidentally unplugged the computer with my foot and had to wait 5 minutes for it to restart. Luckily, I save frequently.

-I've been thinking about something. Dubya keeps talking about improving schools to make sure that all children learn reading and math skills. That's obviously important, since those are the most basic forms of knowledge and are necessary for everyday life.

However, there's another area that schools are ignoring. I think that all students, preferably during high school, should be required to take at least one class in critical thinking (forming arguments, logical fallacies, etc.). I taught myself critical thinking using various websites over several months last year, and it's really helped me to form and defend my opinions. Plus, it would practically eliminate Michael Moore's fan base, as well as most of the Democratic Party, within the next 20 years!

-Seriously, if you are the person on the syr.edu domain who visits this site from Google on a daily basis, it would be really cool to know who you are. Just sayin'.

-Remember the above thing about slamming doors? At least 5 doors have been slammed while I've been typing this. What's wrong with you people?

-Reminder #3: My birthday is on Tuesday. I'm going to be 19. Wow.

I think that's it for now. I'll be back later with some political analysis.

Posted by CD at 04:37 PM | Comments (6)

January 23, 2004

Larry's Roundup

Hi, everyone. It's time for the sensible part of this blog, a new feature called "Larry's Roundup." Every Friday night, I'll post my thoughts about a few of the news stories that have gotten a lot of attention, or other issues I feel like including. There's not much this week, but I have a job to do.

First of all, despite what CD (what's that stand for, anyway? Conservative Dunderhead?) may have told you, Maureen Dowd was right on in her last column. I mean, did you see Bushler's arrogant speech? He was screaming and shaking his fist in the air and threatening people...I bet all the Congresspeople in the front row were soaked with the froth coming from his monkey mouth. And people think Dean is angry!

Now, let's talk about this story. I don't get it. Look at this excerpt:

A small group of Westside High School students plastered the school Monday with posters advocating that a white student from South Africa receive the "Distinguished African American Student Award" next year. The students' actions on Martin Luther King Jr. Day upset several students and have led administrators to discipline four students.

All the neocons on the blogosphere are calling this racism and saying that the students did the right thing. WHAT? How could you possibly make sense of this? Read the story. They wanted to give the "Distinguished African-American Student Award" to a white student. How hard is this to understand? You can't give him the award if he doesn't fit the criteria!

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The student isn't an African-American, so how could he be eligible for the award? What's next, a male Miss America? That would be fine by your logic, idiots. The horrible racist students were trying to say that African-Americans don't deserve awards because they'll always be inferior. How can you possibly stand up for them unless you're also racists? Admit it!

I also want to talk about Michael Moore's endorsement of Wesley Clark. First of all, I'm not a Clark supporter. My man, Dennis Kucinich, is going all the way, and I see no point in endorsing anyone else. However, some Repugs seem to think that Clark is going to lose credibility with Moore's support, and since I am a Michael Moore fan, I have to step in.

He already got into some trouble in the debate. Moore accused Bush* of being a "deserter," and and Peter Jennings asked Clark if he agreed. Clark, in turn, said that he hasn't investigated the story, so he can't comment.

Now, my question to you is this: Why are you making such a big deal of that claim? I mean, Shrub was at least AWOL, right? Moore is just trying to make a point. Don't you get it? He makes people think! BFC opened my eyes to all the problems with racism and violentce and bowling in this country, and now Moore is just trying to make people realize that our Chimp in Chief is a coward! Why should Clark be portrayed in a negative light because of that?

Finally, all you paranoid Repukes out there who think there's some Liberal Media™ taking over the world should look at this story. Read the headline:

Dean: 'I have all kinds of warts'

Now, would a Liberal Media™ use that as their headline? He's not even talking about warts! He used it as a metaphor for imperfections! However, the Corporate News Network has decided to make people think that Dean has some sort of wart problem. Now people are going to call him "Howart Dean!" CNN is no better than Faux News.

That's all for now. By the way, I'm officially registered to post on Democratic Underground. My username is LLLLarry. If any of you facist sheeple want to see some intelligent thought, you should go to DU and check it out. That's where I'll be for the next hour or so. See ya.

Posted by Larry the Liberal at 09:20 PM | Comments (9)

Suggestion for Dubya

I just thought of something for Bush to try. Next time someone says that we went to Iraq unilaterally, pull a Howard Dean on 'em:

"You know something? You know something? We've got allies in Britain! And Australia! And Japan! And South Korea! And the Philippines! AND THAILAND! AND ITALY! AND SPAIN!!! AND POLAND!!!!! AND DENMARK!!!! AND HUNGARY!!!!

That would've made the SOTU much more entertaining.

Posted by CD at 07:24 PM | Comments (2)

Fisking the Crazy Columnist

It may have been done on other blogs, and it may be a total waste of time, but I don't care. I'm going to fisk Maureen Dowd's latest column. Let's get started:

Riding the Crazy Train, By MAUREEN DOWD

Whoa! That was quite the steroid-infused performance.

He only mentioned steroids once, actually.

Who's the guy's political consultant — Russell Crowe?

That's an interesting thought. "My fellow Americans...at my signal, unleash hell!"

He was so in-your-face, smirking his trademark smirk, it was disturbing to think of him in charge of the military. It's a good thing he stopped drinking and started talking about God.

"In-your-face?" Uh, he was giving a speech, Mauron. What did you want him to be like?

You wonder how many votes he scared off with that testosterone festival...

I love how intimidated she is by all this. That explains why liberals are so afraid of war and guns. Apparently, anything more forceful than a castrated three-legged poodle is a "testosterone festival." I think he should've been more intimidating. He only raised his voice a couple times, and he just sounded like he was scolding people instead of telling them what he thinks.

...the taunting message...

I must've missed that part. I wonder, is taunting::refuting as censorship::criticism?

...the self-righteous geographic litany of support? The Philippines. Thailand. Italy. Spain. Poland. Denmark. Bulgaria. Ukraine. Romania. The Netherlands. Norway. El Salvador.

How exactly is it self-righteous to state that other countries are with us, anyway? I can only think of one reason. In the words of Jack Nicholson, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

Can you believe President Bush is still pushing the cockamamie claim that we went to war in Iraq with a real coalition rather than a gaggle of poodles and lackeys?

Apparently, you can't believe that they would actually support the war. In Dowdland, everybody hates the evil testosterone festival known as the Republican Party. Here's a question: Would it still be a "gaggle of lackeys" if France and Germany were with us? Of course not, because their support would automatically justify the war, even though it wouldn't change any of the reasons we went or any of the effects it had.

His State of the Union address took his swaggering sheriff routine to new heights. "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country," he vowed.

"Swaggering sheriff." Brilliant. So now the president of the most powerful country in the history of civilization can't even assert the fact that he's allowed to make decisions on his own. You know, I think every country that wants to go to war should ask US for permission first. After all, we could easily wipe them out, couldn't we? And the fact that we could wipe them out is the reason we don't need their permission.

Translation: Hey, we don't need no stinking piece of paper to bring it on in other countries. If it feels good, we'll do it, and we'll decide later why we did it. You lookin' at me?

Translation translation: "Hey, I don't need no stinkin' logic to justify my hatred of Bush! If it sounds good, I'll write it, and I'll decide later why people don't trust me!"

Sure, Howard Dean was also over the top when he uttered the squeal heard round the world. With one guttural primary primal scream, he went from Internet deity to World Wide Wacko and remix victim, with the scream mixed in on Web sites to punctuate Ozzy Osbourne's "Crazy Train."

Anyone know where I can find a recording of this? I can just imagine it: "I'm going off the campaign trail on a crazy train!!!"

Yes, Howard, you know you're in trouble when Chris Matthews says you make him look like Jim Lehrer; when David Letterman compares you to a hockey dad; when The New York Post suggests you have a "God complex." (As Alec Baldwin's twisted doctor said in "Malice": "You ask me if I have a God complex? Let me tell you something. I am God.")

The truth hurts, doesn't it Howie? I actually agree with this part of the column, but I'm sure Dowd will find a way to turn "the squeal" into some sort of righteous anger.

Once Michael Dukakis got in trouble when he failed to get angry when asked how he would react if his wife were raped and murdered.

But Dr. Dean's snarly, teeth-baring Iowa finale was so Ross-Perot-scare-off-the-women-and-horses crazy that some Democrats on Capitol Hill, already anxious about the tightly wound doctor, confessed they could not imagine that jabbing finger anywhere near The Button.

But Bush's "trademark smirk" still scares you even more, doesn't it?

But Republicans were thrilled when Mr. Bush strutted up onstage on Tuesday night to basically tell the country that if you don't vote for him in November, you're giving up in the war on terrorism.

Let's all play every liberal idiot's favorite game: "Put Words in the President's Mouth!!!" It's fun for the whole Party as you try to rationalize the undeniable fact that your entire philosophy is wrong while belittling the leader of the free world for taking that oh-so-politically incorrect action of having an opinion!

"We've not come all this way — through tragedy, and trial and war — only to falter and leave our work unfinished," he asserted, as if all those Democrats racing from Iowa to New Hampshire in the middle of the night were crying out to the voters: "Falter! Falter!"

I wonder if any of those Democrats were the ones holding protest signs that said "We support our troops when they shoot their officers."

Dr. Dean's poll numbers are diving because people freezing in New Hampshire think he's too hot.

Well, when a white guy suddenly has a red face, people tend to make that connection.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are better at looking cool. But their dissing the U.N. — that palace of permission slips...

This might be considered witty if it weren't true. The U.N. basically is a "palace of permission slips." Also, you may recall that the heroic U.N. forces usually leave the combat zone as soon as someone gets a hangnail.

...— and their doctrine of pre-emption are just as hot...

You know what would be hot without pre-emption? U.S. cities. Know why they'd be hot? Because there would be F**KING NUKES FALLING ON 'EM!!!!!!!!!!!!

...and so was Mr. Bush's cocky implicit defense of the idea that if you whack one Middle East dictator, the rest will fall in line.

So Kadaffi (that's how I'm spelling his name. I don't care if it's right.) doesn't count as a Middle East dictator, just as the countries that contributed to the war don't count as allies? Tell me, does the wind tunnel between your ears make it hard to hear soft noises?

"Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not," he said. "For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America."

Maybe he's right...

"I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."

Yeah, maybe he's right. Just maybe...

...but what about Bill Clinton's line that unless we want to occupy every country in the world, maybe our policy should also concentrate on making friends instead of targets?

Bill Clinton also said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." I don't think you should cite him as the most credible source. Oh, wait, I forgot that "credible" means "anything liberals agree with."

The president and vice president like to present a calm, experienced demeanor, but their foreign policy is right out of the let's-out-crazy-the-bad-guys style of Mel Gibson's cop in "Lethal Weapon" movies.

Let's see here...what's crazier...taking out an evil dictator who had terrorist connections and murdered his own people, or leaving him alone because he hasn't attacked us yet? Operative word being "yet," of course.

For proof of how intemperate their policy has been, compare this year's State of the Union with last year's. Last year it was all about Iraq's frightening weapons. This year the only reference was to "dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations."

And it was all the Bush administration's fault, right? All of a sudden, none of these people are credible, despite the fact that your hero, Bill Clinton, is among them?

Would Americans have supported a war to go get "program activities?" What is a program activity? Where is the White House speechwriters' ombudsman?

Basically, a "program activity" is a system of actions taken to develop something, in this case, WMD. So, this means that we still have evidence that Hussein wanted weapons, and since we've already found some old weapons that the U.N. inspectors missed (even though they weren't WMD), there's a pretty good chance he could be hiding something else.

Here's a final question: Should we have allowed Iraq to continue developing weapons, and maybe even use them, just so we would have "justification" for the war, or would the left still find an excuse to protest?

I think we all know the answer to that one.  

Posted by CD at 07:13 PM | Comments (7)

Quick Points

Just a couple points to cover. First of all, I got a random troll on my Howard Dean is Still an Idiot post. Anyone recognize the name "Ben Green?" Friggin' coward didn't even have the balls to troll the front page.

Second, don't judge this blog's quality by Larry the Liberal's posts. That's all I'll say.

Finally, I notice that the mystery Syracuse person was back a couple more times. Again, if you want to be anonymous, that's fine, but it really would be cool if I knew who you were. Just a suggestion.

I have class in a little while, but I'll be back later, hopefully with a post that's actually interesting.

Posted by CD at 02:12 PM | Comments (2)

Google Comedy

This is too good. Somebody just came to the blog by Googling for i want to have sex with howard dean.

Whoever you are, I have a message for you...


That is all.

Something just occurred to me. What if that was actually Howard Dean himself doing that search?

...It could happen!

Posted by CD at 12:47 AM | Comments (4)

January 22, 2004

Thursday Night Roundup

Okay, I'm finally back. I spend most of the day braving high winds and snow tornadoes or sitting in lectures. I also had to climb about 600 stairs over the course of the day. Good times. Actually, we're supposed to get a foot of snow tonight, so I'm glad I made Thursday my busy day.

I don't have any huge posts prepared right now, but I do want to do another multi-point thingy about various topics.

1) You know what's hard? Using Minitab for the first time ever in a math lab, trying to keep up with the directions, and running the program on a Windows computer when you're used to Macs. You know what's harder? Having the aforementioned directions given to you by a TA whose Indian accent is so heavy that you can barely tell what numbers you're supposed to use. That's one of the drawbacks of diversity, I guess.

2) When you think about it, Democrats really shouldn't call themselves "progressive." After all, they're the ones who constantly insist on using policies that obviously don't work instead of trying something new. Just look at gun control, affirmative action, socialized medicine, welfare, tax increases, the UN...

3) In my Script, Picture, and Sound class, the professor reminded us that visual productions are usually much more emotional than intellectual. That might explain why there are so many liberals in Hollywood.

4) I may alienate some people with this one, but I have to cover it: This week, I've been forced to walk behind a few people who were smoking (I use the word "forced" because I was usually behind them on a flight of stairs, leaving me no room to go around). This reminded me of something: Smoking is frickin' idiotic. Why would anyone want to start, and how can they stand it long enough to get addicted? Is there some hidden appeal to inhaling carbon monoxide and smelling like a disgruntled chimney sweep? I've never understood this.

5) It's very easy to prevent things like this from happening. You can either admit that you mean "black" and not "African-American," you can come up with another less "offensive" word to replace "black," or you can STOP JUDGING PEOPLE BY THEIR F**KING RACE. Take your pick.

6) Did anyone see the "Howard Dean interview" on Conan O'Brien? That was hilarious!

Conan: Howard, you seem a little excited.

Dean: Of course I'm excited, Conan! That's because I've had so much caffeine! And steroids! And Ritalin! And cocaine! And crystal meth! YEEEEEEAHHH!!!!!!!

7) Reminder #2: My birthday is next Tuesday. Acceptable presents include signing the guestmap and sending me traffic. Or you could do nothing. It's up to you.

...I think that's about it. Larry the Liberal will be back tomorrow for a new Friday feature called "Larry's Roundup." Every Friday night, Larry will give his opinion of a few of the week's top stories. It should be entertaining.

Posted by CD at 09:16 PM | Comments (2)

I'm Here to Stay!

Hello, everyone. This is Larry the Liberal again. CD is pretty busy with college, and he wanted to get some perspective from the other side, so he decided to make me co-author of Semi-Intelligent Thoughts. This truly will be a fair and balanced weblog now!

What does this mean, you ask? Basically, I'll be posting a couple times a week to make sure all you neocons out there are exposed to the superior liberal viewpoint. I won't have a fixed schedule, but I will try to write at least 2 posts every week. Occasionally, CD and I might even debate about important issues, or we might each make a separate post about the same topic. We're still working on that part.

Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that SIT is now a 2 author blog. If you have any questions, you can email me at impeachthechimp2000-at-yahoo-dot-com. That is a real address, just so you know. I don't lie like the pResident.

I'm done now, but I'll be back!

...Oh, no! I sound like the Gropenfuhrer!!!

Posted by Larry the Liberal at 07:04 PM | Comments (3)

Preemptive Posting

I have a very busy day coming up. Basically, it's Spanish from 8:30 to 9:25, followed by math lab from 10:00 to 10:55. In the afternoon, I have astronomy from 1:00 to 2:20, followed by TRF from 2:30 until 5:20.

Obviously, that means I won't have a lot of blogging time, so I'll just cover a few brief blog-related points now.

1. "Larry the Liberal" will probably be guest blogging a few more times. I like to have a little contrast, and it's good to get some opinions from the other side. He'll be the Colmes to my Hannity. Or something.

2. I'd like to thank Howard Dean for giving me two of the highest daily traffic counts I've ever had. Thanks to numerous people searching for "Howard Dean is an idiot," "Howard Dean crazy," "Howard Dean's shriek," and other terms, I got over 100 hits on Tuesday and Wednesday. Thank you, Mad How, for the traffic.

3. My Sitemeter tells me that someone on a Syracuse University computer has visited this site several times over the past week (it's the same IP every time, so I know it's one person). If this is you, please feel free to leave a comment or e-mail me if you actually like the blog. It would be interesting to meet one of my readers in real life. If you don't want to reveal your identity, that's also fine. I just think it's cool that someone on campus reads my writing occasionally.

4. My birthday is next Tuesday (January 27). I just wanted to point that out now in case I forget.

5. I still have work to finish, so I really shouldn't be doing this right now.

6. I'll end with a brief anecdote. I was on the computer around 10:00 Wednesday morning, but my roommate was still asleep. Until the fire alarm went off, at least. His response was "F**K YOU, FIRE ALARM!" It turned out to be a prank, and it actually turned off right before most of us from the second floor left the building. Then, when we got back upstairs, it went off again. And again. And again. I don't know who did it, but I know that they suck.

That was pointless.

7. That's it. I'm done. Go read Frnak.

I'll probably post again around 7 PM unless I get a chance at lunchtime. We'll see.

Posted by CD at 01:05 AM | Comments (2)

January 21, 2004

Totally Random Thought

An interesting idea just popped into my head, and instead of going into a lengthy description, I'll just write what I'm thinking.

Remember senioritis? That feeling that you have during the last semester of high school, when you've already been accepted to college and your grades are high enough to get you in no matter what? Remember how hard it was to get motivated because you knew that hard work really wouldn't make a difference?

That's what socialism would do to American workers. Think about it.

Posted by CD at 10:32 PM | Comments (2)

Another Perspective on the SOTU

Okay, I'm back again, and as promised, you now get to read someone else's opinion of Bush's State of the Union address. The guy who's going to write this wishes to remain anonymous. Apparently, he thinks that John Ashcroft will burn his house down and kill his puppies if he's perceived as unpatriotic. Therefore, we'll just call him "Larry the Liberal." I'll hand the keyboard over to him now.

Hi, folks. I'm Larry the Liberal, and I'm going to give you the real story behind The Chimp's State of the Union speech. Of course, he really shouldn't have given it, since he isn't the president, but let's just pretend that he was elected for the sake of this commentary.

First of all, I didn't actually see the speech, listen to it, or read a transcript. That smirking Nazi disgusts me, and I refuse to directly expose myself to anything that comes out of his mouth. Fortunately, thanks to my friends at Indymedia, The Smirking Chimp, and Democratic Underground, I have a pretty good idea of how it went. Plus, I already know that pResident Shrub is a lying, fascist scumbag, so I can fill in the blanks when necessary. Here's my take on the State of the Union for 2004:

Bush* started off by shaking hands with a bunch of people. I'm sure he was taking note of who gave him the weakest handshake, and we'll soon be hearing about their mysterious disappearance. Of course, he had to pay attention to the token African-American child in the crowd. Pandering racist slimeball...*spit*.

Dumbya started talking, and all the Democrats immediately cowered in fear as John Ashcroft gave them The Evil Eye™. The first part of the speech was a disgusting tribute to murder of women and innocent children, as Bushitler shamelessly promoted his imperialist war for oil.

Then, he talked about how the Department of Homeland Security is keeping an eye on anyone who doesn't have at least 1 American flag somewhere on their property. Ted Kennedy tried to object, but Ashcroft stopped him with a Jedi mind trick. Don't think he doesn't know how to do that!

Smirky spent the next few minutes bragging about how many innocent Arabs he's killed over the past 2 years. He made sure to point out that anyone who is against the war is no better than a Saddam loyalist or a Taliban fighter. If Democrats refused to applaud, they were dragged off into the shadows by the Secret Service.

Next, the lying thief tried to convince everybody that we didn't go into Iraq unilaterally, and we've got plenty of allies. What a liar. Look at the list: Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine...Where's France? Where's Germany? Why couldn't we get international support?

And furthermore, if it really is an international coalition, why do we always hear about AMERICAN deaths on the news? If he wants us to believe we have an international coalition, he could at least murder a few hundred soldiers from other countries to even things out. And then he should go to all their funerals so the families of the dead can kick him in the groin. What a jerk.

After this, he tried to say that we don't want to take over the world, but it was obvious that he wanted to reveal the truth. You could see it in his eyes and hear it in his voice. He was supposed to say that "We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire," but it came out as "Amurka will not stop because of terra! We will take over the world, and if anyone wants to stop us, bring 'em on!"

I think he also said "All your oil are belong to us," but the cheering from the Repuke section was so loud that it drowned him out. Those dittohead sheeple didn't even know what they were clapping for. They'll be smiling even as protesters and minorities are being marched into the death camps next October.

After this display of hatriotism, President Stupid started talking about the economy he ruined. He began by bragging about how many poor families have been forced to live in the streets while the richest people in the country watch and laugh from their giant mansions. He talked for quite a while about how the rich are getting richer at the fastest pace in 20 years, mansions are being built at the highest rate in 20 years, rich people are buying more vacation homes than ever, and jobs are being moved to other countries. He's proud of that?

Shrub then talked about his plan to put rich children in better schools and teach them the secrets of the VRWC. Meanwhile, poor children and minorities will be kicked out of most schools for being un-American.

It gets worse, too. If kids do make it into a real school, Monkeyboy wants to teach them...get this...READING AND MATH! How dumb can you be? Reading and math skills are useless if you haven't learned about the values of diversity, multiculturalism, and tolerance. Why are we even teaching reading and math in schools anymore? The Internet makes it possible for even the most illiterate people to communicate. That's what Internet languages are for. Math and reading? R U t3h 5ux0r?

After that, he went back into the stuff about taxes, and he introduced a new plan to give the rich $1,000 for every liberal that speaks out against him. Can you not see how evil this man is?

Once he was done telling the poor that they're not fit to live, he started talking about immigration reform, and the racism was clear from the start. He said that he won't give amnesty to any illegal aliens. What a racist! Just because they're not white, they don't deserve to be American citizens? I can't believe they let him get away with this.

Actually, from what I hear, a Mexican immigrant in the audience yelled a few things at him, and he responded by saying, "Why are speakin' that got-dang Spanglish to me, Rickity Martian? If you were an Amerkin, you'd be speakin' Amerkin!'" Of course, the man was immediately taken outside and beaten to a bloody pulp by Trent Lott, who had been hiding in the corner like Gollum for most of the night.

He then got into medical issues, and he immediately insulted everyone but the upper 1% of Americans by denying the Constitutional right to government-financed health care. Is he blind? Can't he see that socialized medicine is the only way to make sure that everyone gets equal treatment? It's clear that he only cares about the health of the rich. At one point during a Pug standing ovation, he even turned to Dick Cheney and said, "F**k the poor! We're takin' those major league a**holes out!"

After this, he talked about drugs and steroids. This was clearly an attempt to distract people from his own record with drugs and alcohol. Of course, without universal health care, it's no wonder so many people are self medicating. They have no choice, since Shrub took all their money and gave it to his greedy business partners at Helliburton.

Taking his position that all Americans should die even further, Bushler said that abstinence education is the only way to go. He demanded that condoms be taken out of stores immediately, and he implied that all abortionists will be rounded up within the next month for "re-education."

This proves that Smirkyboy wants Americans to suffer and is truly evil. If he cared about teenagers, why would he support abstinence education? We know that teens are going to have sex no matter what we do, so we might as well teach them to do it right so they can enjoy it. If they don't have all the facts, they could have a bad experience, and it would hurt their self-esteem. Abstinence kills teens! We need condom education, oral sex training, and Kama Sutra classes! That'll make teens safe AND let them enjoy their sexual diversity!!!

The next part of the speech makes me physically sick. Bushitler, that bigoted, homophobic fascist, launched into an incoherent rant about why gays are the most evil beings on the face of the earth, and they shouldn't have any rights because they're not human. A few Rethugs, led by Rick Santorum, got up and started chanting "Kill the Sodomites," but * drowned them out by yelling "GOD BLESS AMERICA AND F**K EVERYONE ELSE" over and over again.

At this point, the Democrats looked very nervous, but none of them expressed their disapproval. After all, Dumbya could push one button and set the entire left side of the room on fire. Fortunately, he's waiting for an event that isn't televised, so they have a little longer.

The last part of the speech was a letter from a girl named Ashley Pearson. First of all, that's obviously fake. "Ashley Pearson?" Sounds a lot like "actually a person," doesn't it? Chimpy's speechwriters thought they could get that past us, but they were wrong! See how much this administration lies? They're making up fake names to try and convince us that children support this evil administration!!!

Now, although I didn't see the speech, I did manage to find this actual quote from it. This is how Bushenfuhrer ended the most repulsive State of the Union address of all time:

"The year which lies behind us has been a year of great successes, but also, it is true, one of many sacrifices. Because the total number of dead and wounded is large in comparison with the first Gulf War, the sacrifices for each individual family concerned weigh heavy. Our whole sympathy, our love and care belongs to those who had to make these sacrifices. They have suffered what generations before us also had to suffer. Each individual American had to make other sacrifices. The nation worked in all spheres. Immigrants worked to replace the poor. It is a wonderful idea of community which dominates our people. That this ideal, that our whole strength should be preserved in the coming year-this should be our wish today. That we will work for this community-let that be our vow. That we conquer in devotion to this community-that is our faith, one in which we are confident, and that the Lord should not abandon us in this struggle of the coming year-let that be our prayer. God bless America!!!"

After that, the Repuke side chanted "USA! USA!" for a good 10 minutes while Smirky stood there and smirked. Meanwhile, the remaining Democrats vomited in disgust, and were immediately clubbed in the head for being unpatriotic.

Do we want to elect this fascist to his first term? I sure don't.

Okay, that was Larry the Liberal. I apologize for the lateness of this post, but I had to go through and check Larry's spelling. Everything else remains untouched.

Semi-Intelligent Thoughts: Fair and balanced.

Posted by CD at 07:11 PM | Comments (7)

The DO on the SOTU

Who's ready for another fisking? I know I am! The Daily Orange has a great editorial today about Bush's State of the Union address, and I feel it's my duty as a Syracuse student to point out where it goes wrong. Even though nobody at this school reads my blog...yet.

There's also a regular article that gives some student reactions, and I'll briefly cover that first. Check out this claim from the article:

Meeting head-on the charges that the United States embarked on the war and subsequent rebuilding in Iraq without international support, Bush named the 17 countries that back the effort to reshape Iraq.

Who spotted the mistake? That's right; Bush OMITTED 17 countries from the list he read, but the author apparently thinks that there are only 17 total. Way to check the facts.

Now, let's look at some student reactions:

"He was basically just kissing everyone's ass in that room," said Mike Beilinson, a sophomore television, radio and film major. "It was kind of disgusting, actually."

"I don't agree with a lot of what [Bush] says," [another student] said. "Overall, I think there is a lot of work to be done."

Criticism from left-of-center students was rivaled by the enthusiasm of at least one GOP supporter on campus. Ryan Colombo, president of SU's College Republicans, had high praises for the speech.

"It was the best State of the Union address I have ever seen or read a transcript of," Colombo said.

I might just be a little paranoid, but it seems odd that they interviewed two regular students for negative reactions, but the only positive one came from the president of the College Republicans. Seems like they're trying to enforce the "sheeple" stereotype.

Okay, I will now continue into the extened entry and fisk the editorial.

Bush lies keep on coming

Last night's long-winded State of the Union address was typical of George W. Bush - full of lies, half-truths and disinformation. The 54-minute speech was littered with examples of Bush's selectivity in telling the whole story.

Can you say "projection?"

First, Bush claimed there had been remnants of weapons of mass destruction programs found in Iraq and that "the world without Saddam is a better and safer place."

And your problem with those statements is...what?

He later said, "As long as the Middle East is full of oppression and despair it will produce terrorists." Bush didn't make the connection between the U.S. occupancy of Iraq and the Middle East's state of "despair."

Well, if he had made the connection, it would've been a lie. You libs seem to be quite fond of going after liars, so why does the truth upset you? Anyone who thinks the U.S. occupation of Iraq is to blame for the problems in the Middle East really needs to study the last 5,000 years of history.

The president urged Congress to renew the PATRIOT Act in the upcoming year, explaining that "similar tactics are used against criminals and drug traffickers" and that therefore they should be employed against terrorists. He unfortunately did not add that it also is a clear erosion of the civil liberties of all Americans.

Are you saying that all Americans are terrorists?

While certain measures must of course be taken to apprehend terrorists, the PATRIOT act cannot become a permanent fixture in U.S. policy.

I think what he means is that certain measures must be taken to apprehend terrorists, as long as Bush doesn't propose those measures.

The most offensive of Bush's half-points last night was the insinuation that marriage is to be enjoyed only by heterosexual couples.

Did it ever occur to you that the thought of gay marriage is pretty offensive to some people? No, of course it didn't.

Referring to the decisions of a Massachusetts court as "arbitrary" and claiming that the "will of certain judges" doesn't reflect the will of the public, Bush was perfectly clear that he would pursue a constitutional amendment to "protect" marriage from gays.

Let's see here...the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, but the Massachusetts court decided to pursue their own agenda. Sounds rather arbitrary to me. Last time I checked, "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" meant that the will of the people should dictate the actions of government.

He seems to have forgotten that the nation was founded on the principle of equality and that any legal rights enjoyed by one person are to be enjoyed by the next regardless of who that person is.

I know I've said this a lot, but all Americans already have the equal right to marry. If you don't want to marry the person you're allowed to marry, don't go whining to the government and trying to redefine marriage.

Bush also had the audacity to suggest that his "economic stimulus" in the form of tax cuts benefited every American, and that he "doubled the child tax credit."

I honestly don't know about the child tax credit, but I'm pretty sure Bush's tax cuts were responsible for the change in the economy. How do you liberals get out the door in the morning? I imagine it must be pretty hard with your eyes closed.

What Bush cleverly omitted was that the tax cuts were aimed overwhelmingly at the highest tax brackets and that the child tax credit was completely erased for the lowest income bracket - the very people who need it the most.

Two points. #1: Isn't it great how some people will keep repeating the same myth over and over again, even if it's been proven false?

-"War for oil!"
-"Tax cuts for the rich!"
-"Bush knew!"

#2: If reducing the "child tax credit" makes people think twice before having children they can't care for, that's a good thing. However, I'll have to do more research on that before I believe that Bush purposely took something away from the lower class.

The speech that Bush delivered last night was exemplary of his ability to tell half the story, to shed light only on the side he'd like you to hear.

Considering the fact that you want to hear a bunch of lies that will make you feel superior to all us stupid conservatives, I'd say that Bush told plenty.

The conscious deceit spun by his administration is an embarrassment to the American political process.

There it is again! That far-fetched idea that the Bush administration is purposely lying to us in order to further their radical agenda. Have you heard of this thing called the Internet? You can use it to check facts and such, and it's very helpful if you think you've been lied to.

The whole truth is that Bush's administration is bigoted along sexual lines...

You could say the same thing about the left, in my opinion.

...determined to expand the American empire through ruthless imperialism...

Allow me to respond with a quote directly from Dubya's address:

"America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace -- a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great republic will lead the cause of freedom."

So, who to believe? The president of the United States, or a misinformed college student who thinks that tax cuts are bad and will only acknowledge true statements when they support liberal ideals?

...and committed to shaping a future for the economic and political elite without concern for those who weren't born into Bush's privileged lifestyle.

I still don't understand this claim. What's stopping anyone from reaching the same level as those "elites?" Tax cuts, education reform, and job training are meant to help people help themselves.

I believe there's a rather famous quote about teaching a man to fish. Seems to apply here.

Posted by CD at 11:17 AM | Comments (5)

January 20, 2004

SOTU Commentary

Okay, I'm watching the SOTU right now, and I'm going to be commenting on it as it goes. Exciting, isn't it? This is only the 2nd or 3rd SOTU I've ever watched, so it should be interesting. (NOTE: I'm watching it on MSNBC, as if that makes a difference. Chris Matthews is fun to listen to.) Because this is going to be kind of long, I'll put it in the extended entry.

(Stream of consciousness commentary ahead. Continue at your own risk.)

Dubya's shaking hands with people right now. He's at the podium. They're still clapping. Wow. (Trust me, it'll get more interesting than this. Stream of consciousness is easier than trying to remember everything Bush says).


...They're clapping again. DU is probably going crazy already about his smirk. Heh. You know, the speech would probably be about a minute long if they didn't clap so much. And they stand up every time they do it. Really.

Ah, crap, he's not pronouncing things well. You can tell he's trying hard not to screw it up. Now he mentioned Medicare.

Good. Now he's saying that we have to continue on the current path instead of going backwards. Sounds almost "progressive." Wait...

The state of our union is confident and strong. Good to know.

YEAH! Remind 'em of the other attacks. That's why we're at war, ya friggin' hippies! But it will be defeated! Apparently Congress agrees.

Here comes the Patriot Act. This should be good. They're showing Ashcroft on TV while he says it. That's a bit sublimnable. Okay, he wants to renew the Patriot Act. We're trackin' Al Qaeda around the world. He didn't say "we will bring these terrorists to justice" very well. Sounded like Algore.


Apparently, things are going well in Afghanistan. And Iraq. They really like the Iraq one. I'm hearing some whistles. Cheney looks like he's about to have a stroke.

Dubya's serious about Hussein. He looks like he's getting a bit emotional. 45 Iraqi officials have been killed or captured. They're thugs, just like Saddam Hussein. Now he used the word "evil." The relativists won't like that.

Man, now I'm getting emotional. He's actually doing a good job. Ya hear that? The killers will fail!

They've got the president of the Iraqi governing council. I did not know that. He looks like a combination of Jacques Chirac and Ted Kennedy with sunburn. That can't be a good sign. Cheney still looks like he's having a stroke.

D'oh! He messed up the word "destruction," and he said nucular again! Why, Dubya, why?

"Weapons of mass murder." That's new.

Now he's giving America more credibility than the U.N. Nice. Now he said nucular again. Why doesn't someone frickin' tell him?

Holy crap, Cheney's going to pass out any...wait! He's standing up! It's a miracle!!!

He's going after the anti-war people now. Let's see if he calls them unpatriotic...Hmmm...Kay Report...programs and equipment...Hillary Clinton applauded the "better and safer place" line. Good to see them putting partisanship aside.

Britain, Australia, Japan, Philippines, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, The Netherlands...Look how unilateral the coalition is! That rocks. Norway, El Salvador, and 17 other countries. Take that, Howie!

"America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." Brilliant.

Now he's talking about God...but he has to mention that Islam is valid as well. He wants to double the budget of the National Endowment for Democracy...or something.

"No ambitions of empire," you paranoid idiots. We just want to "lead the cause of freedom." Can't wait to see how the liberals twist that around.

Now he's talking about the economy. The growing economy is due to tax cuts. Exactly. Lower taxes for EVERY American who pays income taxes. Also exactly.

Home ownership, manufacturing, low interest, more exports, productivity, and jobs. Sounds good to me. The Congresspeople on the left aren't clapping.

Now he's talking about "No Child Left Behind." Or, as my dad (who is a teacher) calls it, "Test 'em 'til they're dead." Sounds about right, since Dubya's talking about regular testing. At least he wants to teach them reading and math instead of multiculturalism and tolerance.

"Jobs for the 21st Century." That's new. AP programs, math and science professionals teaching part time, better high school courses (the AP classes I took were pretty tough. What more do we need?) Community colleges (apparently Congress likes that one), industry training, etc. Once again, Dubya realizes that jobs help the economy, not government handouts. Good.

The tax cuts are expiring. The Dems probably like that. Dubya says they should be permanent. Again, only one side is clapping. I'm assuming that's the Republican side.

No more frivolous lawsuits. I like that idea. "Oh, I slipped on ice outside your store! Gimme gimme gimme!!!"

Modernize the electricity system, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy...Wait! How can we go to war for oil if we don't depend on foreign energy sources???

Crap. He's talking about social security. I don't know about that. I can barely remember my number. I think there's a 3 in there somewhere...

Spending at less than 4%. Good. Less government spending is good. Maybe you are still a Republican, Dubya.

Here comes immigration. Temporary worker program...ugh. Why don't you find Americans who want the jobs instead of giving them to illegal aliens? At least he supposedly opposes amnesty. Still, they're illegal. Don't make them legal just because Americans don't want to take the jobs that are available. Nothing new here. It'll never pass.

Here comes health care. Control the costs, extend the benefits...he'd better not be talking about socialized medicine. Now he's smirking again. Expect Photoshopped monkey pictures to appear on several liberal websites within the hour.

He's reading too fast. Not good. You've gotta interpret the commas on the teleprompter!

He said he might veto something. Hasn't happened yet, I don't think.

Association health plans...once again, only one side clapping. Did they do this to Clinton?

Eliminate wasteful and frivolous medical lawsuits...holy crap, Hillary needs to brush her teeth. That's disgusting.

Tax deductions on health premiums...I have no idea what that means.


Now he's talking about kids and drugs. Drug use in high school has declined by 11% over the last 2 years. Less people are using illegal drugs. As a college student, I have to say that I haven't noticed. Trust me on this.

$23 million for school drug testing? That's a bit much. Why is there a kid in the audience?

"Get rid of steroids now." I didn't see that coming either.

Here comes the STD talk. This should be good. All right! Abstinence education funding! Another point for the conservatives! I think he should start by eliminating "putting condoms on bananas" activities, but that's just me.

Marriage. Here we go. Defense of Marriage mentioned. Activist judges are taking over. This is good. Dubya says that we should let the people decide the fate of marriage. Once again, I share that view. Now they're showing Santorum. I'm sure nobody planned that in advance.

Now he's coming to religion. He has to pretend that Islam is oppressed as much as other religions. He screwed up the phrase "against them again." He sounds a bit more angry than usual. Uh-oh.

"Prisoner re-entry initiative?" Oooooo....kay. I guess all of Congress likes that one.

Now he's telling personal stories...He said 2 instead of 10. That'll get replayed 10 times an hour. Apparently, Ashley Pearson believes in the troops. "Listen to your mom OR dad?" Um...why not both?

He's going to take heat for saying that God is on our side. I see Pat Robertson comparisons on the horizon.

I guess he's done. That was actually better than I expected. Dubya knows what's up. I just hope he's turning more conservative, because it sounds like he at least wants to.

Sorry for subjecting you all to this. You may now return to the interesting parts of your lives.

Posted by CD at 10:10 PM | Comments (4)

The Wrath of Mad How

Holy crap. I just listened to the MP3 of Howard Dean's speech last night.


At first, I thought it was a joke. Seriously. I thought someone got a professional wrestler to read the text of his speech and then started circulating it on the Internet to make fun of Dean. When I realized it was serious, I just laughed. Especially at the end.

"...And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House! EEEEYEEEEEEEAAAAAAAA!!!!!!"

What was that noise he made?! It sounds like he has a lobster in his pants!

If you're wondering why this surprised me so much, the answer is simple: I've seen plenty of pictures of Dean being angry, but I only heard his voice once, and that was when Fox News was airing his response to the capture of Saddam Hussein. This was my first exposure to a "Mad How" audio experience.

Do people really want that guy to be president? He scares me.


Howard the Hulk.jpg
Fear my photo editing skills!

Posted by CD at 05:24 PM | Comments (5)

Enforcing Diversity

I'm back once again, and it's time now to look at an article from the Daily Orange. It's about how to handle diversity and bias on the Syracuse campus. That's about all the introduction I can think of. Check it out:

Students, faculty debate controversial issues at MLK Jr. Symposium

Syracuse University has been touted as "No Place for Hate," but given the recent attacks on minority students...

As far as I know, this refers to a single attack on a homosexual student. I'm not sure if there have been others.

...use of blackface and offensive language on white boards, it appears to be anything but.

Because 3 incidents are representative of the attitudes of 15,000 students.

Sunday's Martin Luther King Jr. Symposium in Watson Theater addressed this issue and questioned the lack of diversity training for students.

Why don't they just call it "indoctrination?" That's basically what it is.

"The notion of a requirement immediately seizes the discussion," said Daniel Holliman, a political science professor. Holliman's research interests include the politics of institutional change in American higher education.

"Seizes the discussion?" That terminology makes me nervous.

"Diversity is seen as a problem to be managed rather than as an opportunity," he said.

Is that supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing? I'm really not sure what this guy's trying to say.

Holliman wants the university to assume its responsibility for implementing diversity training - he says current initiatives are not enough.

The university is not responsible for telling people what to think. It's responsible for telling them HOW to think. It's society's job to create the proper attitudes.

"Yes, we have the largest MLK celebration with the number of people on the Dome floor," he said of Saturday's dinner and speech, which about 2,000 people attended. "But you can't eat your way to social justice."

Let's review: 3 bias related incidents mean that diversity training is needed, but 2,000 people attending an event celebrating diversity means nothing. My brain hurts.

Quay Winfield, member of the Student Environmental Action Coalition, believes that diversity instruction should be a requirement for all students.

How do you instruct diversity? Shouldn't it be obvious when you see it?

"They have Writing 105 classes because writing is a very important skill, and you have to learn how to write," Winfield said.

And your point is...what? Are you assuming that diversity can't be learned? Or have evil white males like me just corrupted the system so much that diversity doesn't occur naturally anymore?

Methods to incorporate diversity into the curriculum must be explored, political science professor Dale Tussing argued.

It's already in the friggin' curriculum. My psychology textbook has a section about considering multiculturalism in psychological studies.

"I think students are ahead of the faculty with respect to diversity," he said.

Then make the faculty take indoctrination classes and leave us alone, dang it.

"Diversity should be an integral part of a whole lot of courses. It is not something you accommodate by having a major in women's studies or African-American studies."

How is diversity not part of classes? How do you even put diversity into some classes?

"Look, the text in this book is in 5 different colors. That's an example of diversity!"

Ajua Kouadio, president of the Student African-American Society, insisted that growing up in a homogeneous neighborhood is not an excuse for bigotry or ignorance. She grew up in a predominantly black community.

"Not only am I not acting that way," she said, "I can't use that as an excuse." She stressed that students must find ways to understand racism and deal with oppressed groups.

If I see any racism on campus, which I haven't, I'll know how to deal with it. By the way, if they do institute diversity training, they should make sure it includes a section on how to pronouce names like "Ajua Kouadio."

In the open question-and-answer segment of the symposium, several audience members called for a zero-tolerance policy on bias incidents - these incidents would automatically lead to expulsion.

This is what the world is coming to. People are so fanatical about diversity that they'd be willing to expel someone for having the wrong attitude. That's dangerous thinking. I see a slippery slope on the horizon.

"You can't look at bias incidents as one type of act," said Juanita Perez Williams, director of Judicial Affairs. Williams distinguishes between threats in which there is a risk to the safety of an individual and less-violent incidents, such as offensive white-board messages.

Punishment for threats and violence shouldn't depend on the motivation or content. If someone is assaulted, who cares if they're a minority? The important thing is THEY WERE ASSAULTED.

The same goes for threats. A message like "I'm gonna kill you, n***er" should be punished the same as "I'm gonna kill you, f**ker." The offensive word shouldn't determine the punishment.

"As an educational institution," she said, "there is a place for education."

Thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out that educational institutions should educate. Who knew?

The discussion also touched on national events, such as the fight against poverty.

"What we've done is to pretend that skills training programs are a way to end poverty," Tussing said. "We focus on the inadequacies of the individual rather than the economy."

That's just wrong. Skills training programs are a great way to end poverty, but the people have to get JOBS first. By focusing on the inadequacies of the individual, we correct them. That leads to job creation, which improves the economy.

The economy isn't going to change if you keep throwing money at people with no skills. In any case, the economy is dependent on the performance of individuals, so you're focusing on them eventually anyway.

Tussing insists there have been no initiatives or discussion on the issue in the last 30 years.

*cough* WELFARE *cough*

Holliman provided statistics that highlighted rising disparities between classes. In 1979, he said, members of the richest 25 percent of American homes were four times more likely than those in the bottom 25 percent to attend college. The richest 25 percent are now 15 times more likely to attend college, he said. There has been a 50 percent decrease in level of financial aid that students receive since the 1970s, he added.

So, according to his logic, we should continue trying to correct economic problems rather than personal problems, even though that's what we've been doing all this time and it hasn't worked. This is a lot like people who think that gun laws decrease violence, even though they've been proven not to.

"Because there isn't a national leader (for the black community)," Kouadio said, "(that) doesn't mean there isn't a national movement. More important is that you have people on the ground rather than an image."

Is there a national leader for any racial community? I didn't get the memo about that.

This notion is applicable to leadership on a campus level, Winfield said - students draw on individual strengths and capabilities when involved in activism.

Many see activism as crucial to introducing changes, such as diversity training, at Syracuse University.

Here comes the diversity training again. It seems to me that if so many people want diversity training, it shouldn't be necessary. Think about it.

Friggin' elitism.

"Students have the power to demand change," said Francine D'Amico, a political science professor. D'Amico recalled changes that active students and faculty put into motion - changing the Orangemen's mascot and creating an African-American studies program.

Let's pretend that the mascot and a single program are analogous to a campus-wide class requirement, children!

"You figure out what your objectives are, you make them clear and you demand them," Tussing said. "People don't make concessions because they want to, they do because they have to."

Wow. Very clearly stated. Let's force the school to force a certain worldview on others. Who said open-mindedness is a requirement for academic excellence?

This "diversity training" stuff makes me really angry. I don't understand what it would accomplish, other than making straight white males feel bad about themselves and forcing people to be "tolerant" of just about anything.

Let me explain something: I already have to spend 2 years fulfilling my liberal arts core requirements. I really don't need a "diversity requirement" on top of that. I'm in college to study screenwriting and directing, not multiculturalism.

Don't think ungood thoughts...

Posted by CD at 03:33 PM | Comments (5)

Afternoon Updates

All right, I have astronomy in 40 minutes, so there's no time to write anything huge, but I will give you a brief preview. First of all, I learned something very important in psychology today. Contrary to what The Waterboy has taught us, anger, jealously, and aggression are NOT controlled by the medulla oblongata.

The professor used the "Colonel Sanders" clip from the movie to illustrate this. He's got a very...interesting style. He also demonstrated how neurons work using cellophane and a squirt gun. Crazy stuff.

Anyway, the DO doesn't have any fiskable editorials today. They're mostly talking about their dissatisfaction with the chosen commencement speaker. The school decided to get Phylicia Rashad, who played Claire Huxtable on "The Cosby Show." They claim that it's an effort to increase "diversity." However, the columnists and letter writers think that she's a pathetic choice. Again, draw your own conclusions.

Fortunately, there's an article in the paper about the question of "diversity training." I can't pass that up, so expect a post about that around 4:00. Also, I'll probably be watching Dubya's SOTU speech tonight, and I'll write some opinions about that.

That's it for now. You can all go back to your homes. The hounds will be released in 6 minutes.

Posted by CD at 12:28 PM | Comments (4)

January 19, 2004

Random Complaining

This isn't related to anything in particular, but I have to say it: I'm getting really tired of liberals assuming that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News spoon feed conservatives all their opinions. I've only listened to Rush once (it wasn't even my decision), and I found him rather irritating. As for Fox News, I watch it for the news, not the opinions, and I hardly ever watch TV these days anyway.

Who else is tired of the "dittohead" crap?

Posted by CD at 10:52 PM | Comments (5)

Fun with Floor Meetings

I live with some strange people. I just came back from a floor meeting, where we went over the floor standards. A couple guys proposed a rule that says you have to high-five someone when you pass them in the hall, and the friggin' RAs agreed with it. Of course, there's an exemption if you have a towel on.

You know what's sad? This is about the most interesting thing I have to write about at the moment.

Oh, and Kerry probably won in the Iowa caucuses, with Edwards in second. That was unexpected.

Posted by CD at 10:26 PM | Comments (2)


Okay, I mentioned earlier that I'm a member of Fark now, and that means that I can participate in Photoshop contests if I so desire.

Well, this contest, which is brand new, involves Howard Dean and is extremely funny so far. I don't think I'm ready to enter anything just yet, but I did do a practice picture, which I will post to the blog for your amusement. It's not quite Farkworthy, but I did spend some time on it, so check it out:

Here's the original...

...and here's what I did with it.

I think you can figure out why I haven't submitted that to Fark. It's pretty sad. Also, I did it with Appleworks, since I'm too cheap to buy Photoshop.

Again, I might have real content later, but I do have some reading to get done.

Crap! I tried to actually submit this one, but it turns out I'm not allowed to comment until tomorrow afternoon, so I missed out on a great contest. CRAPPITY CRAP CRAP CRAP!!!

Posted by CD at 07:30 PM | Comments (3)

Slow Day

Wow. I've got nothing to write about. There's no Daily Orange because it's a day off, and they usually provide my afternoon material. I don't know why I'm even posting this, but I needed to put something new up.

By the way, in my boredom, I decided to create an account on Fark. If you ever see something posted by CMD7, that's me.

I'll probably be back with something real later tonight.

Posted by CD at 05:44 PM | Comments (4)

DU Post of the Day: "Republicans are all Evil Racists!!!"

My apologies to John Hawkins for stealing his "DU post of the day" technique, but I like to make fun of the idiots, too.

In honor of MLKJ Day, let's see what DU is saying about racial issues in America. This thread is entitled What caused the 180 from Republicans on civil rights? The question itself is pretty funny. Check this out:

If you saw Reconstruction on PBS (or just know your history), you know that after the Civil War, the positions Dems & Repubs take for granted today were largely reversed. Dems largely opposed civil rights and were pretty downright evil about it. What I don't know (and the PBS doc didn't cover), is WHEN things changed -- when we finally wised up and became the party of equal rights, integration, etc. and when the Repubs reversed course and became the Evil Empire.

Ah, yes, the good old "Republicans are evil" meme. This is off to a promising start. Let's go into some extended entry goodness for a few examples of tinfoil hattery at its finest...

[DISCLAIMER: Yes, I am selectively choosing the funniest quotes and ignoring some that almost make sense, and in some cases, I'm not including the entire response. If you want to read all of them, click the link.]

Before we get into the racial stuff, I should point out that this thread also gives us an example of paranoia/elitism/immaturity toward conservatives (take your pick). One person posted an excerpt from Townhall.com, and this response followed:

Townhall editorial? As in townhall.com?
Gee, what does the Manhattan Institute, the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation have to say about the subject? As long as we're going to cite conservatives as valid sources, why stop with townhall.com?

"As long as we're going to cite conservatives as valid sources." Must be that "S Factor" thing. We can't be trusted to be objective! All right, let's move on to race. These are great:

Bush's appointment are tokens. They are specially selected because
they don't have a mind of their own, or more tragically, they thought they could work within the system. But now people like Powell and the other do-hickey who just left the Senate figured out that the Christian Right racists in your party would never let them have their way.

Passing legislation targeted at helping minorities: Democrats, unquestionably. Repubs have been trying to undo preferential legislation.

"Preferential legislation?" Wouldn't "whites only" fall into that area as well? Just askin'...

All the republican neighbors that I know are racist...So my experiences trump your pro-Republican point of view.

"Townhall.com=lies, but personal experience=fact." I can always count on DU to give me a good laugh.

I know very few republicans who are not racist. Many, many republican voters and republican politicians are racist. This is why republican politicians court racist organizations so slavishly.

Oh, no doubt about it. Remember when Dubya gave that great speech to the KKK? Of course you don't. Idiot.

 And which party has more minorities elected in the House?
It is not just between black and white either. My two Democratic Senators are both ethnic minorities - one Asian American and one Native Hawaiian. I would argue that Democrats have a significantly better record on minority issues than Republicans do (at least in recent history).

No white senators? You hateful bigots!!!

Question: What kind of ignorant f*ck would count only Senators for this?
Answer: An ignorant racist republican f*ck.

I'll let the double standard speak for itself. And this one:

The guy who wrote the article is either an ignorant racist republican f*ck, or even more evil, someone who supports ignorant racist republican f*cks even though he himself is not.

Look how tolerant they are! I feel so bad about myself after seeing how open-minded the other side can be.

Good ol' DU.

Posted by CD at 02:17 AM | Comments (7)

January 18, 2004

Even More Google Goodness

Thanks to The True Fan, my satirical take on patriotism, I've gotten a few Google hits this evening from people searching for "I hate the Patriots."

I know they won, but should that really inspire hatred? Come on, people!

Posted by CD at 09:18 PM | Comments (2)

Political Psychology

I've been meaning to post this for a couple days now. While my Internet was down, I decided to skim through a couple of my new textbooks in the hopes that I would actually be studying something remotely interesting this semester. In my psychology book, I found an interesting section about mental development. I'm going to put the important part here and then explain why it has political meaning. See if you can figure out where I'm going with this:

Children's Theory of Mind: Their Understanding that Others Can Hold Different Beliefs Than They Do

If young children (e.g., three-year-olds) are told the story depicted here (note from CD: The story is a 6 panel cartoon in which a child places a candy bar in a box and leaves, and then his mother puts it in a different box, effectively confusing the child when he returns to look for it), they predict that the character in the story will look for the candy where his mother left it. They don't understand that what they know can be different from what the story character knows, or that he can hold mistaken beliefs. Four-year-olds, however, predict that the character will look where he left the candy, thus demonstrating their growing understanding of how others, and they, think.

Hmmmm...can you say "liberals," children? Maybe all this time, what we thought was elitism has actually been mental immaturity.

Expect a lot more applied psychology like this as the semester goes on. I found a few other items that could be applied to liberals, but I don't feel like looking for them right now.

Posted by CD at 08:33 PM | Comments (3)


Okay, I'm going to be perfectly honest. The showcase SUCKS this week. That's right, I said it. None of the entries really got my attention or made me think. Therefore, I'm going to employ a trick that I came up with but never actually tried before. I took the voting code provided by TTLB, and I will now paste it into the entry.

This way, every blog in the showcase gets a vote, but it won't affect the outcome, and I'll still count as having voted. If you think this is a bit harsh, feel free to check out some of these entries yourself. I'm really disappointed, though.

From The Truth Laid Bear's New Webblog Showcase:

The Temporal Globe Cowcatchers Anonymous; Interview with a Terrorist.

New World Blogger Blogging: media responsibility

c h a n d r a s u t r a: You're Soaking in it

American Amnesia Insurgency in Iraq - an assessment.

Ivy is here: Crows and ravens was yesterday's theme.

Posted by CD at 03:21 PM | Comments (3)

College Observation

I almost forgot about this due to my lack of an Internet connection yesterday. I was walking back to my dorm, and a person in front of me had some interesting accessories on their bag. There was a patch that said "F**K WAR" (without the asterisks, of course), another patch that was just the word "VEGAN," and a pin with one of those upside down triangle thingies on it.

Draw your own conclusions.

Posted by CD at 02:27 AM | Comments (5)

Stupid But Funny

This is what the desktop on my computer looks like right now:


"There's an evil monkey in my closet!"

Have I mentioned that I have no life?

Posted by CD at 12:08 AM | Comments (2)

January 17, 2004

Frickin' ResNet...

Okay, you're probably wondering why I haven't updated for the past 36 hours. Well, basically...


Yeah. For some reason, a few random rooms in my building lost their ResNet connections yesterday afternoon, and they just got 'em back online a couple hours ago. Fortunately, not much has happened since then. I did learn, however, that I have absolutely no life without the Internet. I've been watching Family Guy DVDs for the past few hours. That's really sad.

Like I said, there's really not that much to talk about yet. I did go to see Dane Cook last night, but a simple review wouldn't be enough to express just how funny the guy is, so I'll just sum it up in a few words/punchlines:

-Driving a cement truck
-Monkey battles
-Vomit breathing dragon
-Mystery house
-Ketchup walk
-Bob Barker=Gollum

That's about the best I can do. Seriously, he did a full hour of completely new material instead of just recycling all his old jokes like Jim Breuer did. Good show, indeed.

...I need to find something to rant about now.

Posted by CD at 06:16 PM | Comments (4)

January 16, 2004

One More Church Sign

All right, here's one more "Reverend Dean" sign:

Click Me

There. Now that I've entertained you, scroll down and help me out with some Clark commentary.


Posted by CD at 02:33 AM | Comments (2)

Good Post to End On

Weaselly Clark is getting to be almost as irritating as Dr. Douche. Look at this:

Clark: Congress Must Mull Legality of Iraq War

Read these sample quotes...

"I think this Congress needs to investigate precisely how the United States wound up in a war that 'wasn't connected to the threat of Al Qaeda.'"

Clark renewed his criticism that Bush misled the nation on Iraq. "This was an elective war," he said. "He forced us to go to war."

Clark denied that he had changed his position on the war, renewing his assertion that he had opposed it all along.

Now, here's the deal: I'm too tired to write about this, and I'm sleeping in tomorrow, so I'm going to let you, the readers, write the commentary in the comments.

Here's your assignment:

Phase 1: Look over the linked article
Phase 2: Compare Clark's position with some of his quotes in the "war flip-flops" category here
Phase 3: Profit! ("profit," in this case, means "post a comment expressing your opinion of Clark so CD doesn't have to.")

I'll be back around 1:30 PM, I'm guessing.

I look forward to your brilliant commentary.

Posted by CD at 02:10 AM | Comments (7)

January 15, 2004

This is Interesting

From the American Association for Affirmative Action:

...the American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA) is dedicated to the advancement of affirmative action, equal opportunity and the elimination of discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnic background or any other criterion that deprives people of opportunities to live and work. (emphasis added)

Now, let's look at something else:

Discrimination:...Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.

So...the AAAA is dedicated to eliminating affirmative action? That seems a bit counterintuitive.

(Hat tip to Bad Money)

Posted by CD at 10:36 PM | Comments (4)

Random College Rant

It's still freaking cold. Last time I checked, it was -7, and it's probably colder now. It's also snowing. Since the snow appears to be falling perpendicular to the ground, I'm guessing it's windy too (having a streetlight right outside your window is really great when you want to check the weather at night).

Anyway, I don't really have any political stuff to write about at the moment. The DO is pretty neutral, with editorials about Mars and the cold weather. There is one attacking Dubya's economic policies, but since I know virtually nothing about economics, I won't waste my time with it.

Since I don't have anything that interesting, I'll just write random stream of consciousness stuff about my classes...or something.

First of all, here's a tip for ALL college students: If you're going to spend an entire lecture talking to your friends, then DON'T GO TO THE F**KING LECTURE!!!! I don't understand why people bother to show up when they're like this. It's not like anyone's going to notice a few people missing from a class of 200 or more students. Just stay home if you're going to sit there chatting and laughing like you're in junior high. Morons.

Oh yeah, here's another lecture tip: TURN. OFF. YOUR. STUPID. CELL. PHONES. Who the crap is calling these people at 2:30 in the afternoon, anyway? You'd think that if two people know each other well enough to exchange phone numbers, they could wait and talk in person instead of disrupting the entire class. It's hard enough to pay attention to some of these professors already. I don't need your frickin' novelty rings invading my ears.

Okay, that's enough. I just want to write about one more interesting occurrence from today. I finally had my TRF class, entitled "Script, Picture, and Sound," and it seems good so far. We talked about different kinds of visual productions, and the professor tried to explain the difference between a documentary and propaganda.

I don't remember exactly how it came up, but one student suggested "Bowling for Columbine" as an example of propaganda in a documentary, or something to that effect. In response, the professor said that, although Michael Moore obviously has a bias, he doesn't insert it into the film.

Instead, according to this guy, Moore draws his own conclusions from his observations. As an example, he said that Moore "let Charlton Heston dig his own hole." You'd think that an experienced documentarian (the professor, not Moore) would recognize clever editing, but I guess it slipped past him. As a side note, the professor claims to have been in the Peace Corps at one point. Is this good or bad? Anybody?

I'm still college focused right now, so I'm going to come back later and do a general critique of all my classes so far, now that I've had 'em all at least once.

Stay warm.

Posted by CD at 07:58 PM | Comments (5)

Update...sort of...


That's about all I have. Other than class. From 1:00 until 5:30.

Which means I won't be blogging this afternoon.

Friggin' college...

Posted by CD at 12:30 PM | Comments (5)

January 14, 2004

I Am Way too Late With This...

Click the link below to see what Howard Dean will be doing after he loses the election...

Howie's New Job

I'll probably make a few more of these.

(Thanks to Le Sabot Post-Moderne for the inspiration)

Here's another one. I'll be adding more periodically, so keep checking back.

Interesting Theory

Here's another one

And another

This thing is great

Now I'm addicted!

Posted by CD at 10:53 PM | Comments (4)

Preliminary Research

I'm conducting a study based partially on the theory I outlined in the post below. My research has shown some interesting results so far.

If you search Google for "Liberals are unpatriotic," the vast majority of results are either conservatives claiming that they don't think liberals are unpatriotic or liberals trying to prove that they're patriotic. There are virtually no examples of liberals actually being called unpatriotic, aside from the occasional reference to Ann Coulter (and I've already expressed my feelings about her).

So, when exactly were all liberals accused of being unpatriotic? Did I miss it?

More research to come as soon as I figure out what my theory is supposed to prove.

Searching for "Democrats are unpatriotic" turns up a few accusations, but strangely enough, none come from the government, and it's mostly from personal web pages.

Where/when did this meme originate, anyway?

Posted by CD at 10:01 PM | Comments (3)

New Theory

I've been thinking about something lately. Liberals are fond of saying that conservatives have been questioning their patriotism. I really haven't heard that much, except in cases where it's appropriate (like college professors wishing "a million Mogadishus" upon our troops), and we all know it's an exaggerated claim.

However, the fact is that some people have called them unpatriotic when they didn't really deserve it. I'm sure it's happened to at least a few of them at some point.

The problem is their claim that the government is questioning their patriotism. They like to say that President Bush, John Ashcroft, or whatever administration member they're demonizing that day has created a climate of fear and silenced dissent.

Now, I don't remember any administration member questioning the patriotism of war protestors or Democratic politicians. They've been pretty quiet about that kind of thing. This is where my theory comes in.

Although no member of the government has openly questioned the patriotism of liberals, many public figures not associated with Bush have called them unpatriotic, un-American, or something similar. The liberals, in turn, say that Bush is calling them unpatriotic.

My theory is that they believe all or most conservatives/Republicans take their orders directly from the VRWC wing of the government, so when someone goes overboard with accusations of being unpatriotic, they associate that with the government. This makes sense given the incredible amount of elitism I've noticed lately. They figure that if anyone disagrees with them, it must be because the evil neocons brainwashed them.

At the same time, liberals seem to treat the views of non-government mouthpieces like Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, and Al Franken as gospel. Even though they may have no knowledge of an issue and no government affiliation, liberals figure that they must be right. After all, if they were wrong, they wouldn't be liberals!

While this is simillar to Frnak's muckadoo theory, it also suggests that they have no ability to differentiate between the government and the government's position. If Al Franken says something, he has the same amount of credibility as Howard Dean.

Therefore, if a conservative questions a liberal's patriotism, it's assumed that the government shares that position, so Bush, despite the fact that he never made that statement, is identified as the root cause of the accusation.

You'll have to trust me when I tell you that this theory makes more sense in my head than it does when I try to put it into actual sentences. I'll elaborate on it later.

Posted by CD at 05:18 PM | Comments (4)

Not Worth the Effort

Man, the Daily Orange editorial column today is such an easy target that I'm not even going to bother fisking it. I'll just present a few quotes without comment, along with a link to the entire piece.

Politics 101: Center is not left

In yesterday's Daily Orange, columnist Brian Oppenheim wrote, "[Howard Dean] can't win the big race in November unless he sheds his newfound liberalism and shifts back to center." Nothing could be farther from the truth for Dean and for the American political left as a whole.

The Democrats and the American left have no hope in November or in the future without being Democratic and leftist. The left must be proud and assertive of the fact that they are indeed left.

...Regardless of what Anne [sic] Coulter and Bill O'Reilly might force-feed the obsequious minds of this country, there is no liberal bias in the media because liberals don't exist outside of academia.

...George W. Bush's campaign will be dirty, hard-hitting, and very sophisticated - just like his administration...A full assault on the lies that this administration has spun needs to begin, and it is the only hope for Howard Dean, any Democrat, or the left as a whole to have a future in this country.

It would just be too easy.

Posted by CD at 10:41 AM | Comments (4)


From Weather.com:

Local Forecast for Syracuse, NY

Current Conditions:   
Feels Like:

I was just out there, and I can verify this information.

Pennsylvania in January is a tropical paradise compared to central New York.

Posted by CD at 10:00 AM | Comments (3)

One More Post

All right, I have to mention this. My roommate doesn't know I have a blog, but he does know that I'm a pretty hardcore Republican. Given that knowledge, here's an exchange that just took place (roommate's dialog is partially paraphrased):

Roommate:Aw, man, my writing class today...The teacher made us fill out these cards with all kinds of information on 'em, and the last question was "who are you going to vote for in 2004?" And I swear, 3/4 of the class said, "I don't really care, as long as it's not Bush." And I was thinking, "If Chris was here, he'd flip out!'

CD: Give me their names. I'll crush their dissent!

(roommate laughs)

CD: I'll have to call John Ashcroft.


Posted by CD at 01:45 AM | Comments (3)

DU Post of the Day

I think I'll make this a regular feature to end each day. I'll go through Democratic Underground and find a post where they're crazier than usual, then link to it and post a few examples (RWN does this occasionally, but not every day). They're just so entertaining!

Anyway, today's post is entitled Could Bush win in a debate with any of the candidates? Here are some responses:

It's not winning if the refs make every call in favor of your opponent.
Gore easily "won" every one of the debates hands down. But because every pundit (the proverbial "refs") called it in Bush's favor every time he was perceived as winning.
The exact same thing will happen.

The people don't decide who wins. The media does. And the media will each time call it in his favor. Be it for low expectations or whatever.

No matter what occurs on the night of the debate, the next morning the entire Bushevik Propaganda Structure that I like to call Goebbels v2.0 will shriek 24/7 for at least several days (time means nothing to them if it is necessary to support the Fuhrer) "Bush WON (SHUT UP!) Bush WON (SHUT UP!)..."

My wife and I were talking about this last night and...
...we were thinking that it wouldn't be surprising to us if Rove faked an assassination attempt on Bush, which put him in the hospital in October and November AFTER dates for debates had been finalized. This would enable Bush to get out of debating and make it even harder for Dems to attack Bush!
I know it is crappy to think that way, but given what we've seen in the past 3 years we think anything is possible! 

will probably bring Bin Laden out during the debates.....i mean right on the debate floor in handcuffs! 

I should go now. Friggin' 8:30 Spanish class...

Posted by CD at 01:34 AM | Comments (2)

January 13, 2004

More Blagging

I think I mentioned this before, but in case you didn't know, SIT is the #1 Google result for Howard Dean is a douchebag.

This is an honor. Seriously. Out of all the sites on the Internet, mine is #1 for people looking for proof of Howard Dean's douchebaggery.

Starting a blog is the best decision I've ever made.

[/arrogant soapboxing]

Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag
Howard Dean is a douchebag

I hope this works.

Posted by CD at 09:44 PM | Comments (3)

Useless Information

I now have a ticket to see Dane Cook on Friday night. If you don't know who Dane Cook is...


Syracuse rules.

Posted by CD at 05:23 PM | Comments (3)

Quick Observation

For some reason, Ann Coulter bothers me. She seems a bit too over the top and egotistical to really represent any position accurately. Example from this interview:

[Interviewer]...what three books do you consider essential reading?

AC: The Old Testament, the New Testament, and Treason.

I find it very hard to take her seriously.

Posted by CD at 05:06 PM | Comments (3)

The Return of DO Fiskings

Like I said, the Daily Orange is once again being distributed around campus, and they already have a letter to the editor that I can fisk. I will warn you, as I do when dealing with sensitive topics, that it's about the Massachusetts gay marriage ruling. And that's all I'll say. Let's begin:

Letter: Mass. ruling supports constitution
Should same-sex partners be allowed to marry? A question politicians have side-stepped for two decades. But on Nov. 18, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts finally addressed the sensitive issue and ruled the banning on same-sex marriages unconstitutional.

For the record, where in the Constitution is there a right to any kind of marriage at all, let alone gay marriage? I must've slept through that part of civics class.

The day was momentous for the civil rights of Americans around the country.

All 2% of 'em.

The Massachusetts government truly maintained the ideals of our founding fathers: to give every citizen the equal access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Several logical fallacies here. #1: The founding fathers PROBABLY didn't approve of gay marriage. That's just my guess. #2: The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is limited, or else we would have no laws. You could complain that speeding or shoplifting laws are unconstitutional with that logic, provided you happen to be a speeder or shoplifter and have no intention of giving it up.

Then we were reminded once more of the hate and fear that existed in so many of us.

Here we go AGAIN with the frickin' elitism.

"Oh, nobody has a logical reason for disagreeing with gay marriage. If they were logical people, they would agree with ME. Therefore, they must be mindless bigots!"

The Coalition for Marriage staged a protest of the court's ruling.

Which is, of course, a Constitutional right, in case you forgot. In fact, it's actually IN the Constitution, unlike gay marriage. Interesting, isn't it? No legislation of morality here.

They called for democracy. They said it was unconstitutional that the court had made the decision, going against the opinions and moral values of the "majority" of the state's citizens.

Why the quotation marks around "majority?" Because obviously, people that don't agree with their values aren't really citizens. To quote some British guy who was in the news recently...

"The people have spoken, the bastards."

There was no room for homosexuality in their judgmental characterization of the ultimate and sacred vows of love and commitment.

But you have room in your open-minded, tolerant ideology for their views, right? Oh wait, no you don't. I must say it yet again...


The debate will certainly continue, but it is impossible to validly claim that homosexual couples do not deserve the very same rights of heterosexual couples;

FYI, they already have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Two straight men or women can't marry each other, either. How hard is that to understand? And for the record, marriage is a privilege, not a right.

...that because of ignorant fear of the unknown, they should not be able to legally express their love and commitment to one another.

They already can "legally express their love and commitment to one another." If marriage is nothing but an expression of commitment, why do they need the state to legitimize it? They want special privileges that nobody...I repeat, NOBODY has right now.

Also, I still think it's interesting how disagreeing with gay marriage is attributed to "ignorant fear of the unknown," even though it can be based in logic and strong values. What happened to open-mindedness?

I guess their minds are only open to one viewpoint.

Politicians can continue to dance around the issue...

Or they can resort to appeasement like Dean.

...narrow-minded groups can continue to protest...

But if you protest those groups, as you're doing now, it doesn't make you narrow-minded, right? I thought so.

...but the decision has been made. The ban on same-sex marriages was lifted and the pillars of our constitution and our country, were upheld, defended and protected.

The country was not founded on gay marriage, the Constitution says nothing about ANY kind of marriage, and you can't defend a right that didn't exist until now.

I'm getting tired of having to see stuff like this. Especially the alternating moral attitudes. Apparently, if you think gay marriage is wrong, you're not allowed to "force your morality" on people, but if you think it's okay, there's nothing wrong with forcing your morality on those who think it's wrong, despite the fact that a majority of Americans disagree with full-fledged gay marriage.

At the same time, anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is called an ignorant, narrow-minded bigot, while people who agree with it are open-minded and progressive.

This is a batte of words. We need to realize that both points of view can be argued for with logic. You don't win support for traditional values by calling supporters of gay marriage "fags" and "queers," and you don't win support for gay marriage by calling your opponent a hateful bigot or attributing their beliefs to irrational fear.

Logic, people. It's the basis for all knowledge. Stop fighting with hyperbole.

Also, in case you missed it, I'll point out one more time that...

#1: All Americans have the right to marry. It's just a matter of who you can be married to. If we remove all limits, we'll have people marrying toasters just because they can.

#2: There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage. Nothing. If the government stopped recognizing all marriages (which, I believe, is a libertarian talking point), that would be within the limits of the Constitution. I wouldn't like it, but they'd be allowed to do it.

Stop whining.

Posted by CD at 04:10 PM | Comments (3)

Yet Another Fun Google Moment

Buying books sucks. That's all I want to say, because I'm trying to block that experience out of my memory 15 minutes after it happened.

Anyway, there's more DO hilarity ahead, but while I get that started, here's a Google search that brought someone here earlier:

lesbian high school trendy tatu madonna spears

Who are you, and why are you looking for this crap on a Tuesday afternoon?


Posted by CD at 03:18 PM | Comments (2)

Coming Attractions

There's a new Daily Orange today! And it's even got an editorial I can make fun of!

Unfortunately, I have class pretty soon, and then I have to buy books, so I'll be posting again around 3:15.

Posted by CD at 12:18 PM | Comments (5)

Let's Laugh at the Idiots!

Crap. I never thought I'd say this, but I need some frickin' homework NOW. I was bored out of my mind tonight because I have no friends and there was nothing to blog about that others haven't covered already.

Yes, I know I'm pathetic.

Anyway, I'll direct you to our friends at Democratic Underground, who believe that...heh...NPR is...ha ha...a...(pphhhhht...)...CONSERVATIVE RADIO STATION!


Oh, man, these people are funny. Of course, I'd expect this crap from people who think President Bush is "worse than Hitler" (actual quote).

I should go to sleep now...

Holy flurking schnit, this is great. They also think CNN is biased to the right!

I noticed something interesting about how the first poster came to this conclusion. Let's look at the post:

Wolf Blitzer: "O'Neill--Spilling secrets or spreading lies?"

I kid you not, that is how he referred to an upcoming segment about O'Neill's well-documented and fully-supported comments on the Bush administration. The media in our country is soooooo disgutingly biased.

So, what have we learned today? That Blitzer thing actually looks "fair and balanced" to me. One side thinks O'Neill is revealing a huge conspiracy, the other thinks he's a hack with a grudge. So, why is this "disgustingly biased?"

Simple: It treats the right-wing opinion as valid, so it must be a Chimpya funded propaganda-fest.

Those crazy liberals!

Posted by CD at 12:21 AM | Comments (5)

January 12, 2004

Race and the Dem Debate

I find this article entertaining for many reasons. Instead of focusing on one, let's look at the article as a whole and see why it's so hard to take the Democratic candidates seriously.

From CNN: Race a focus in Iowa presidential debate

Sunday's debate reached an emotional peak when the Rev. Al Sharpton accused former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean of failing to appoint minorities during his tenure.

Dubbed the Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum, the debate was sponsored by a group that describes itself as a nonpartisan minority issues organization.

Okay, first of all..."Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum?" Can you say "pandering," boys and girls? This is friggin' hilarious already.

"It seems as though you discovered blacks and browns during this campaign," Sharpton said.

Dean, front-runner in several Iowa polls, responded, "I beg to differ with your statistics," and said African-Americans and Latinos did work in his state government.

I want to make a quick observation here: Isn't it interesting that the Democrats, who are constantly trying to fight Evil Racist Republicans™, are so focused on specific racial characteristics? It seems just a bit racist when you judge a politician by the color of his staff members, don't you think? I'd expect this crap from Sharpton, of course, so it's not a huge surprise.

When Sharpton asked whether any African-Amercians and Latinos served in Dean's Cabinet, a defensive Dean said, "We had a senior member of my staff."

Pressed as to whether that person was in his Cabinet, Dean acknowledged that none had been, but noted that the Cabinet contained only six people.

"Wait a second...we have to do the math and find out if that accurately represents the number of African-Americans in your constituency, then we'll decide whether or not you're a racist."

Let's skip ahead and go into extended entry mode...

"We tend to hire people like ourselves," Dean said. Political leaders must help whites overcome their "unconscious biases."

What? That was some serious doublespeak there, Dr. Douche. First of all, imagine if...oh, I don't know, Trent Lott happened to say that he "hires people like himself." I think we all know where this is going.

Second, Dean's other statement, if he did actually say it, is hilarious because it contradicts itself. After all, Dean is white, so by his own admission, he must HAVE "unconscious biases." But wait...could it be...

You guessed it! LIBERAL ELITISM! Dean has apparently risen above his poor, deluded, racist brethren and become enlightened by the wonders of diversity, so he now has the ability to magically erase all traces of bias from others who are still in the South dark about race!

So much for that coveted "guys with Confederate flags" vote.

Again, Sharpton responded critically. "Just having conversations with whites, without real legislation, without real executive action, is to trivialize our problem. We don't need people talking to whites, we need people to do something about racism and about discrimination. Don't reduce this to a coffee shop conversation. We need action."

It's time to make fun of Sharpton's idiocy now. The first question, obviously, is this: Why are "whites" and "racism" always mentioned together? Read his statements again. "We don't need people talking to whites, we need people to do something about racism..." Interesting how he just assumes that whites are the only ones who can be biased. Except for "enlightened" whites like Dean, of course.

Skipping past more CNN commentary, we come to this:

Dean -- whose native state of Vermont is about 98 percent white -- responded to Sharpton himself, saying, "I believe I have more endorsements from both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus than any other candidate on this stage."

Amazing. This must be part of Dean's brilliant plan to combat racism by aligning himself with groups that single people out by race. But they're not white, so I guess it's just a celebration of diversity.

Wouldn't this be similar to Sharpton bragging that he's endorsed by (non-violent, for the sake of analogy) white supremacy groups? Why isn't he going for that vote if the strategy works for Dean?

Sharpton said institutional racism continues to thwart the advance of many minorities. "Fifty years ago, we had to watch out for people in white suits. Now, they have on pinstriped suits, and they discriminate against our advancement, they discriminate against our achievement and we're called divisive if we bring it up.

"We're divisive if we don't bring it up. Our fathers had to fight Jim Crow. Now, we have to fight James Crow Jr., Esquire."

What the F is he talking about, anyway? "Pinstriped suits?" Is that a code word for the Evil White Patriarchy™? In any case, you can find "institutional racism" in just about any situation if the various races aren't represented EXACTLY as they are in society. "OH NO! We need to hire 2 more black guys, or else we're racists!"

Skipping ahead a bit...

Gephardt applauded the work of Moseley Braun during her tenure as a senator from Illinois from 1992-1998 but said he had faced special circumstances in the House.

"The problem is, in the last few years, we've had people like [House Majority Leader Rep.] Tom Delay, [R-Texas] and [former Speaker of the House] Newt Gingrich to deal with," he said about the men, both of whom opposed affirmative action programs.

Wow! 2 underhanded liberal strategies for the price of 1! Let's look at them separately:

1) The Victim Card: "It's not my fault I didn't do anything about race while I was in power! The eeeeeeeeeevil conservative majority silenced me!"

2) Affirmative Action is Opposed to Racism!: So, we're trying to eliminate racism, but the problem is...uh...people who were against racism. What was the problem again, Gephardt?

Sen. John Kerry then brought the conversation back to the common enemy among the speakers. The problem "is not just of black and brown, it's one of poor people, it's one of power in America -- the powerful, the friends of George Bush."

Here we go again. Johnkerrywhoservedinvietnam reminds everyone about the REAL enemy: President Bush and his rich associates, who are refusing to give up the money that they earned so the minorities and poor people they oppressed to get to where they are will have a fair chance!

Before I go on, this is a good time to inject something I realized recently: Liberals are incapable of recognizing that rich people can be rich because they earned it. They always assume that rich people are rich because they had some kind of racial advantage or did something illegal to get there. That's why they like quasi-socialist policies, because they think they're punishing rich people for their dishonesty in being rich.

And now, back to the debate:

Kerry cited the Medicare bill and energy bill as loaded with billions of dollars' worth of gifts to special interests.

Rrrrright...and who's the one speaking at the "Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum" again? No special interests there.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio drew a laugh when he took the president to task for his suggestion that the United States try to give new goals to the nation's space program.

"I've been wondering why the president would, while we're still in Iraq, talk about going to the moon or going to Mars," Kucinich said. "Maybe he's looking for the weapons of mass destruction still."

Remember, Kucinich is the one who is opposed to space weapons. Maybe he knows something we don't...

He called for "a president who's going to do first things first," such as canceling the tax cuts, removing U.S. troops from Iraq and cutting the "bloated Pentagon budget."

In other words, he wants a president who will do exactly the opposite of everything Bush has done. Once again, we see the elitism. Kucinich thinks that his ideas are the only logical ones, so Dubya must be either evil or terminally stupid if he doesn't agree.

Gephardt concurred, calling for the economy to take center stage. "We need to get rid of this president and bring in a Democratic president who will pay attention to the priorities of the middle-class people here at home, not on Mars."

Are they living in a fantasy world where the economy isn't recovering? I don't understand why they're still acting like Bush gave a ton of money to the rich while totally neglecting the middle class. Guess what? My family is middle class. We got a tax cut. There goes the Democratic argument. No more of this crap.

...Hmmm...I'm off my game today.

Anyway, that's just some of the stupid crap they said at the debate. In general, however, I've noticed the same characteristic popping up at these things: The Democrats don't really seem to know what they believe in.

When they speak to groups like this, they adopt whatever issues the group stands behind, and then they argue over which one of them would be the worst president in the eyes of that group.

By the way, that's the other problem. They're so negative at these things, I don't know how they can get support. They attack Dubya, they attack each other, they demonize white people, rich people, and other politicians, but they never actually suggest what they would do.

It's always, "You're wrong, and that's that," and never, "I'm right, and here's why." Do they think the voters are psychic? Do they assume that everybody hates Bush, and whoever makes him look the dumbest will get the vote?

I don't get it.

Posted by CD at 02:38 PM | Comments (3)

Morning Roundup

I don't do this much, but I'm going to link to a few other blogs that have interesting content this morning, because frankly...I've got nothin'. Hopefully, there'll be a Daily Orange column or something that I can make fun of later. Until then, check out some of these quality posts:

Evangelical Outpost tells us that abstinence education actually IS effective.

Frnak looks into the possible future and describes the Howard Dean presidency.

Speaking of the idiot, Right Wing News gives us Howard Dean in Quotes.

Matt Margolis reminds us of Dean's people skills.

Insignificant Thoughts makes an interesting point about chemical weapons in Iraq.

Go ahead and check those out. I don't have another class until 3, so hopefully, I'll have my own content ready before then.

Posted by CD at 10:58 AM | Comments (3)

January 11, 2004

Academic Blogging

No political stuff tonight. I'm trying to figure out my class schedule right now. As long as I'm doing that, however, I figure I'll provide a list of the exciting classes I'll be taking this semester at SU, as these subjects will be on my mind a lot more than politics for the next couple months. Check out this lineup:

1. Astronomy 104: Stars, Galaxies, and Universe (I hear this class is really boring and difficult, but I like astronomy, and I need this to fulfill a science lab requirement.)

2. Mathematics 121: Probability and Statistics for the Liberal Arts (This is supposedly the easiest math class you'll ever take. Another required subject area, not my choice.)

3. Psychology 205: Foundations of Human Behavior (From what I've heard, the professor of this class is awesome, but there's a ton of reading involved.)

4. Spanish 201: Spanish III (This class is going to be hard. That's all I know.)

5. Television, Radio, and Film 155: Script, Picture, and Sound (TRF is my major, and I've been waiting forever to take this class. It's 3 hours long, but I hear it's pretty easy.)

So, there you have it. 5 classes that will keep me away from this blog for most of the week. Remember, I may inject little bits and pieces of information into my posts occasionally just so I can say that the classes have real-world value.

...I'll probably have something real to post tomorrow. I only have 2 classes, and they're about 5 hours apart.

Posted by CD at 09:45 PM | Comments (7)

More Fun With Search Terms

It seems my old BlogSpot site is still getting a few hits a day from search engines. Let's see what kind of terms people are using, along with some commentary from me:

Concord Monitor A Prom of Acceptance (no idea what this means)
awe riite (um...an impressive passage to adulthood?)
oooooooooo aaahh (must be a fan of fireworks)
"Lyrics to a Pro-war Song" (SIT was the only result. Heh.)
hey reggie, is that rhinoceros around? (Homestar Runner rules)
"James Hetfield" "Religious beliefs" (I'm guessing he's an atheist, but that's just me)
semi intelligent thoughts (who was searching for that?)
"the fag song" (YMCA?)
charlie daniels is a bigot (is this true?)
how to express feelin with iraqis in english (Dubya, get off the computer!)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...


Posted by CD at 06:27 PM | Comments (2)

I Have Returned

Okay, I'm back. I'm also sick and tired (literally), but I'll spare you the details of that.

Semi-Intelligent Thoughts is once again coming to you from Day Hall here at Syracuse University. It's frickin' freezing up here. Seriously.

I don't have anything to blog about right now, but I had to post again. This stuff is addictive.


Posted by CD at 05:17 PM | Comments (4)

Back to Work...

Well, this is it. In a few hours, I'll be on my way back up to Syracuse to start another semester of college. I've done a ton of blogging over Christmas break. In fact, it's pretty much ALL I've done.

Unfortunately, that can't continue once I'm back at school. I really need to concentrate on my grades this semester. Also, I'm going to be volunteering at the campus TV station, which will take up even more of my time.

Because of this, Semi-Intelligent Thoughts is going to revert back to its previous format. I probably won't have time to write essays or extended fiskings more than once or twice a week. I'll probably be doing more on weekends, but I'm also going to attempt to have a social life this semester, so who knows?

In any case, what I'm trying to say is that I'll be doing a lot less blogging in the coming months than I have for the past 4 weeks. I love doing this, but it's just not at the top of my priority list right now.

On the other hand, I'll have more stuff to blog about when I do get the chance. For one thing, I'll finally be able to make fun of the editorials in the Daily Orange again. I miss doing that. I'll also get to write about all kinds of fun college-related liberalism like I did before, so that should be entertaining.

In addition, despite the fact that I usually focus on political topics on SIT, I'm taking a wide range of classes this semester, so I might blog about random facts that I learn or topics that interest me. I'm also bringing my digital camera with me this time, so if I capture anything amusing, I can post it.

I think that's about it. This will be my last post until Sunday night, at the earliest. I may even hold off until Monday morning, but I'll decide that later. I definitely won't be able to post until at least 5 PM on Sunday. Right now, I have to start packing.

The future awaits...

Posted by CD at 12:20 AM | Comments (4)

January 10, 2004

Technology is Amazing

This is unreal. I found it through an old post on Balloon Juice.

It's basically a computerized version of "20 Questions," where the AI gets 20 questions to guess what you're thinking of. So far, I've gone with a handgun, a compact disc, and a snow globe, and it's gotten all 3 right. I don't know how they do these things.

Yes, I am bored and trying to kill time between now and tomorrow morning.

Posted by CD at 09:59 PM | Comments (3)

Showcase Votes

This week, my political votes go to:

You're Stupid from Go Dubya

Howard Dean Says Something from Flummery.

I might vote for a non-political entry if I can bring myself to actually read them.

Posted by CD at 05:14 PM | Comments (4)

Phrase Coinage

Sorry to sound slightly egotistical, but after a Google search, I have discovered that one of the phrases I used in my last fisking (which you really should read) returns no results. Therefore, I can officially claim that I coined the phrase...

"A week from next never."

If you use this phrase, you have to credit CD. Or Chris. Or "that Semi-Intelligent Thoughts guy." Or something.


(by the way, as long as I'm inflating my own ego, I'm up to 2,967 hits. Help me get to 3,000 before Sunday morning, and I'll...um...keep blogging, I guess)

Well, it seems that Mike the Marine linked that fisking, so that might push my hit counter over the 3,000 mark by Sunday. Thanks, Mike!

Posted by CD at 01:11 AM | Comments (4)

January 09, 2004

More Bushitler Crap

People, I am angry. I mean, I am really f**king angry. A DU poster has actually linked to a story about how Bush is turning into Hitler. I really think this needs to be brought to the attention of the...dozen or so people who read my blog. Once you see the DU reactions at the end, you'll understand why this makes me so upset.

The full story is here, on Truthout.org. I'm going to cover the relevant parts, as DU did. This is both disappointing and infuriating, so I'll do you the courtesy of putting it in the extended entry. Prepare yourselves for some serious paranoia (NOTE: I'm really mad at this person, so I have decided to raise the censored profanity threat level to red):

 Dear Sir,

     My family was one of Hitler's victims. We lost a lot under the Nazi occupation, including an uncle who died in the camps and a cousin killed by a booby trap. I was terrified when my father went ballistic after finding my brother and me playing with a hand grenade. (I was only 12 at the time, and my brother insisted the grenade was safe.) I remember the rubble and the hardships of 'austerity' - and the bomb craters from Allied bombs. As late as the 1980s, I had to take detours while bombs were being removed - they litter the countryside, buried under parking lots,buildings, and in the canals and rivers to this day. Believe me, I learned a lot about Hitler while I was growing up, both in Europe and here in the US - both my parents were in the war and talked about it constantly, unlike most American families. I spent my earliest years with the second-hand fear that trickled down from their PTSD - undiagnosed and untreated in those days.

     I'm no expert on WWII - but I learned a lot about what happened in Germany - and Europe - back in those days. I always wondered how the wonderful German people - so honest, decent, hard-working, friendly, and generous - could ever allow such a thing to happen. (There were camps near my family's home - they still talk about them only in hushed conspiratorial whispers.) I asked a lot of questions - we were only a few kilometers from the German border - and no one ever denied me. My relatives had obviously spent a lot of time thinking about the war - they still haven't forgotten - I don't think anyone can forget such a horrible nightmare.

See why this is so sad? This person's family actually experienced Hitler's atrocities, and yet, they're about to compare him to President Bush. This is disturbing.

Among the questions I asked:

I'm just going to include the questions, because the answers take up a lot of space. You can read it at the link I provided to see more.

Why didn't you do anything about the people in the camps? Didn't you see what was happening? Did anyone know what was going on? Why didn't the German people stop the Nazis?

Now, we'll see why these are relevant.

...So why, now, when I hear GWB's speeches, do I think of Hitler? Why have I drawn a parallel between the Nazis and the present administration? Just one small reason -the phrase 'Never forget'. Never let this happen again. It is better to question our government - because it really can happen here - than to ignore the possibility.

I don't know what to say. Does this person honestly believe that Bush is capable of being another Hitler, even after seeing the evidence of what Hitler was really like?

So far, I've seen nothing to eliminate the possibility that Bush is on the same course as Hitler.

I feel extrememly sorry for you if that's the truth.

And I've seen far too many analogies to dismiss the possibility.

Like what? MoveOn.org doesn't count.

The propaganda.

Terror alerts?

The lies.

Prove Bush lied. Seriously. I'm sick of hearing it. WHEN? DID? BUSH? F**KING? LIE? YOU! F**KING! LUNATICS?

The rhetoric.

It's called politics, moron.

The nationalism. The flag waving.

God forbid we be...GASP! PROUD of our own country! How dare we be so arrogant. We're only the most powerful, rich, and prosperous nation in the world. But no, we should burn our flag and spit on our soldiers. Great idea. A**hat.

The pretext of 'preventive war'.

Let's see now...Hitler invented a threat so he could conquer other nations. Bush reacted to terrorism and WMD development. Yep, perfect parallel. Not seeing a problem here at all, you morally equivalizing numbskull.

The flaunting of international law and international standards of justice.

Yeah, because Saddam Hussein had nothing but respect for international f**kin' law, idiot.

The disappearances of 'undesirable' aliens.

Last time I checked, he was letting more of 'em in.

The threats against protesters.

Like what? Which protests have you been going to?

The invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation.

Non-threatening sovereign nation. Right. Because Poland was also funding terrorism and trying to build nukes. And I'll never forget learning about the time that they gassed their own people in 1937. What an eye-opener that was.

The occupation of a hostile country.

Didn't you just say that they weren't a threat, idiot?

The promises of prosperity and security.

Which Bush has f**king delivered on, I might add.

The spying on ordinary citizens.

...Who just happen to have connections to terrorist cells, of course.

The incitement to spy on one's neighbors - and report them to the government.

If my neighbors were Islamofascist terrorists, I'd report 'em too.

The arrogant triumphant pride in military conquest.

Awwwww...poow widdle Saddam...we should feel SOWWY for him!

The honoring of soldiers. The tributes to 'fallen warriors.

If I was a soldier, I would find you and kick your f**kin' teeth in for saying that they don't deserve it. Just thought you'd like to know.

The diversion of money to the military.

Because defending the country was free under Clinton!

The demonization of government appointed 'enemies'.

I'm sure Osama bin Laden was just chosen at random to be the enemy, dipsh*t.

The establishment of 'Homeland Security'.

How dare we try to keep ourselves safe!

The dehumanization of 'foreigners'.

When did that happen, and why wasn't I informed?

The total lack of interest in the victims of government policy.

Yeah, that's why Dubya's bending over backwards to appease the medicare socialists on the left.

The incarceration of the poor and mentally ill.

Yet another thing that I totally missed. Remind me again when Bush put the mentally ill into giant "showers" and gassed them? I seem to have forgotten.

The growing prosperity from military ventures.

$87 billion is a lot LESS money after it's been spent, you know.

The illusion of 'goodness' and primacy.

What? What the f**k are you talking about? "Goodness" isn't an illusion unless you believe in moral relativism. Of course, you seem to fit that mold quite nicely.

The new einsatzgrupen forces.

I didn't know Dubya spoke German. He can barely speak English sometimes.

Assassination teams.

WHERE THE F**K ARE THEY, YOU F**KING IDIOT?! Nobody's being assassinated. What U.S. are you living in?

Closed extralegal internment camps.

If you're talking about Gitmo, I'm sure the survivors of the Holocaust would be happy to know that you're comparing them to terrorists. I'll be sure to pass that on.

The militarization of domestic police.

When? I saw a police car earlier tonight, and it sure didn't look militarized.

Media blackout of non-approved issues.


Blacklisting of protesters - including the no-fly lists and photographing dissenters at rallies.

What are you talking about now? If protestors were being blacklisted, there would be a serious shortage of decent movies right now.

 There isn't much doubt in my mind - anyone who compares the history of Hitler's rise to power and the progression of recent events in the US cannot avoid the parallels.

Yeah, I mean, remember that horrible Dallas Sports Bar Putsch?

It's incontrovertible.

To a demented idiot, maybe.

Is Bush another Hitler? Maybe not, but with each incriminating event, the parallel grows -it certainly cannot be dismissed.

Excuse me while I vomit in a disgusted fashion at the pure, unadulterated CRAP that is bombarding me via this computer screen in front of me...
There. Please continue, paranoid freak.

There's too much evidence already. Just as Hitler used American tactics to plan and execute his reign, it looks as if Karl Rove is reading Hitler's playbook to plan world domination - and that is the stated intent of both.

Yup. Rove told us that he wants to rule the world. I guess the media just conveniently forgot to report that one.

From the Reichstag fire to the landing at Nuremberg to the motto of "Gott Mit Uns" to the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq to the insistence that peace was the ultimate goal, the line is unbroken and unwavering.

I'm confused. Do you think Bush and Hitler are the same person, or are you just a blithering idiot? Your logic is so horrible that a retarded monkey with syphillis could refute it, but since monkeys can't type, allow me to do it for you.

I'm afraid now, that what may still come to pass is a reign far more savage and barbaric than that of the Nazis.

Yeah, that pesky Second Amendment wouldn't cause any trouble at all for the Bushitler Assassination Squads. The People™ won't dare fight back if it ever happens.

Already, appeasement has been fruitless - it only encourages the brazen to escalate their arrogance and braggadocio.

Uh, yeah, that's why we attacked Iraq, sh*twit.

Americans support Bush - by a generous majority...

60% is a generous majority? That must be the Metric System.

...and mass media sings his praises...

If I hadn't already laughed at that statement in another article, I'd be having an asthma attack right now from the pure hilarity of the claim that the media have given Bush a free pass. Allow me, once again, to remind you of...


...while indicting his detractors - or silencing their opinions completely.

Five words: "Former Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein." Got anything else for me?

The American people seem to care only about the domestic economic situation - and even in that, they are in complete denial.

Then how, pray tell, do you know about it, and why haven't I heard anyone complaining? Other than the media, who are, of course, Bush's lap dogs?

They don't want to hear about Iraq, and Afghanistan is already forgotten.

"They don't want to hear about Iraq." Ladies and gentlemen, this is what happens when you open your mind so much that your brain escapes. It's not a pretty sight, but unfortunately, it happens all the time.

Oh, and by the way, do protests not count as wanting to hear about Iraq?

Even the Democratic opposition supports the occupation of Iraq.

That is the single most idiotic thing in this article. I'm speechless. I am also thoroughly convinced that this whole piece is either a joke or was written by a retarded child.

Everyone seems to agree that Saddam Hussein deserves to be executed -with or without a trial.

Did you really just defend Hussein after comparing Bush to Hitler? Holy f**king sh*t, you're an idiot.

'Visitors' are fingerprinted.


Guilty until proven innocent.

Yeah, that's why they're incarcerated for a few days, too.

Snipers are on New York City rooftops.

They must've been dropped there by black helicopters.

"Git ma' tinfoil hat, Billy-Bob! The got-dang Illuminati are comin'!"

When do the Stryker teams start appearing on American streets?

Oh, I'm guessing about a week from next NEVER.

They're perfectly suited for 'Homeland Security' - and they've had a trial run in Iraq.

If there are Iraqi terrorists on American streets, I'd like to know about it.

The Constitution has been suspended - until further notice.

If that were true, you wouldn't be able to publish this article, you paranoid f**k.

Dick Cheney just mentioned it may be for decades - even a generation, as Rice asserts as well.

What are you talking about? Dick Cheney will be dead in 10 years, at the most. What's he gonna do? And as for this "generation" stuff, I really think this provides a good example of why you SHOULDN'T use illegal drugs.

Is this the start of the 1000 year reign of this new collection of thugs? So it would seem.

So...according to "paranoid European idiot" logic, 60%=a generous majority, and 4 years=1000 years. Tell me, how many editors did you have to run this by before people whose IQ is measurable in positive numbers could understand it?

I can only hope that in the coming year there will be some sign - some hint - that we are not becoming that which we abhor.

The fact that we deposed a murderous dictator who had a lot more in common with Hitler than Bush ever will is a good clue, but please, continue.

The Theory of the Grotesque fares all too well these days. It may not be Nazi Germany - it might be a lot worse.

"The Theory of the Grotesque?" What the f**k is that? And why does this person actually think that America resembles Nazi Germany in ANY way, shape, or form?


I believe I wrote a piece a couple weeks ago called Beyond Criticism that explains my views of this kind of utter buffoonery.

Okay, I'm done. Sorry about the censored profanity. That wasn't a really Christian thing to do (other than the censoring part), but this article made me really angry. People actually believe this. In fact, DU seems to like it a lot.


Check out DU's reaction. Some are disagreeing, but do you know why? Because they think Bush is WORSE than Hitler. So far, I don't think anyone has challenged the validity of the article. Let's look at a few of their reactions:

-Yes, and so much more.
It cannot be ignored. The parties are the same. Yet our Bushie is not the same as Herr Hitler. He may even be worse. He is not an individual who forged the sword. He is the label for the institution.

-I think that he is worse then Hitler
That may sound terrible but I think that he is worse.

 -Hey GOP Morons
RNC Fuckheads
In Your Face

-I believe that the author is absolutely correct about the parallels between Hitler and Bush. What sickens me is that for all our promises to ourselves to never, ever, let another Hitler take power and terrorize the planet,we are breaking those promises and allowing it anyway...With every day that passes, I become more and more convinced that Bush is the biggest threat this planet has faced since the end of WWII. Working to get him voted out in 2004 should be the primary goal of every decent, caring, freedom loving citizen.

...And the best one...

-I still don't think the comparisons are all that helpful, true or not...
because they only serve to reinforce obvious truths to people who don't need to hear them - namely people like us...


Oh, and if you're here from Mike the Marine's blog, thanks for coming, and feel free to look around a bit. I've written some other stuff about Bush-Hitler comparisons.

Posted by CD at 11:01 PM | Comments (11)

Random Observation

I recently noticed that the majority of my posts start with "okay," "all right," or some phrase involving the word "crap." I need some variety around here.

Posted by CD at 09:38 PM | Comments (4)

DU Must Think Their Readers are Idiots!

Okay, now that Democratic Underground is publishing articles again, I can go back to fisking them. I try to ignore their message boards, but the articles they feature are written by real people. That's scary. For example, the one I'm about to cover, entitled They Must Think Americans Are Idiots, was written by someone whose "...writing has appeared in Newsweek, Time, New York Magazine, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Tribune Review as well as several online Op Ed sites."

My family subscribes to the frickin' Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I actually read it today. These people write things that people in the real world can see. I feel it's my duty to point out their idiocy, so let's begin:

You know, I'm really starting to think that our current president and his cronies must not have gotten in very much trouble when they were kids. I'm thinking that maybe they had permissive parents who were oblivious and let them get away with everything because they don't seem to have the skills they need to be successful liars.

Obviously, since they seem to tell the truth a great deal of the time. It's almost a fault, when you get into that "I have my own idea of how Saddam Hussein should be treated" stuff. If anything, they should be less honest.

You know, the tools that experienced liars use, like covering your tracks and getting your stories straight. The fact that I can tell when they're lying makes me think that nobody's even listening anymore - especially Congress and the press.

The fact that you can tell they're lying is pretty solid proof that they're not.

Or maybe it's the same syndrome that happens to children who are allowed to watch tons of movie and TV violence - they become desensitized.

The question really is, though, why does our president, our vice-president, our defense secretary and our national security advisor think that they can lie over and over to our faces and get away with it?

I'd criticize the grammar there if it wasn't for "is our children learning," but aside from that, this is yet another example of that pesky liberal trait known as cognitive dissonance. If the public doesn't agree with you, they must've been lied to by the evil neocons.

I'm guessing that it's because they think Americans are really stupid.

You're thinking of Michael Moore and Johnny Depp.

In the days leading up to the war, when they were talking about the WMDs, even I knew that they were lying.

You just knew, right? You didn't have any proof, but you knew. After all, if they were honest, they wouldn't be Republicans, right? Isn't that the way it works?

Bush said several times, "Time after time we have asked Mr. Hussein to let the inspectors in and time after time he has refused."

Now that's just bad lying. Even as he spoke, Hans Blix was in Iraq saying that Iraq was being very cooperative and that they hadn't found anything so far in their months of inspections.

First of all, Hans Blix probably knows something we don't, but I'm not one to make accusations like that without proof. On the other hand, Hussein didn't let inspectors into places where there could be weapons, and the inspectors were basically being led like sheep into any diversions the Iraqis could create.

After that, Bush started calling them the "so-called inspectors." I am not a rocket scientist and I am not a politician, but I knew he was lying. I knew why they wanted to get into Iraq and I knew what was going to happen if they succeeded in getting into Iraq. The members of Congress and the press who heard him saying these things must have had that heard-so-many-lies-I'm-just-completely-oblivious-to-them syndrome.

Is this really the only explanation they have left? That's truly pathetic. Of course, they always have to back it up with this "I KNEW they were lying" business. Hey, guess what? I can say something like, "I KNOW that I'm Elvis," and it doesn't make the statement true.

Then we have the famous forged document. In order to convince the American and British citizens that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger, someone forged a document.

Which is why nobody ever claimed that he had purchased uranium, nitwit.

Now let me tell you something. I, like many Americans, have forged documents myself, in my younger days.

Ah, yes, the heroic liberal moralizer admits to lying in the past. Beautiful.

There's the ever-favorite fake ID. What college kid didn't do that?

Uhhh...I didn't.

And in my generation there was the phony draft card. So even I know that if you're going to forge the signature of a government employee on a document with a date on it, you'd better make sure that guy worked in that position on that date. Because it's really not going to be very effective if it's signed by J. Edgar Hoover and dated 1996. Bush's document was so phony, only someone who thinks that they're untouchable and everybody else is an idiot would even dream of using it.

More of that good ol' hyperbole. First of all, have you even SEEN the document in question, because it seems to me that you have to see it up close and inspect it carefully to be able to make claims like that. By the way, reading about it on Indymedia doesn't count.

And for the record, Bush didn't use it.

It hasn't yet, but this comment from our national security advisor is what I think is going to finally bring these guys down: "How were we supposed to know someone would hijack an airliner and crash it into a building?" Well, here's how - because Bill Clinton's national security advisor, Senator Hart, Senator Rudman, and terrorism expert Richard Clarke started trying to warn you about it before Clinton left office in Jan. 2001.

If that's true, why didn't Clinton do something about it if he was still in office? He did have about 8 years after the first attack.

Did she honestly think that all of these men were going to keep quiet about how much effort they put into warning her and her boss about the impending terrorism threat? Did they underestimate how bad they would look when the public was told that, in spite of the ever-increasing level of alarm being expressed by these men, President Bush took a month long vacation that ended on Sept. 4th ? Mark my words, this is the one that's going to come back and bite them in the ass.

That paragraph got really confusing. In any case, do you think President Bush just takes a vacation and leaves Cheney in charge? He does still meet with advisors and things, you know. After all, he is the president. Or would you disagree with that as well?

Here's the problem, though. I really think that Congress and the press are so desensitized to Bush's lies that he could get away with standing in front of them and saying, "Look, we lied about the reasons for going to war. We really just want their oil.

If we wanted their oil, we could've asked for it. Or we could've gotten it from Saudi Arabia. Or Kuwait. Or any number of other countries. Nobody ever thinks about the fact that war actually REQUIRES oil. Think about it. Planes, tanks, guns, APCs...that takes a lot of resources. Why would we go to all that trouble? Just so "President Cowboy" can be a hero?

And we wanted to help our cronies make a shitload of money by overcharging the American taxpayer for rebuilding the country after we destroyed it.

Just because they may profit from it, that doesn't mean we went to war for that reason. We weren't going to give reconstruction contracts to France, after all. Friends help each other out.

And we really don't give damn how many Iraqi men, women and children or American kids have died or been maimed by what we've done.

Yeah, we're just indiscriminately killing innocent Iraqis to show them for'ners who's boss! Perhaps you've heard of plastic shredders?

Not only that, we ignored repeated warnings about a terrorist attack on our country and then, at the very least, we were completely inept on the morning of that predicted attack...

"Bush knew! Bush knew!"

...because I sat in a school room reading a book about goats to children while 3,000 of our citizens were being murdered...

What did you want him to do, scare the sh*t out of a room full of kids? Heck, my dad teaches middle school, and he wasn't even allowed to tell his students anything until both towers had gone down.

...by weapons of mass destruction...

Planes? Arabs? What weapons of mass destruction?

...and the greatest military in the history of humankind stood by and never fired a shot.

What were they supposed to fire at? They had a whole 10 seconds after the planes were spotted to do something about it. Oh, wait, I forgot that Bush knew. Silly me, trusting the president.

It was the very the next day, after we flew the Bin Laden family out of the country on a private jet...

Don't read Snopes much, do ya?

...that we started blaming Saddam and using fear as a political tool to convince you that we needed to alienate all of our allies and go to war with Iraq.

The very next day? That would be a lie, because Saddam was never blamed for 9-11, and Bush didn't start talking about going into Iraq until the next year. You must think the readers are idiots!

And furthermore, we don't give a damn that the country is spiraling into a devastating economic collapse because me and my friends are getting richer and richer every day.


...Sorry. Anyone capable of free thought knows that the economy is improving.

And as for the environment, what do we care whether we drill for oil in our national parks or sell pieces of old growth forest to logging companies who, in turn, give us campaign contributions? We're not going to be here when the polar ice caps melt."

You act as if he's purposely destroying the environment. By the way, we need oil. If you can think of a better way to get oil, I'd like to hear it.

In any case, the statement was that Bush could get away with the previous statements in front of Congress and the press. I think that's true. They'd love for him to do that, because they've been claiming all these things all along. I'm surprised the Q word didn't come up.

But while Congress and the press may be desensitized to this stuff, the American public is not. And neither are we stupid.

I think this article proves that some are.

If you're not paying attention or you're just relying on the press for your information, you need to know that our administration has committed grave crimes against its own people, particularly our troops, and against the Iraqis.

If you're listening to the friggin' press, you've heard that already, actually. But let's look at the claims.

1) Crimes against the American people. You mean like improving the economy, defending our freedoms, and creating opportunities for employment? HOW GHASTLY!

2) Crimes against our troops. Sending them to do the job they volunteered for is a crime now?

3) Crimes against the Iraqis. I guess they WANT to be tortured and murdered. That's kind of a backwards culture.

We need to fight them with everything we've got if we're to have any hope of rescuing our broken and beleaguered country.

From what? Economic prosperity? Security? Give us the details!

So we should make it our mission for 2004 to make sure that these people - who believe that it should be a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich...

Which is why they're giving tax cuts to the lower classes and legalizing illegal aliens who make minimum wage...

...these people who claim to be men of God while blithely causing the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people...

Tens of thousands of innocent people? Where are they? Are you saying that everyone we attack is innocent by default? You've been listening to Howard Dean for too long.

...- lose, and lose big.

Allow me to insert some Monty Python lyrics:

"How sweet to be an idiot
And dip my brain in joy
Children laughing at my back
With no fear of attack
As much retaliation as a toy
How sweet to be an idiot.
How sweet..."

That wasn't my best fisking, but I do have a frickin' cold. Still, they didn't give me that much original material to work with, either. I just think it's funny how these people pretend that they have the magical ability to "see Bush's lies" while the poor, uneducated masses are being strung along like cattle to the slaughter.

Posted by CD at 09:02 PM | Comments (5)

Tax Cut Tales

Wow, that's a dumb title. Anyway, I'm still sick, but I do want to post quickly about some interesting information I just learned.

I was talking to my mother, and the conversation somehow turned to Bush's tax cuts. Apparently, we didn't get anything from the latest one because we have too much money. Read that again. WE HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY FOR A TAX CUT.

That "tax cuts for the rich" crap is...well, just that. Crap. My family is just barely upper middle class, and we're missing out on tax cuts because we have too much money. Interesting, isn't it?

I have to go now. Stupid germs...

Posted by CD at 07:38 PM | Comments (2)


CD sick...CD no like be sick...CD be back later...bye.

Posted by CD at 04:19 PM | Comments (4)

Final Thoughts

Okay...apparently, when the template looks right to me, it looks wrong to everyone else, and vice versa. Keep checking the pics and commenting on which one you see. I really need to figure out what's going on here.

(UPDATE: I put the original template back for now. If it isn't going to work the way I want it to, the least I can do is make the posts readable again)

In the meantime, I'll end on something a little lighter. Like I said yesterday, I made a Christmas cookie to satirize political correctness, and I decided it was blogworthy.

Basically, the cookie is shaped like a camel, but I figured that actually calling it a camel might be offensive to other animals. Since hamsters are so much smaller than camels, I applied a bit of affirmative action and made sure to include hamsters when camels are mentioned.

Therefore, the new name for a camel is: NON-HAMSTER.

After all, if camels are going to offend hamsters by being so much bigger, we should at least let hamsters be mentioned every time camels are. I made this cookie to represent it:

Non-Hamster Cookie

Unfortunately, in my rush to fact-check my claims about the Categorical Imperative, I accidentally dumped a bunch of notebooks on top of the cookie, so the icing got screwed up. It should look like the word "Hamster" with a big X over it.

Okay, I spent way too much time explaining that. On another note, I'm pretty sure I have a cold (possibly the Evil Liberal Conspiracy Virus...), so I'll be posting less over the next couple days. On the plus side, I get to take Nyquil.


By the way, I'm eating that cookie right now, and it's delicious. Goodnight.

Posted by CD at 02:44 AM | Comments (5)

January 08, 2004

Template Stuff

Okay, just in case some people are having trouble viewing the site, I'm going to link to two screen shots. #1 is what the site looks like in my Internet Explorer 5.1 browser for Mac. This is what the blog should look like. #2 is a picture I took when The Bartender was working on the stylesheet, and it demonstrates the problem that I eventually fixed with the sidebar covering posts. Please help me out here and tell me which one you're seeing:

Picture #1

Picture #2


Posted by CD at 11:33 PM | Comments (13)

In Dean We Trust (Part 2)

Okay, I got a bit sidetracked on that last entry, but I want to cover another aspect of that article that further illustrates my problems with Dean and his associates.

Dean said he does not often turn to his faith when making policy decisions but cited the civil union bill as a time he did.

Classic. Let's use practical Christianity and only rely on faith when it's beneficial to our agenda. Howard Dean, you are many things, but you are definitely NOT a Christian. In any case, I am going to continue pointing out why.

"My view of Christianity . . . is that the hallmark of being a Christian is to reach out to people who have been left behind," he told reporters Tuesday. "So I think there was a religious aspect to my decision to support civil unions.


"Reach out to people who have been left behind?" What does that even mean, Howie? I guess that you're supposed to reach out to people who have been left behind, but you're not supposed to legitimize their sin just because it's beneficial to your personal agenda. That's not a religious aspect. It's politics disguised as religion. Somebody call Ann Coulter.

Earlier Tuesday, when he and the other candidates were asked at a debate whether religion has influenced any of their policy decisions, Dean was the only one not to respond.

In the interview Wednesday, Dean said, "I don't go through an inventory like that when making public policy decisions."

There's the key indicator that something's not right. He only talks about his "religion" when it'll help his image. When he's in an environment where it might portray him in a negative light, he's afraid to say anything. Again, Howard Dean is NOT a Christian.

Now, I want to touch on another interesting issue here. Why hasn't the ACLU come down on Dean for talking about religion in public? After all, he said that his faith influenced the decision to legalize civil unions. Wasn't faith the thing that caused people to oppose Bill Pryor? Here's an excerpt from an article about that:

“Bill Pryor has spent his political career trying to undermine church-state separation and showing contempt for religious pluralism,” said Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a group that is leading the opposition to Pryor’s nomination. This summer, Schumer himself said that Pryor’s beliefs “are so well known, so deeply held that it’s very hard to believe that they’re not going to influence him on the bench.”

Interesting. Clearly, many people think it's wrong for political figures to make decisions based on their religious convictions. Why hasn't Dean faced this same kind of opposition? Could it be that the issue is not religion itself, but what that religion says? I think it is.

Look at the facts. Howard Dean says that he legalized civil unions because of his Christian beliefs. I don't hear people yapping about "separation of church and state" and demanding that he step down.

However, people like Bill Pryor, who opposes abortion and believes the Ten Commandments can be displayed in public, are attacked because their beliefs are politically incorrect.

I want to write a longer piece about this, but I seem to be a bit sick at the moment, so I'll come back to it later.

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

In Dean We Trust (WARNING: Moral Philosophy Ahead)

Okay, it's time to go after the Idiot again, as he has once again proven that he is both very confused about religion and very naive about the intelligence of the American people.

Let's look at a few examples from this article, entitled "Dean Says Faith Swayed Decision on Gay Unions:"

Democratic front-runner Howard Dean said Wednesday that his decision as governor to sign the bill legalizing civil unions for gays in Vermont was influenced by his Christian views, as he waded deeper into the growing political, religious and cultural debate over homosexuality and the Bible's view of it.

This is off to a good start, isn't it? I try to avoid writing about issues concerning "teh ghey" on this blog, but as a Christian, I feel it's my duty to point out that Howard "praise the Lord (but only in the South)" Dean is insulting my religion when he does things like this. Read on:

"The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component to it," Dean said in an interview Wednesday.

First of all, I think that's the most verbally loaded statement he's ever made. "Overwhelming...very significant...substantial..." I've seen this technique used in several debates.

Basically, the idea is to convince the casual observer that you're so sure of yourself that only an idiot would disagree with you. But does he provide any proof to back up his statements? Of course not. Heck, even Crap Weasel used a pie chart. Howie should be able to do better than this.

"From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."

I'm really sick of people saying that. Of course, I'm not surprised that a moron like Dean would say it, but I'm sick of it. That statement is not logical. To prove it, let's apply a bit of Kantian philosophy and see if it can be universalized (I knew taking a semester of moral philosophy would pay off eventually).

First, we have to analyze the basic implications of Dean's statement. He asserts that homosexuals exist, which is obviously true. He then asserts his belief that God created homosexuals, which is also true, although we'll see where this falls apart later on. Now, the third part of the statement tells us that since God created homosexuals, and God, as a supreme being, cannot create sin, then homosexuality is not a sin. Makes sense, right?

Well, let's see what the Kantian model says. I don't agree with all of Kant's theories, but one of them, commonly known as the Categorical Imperative, basically describes logical moral views. He says that "I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law."

What this means is that if you act a certain way in a certain situation, and you believe that your action was the correct one, then you should expect everyone who is in that situation to act the same way without exception.

How does this apply to Dean's logic? Well, he seems to believe that homosexuals can't be committing a sin because God created them that way. However, if we apply the Categorical Imperative, we see that by Dean's reasoning, nobody created by God can be a sinner. Since everyone is created by God, that means there is no sin, at least according to his logic.

The problem is confusing homosexuality, a tendency to be sexually attracted to one's own gender, with homosexual activity. This is a Santorum situation. Homosexuality is, in fact, not a sin. It's acting on those urges that is sinful, and that's the point that Dean misses.

Let's apply the Categorical Imperative again, this time to a different situation. We'll look at psychopaths this time. Now, psychopaths often commit murder as a result of their mental condition, but do we decide that the murder should go unpunished? Of course not.

We also don't say that it's okay because God created them. Know why? Because although God may have created psychopaths, he didn't tell them to kill people. In fact, he issued a commandment against it.

However, by Dean logic, an inclination and an action are the same thing, and both can be traced back to their Creator. This, unfortunately, presents us with a contradiction, because the Bible clearly condemns homosexual acts and murder.

We can even replace various components of Dean's first statement with components of this hypothetical situation and see if they measure up under the scrutiny of the Categorical Imperative. Example:

"From a religious point of view, if God had thought murder is a sin, he would not have created psychopaths."

See how much less sense this makes when applied to something that's basically a universal sin? However, as soon as we get into a heated issue like "gay rights," the Scripture twisting begins.

Of course, this all rests on the assumption that God created homosexuals the way they are, which is, in terms of critical thinking, more or less an argument from nature. That's a really murky area.

This is where it gets more religious, because you have to eliminate all the contradictions. If you call yourself a Christian, it means you believe the Bible is the word of God and is 100% accurate. Therefore, if the Bible says something is a sin, a Christian believes that it is.

That's why this whole thing bothers me. I know that non-theists can argue about nature vs. nurture until the cows come home, but if you call yourself a Christian, as Dean seems to be doing, you have to accept the belief that the Bible is true, and the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, even if God did create homosexuals, rather than homosexuality being a learned behavior, you still have to believe that it's sinful to act on it.

Just as psychopaths are still murderers when they kill as a result of their condition, homosexuals are still committing Biblical sin when they act on their attraction to members of their own gender. You can't call yourself a Bible believing Christian if you don't accept that.

Finally, before accusations of homophobia start to fly, I'll point out one more thing that seems to get lost in this argument. The Bible also says that premarital sex is wrong, but nobody who points this out is called a heterophobe. At worst, they're called prudes or some other dumb word.

I've always wondered why this is. Why is it that Christians are allowed to view one sexual act as sinful while being called hateful bigots for believing the same about another sexual act? And in both cases, can you argue that because God created humans with a sex drive, then no sex act is a sin?

I'd like to hear the opposition explain that one WITHOUT using nasty words.

Good luck.

Posted by CD at 09:05 PM | Comments (3)

The Immigration Thing

Okay, the entire blogosphere is up in arms over Dubya's new immigrant policy proposal. Many bloggers have already said a lot more about it than I could, and in a much more effective way.

Therefore, I just want to cover one thing Bush said. Only one:

I propose a new temporary worker program that will match willing foreign workers with willing American employers when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs.


When no Americans can be found to fill the jobs? What about all these people who are complaining about unemployment? Why does he want to give jobs to people who are BREAKING THE LAW instead of giving them to AMERICAN CITIZENS?

Dubya, if you don't move back to the right pretty soon, you've lost my vote.

I'm serious.

Posted by CD at 05:25 PM | Comments (6)

Why Liberals Can't Impeach Dubya

All right, enough of this "behind the scenes" crap. People aren't going to stay here if they think that's all I write about.

Anyway, I realized something yesterday. A lot of anti-Bush liberals are saying that he should be impeached because he supposedly lied about the war. After all, they say, Clinton was impeached for lying, so that should be the standard for all future problems, right?

Wrong. You see, Clinton lied under OATH. That's called perjury, and it's illegal. When the president breaks the law while in office, THAT is grounds for impeachment. If a few people THINK that the president lied in his SOTU speech, that's not the same thing.

Now, I personally don't think Bush lied, but even if he had, he couldn't be impeached for it. Why? Because he wasn't under oath. Politicians lie all the time. There would only be a few in office if we impeached them all the time.

However, when someone is under oath, they're required by law to tell the truth, and if they lie then, they've broken the law. Clinton was a criminal, Bush is just not real good at persuasion, I suppose.

I'm glad I could clear that up (as if I was the first person to come up with that).

Posted by CD at 04:20 PM | Comments (3)

More Behind the Scenes Stuff

Okay, you may have noticed that I made a small change in alignment. I wanted to make it look more like the old blog, and it's easier to read posts when they're on the left. Now that I've done that, added the intro page, and imported my archives, the transition is officially complete. I will now celebrate by doing absolutely nothing...at least until tomorrow. Goodnight.

...I almost forgot: Thanks to The Bartender for helping me with the stylesheet!

Okay, I didn't do ABSOLUTELY nothing. I also added a banner.

(on another note, if the new design doesn't look right on your browser, let me know, and I'll get the Bartender to check it out tonight)

Posted by CD at 01:46 AM | Comments (6)

Behind the Scenes

I'm not sure if anyone really cares, but I added an intro page, which you can get to from the "Blog Info" section of the sidebar. I doubt that many regular readers really need that, but if you're new here, I encourage you to check it out.

Also, I haven't posted any pics in a while, but I used a new one in the intro, and I figured I'd put it here just because I can:

CD in uniform (alternate title: All your bass are belong to us)

I may not be in the military, but I have put on a uniform and served my...uh, university. And them bass drums is heavy.

I'll probably be posting another pic tomorrow of a Christmas cookie I made to satirize political correctness. You'll have to see it to understand it.

Posted by CD at 12:10 AM | Comments (6)

January 07, 2004

It's Crap Weasel's Turn!

Now that I've made fun of Idiot a few times, it's time to move on to other candidates.

Dennis Kucinich, better known as Crap Weasel, has already proven himself to be both crazy and totally devoid of any respect for our armed forces. However, he obviously has his own opinions about actual issues, and his website gives us a list, entitled Dennis Kucinich: The Progressive Vision.

It gives a list of his views on 10 key issues, as well as explanations of why he holds them. I'm not going to cover all of them, since I know nothing about things like NAFTA and other free trade agreements, but I'll go over a few of them to show why he is a Crap Weasel.

Click the extended entry to continue. Goooooood monkey....

[1] Universal Health Care with a Single Payer Plan
Over 40 million Americans have no health care and 30 million more have only minimal coverage. Those with coverage often pay exorbitant amounts. The current profit-driven system, dominated by private insurance firms and their bureaucracies, has failed.

It's failed? That's news to me. Here's a news flash for you quasi-socialist morons: PROFIT DRIVEN SYSTEMS ARE EFFECTIVE BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T GET PAID IF THEY F**K UP AT THEIR JOBS!

This is a capitalist country. Services like health care should be private, because competition=performance. If people can't afford it, that's their dang problem. Work on giving them jobs, not handouts.

A Kucinich administration would establish streamlined national health insurance, Enhanced Medicare for All. It would be publicly-financed health care, privately delivered. It would provide affordable prescription drugs, thanks to bulk purchasing. The General Accounting Office of Congress has concluded:

"If the U.S. were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs would be more than enough to offset the cost."

"Sure, it would be a really crappy system, and people would be on waiting lists for years, but it would save money, and nobody would be left out! Now, let's all hold hands around the campfire and sing...well, everyone whose hands haven't been amputated because a government financed hospital accidentally infected them with flesh-eating bacteria. Boy, was that a mistake!"

[4] Repeal of the "Patriot Act"
The "Patriot Act" is not what American patriots have fought and died for.

"In fact, I'll make a campaign commercial with their names and faces in it to prove that they would've agreed with me!"

To allow our Bill of Rights to be nullified without judicial supervision invites tyranny. The Attorney General has been handed unfettered power to wiretap, search, jail, and invade our most sacred right to privacy.

"Our?" Have you been talking to Al Qaeda operatives lately, because those are the people we're after. Pathetic little conspiracy weasels like you don't have to worry. Ashcroft knows you're too dumb to do anything.

Oh, and one more thing: What right to privacy? I believe a terrorist's right to privacy should be compromised if it infringes on an American's right to NOT. BE. BLOWN. UP.

The government must not be allowed, without probable cause or warrant, to snoop on our communications, medical records, library records, and student records.

If you can find an example of them doing this without "probable cause," I might agree with you. Again, what have you been doing in your private life that makes you so worried about this?

[5] Right-to-Choose, Privacy, and Civil Rights
In a Kucinich administration, a woman’s right-to-choose will be protected as essential to personal privacy and gender equality.

This is wrong in so many ways. Those of you who come here on any regular basis know how I feel about abortion. Excuse me while I go vomit in disgust at the manipulation going on here.

Only those who agree to uphold Roe v. Wade will be nominated for the Supreme Court.

Excuse me again. I still feel a bit queasy...

Civil rights (and voting rights) enforcement will be intensified.

Who's being denied voting rights, other than the soldiers you seem to value so much?

Lesbians and gays will be afforded complete equality throughout society.

I think MTV is already working on that part. You can stay out of it.

Affirmative action will be maintained as a tool for racial and gender equality.

"...Unless it's the Caucasian race or the male gender. Stop the Evil White Patriarchy™!!!!!"

Drug policy will emphasize treatment over criminalization, and not a rampaging war that erodes Constitutional freedoms, privacy, and law enforcement resources.

"We can't tell them that they're wrong! It might hurt their feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings!"

An end to capital punishment will be sought.

"Death for unwanted children, and mercy for convicted criminals!" Welcome to Bizarro World.

[6] Balance Between Workers and Corporations
American workers are working longer and harder for less pay than 20 years ago. What’s needed is a resurgence of organized labor, and a Kucinich administration will tenaciously defend the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively.

Again, I'm not a labor expert, but I'm pretty sure they can do this already.

Since the purchasing power of the minimum wage has dropped 21% in two decades, it’s time for living wages, not minimum wages.

If people EARN living wages, they'll GET living wages, you moron.

And it’s time to reverse tax cuts that benefit the already well-to-do, and retain an estate tax.

I'll let that statement speak for itself, because I don't want to mutilate a dead, severely beaten horse.

Investing $500 billion to rebuild schools, roads, bridges, ports, and sewage, water and environmental systems will do more to stimulate our economy than tax breaks for the wealthy.

Uh...what? You want to spend government money that doesn't reach consumers, while demanding that those same consumers give their extra money to the government? Are you insane?

[8] A Renewed Commitment to Peace and Diplomacy
America will return to its role as the most admired—not hated—nation.

When has America been the most admired nation? From the American Revolution to the present day, people all over the world have hated us, and I think that's a good thing. If everyone likes you, that means you're trying too hard to appease them without thinking about your own needs.

Remember high school? Most of the popular people ended up being losers and criminals, and the unpopular people ended up being...well, Bill Gates, in one case.

...Oh yeah, I forgot that you hate capitalism.

The doctrine of "pre-emption" will be retired, as will an aggressive, unilateralist foreign policy that makes our homeland less secure, not more.

Hey, I recognize you now! You're one of those crazy people who post on Democratic Underground! I thought your loony ideas sounded familiar!

Our security will be enhanced by working with other nations and the U.N. instead of acting like an Empire, arrogantly undermining international agreements...

"...But when people like Saddam Hussein undermine U.N. resolutions and international agreements, I will personally clean their palaces using only my tongue and a bottle of Windex. I will then apologize for intimidating them and give them all our country's SUVs as penance."

...such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, the Small Arms Treaty, the International Criminal Court, and the Kyoto Climate Treaty.

Let's just bomb ourselves and save terrorists a lot of time. Weasel.

As President, Kucinich will work to implement two measures he sponsored in Congress: the Space Preservation Treaty, which bans space-based weapons...

"Mind-reading moon lasers are unconstitutional!"

...and a cabinet-level Department of Peace, to establish non-violence as an organizing principle in both domestic and international affairs.

Department of Peace. What a joke. Let's just put a couple monkeys in a basement and give them a desk and some pencils. They'll basically accomplish as much as a DoP would.

A Kucinich administration will cut bloated and unneeded weaponry from a military budget that now almost equals the military spending of all other countries combined.

I think having more military might than the entire planet is a good thing, but that might be my inner imperialist talking.

The Kucinich peace dividend will be invested in education, health care, environmental clean-up, urban infrastructure, Social Security, veterans’ benefits...

"...Like starring in campaign ads!"

...and other pressing domestic needs.

"...Except security, of course, because keeping people safe violates their right to privacy. If you want to build a dirty bomb, that's your business, not mine."

Hey, I said I was going to make fun of him, not refute him. Anyway, those are just some of the hilarious Crap Weasel positions. If anyone wants to take on the less exciting ones, feel free to do so. Just send a trackback or something.

Posted by CD at 08:31 PM | Comments (4)

Another Round of Google Blagging

SIT is appparently the #1 search result for howard dean moron idiot ignorant

In light of this and my other recent posts, I'm hereby declaring this...


...So go ahead and join me in making fun of Howard Dean.

I have a couple other notes for right now, as long as I'm posting. First of all, I'm up to 97 comments. Whoever leaves comment #100 will get free publicity (assuming they have a blog)!

Also, my hit counter is currently at 2,847 (although I'll have to adjust it to a slightly lower number later for reasons that you don't really need to know). Now, I'm heading back up to Syracuse on Sunday morning. I want to get to 3,000 hits before then, and with the current traffic, I might not make it, so I encourage you to get as many people as possible to come here and check out the blog.

Yes, this is traffic whoring. No, I don't care if it's stupid. I want to get to 3,000 hits before I go back to friggin' college.

...Now that I've both bored and confused most of you, I'll go. Don't worry, I'm planning on making fun of Dennis Kucinich later, and other presidential candidates will follow.

...Crap Weasel.

Posted by CD at 04:49 PM | Comments (8)

I Made a Movie!

Check out my hilarious DFilm involving Howard Douche Dean:

Dean Movie

Remember, I'm studying to be a writer/director. Practice makes perfect!

One more thing: If you don't think that character in the movie looks like Dean, look at these photos, then go back and watch the movie. The resemblance is uncanny.

...this is what happens when we post at 4 in the morning, children...

Posted by CD at 03:57 AM | Comments (4)

January 06, 2004

Even More Google Fun

Holy crap, I'm the #1 result for "howard dean"+"douchebag"

I think I'll try for the record of "most insults directed at a presidential candidate in one week." ...Unless that record doesn't exist...in which case...I can claim it now!


...I think we were all better off while I was feeling sick...

Posted by CD at 11:32 PM | Comments (5)

More Fun With Referral Logs

This is great. Someone used my Howard Dean is Still an Idiot post on a message board. Check it out.

Here's how one poster responded:

Semi-Intelligent Thoughts was a waste of time, it gave his opinion and no facts. So it was Semi-Intelligent Thoughts.

First of all, this is a weblog, not a news site, and second of all, I did give facts. I linked to an article about mad cow disease, and another one about what Saddam Hussein is telling us. I'd post a reply there, but you need to be a member or something.

By the way, if you happen to be the person who posted the link, feel free to leave a comment or something. I'm glad someone thinks my Idiot bashing is good enough to use as evidence.

I went ahead and registered so I could post a response. We'll see where this goes.

Posted by CD at 08:54 PM | Comments (2)

Best Google Search Ever

I just got a Google referral from this term:

What does New Age religion say about experimenting in a lesbian relations

I don't know why that brought them here. I think I just have the words "lesbian" and "religion" on totally separate pages. Who are you people?

Posted by CD at 08:47 PM | Comments (2)

Douche for America!

That's a slogan, by the way, not a command. Get your heads out of the gutter, people.

...Yeah. Anyway, thanks to the magical combination of Advil and Monty Python DVDs, I feel well enough to blog again, and I thought I would continue the douche bashing, as long as it's an issue.

First of all, I've gotten multiple Google hits today from people searching for "Howard Dean idiot" or "Howard Dean is an idiot." That's why I started the Idiot Google bomb. If people are searching for it, we might as well try to direct them to a page that has proof. Seriously. People searching for douche aren't going to be looking for information on Howard Dean.

All right, this is getting weird. I'm going to continue in the extended entry for the sake of The Children™.

Are they gone now? Good. Now, as I was saying, I want to continue exposing the fact that Howard Dean is an idiot, and I actually found a couple interesting pages on his website, particularly the douche link. I'm in the mood for a bit of fisking, so let's try that route. Check out the intro page (WARNING- If you happen to be pro-choice, you may want to skip this part):

Thank you for visiting my website and for your interest in learning more about my vision for a better future for our nation.

"Nobody's going to stop me! Not even the Soviet Union!"

As a medical doctor...

*cough* ABORTION *cough*

...I support access to quality health care for everyone.

After all, look how well it's worked for countries like Canada and England!

During my term as Governor, we provided access to health insurance for virtually all Vermont children...

"And that's not even counting all the ones that were aborted!"

...and over 90% of all Vermonters. Because I believe that the development and protection of our children is critical to the future strength of our country, during my term as Governor we took action that reduced child abuse in Vermont by nearly half.

"Less children=less child abuse! It's simple math!"

I have serious concerns about the increasingly unilateralist approach to foreign policy we have seen from the current Administration...

"Vive le France! Hagel Deutschland!"

...particularly in the President's posture toward Iraq. Any President must be prepared to use force in defense of our nation's interests. Had I been in Congress, however, I would have voted against the resolution providing the President sweeping authority to wage war against Iraq, because I did not believe the President made the case that war was justified.

"I do not believe he made the case..." Well, you also seem to believe that Bush may have known about 9/11 and that socialized healthcare isn't a huge mistake, so I wouldn't put too much stock in that statement.

I am also concerned about the President's foreign policy priorities. The war on terror -- against an enemy that has killed over three thousand innocents on our soil -- is far from over, yet the President's decision to lead us into war in Iraq has distracted us from pursuing the known threat of Al Qaeda.

"But if we do happen to catch bin Laden, he should get a fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty, right? RIGHT?"

Meanwhile, serious emerging threats -- like North Korea's quest to become a nuclear power -- remain unaddressed.

Have you been living under a frickin' rock, Dr. Douche? It looks like we're making progress with North Korea. However, you of all people should know how tough it is to negotiate with crazy leaders. Takes one to know one, right?

Our nation desperately needs a long-term, visionary approach to our current challenges. But any solutions to our challenges can and must exist without the massive deficit spending that has become the hallmark of the current administration. Fiscal responsibility would be a hallmark of a Dean presidency, as it has been a guiding principle in my tenure as Governor. As Governor, I was able to cut the income tax twice, remove the sales tax on most clothing, reduce the state's long-term debt, and still maintain a balanced budget.

"...So even though I've repeatedly proven that tax cuts work, I will repeal the Bush tax cuts. Why? Because if Bush did it, it can't be good!"

The Democratic Party must be the party of fiscal responsibility.

They should be the Republican Party?

I believe I have a proven track record of doing the right thing -- fighting the good fight, standing for what's right, even when it means standing alone.

Hmmm...maybe you've been standing alone because people are afraid of you.

As I travel the country, I am more and more convinced that voters are ready for a change. I hope you will join with me in my campaign for a brighter future for our kids.

And boy, do they seem happy about it.

It took a long time to find those photos, dang it. I wanted to use the old Drudge ones, but they were gone.

All right, I'll be back with more later if I don't feel any worse.

Posted by CD at 07:50 PM | Comments (8)

Advance Warning

Posting will be light today because I don't feel right. Hopefully it's just the colder weather and I'll be back to normal in a couple days. Until then, feel free to join in the Dean bashing. I'll try to get something done by tonight. Thanks.

Posted by CD at 03:28 PM | Comments (6)

January 05, 2004

More Dean Stuff

Speaking of the Idiot, look at this page on his website. Here's what it says:

On January 20th, George Bush will deliver his State of the Union address. But he doesn’t have a clue about the state of our nation. He has sold our government to the special interests and has forgotten the concerns of the American people.

Despite George Bush, the state of our union is strong and a new age of participation in our democracy is at hand. 

If millions of us speak together right now, our message will be clear. Tell George Bush the truth about the state of our nation.

How have George Bush and his policies affected you?

Who else thinks it would be a great idea to enter some pro-Bush stuff into there just to annoy them? They obviously won't publish it to the site, but someone's gotta read the friggin' things, right? I'll probably compose something and submit it tomorrow evening, then I'll paste it into an entry. If you decide to join me on this, please leave a comment and let the rest of the blogosphere know.

The Idiot must be stopped!

CRAP! The website says they're going to start publishing them already! Oh, well, as long as the form is still there, I encourage people to use it. They'll still get submitted, at least.

WHAT THE FRICK?!! The page disappeared 2 minutes after I linked it!

...This isn't over, people. This isn't over. This is just one more reason for you to join in the Google bombing.


Posted by CD at 11:47 PM | Comments (4)

Google Rocks

Check this out! SIT is the #3 Google search result for "Howard Dean idiot!" It's even ahead of The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler!

Just to make sure I retain that...



I decided to add a link to my "Entertainment/Google Bombs" sidebar. Howard Dean's website, www.deanforamerica.com, is now linked with the word "idiot." I doubt that'll do much, but feel free to join in the fun.

Oh, and also...


I still have writer's block, but that doesn't mean I can't have fun.

Posted by CD at 11:28 PM | Comments (3)

Another Point Proven

Over the weekend, I wrote this post about how certain liberals can't understand why anyone would vote Republican. Instead of realizing that people agree with Republicans occasionally, their elitism makes them think that the voters have been duped by a conspiracy or are trying to avoid being labeled as unpatriotic.

I also briefly made the point that some blame stupidity, since intelligent people would NEVER vote Republican. Well, John Hawkins of Right Wing News has noticed the same thing, and he has proof.

Go ahead and check that out if you're interested. I seem to have a bit of writer's block at the moment.

Posted by CD at 09:45 PM | Comments (2)

Another Status Report

Crap! I'm actually getting visitors today! What the F happened to my obscurity? WAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!!

Okay...gotta keep it together...that's it...

Anyway, I've kinda got a lot of behind the scenes stuff to do today. I'm trying to import my BlogSpot archives, and I've got some Ecosystem business to take care of.

I may or may not write about diversity. I seem to have forgotten the main points of the post I was going to make, so we'll see about that.

Also, a few people seem to like my idea of a blog to keep an eye on Democratic Underground, and the group blog concept seems to be more popular, so here's the deal: If you want to be a member of "Eye on DU," the blog committed to pointing out their stupidity, leave a comment here or send me an e-mail. I've already registered the URL for the blog if it gets off the ground (yes, it's on BlogSpot. Shut up, it's free). That should be fun.

I will write something real later. I promise.

I just finished importing my BlogSpot archives, so every post I've ever written is now available at this site. The old URL will now be used in emergency situations only.

Unfortunately, I have to go through and do some title editing and other tweaking now that all my stuff is here, so real posting will be delayed for a while. Sorry about that.

On the plus side, if you're new here, you can now go through and read some of the older posts from the past 3 months. Just ignore the titles; I'll be updating them over the next few hours.

Posted by CD at 03:28 PM | Comments (6)

Random Quote

I was going through some columns on Townhall, and I happened to come across something written by Thomas Sowell that's both incredibly insightful and strangely obvious:

"The people I feel sorry for are those who insist on continuing to do what they have always done but want the results to be different from what they have always been."

I'm a lifelong procrastinator, so that really made me think (others who have this problem will understand why).

For more, go here.

Posted by CD at 03:36 AM | Comments (3)

January 04, 2004

Sunday Status Report

I'm not in a writing mood right now because I went to a steakhouse for dinner and I'm too full to concentrate. However, I want to write something later about the problems with "diversity" and affirmative action.

This is all part of that thing I posted a couple weeks ago about how I've been thinking about more issues than ever before. Over the past week, I've basically been writing about all the different ideas that suddenly popped into my head over the break. I've still got another week before I go back to school, so you can expect a few more of those.

Other than that, there's not much happening. I'm just messing with the sidebar right now, and you probably don't care about that.

Also, I still need a new tagline. That one I'm using right now is temporary until I get something better.

Posted by CD at 06:36 PM | Comments (2)

January 03, 2004

It Has to be Said Again

I made this point in "Beyond Criticism" a couple days ago, and it's by no means a new observation, but I really can't let a certain point go about political discourse these days.

Something in the minds of loony leftists seems to be telling them that liberal policies are the only proper way to run a country. As a consequence of this elitist mindset, they believe that every liberal position is inherently correct, and any logical person would support the liberal platform.

There's just one problem, however: A lot of Americans disagree with liberal positions and think that some are downright nutty. Unfortunately, some of the tinfoil hatted crowd can't seem to grasp this fact.

Instead, they blame every conservative success on some sort of conspiracy, since people who haven't been influenced by neocon propaganda would clearly support liberals.

For example, when Bush won the election, they started saying that he stole it, because clearly no intelligent American would actually vote for a *spit* REPUBLICAN *spit*! It could only be the work of the Bushitler propagandists.

The same goes for the recall election in California. When people voted to remove Gray Davis, some liberals (DU, I'm looking in your direction) figured that it must've been a conspiracy, because nobody capable of free thought would choose to replace a Democrat with a Republican. What kind of retrogressive stupidity is that?

This also applies to the war with Iraq. I fisked an editorial a couple days ago that demonstrated this mindset quite nicely. The author observed that the majority of Americans support the war. Now, logically, this means that most Americans believe the war is right and have good reasons for holding that belief. That's obvious, right?

Well, according to the author, the reason most people support the war is because they've been lied to by the administration. He says that the polls are proof not of Americans' support for the war, but of the success of right wing propaganda! Do you see what I'm saying? Because some liberals think they can never be wrong, they figure that any support of conservative ideas is evidence of a conspiracy (or, should I say, a NEOCONspiracy).

For another example of this, look at some of the attitudes toward patriotism. When some liberals see the American flag being displayed, they think that it's evidence of people being brainwashed by the administration or creating the illusion of support so John Ashcroft won't hunt them down. They don't even stop and consider the possibility that people can actually agree with what the U.S. does occasionally.

Here's yet another example: The attitudes toward the media. Many liberals don't believe that there is a liberal bias in the media. Why? Because liberals CAN'T be biased in their world. They see the same news we do, but since it supports their worldview, they see it as the truth instead of liberal bias.

If a reporter calls Iraq a quagmire despite the fact that the war was hugely successful, they don't see that as liberal bias. Instead, they realize that they also see the war as a failure, and since they're liberal, they must be right. Therefore, the quagmire meme isn't bias, but absolute, unvarnished truth!

This is why some liberals have a problem with Fox News. Since they can't see the liberal bias in most of the media, anything that doesn't align with their views has a conservative bias. When they look at Fox News, they don't see "fair and balanced" coverage, because it occasionally supports the right wing position.

Now, because they think liberal logic is the obvious choice, they take this one step further and assume that Bush actually CONTROLS Fox News, because a free press wouldn't espouse the warped views of Republicans. This is why Fox is seen as propaganda by some people (like Howard Dean) who can't grasp the idea that the liberal worldview isn't inherently correct and true.

We can also look at conservative talk radio here. People like Rush Limbaugh are able to gain a huge number of listeners because a lot of people agree with the views presented on the program. When liberals look at this, however, they see a bunch of "sheeple" or "dittoheads" who have been manipulated by propaganda to believe anything Rush says.

It doesn't occur to them that he may actually make good points, because they don't think conservatives are even CAPABLE of making good points. After all, how can you make a good argument for an obviously flawed position? It can't be done unless you brainwash your fans!

People like Michael Moore and Al Franken, on the other hand, are liberal, so nobody on the left seems to question the critical thinking abilities of their followers. They believe that Moore and Franken speak the truth, so people are justified in following them.

They haven't been brainwashed at all, but are instead opening their minds and learning the truth about the world after evil conservative demagogues like Limbaugh tried to fool them into becoming Republicans.

Let's examine yet another issue: Affirmative action. Now, most conservatives think affirmative action is racist, right? It's preference based on race, which is racism. However, the liberal view is that minorities are constantly being discriminated against and need a helping hand, so they think that NOT having affirmative action is racist.

This partially explains the view of conservatives as racists. Instead of using logic to figure out that affirmative action is racist, they compare their belief that it helps minorities to the conservative belief that it's wrong. Since they don't see the conservative version as beneficial to minorities, they paint conservatives as racists.

For proof of this, look at how Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice have been treated. They've both basically been called race traitors and house negros at some point in their respective careers. Why? Because certain liberals can't fathom the idea of a conservative minority. Conservatives are racists! Why would minorities be against themselves unless they were trying to suck up to the massa (my apologies to dialecticians everywhere)?

This can even be applied to President Bush's environmental policies. Some liberals seem to think that he's trying to destroy the environment by reducing some protections. What else could possibly explain his choice to oppose the left-wing position? It couldn't be because he thinks it's wrong, because liberals are never wrong! He must be trying to kill us all!

Overall, this partially explains why liberals often resort to name calling or pointless memes when trying to argue for their position. They don't think that they can ever be wrong, so they go into the debate assuming that everyone knows they're right, and the entire point of the argument is to make the conservative look foolish for not holding the right view.

Instead of trying to show why the liberal view is correct, they can only focus on why the conservative view is wrong, as they believe the correctness of the liberal view is so obvious that it shouldn't need to be explained. The only way to change a conservative is to humiliate them, because this can undo the evil dittohead rays that are transmitted by Rush Limbaugh.

Let's look at a hypothetical conversation between a liberal and a conservative and see where the problem is:

CON: You see, the war in Iraq was...

LIB: The war was racist and we only went to Iraq for their oil! HA! You lose!

CON: But you didn't even give me a chance to...


CON: But what about the WMD?

LIB: Bush lied! People died!

CON: There was plenty of evidence...

LIB: Saddam never bought yellowcake from Niger!

CON: Nobody ever said he...

LIB: Bush lied! I win again!

CON: In any case, this was one of the most successful military...

LIB: Quagmire! It's a quagmire! You lose again!

CON: But we've captured a bunch of Baathist leaders...

LIB: Did you see that on...FOX NEWS?

CON: Well, yeah. What difference does...

LIB: Neocon propaganda agency! They lie! You lose again!

CON: Do you have any proof that...


CON: You didn't even let me...


CON: I'm going home.

LIB: HA! My arguments must have been to much for you, you stupid neofascist!

CON: There's no need to resort to name-calling...

LIB: If you're not a neofascist, why did you vote for the chimp?

And it'll go on like that for a while.

I think I've taken this too far, so I'm going to step away and let this piece speak for itself.

Posted by CD at 09:04 PM | Comments (5)

January 02, 2004

It's Just a Game...

I just came back from another one of my brother's hockey games (which they lost in overtime). The "chickenhocks" were going crazy tonight. Since I don't have much political stuff to write about right now, here's a selection of things that the parents yelled throughout the game. This may be another one of those "you had to be there" things, but I think they're kinda funny:

-"Go for the body! You're playin' like a pantywaist!"

-"THAT'S OFFSIDES, BIGNOSE! He can't see that side of the ice 'cause his nose is so big!" (talking to/about the referee)

-"Hey, Number 13! You couldn't skate when you were 12!"


-"LET'S GO MUSTANGS!" HONK! HONK! HONK HONK HONK! (he was blowing an airhorn instead of clapping)

-"Put your glove on or you'll break your hand! That's the first thing I'm gonna smack!"

...and, my personal favorite...

-"Get the puck! Skate with it!"

That's the entire point of the game. You don't have to tell them.

Like I said before, I played hockey a long time ago, and I know for a fact that the players don't hear any of the "advice" being shouted at them. It seems like kind of a waste of energy sometimes.

Posted by CD at 10:24 PM | Comments (6)

DU is Funny

I try to ignore them, but they just keep giving me more material to work with. Go look at this thread entitled "What do you guys think will happen if a democrat is elected?"

Here's a sampling of responses:

"The entire world will rejoyce and we will have days of celebration."

"I expect charges of treason to be put forth immediately upon swearing-in for the next Dem. The fascists are NOT going to accept a Dem in the chair. The Repubian scorced-earth tactics are going to go up not a notch, but a thousand notches."

"petty attacks on our Legitimatly Elected President!
Republican = Nazi"

"whichever Dem gets the nom will be the new elected prez. Since the rest of the planet can clearly see that our gov't has been hi-jacked by a bunch of criminals that they know all too well, I think we'll see very quickly and clearly that all the anti-Americanism on the part of our former allies was actually anti-Bushism."

I really wish I knew who some of these people were so I could find them and beat talk some sense into them. It may seem trivial, but remember that THEY VOTE. People who actually believe that "Republican=Nazi" are going to be voting this fall. That's a scary thought.

On another note, I'm thinking of starting another blog that focuses exclusively on Democratic Underground so I don't have to put all that idiocy here. It would be called "Eye on DU" or something like that. What do you think? Good/bad idea? Has it been done already?

Reader input is appreciated.

This is too good. Look at the "signature" from one of the DU posters:

StonerNET Forums: www.stonernet.org - United We're Stoned, Divided We're Busted
StonerNET LIVE - Saturdays at 9pm eastern (2am GMT) on
StonerNET Radio: http://stonernet.org/live.asx (Windows Media)

I believe this is justification for calling him/her/it a hippy.

Posted by CD at 06:13 PM | Comments (6)

January 01, 2004

Chair Humor

Okay, enough political stuff. This blog needs something totally unimportant, and I've got just the thing.

I was sitting here at the computer like I tend to do for most of the day, and I happened to notice a sticker on the bottom of my chair. I pulled it off and discovered that it had a bunch of warnings on it pertaining to the chair. Here's what the sticker says (caps and bold font added to match the original text):


-This chair is designed for sitting only. Do not stand on this chair. Do not use it as a step ladder. (all right, I must confess that I have, in the past, stood on the chair, but I had to kill a spider on the ceiling and I didn't have anything else high enough)

-Do not use this chair unless all bolts and parts are firmly tightened. Check and retighten all bolts and parts at least every 3 months. (Oh, crap! I've had this chair for 10 months and I've never inspected it! I could be in danger!)

-If any parts are missing, damaged, or worn, stop using this chair. Repair the chair with manufacturer supplied parts.

-Do not sit on the arm rest of this product.

-This chair is designed for seating one person at a time.

What would we do without safety warnings?

Posted by CD at 11:48 PM | Comments (6)

Another Question for Liberals

Have I attacked liberals enough yet this week? No? Okay, here's something else!

You know how some say that America is to blame for terrorism? They say that it couldn't possibly be the terrorists' fault, because they were driven to it by American imperialism. In the same way, it seems like liberals always want to blame someone else for crime, accidents, and other bad things. It's never the fault of the people who committed the acts.

However, if something else drove them to do it, and that entity should be punished, why stop there? What drove the U.S. to drive terrorists to attack us? What drove gun manufacturers to make guns that drove someone to kill? Who influenced Nabisco and caused them to force those deadly Oreos on society?

It has to be someone's fault, since the blame never rests with the party who supposedly committed the action.

Logic is fun. I should minor in philosophy.

Posted by CD at 11:25 PM | Comments (1)

The Backwards British

All right, I changed my mind about not posting again today after I saw this. It's about the British policy that says you can't use more than proportional force to defend your home, and it's mind boggling to read. First of all, let's examine the bias of the headline writer:

"I'd do it again, says killer farmer"

Killer farmer? The guy killed a burglar who BROKE INTO HIS HOME. That's called defense. It's still killing, of course, but why is the farmer a "killer" for defending his home?

The farmer jailed for shooting dead a burglar who broke into his isolated home has declared that he would do the same thing again in similar circumstances.

He was jailed for shooting a burglar who broke into his home. Ladies and gentlemen, this is just one of the many reasons why America is better than other countries.

Tony Martin was commenting after listeners to BBC Radio 4's Today programme gave their backing to the idea of legislation which would authorise home-owners to use any means to defend their property from intruders. The home protection idea topped a poll of five proposals for new legislation, with 37% of those who voted giving it their support.

37%? That's it? What are these people smoking?

Martin, whose fatal shooting of a burglar in 1999 sparked a national debate about people's right to defend their property, welcomed the outcome. He told the programme: "I think, basically, people now know what is going on and they are taking notice. "This is wrong, heinously wrong, that you should actually live in fear in your home that if somebody breaks in that, basically, you are going to have the law jump down on you. It is just not right."

I don't know why someone should have to say that. It should be so obvious that a child could figure it out. If someone breaks into your home, you have the right to get rid of them by any means necessary. Do they think the burglar is only going to use the necessary means to rob you? Criminals don't play by the rules!

Asked whether he would do the same thing again, he said: "In the same circumstances, yes, if I am terrorised. People are highly jeopardised in this country. I personally think we are looking bloody stupid in the world."

At this point, I'd have to agree.

Martin's MP Henry Bellingham, the Tory who represents north west Norfolk, told the programme: "I think the law at the moment is totally confused. The current test of reasonable force is discredited ... there appears to be a presumption of guilt against the householder, and I think what we need is a presumption of innocence in favour of the householder."

I still don't understand why it's taken them so long to realize what should be the only logical conclusion here. How far can political correctness go before it kills us all?

But leading criminal barrister John Cooper warned that the idea was dangerously flawed. He said: "The law as it stands at the moment, despite its critics, is functioning. If you are in your house and you are attacked by someone or threatened by someone, you can use proportionate force. We do not live in the wild west. This legislation that is proposed effectively may well turn us into that."

Oh, I get it. They don't want to be like the barbaric, uncivilized Americans. How dare they assume that they have the right to defend their property against lowlife scum who have been victimised (gotta use the British spelling) by the system?

Also, I love the whole idea that they're allowed to use "proportionate force." By that logic, you can't kill a murderer until he kills you. Oh, but wait...

YOU'RE DEAD ALREADY IF HE KILLS YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Proportionate force" means that you can never use lethal means to defend yourself. Ever.

Remind me never to leave this continent.

Posted by CD at 07:54 PM | Comments (3)

Word Games

I've been thinking about something lately. Why are people constantly throwing around that "neocon" meme? I don't understand exactly what it's supposed to mean. It seems like a conservative, by definition, couldn't be identified as "neo," because neo means new (I think).

On the other hand, why isn't anyone saying "neolib?" The liberals today are so much different from liberals of the past, so shouldn't they be the ones who get a new word tossed at them?

People like Howard "angry American" Dean represent liberals now. His kind just sprung up in the past decade. Why doesn't anyone call them neolibs?

Just a question. Incidentally, I've decided not to post a whole lot today, so don't expect much more than this.

Posted by CD at 07:17 PM | Comments (4)