Here's why Gore would not have invaded Iraq:
1. Assuming this alternate timeline, I still say that Republicans keep/expand their hold on Congress in 2002, and while its pretty inconceivable that they'd roadblock the hawkishness of this magical Gore administration you've conjured, they obviously don't grant Gore the lattitude that was afforded Bush.
2. Gore stays within the framework of the UN. He ratchets up 'inspections', and this is where the hawkish pressure is channeled. It may lead to posturing, which Gore hopes looks JFK-like, wherein Americans rattle sabers in Saudi Arabian bases, but no one crosses the borders.
3. Except maybe some missiles. They don't do anything worthwhile.
4. As a result, the focus shifts to Afghanistan/Pakistan. If American troops are deployed in Iraq-numbers, it is to this region. Saddam Hussein remains in power, etc., etc.
5. This is all moot, because President Dole would've prevented 9/11.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Presidential nominees = teh sux0r
I'm not going to claim to have the historical database of JB to compare anyone to Chester A. Arthur or Nick's sarcastic p4wnage or Bert's vehement loyalty to the Republican party no matter how big of a wang they put on the podium to run for president (and let's be serious, anyone in danger of losing to Obama is a pretty big wang). However, I said awhile ago I wasn't going to vote. Bert criticized me, saying not voting was akin to a vote for Obama. Demos criticized saying that this is the most important election ever (read: since the previous re-election of Bush). In the end, though, the purpose of my vote is to speak my voice on a political level. Not using that vote sends a message as well. Not voting for McCain is not the same as voting for Obama. It's simply a statement on my part that neither candidate deserves to be president (and I'm not going to address any election where a nominee campagins in video games and gives out Dave Matthews tickets as the most important election ever).
The fact is, neither candidate has demonstrated the necessary political or economic understanding to be president. Both have ridiculous means by which to create "tax breaks" (and I use that loosely since in either case, it seems to me that middle and upper-middle class is going to get boned) while at the same time cutting national deficit, both voted in favor of the bailout (so are republicans going social?), both are, for the most part, clueless on foreign policy (I have no idea if Gore would have invaded Iraq or not, but I just had to sit through an inconvenient truth, so I'm not putting anything past that buffoon) and neither has demonstrated in any significant way the capacity for leadership. A vote for either candidate says "Hey _______ party, you've given me a good person to vote for, keep up the good work." Which is inherently untrue. Therefore, I am using my right to not vote to speak the message I want sent. And since the Republican party is seemingly leaning towards the left more and more as election day approaches, it seems useless to even use the idea of having a republican president keep a democratic senate in line as a reason to vote. Regardless of who gets in, I'm going to lose my money. It's just a matter of determining to which bullshit use the money they are stealing from me is going to go. So until either party can put forth a candidate that is worth my time to acknowledge, I say F American politics.
The fact is, neither candidate has demonstrated the necessary political or economic understanding to be president. Both have ridiculous means by which to create "tax breaks" (and I use that loosely since in either case, it seems to me that middle and upper-middle class is going to get boned) while at the same time cutting national deficit, both voted in favor of the bailout (so are republicans going social?), both are, for the most part, clueless on foreign policy (I have no idea if Gore would have invaded Iraq or not, but I just had to sit through an inconvenient truth, so I'm not putting anything past that buffoon) and neither has demonstrated in any significant way the capacity for leadership. A vote for either candidate says "Hey _______ party, you've given me a good person to vote for, keep up the good work." Which is inherently untrue. Therefore, I am using my right to not vote to speak the message I want sent. And since the Republican party is seemingly leaning towards the left more and more as election day approaches, it seems useless to even use the idea of having a republican president keep a democratic senate in line as a reason to vote. Regardless of who gets in, I'm going to lose my money. It's just a matter of determining to which bullshit use the money they are stealing from me is going to go. So until either party can put forth a candidate that is worth my time to acknowledge, I say F American politics.
"Shock" and Awe
In order to accept the idea I put forward that Gore would have invaded Iraq as well, you have to reject the conventional wisdom and "storylines" put out by the media surrounding GWB's decision to invade Iraq. Let's look at it from the point of view of a Gore presidency in 2001. September 11 almost certainly happens in the same manner. Gore responds with similar patriotic speeches and calls for justice as GWB did. Al-Qaeda is identified as a target, as well as their camps and bases in Afghanistan. So, we conduct an air campaign and introduce ground troops in a very similar fashion as Rumsfeld/Bush, perhaps more ground troops are committed sooner and there are different strategic concepts, but you get the point.
Pressue begins to mount from both Republicans and Democrats about how to deal with the Saddam problem. Clear Al-Qaeda-Saddam connections exist, and Saddam continues to violate US/UN restrictions. Gore recognizes that the world is drastically changed, and therefore agrees to invade. This is not that hard to believe. Gore probably stays away from the WMD argument. You can cast side Gore's criticism from outside power against Iraq, because that was merely an issue of political convienence. A Gore actually in power would have been responsible enough to pull the trigger on an Iraqi invasion.
Additionally, there would not have been a protracted media campaign questioning the invasion's merits to the same degree. None of the inane "finishing his father's work" or "getting his buddies oil money" comparisons. It is generally easier for Democratic presidents to conduct military campaigns (in the early stages) because so much of the anti-war sentiment is within their own party, so critics don't come out for fear of damaging Gore politically. (See Clinton, Kosovo-Iraq-Somalia) Now, I do agree that in protracted conflicts Dems have a problem if they begin to lose control of their base (1968), but that is beside the point. As to whether a Democratic administration would have run the war more competently, it is difficult to imagine. I think it is wrong to underestimate the political pressure that would have been applied to Gore to invade Iraq-therefore-from a foreign policy perspective one could argue that Bush-Gore would have been quite similar.
Pressue begins to mount from both Republicans and Democrats about how to deal with the Saddam problem. Clear Al-Qaeda-Saddam connections exist, and Saddam continues to violate US/UN restrictions. Gore recognizes that the world is drastically changed, and therefore agrees to invade. This is not that hard to believe. Gore probably stays away from the WMD argument. You can cast side Gore's criticism from outside power against Iraq, because that was merely an issue of political convienence. A Gore actually in power would have been responsible enough to pull the trigger on an Iraqi invasion.
Additionally, there would not have been a protracted media campaign questioning the invasion's merits to the same degree. None of the inane "finishing his father's work" or "getting his buddies oil money" comparisons. It is generally easier for Democratic presidents to conduct military campaigns (in the early stages) because so much of the anti-war sentiment is within their own party, so critics don't come out for fear of damaging Gore politically. (See Clinton, Kosovo-Iraq-Somalia) Now, I do agree that in protracted conflicts Dems have a problem if they begin to lose control of their base (1968), but that is beside the point. As to whether a Democratic administration would have run the war more competently, it is difficult to imagine. I think it is wrong to underestimate the political pressure that would have been applied to Gore to invade Iraq-therefore-from a foreign policy perspective one could argue that Bush-Gore would have been quite similar.
McCain Hatred
Bert makes an appropriate and persuasive article about why one should pull the lever for McCain, despite his faults. I am sympathetic to this point of view. Here's the beef, though.
McCain is a charlatan. He is a complete boob. He made his career sucking up to the media while bashing conservatives and snuggling with Democrats with some can't-we-be-nice bi-partisanship crapola. He was the absolute worst nominee our party could have put forward. I can't imagine a worse (viable) candidate. (Ron Paul does not count as viable.) He thinks he knows something about American foreign policy-he doesn't. He thinks he knows something about the intricacies of military policy-very little-in my estimation. This "politics of personal honor" is REALLY off-putting. Everything is an affront to him. Should I vote for him and he win, he is guaranteed to be the nominee in 2012, so I can get a total of 8 years of this stooge. Why do I have to do that? Not to mention, given the fact that Dems won't be shutout of the White House forever, leaves me with the prospect of no real quality Republican candidate until at least 2016, and maybe longer. Republicans became drunk with power and they spent money like it was going out of style. Having Democrats in control of Congress won't be that much different. I doubt the percentage of the growth of spending will be any higher than the Bush years. There are consequences to the bad leadership of Republicans, and the loss of my vote is one of them. If we need another Clinton to spark another '94, lets do it, because the current version of Congressional Republicans is laugh-out-loud bad. I don't care what they say, I look at what they do and I find it ridiculous.
Now-to the Chief Executive. It is true that it is extremely unlikely that I will ever vote for a Dem to be President. I have too many sharp policy disagreements. Obama will be the worst president since Buchanan. But I am not voting for him. But why does that mean that I have to vote for a nearly as bad alternative? McCain lost my vote 6 years ago-why should I take him seriously now? He has proven nothing to me except that his instincts are terrible, his grasp of policy is thin, and his temeperant is anything but reasoned. When he put Palin on the ticket, I thought about it. I do like her, and I laugh at her critics who criticize her experience while promoting Obama. But she won't be president-he will. And he will be the worst president since Chester Arthur. Time for Republicans to pay the price for their sins. I can't support a massively bad choice because the alternative is hugely massively bad.
McCain is a charlatan. He is a complete boob. He made his career sucking up to the media while bashing conservatives and snuggling with Democrats with some can't-we-be-nice bi-partisanship crapola. He was the absolute worst nominee our party could have put forward. I can't imagine a worse (viable) candidate. (Ron Paul does not count as viable.) He thinks he knows something about American foreign policy-he doesn't. He thinks he knows something about the intricacies of military policy-very little-in my estimation. This "politics of personal honor" is REALLY off-putting. Everything is an affront to him. Should I vote for him and he win, he is guaranteed to be the nominee in 2012, so I can get a total of 8 years of this stooge. Why do I have to do that? Not to mention, given the fact that Dems won't be shutout of the White House forever, leaves me with the prospect of no real quality Republican candidate until at least 2016, and maybe longer. Republicans became drunk with power and they spent money like it was going out of style. Having Democrats in control of Congress won't be that much different. I doubt the percentage of the growth of spending will be any higher than the Bush years. There are consequences to the bad leadership of Republicans, and the loss of my vote is one of them. If we need another Clinton to spark another '94, lets do it, because the current version of Congressional Republicans is laugh-out-loud bad. I don't care what they say, I look at what they do and I find it ridiculous.
Now-to the Chief Executive. It is true that it is extremely unlikely that I will ever vote for a Dem to be President. I have too many sharp policy disagreements. Obama will be the worst president since Buchanan. But I am not voting for him. But why does that mean that I have to vote for a nearly as bad alternative? McCain lost my vote 6 years ago-why should I take him seriously now? He has proven nothing to me except that his instincts are terrible, his grasp of policy is thin, and his temeperant is anything but reasoned. When he put Palin on the ticket, I thought about it. I do like her, and I laugh at her critics who criticize her experience while promoting Obama. But she won't be president-he will. And he will be the worst president since Chester Arthur. Time for Republicans to pay the price for their sins. I can't support a massively bad choice because the alternative is hugely massively bad.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Obama
The second half of my sentence you quote comes from Obama himself. The first half is not an unfair inference from Obama's worldview, writings, statements, associates, etc. Lump me in with conservative talk show hosts if you like. I am in good company if in Rush's company at least.
Obama's foreign policy will only be more realistic if by realistic you mean like that of the Clinton years minus all the good things that Clinton did with opening trade and recognizing the benefits of globalization. Obama's realistic foreign policy, one can assume, will be realistic in the sense that he will be hesitant to assert America's interests in any meaningful way. Thus we will become isolated because of our lack of will to advance America's interests militarily or economically. (The wrong lesson to learn from Bush's supposed overreaching.) So as far as a do-nothing foreign policy is realistic, it indeed will be realistic. (I suspect you mean it won't be overreaching, and I agree.) While Gore may have invaded Iraq (I'm not as shocked as Nick by the contention) can anyone imagine Obama doing so. I would be more shocked by such action should a similar situation present itself.
At best the man's policies and views are unquantifiable which should be enough to disqualify him this late in the game. However, the most cursory review of his past and present leads me to suspect there is little that is heterodox about him when it comes to the left. America is nearly alone in facing up to threats around the world among those with any capacity to do so. Indeed even most Western countries do not have the resources we do to face Middle Eastern terrorism/Iran-Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, or potentially China let alone the will to do so.
I am not a fan of John McCain, but that does not mean that I should leave such important decisions in the hands of almost anyone in the Democrat party let alone a nobody like Obama. That is what abstaining from this election means.
Obama's foreign policy will only be more realistic if by realistic you mean like that of the Clinton years minus all the good things that Clinton did with opening trade and recognizing the benefits of globalization. Obama's realistic foreign policy, one can assume, will be realistic in the sense that he will be hesitant to assert America's interests in any meaningful way. Thus we will become isolated because of our lack of will to advance America's interests militarily or economically. (The wrong lesson to learn from Bush's supposed overreaching.) So as far as a do-nothing foreign policy is realistic, it indeed will be realistic. (I suspect you mean it won't be overreaching, and I agree.) While Gore may have invaded Iraq (I'm not as shocked as Nick by the contention) can anyone imagine Obama doing so. I would be more shocked by such action should a similar situation present itself.
At best the man's policies and views are unquantifiable which should be enough to disqualify him this late in the game. However, the most cursory review of his past and present leads me to suspect there is little that is heterodox about him when it comes to the left. America is nearly alone in facing up to threats around the world among those with any capacity to do so. Indeed even most Western countries do not have the resources we do to face Middle Eastern terrorism/Iran-Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, or potentially China let alone the will to do so.
I am not a fan of John McCain, but that does not mean that I should leave such important decisions in the hands of almost anyone in the Democrat party let alone a nobody like Obama. That is what abstaining from this election means.
"I do not think allowing a man who thinks America is a force for evil in the world and that its best days are over to become president is insignificant."
WTF Limbannitygram? What did you do with my friend Bert?
BTW Slate has a timely piece on the recent death of libertarianism.
I think "they're both bad" is a sort of weak-minded denial of the past 8-16 years of presidential history and politics. The only thing I'd add to what JB said contra Bert is that I think both candidates will run a more reality-driven foreign policy than Bush, but at this point I think the track record points to Obama as having the greater potential for a reality-driven foreign policy.
Yes, the bar is pretty low when I'm judging the candidates by how well they acknowledge reality.
Also, for the love of God don't post anything else by Steyn--at least not until after the election.
Oh, and--Gore would've invaded Iraq? Really?! Wow. That's such a ballsy claim, it gives me tingles. I can't even argue against it right now, I'm just sorta stunned.
Rocking Edmund Fitzgerald rocks. I'm working on developing my own keytariphone.
WTF Limbannitygram? What did you do with my friend Bert?
BTW Slate has a timely piece on the recent death of libertarianism.
I think "they're both bad" is a sort of weak-minded denial of the past 8-16 years of presidential history and politics. The only thing I'd add to what JB said contra Bert is that I think both candidates will run a more reality-driven foreign policy than Bush, but at this point I think the track record points to Obama as having the greater potential for a reality-driven foreign policy.
Yes, the bar is pretty low when I'm judging the candidates by how well they acknowledge reality.
Also, for the love of God don't post anything else by Steyn--at least not until after the election.
Oh, and--Gore would've invaded Iraq? Really?! Wow. That's such a ballsy claim, it gives me tingles. I can't even argue against it right now, I'm just sorta stunned.
Rocking Edmund Fitzgerald rocks. I'm working on developing my own keytariphone.
And if Russia is too far away for concern
Obama is wrong in our own hemisphere as well. (Not to mention Venezuela...the list goes on.)
Foreign Policy
One of my favorite public figures weighs in on Russia. This man would be in my cabinet.
It is also a reminder why Kris and JB are wrong about the election. Obama's people handling foreign policy or McCain's? While I lament our descent toward socialism, I do not think allowing a man who thinks America is a force for evil in the world and that its best days are over to become president is insignificant.
It is also a reminder why Kris and JB are wrong about the election. Obama's people handling foreign policy or McCain's? While I lament our descent toward socialism, I do not think allowing a man who thinks America is a force for evil in the world and that its best days are over to become president is insignificant.
Sorry Bert,
JB's right. There is no significant difference between the two candidates. Obama's a socialist? Well, McCain is going to use my money to buy mortgages of people who couldn't afford them. It doesn't matter anymore.
Joe the Plumber
I agree with Mark Steyn today. Joe the Plumber is more articulate than McCain when it comes to Republican (or what should be Republican) policy and more articulate than both candidates when it comes to American values.
JB, don't be silly. You can't sit this one out. It's certainly not the most important election ever, but you are letting your animus toward McCain get in the way of civic duty. Imagine, if you will, one-party Democrat government. Or an executive branch staffed by Carteresque or committed leftists.
JB, don't be silly. You can't sit this one out. It's certainly not the most important election ever, but you are letting your animus toward McCain get in the way of civic duty. Imagine, if you will, one-party Democrat government. Or an executive branch staffed by Carteresque or committed leftists.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Most important election, like, ever?
I read this line everywhere, on both sides. Frankly, I don't get it.
I was already told that 2004 was the most important election in my lifetime, coming on the heels of the previously most important election ever in 2000.
This is not the most important election ever, I'd say 1860 has dibs on that, with 1932 and 1912 in the running. Even considering the sort of differences in the candidates on domestic and foreign policy and a wider gulf on social issues, I don't see the "importance" issue this time. The war on terror is progressing reasonably, except for the thorny Pakistani problem. American and NATO troops that are deployed in the Phillippines, Indonesia, West Africa and elsewhere have done a great deal to lock down Islamic groups in operation there. Neither candidate will make drastic changes there. Both seem committed to Afghanistan. I'd bet political reality prevents Obama from abandoning Iraq. Obama will probably end up to be weaker on foreign policy, in a Kennedy-esque style, but I'm not sure what actual new problems that will create. I say this because despite his reputation, I consider President Bush to be pretty weak when it comes to the use of American power. Woah you say? It is my contention that the President has done nothing that President Gore would not have done. You read it here-Gore would have invaded Iraq, and probably not have bungled the rhetoric so much. No responsible administration was going to let Saddam exist post 9-11. The Bush administration simply did not have the courage to put it that way, even if they did it for those reasons. The failures of the administration in Latin America, West Africa, China, North Korea, Turkey and Pakistan are pretty glaring to me. We can address this in detail, but I am a fierce critic of Colin Powell, and I have mixed feelings about Condi.
My point is that I am certain Obama will be the worst president in regards to foreign affairs since Carter. He will appoint judges to the bench that will make me cringe. He will spend money like a drunken sailor, like his Republican predecessors.
McCain? He will be slightly less terrible but still awful on foreign policy. His judges will be slightly less terrible, but I see Kennedy's and O'Connors in the mix. He will spend money like a drunken sailor.
I don't find either man to be talented or intelligent enough to forge a responsible, reasoned, and consistent foreign policy in an age of turbulence. I don't trust the principles of either, as Obama has been clearly willing to sacrifice his liberalism for the sake of voting "present" ( what a laugher) and has been a poor representative for the state of Illinois in a lot of ways.
McCain has no principles, except some phony idea of bi-partisanship as if that were a guiding light. Working together in Washington. What a joke-McCain hasn't made the right enemies, and I find him untrustworthy and even foolish at times.
I cannot provide either of these men with my support, and, hence I cannot vote for them. I am sitting this election out, because I obviously can't vote for someone so liberal and someone so ridiculous as McCain. McCain is a lot like Nixon in a lot of ways-without Nixon's redeeming qualities, and I don't just mean that politically, but I find similarities in their personality. Maverick means sometimes taking the hard road, and I honestly believe McCain has consistently taken the easy road in Washington. JB will not be voting for him.
I was already told that 2004 was the most important election in my lifetime, coming on the heels of the previously most important election ever in 2000.
This is not the most important election ever, I'd say 1860 has dibs on that, with 1932 and 1912 in the running. Even considering the sort of differences in the candidates on domestic and foreign policy and a wider gulf on social issues, I don't see the "importance" issue this time. The war on terror is progressing reasonably, except for the thorny Pakistani problem. American and NATO troops that are deployed in the Phillippines, Indonesia, West Africa and elsewhere have done a great deal to lock down Islamic groups in operation there. Neither candidate will make drastic changes there. Both seem committed to Afghanistan. I'd bet political reality prevents Obama from abandoning Iraq. Obama will probably end up to be weaker on foreign policy, in a Kennedy-esque style, but I'm not sure what actual new problems that will create. I say this because despite his reputation, I consider President Bush to be pretty weak when it comes to the use of American power. Woah you say? It is my contention that the President has done nothing that President Gore would not have done. You read it here-Gore would have invaded Iraq, and probably not have bungled the rhetoric so much. No responsible administration was going to let Saddam exist post 9-11. The Bush administration simply did not have the courage to put it that way, even if they did it for those reasons. The failures of the administration in Latin America, West Africa, China, North Korea, Turkey and Pakistan are pretty glaring to me. We can address this in detail, but I am a fierce critic of Colin Powell, and I have mixed feelings about Condi.
My point is that I am certain Obama will be the worst president in regards to foreign affairs since Carter. He will appoint judges to the bench that will make me cringe. He will spend money like a drunken sailor, like his Republican predecessors.
McCain? He will be slightly less terrible but still awful on foreign policy. His judges will be slightly less terrible, but I see Kennedy's and O'Connors in the mix. He will spend money like a drunken sailor.
I don't find either man to be talented or intelligent enough to forge a responsible, reasoned, and consistent foreign policy in an age of turbulence. I don't trust the principles of either, as Obama has been clearly willing to sacrifice his liberalism for the sake of voting "present" ( what a laugher) and has been a poor representative for the state of Illinois in a lot of ways.
McCain has no principles, except some phony idea of bi-partisanship as if that were a guiding light. Working together in Washington. What a joke-McCain hasn't made the right enemies, and I find him untrustworthy and even foolish at times.
I cannot provide either of these men with my support, and, hence I cannot vote for them. I am sitting this election out, because I obviously can't vote for someone so liberal and someone so ridiculous as McCain. McCain is a lot like Nixon in a lot of ways-without Nixon's redeeming qualities, and I don't just mean that politically, but I find similarities in their personality. Maverick means sometimes taking the hard road, and I honestly believe McCain has consistently taken the easy road in Washington. JB will not be voting for him.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Nick
I can't help but feel as though you have failed us all by letting this kid beat you to a) owning a kazookeylele and b) mastering The Final Countdown on it. If your fancy Buffalo schools are teaching you about not kazookeyleles, a pox on that I say! Seriously though, get on this. I'm super serial about that.
I wasn't making anything up last night:
Ignore the slideshow, or don't; it's better than most I've seen. Anyway WotEF:
No effing comment. Except, JC, come on!!!
Ad from Facebook; also I hate democracy:
What do you vote for?
What do you vote for?
Voting says a lot about you. See what the Cool Kids are thinking. Find what they vote for and then tell us your thoughts.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Obama in video games, has JB's vote?
Link to an article about Obama paying for advertising in video games. So, uh....yeah. Here's a link to a site where a dood photoshopped Obama in to other games, including WoW. So, Nick and JB, does this make you want to vote "O"?*
*There are signs around campus that say that. No joke. I can't make that up.
*There are signs around campus that say that. No joke. I can't make that up.
Don't Blame Capitalism
I was always under the impression that the NYT was a liberal podium. At any rate, Schiff's article does a good job pointing out that capitalism shouldn't involve government regulation (and therefore bailouts). I particularly like this line at the end:
"Binding the country to a tangle of socialist ideals will seal our fate as a second-rate economic power."
"Binding the country to a tangle of socialist ideals will seal our fate as a second-rate economic power."
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Thanks, random Youtube clicking!
In this most asinine of election years, here is some we can all agree on:
Enjoy, from me.
Enjoy, from me.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Nick is alive?!!?!!
He's one of them there interlectuhls. I can tell. Maybe that's why he doesn't talk to his rube, midwestern friend anymore.
There is some truth to Brooks's contention, but I don't think it explains why Republicans have lost the coasts and metropolitan areas. The rise of Republican populism, regrettable as it may be, is fairly recent. And it is regrettable, but that is politics in an increasingly democratic age. Do Republicans have to get in the populism game to win? I don't know, but I'll note, our Founders created a republic not a simple democracy. But we have over time continued to abolish republican checks on our democracy.
Back to the point, the culture has liberalized and most of its institutions--universities among them--are left-leaning. This is in part a cause of "educated" people, perhaps, tending to be more liberal not the Republicans offending them with their everyman appeal. (not sure the contention that educated people are more Democratic is true. It is with advanced degrees but I thought I read somewhere that President Bush won a majority of those with Bachelors degrees.) Democrats have been claiming to be for the little guy for the last 75 years and have simulaneously held sway over the intellectual class. Perhaps, as Brooks says, the Republicans actually do reflect the culture of joe sixpack. Again, probably unfortunate to some extent.
Brooks likes to think of himself as some lone high-minded conservative with only philistines as political allies. I am increasingly skeptical of his conservatism. As far as he warns that conservatism should not become an anti-intellectual pursuit, I agree depending upon what we're calling an intellectual. If it is simply someone who writes or teaches for a living or values learning then I can agree. But there is some valid anti-intellectualism out there if you keep in mind Paul Johnson's definition of an intellectual--someone who cares more for ideas than people, adheres to an ideology despite reality, and thinks it within his rational faculties to solve the world's problems with ideological prescriptions. A conservative is not unlearned or unsophisticated, but a central tenet of conservatism is eschewing ideology.
There is some truth to Brooks's contention, but I don't think it explains why Republicans have lost the coasts and metropolitan areas. The rise of Republican populism, regrettable as it may be, is fairly recent. And it is regrettable, but that is politics in an increasingly democratic age. Do Republicans have to get in the populism game to win? I don't know, but I'll note, our Founders created a republic not a simple democracy. But we have over time continued to abolish republican checks on our democracy.
Back to the point, the culture has liberalized and most of its institutions--universities among them--are left-leaning. This is in part a cause of "educated" people, perhaps, tending to be more liberal not the Republicans offending them with their everyman appeal. (not sure the contention that educated people are more Democratic is true. It is with advanced degrees but I thought I read somewhere that President Bush won a majority of those with Bachelors degrees.) Democrats have been claiming to be for the little guy for the last 75 years and have simulaneously held sway over the intellectual class. Perhaps, as Brooks says, the Republicans actually do reflect the culture of joe sixpack. Again, probably unfortunate to some extent.
Brooks likes to think of himself as some lone high-minded conservative with only philistines as political allies. I am increasingly skeptical of his conservatism. As far as he warns that conservatism should not become an anti-intellectual pursuit, I agree depending upon what we're calling an intellectual. If it is simply someone who writes or teaches for a living or values learning then I can agree. But there is some valid anti-intellectualism out there if you keep in mind Paul Johnson's definition of an intellectual--someone who cares more for ideas than people, adheres to an ideology despite reality, and thinks it within his rational faculties to solve the world's problems with ideological prescriptions. A conservative is not unlearned or unsophisticated, but a central tenet of conservatism is eschewing ideology.
Higher Ed and Conservatives
David Brooks makes the argument that class/culture warfare is driving intellectuals and intellectualism out of the Republican party.
I think it's a remarkable argument, because it suggests the inverse of the conventional wisdom preached by right-leaning think-tanks and organizations. Heritage, et al, say that conservative profs and students can't get a fair shake at college because it is dominated by leftover hippies and seventies radicals. I think the extension of Brooks' argument suggests that young conservatives don't embrace intellectualism because they believe (or have been taught) that it runs counter to their class-based/cultural identity.
I think it's a remarkable argument, because it suggests the inverse of the conventional wisdom preached by right-leaning think-tanks and organizations. Heritage, et al, say that conservative profs and students can't get a fair shake at college because it is dominated by leftover hippies and seventies radicals. I think the extension of Brooks' argument suggests that young conservatives don't embrace intellectualism because they believe (or have been taught) that it runs counter to their class-based/cultural identity.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Some alarmism from the Derb
Will Obama Kill Science? Derbyshire often writes about biology and its social implications as more is learned about genetics and neurobiology. He thinks natural human differences are a threat to the leveling project of leftists.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Saturday, October 04, 2008
A direct quote from Wikipedia:
Snoop Dogg notes drinking "Seagram's Gin" in the hit single "Gin and Juice". He laments everyone else having a cup but not chipping in.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Tell it Dr. NO!!!!!
Tom Coburn is awesome (except for voting for the bailout). Here are the honorable 25 who didn't.
Palin-Biden
So, who goes down first?
Joseph-I plagirize and produce a gaffe a minute-Biden?
or Sarah-even Katie Couric made me look dumb-Palin?
Good grief, Palin. Get it done tonight or Repubs face doom.
Joseph-I plagirize and produce a gaffe a minute-Biden?
or Sarah-even Katie Couric made me look dumb-Palin?
Good grief, Palin. Get it done tonight or Repubs face doom.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
In the words of the philosopher...
...Garth Algar, "We fear change." Especially when it is a euphemism for socialism.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Bailout
Kudos to those congressmen that voted no yesterday. Dick Armey weighs in today.
I think he gets it right. The bailout will reward bad business choices, punishes more responsible financial firms, and ultimately gets in the way of necessary market adjustments and corrections which must happen. The bailout might infuse some short-term confidence, but it will only delay real market stability.
David Brooks has a different view. Apparently our country is not being governed (without massive government intervention in the market). Somehow I missed all the lawlessness and chaos about the realm. Yes, David, your retirment fund is going to take a hit. It doesn't mean America is like NY City in the seventies.
It strikes me as odd how people like Barney Frank can be so upset that others are holding the bailout up. No one in favor of the bailout has explained how it will help and how it works to do so. All I've heard is that it is necessary and will prevent some short-term pain. If its supporters are going to be so adamant, they should tell me how and why it will work.
I think he gets it right. The bailout will reward bad business choices, punishes more responsible financial firms, and ultimately gets in the way of necessary market adjustments and corrections which must happen. The bailout might infuse some short-term confidence, but it will only delay real market stability.
David Brooks has a different view. Apparently our country is not being governed (without massive government intervention in the market). Somehow I missed all the lawlessness and chaos about the realm. Yes, David, your retirment fund is going to take a hit. It doesn't mean America is like NY City in the seventies.
It strikes me as odd how people like Barney Frank can be so upset that others are holding the bailout up. No one in favor of the bailout has explained how it will help and how it works to do so. All I've heard is that it is necessary and will prevent some short-term pain. If its supporters are going to be so adamant, they should tell me how and why it will work.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Note:
Monday is "Rush Hashannah," in case you didn't know. Which means I flip between MNF and VH1 Classic all night (most likely ending up on VH1 Classic). In the meantime, listen to Paul Simon or something.
No fat girls please
"Sunbathing Topless Not Recommended for Fatty and Not Pretty Women", Pravda, Sept. 25
At least the Russians got something right.
At least the Russians got something right.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Candidates trying to lose
George Will is taking some heat for his column yesterday. He likens McCain to the Queen of Hearts. (McCain called for Chris Cox's head the other day. Cox is chairman of the SEC.) I don't see much wrong with what he says. These are the same problems conservatives have had with McCain for a while.
McCain went on to recommend Andrew Cuomo for the SEC job. Why?!! George Will hurts McCain far less than McCain hurts himself with asinine suggestions like Cuomo for the SEC. It's seeming like McCain is trying to lose every time he opens his mouth. Lucky for him Obama is doing the same.
McCain went on to recommend Andrew Cuomo for the SEC job. Why?!! George Will hurts McCain far less than McCain hurts himself with asinine suggestions like Cuomo for the SEC. It's seeming like McCain is trying to lose every time he opens his mouth. Lucky for him Obama is doing the same.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
To lighten the mood:
Sorta how I feel about Taiwan, except I don't think they're stupid there. But I was a star.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
We're all socialists now?
A GM/Chevy bailout doesn't seem so pernicious now by comparison, eh?
Honestly, I have just enough limited economic expertise to be totally freaked out.
Honestly, I have just enough limited economic expertise to be totally freaked out.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Tory Wisdom
From George Will today:
Palin is as bracing as an Arctic breeze and delightfully elicits the condescension of liberals whose enthusiasm for everyday middle-class Americans cannot survive an encounter with one. But the country's romance with her will, as romances do, cool somewhat, and even before November some new fad might distract a nation that loves "American Idol" for the metronomic regularity with which it discovers genius in persons hitherto unsuspected of it.
Palin is as bracing as an Arctic breeze and delightfully elicits the condescension of liberals whose enthusiasm for everyday middle-class Americans cannot survive an encounter with one. But the country's romance with her will, as romances do, cool somewhat, and even before November some new fad might distract a nation that loves "American Idol" for the metronomic regularity with which it discovers genius in persons hitherto unsuspected of it.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Effing Socialism
WTF??!!!!!! Get the government out of the effing market. Stop rewarding failure and making taxpayers stakeholders in failing companies. This is getting absurd.
Monday, September 15, 2008
:o( :o( :o(
So I guess there will never be a Pink Floyd reunion, even if Gilmour does agree to it, since Richard Wright died....
Friday, September 12, 2008
So, Slaps
remember when we used to watch that Bunny Ranch show on HBO? I woulda totally done this to pay for grad school if I had known....
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Anyone else find this funny/sad?
I know we've hashed out steroids in sports before, but this made me LOL! Is truck driving/nascar even really a sport (answer: no)? There should be NO banned substances in racing (including alcohol) imo. At any rate, this steroid witch hunt is getting ridiculous. What...does it help a driver press the pedal harder and thereby go faster? Racing just got 15% stupider (and it was already 123.6% stupid).
Third-Party Unity
I have to say I'm with Bob Barr on this one. I don't know why Ron Paul thinks getting together with Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader is a good idea. It certainly doesn't do much for libertarianism that I can see.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
MSNBC
Drops Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann from election anchor spots. They are "too opinionated," meaning too supportive of Obama and anti-GOP. I think everyone already knew this, and I don't think it's a big deal as long as the network and hosts are honest (they aren't). Neither should have the job, though, because they're idiots not because their liberals.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Heart doesn't like the GOP
Heart objects to the use of Barracuda by McCain/Palin. And Van Halen says they would not like it if either side used their music. "Van Halen are not political, they're just rock and roll."
The media
Jonah Goldberg today. Money quote:
It required the Jaws of Life to pry news of John Edwards’ affair out the mainstream press. But when it came to the personal drama of Palin’s 17-year old daughter, the press clawed for morsels like they were golden tickets from Wonka Bars.
It required the Jaws of Life to pry news of John Edwards’ affair out the mainstream press. But when it came to the personal drama of Palin’s 17-year old daughter, the press clawed for morsels like they were golden tickets from Wonka Bars.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Of the utmost importance
Just letting everyone know (in case you didn't already) that Chad Johnson legally changed his last name to Ocho Cinco. So, I know who I'm drafting this year for fantasy football.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
You ready to send those commies running back to their mommies!?
How do you top a cast that includes both Michael Ironside and Billy Dee Williams? (C&C3).
It's tough, but Red Alert 3 might have pulled it off. Tim Curry... that loud paper boss from Spider Man, and George Takei as the Japanese Emperor who somehow commands giant fighting robots and submarine-jets.
It's tough, but Red Alert 3 might have pulled it off. Tim Curry... that loud paper boss from Spider Man, and George Takei as the Japanese Emperor who somehow commands giant fighting robots and submarine-jets.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
George will, exxon, etc
I like this:
"Exxon Mobil does make $1,400 a second in profits -- hear the sharp intakes of breath from liberals with pursed lips -- but pays $4,000 a second in taxes and $15,000 a second in operating costs."
I didn't read the article (didn't see the link), but if this is Will's attempt to justify gas prices, it fails in my opinion. Using productions costs, taxes, etc that are paid are all net cost before profit. I don't see how taxing big oil helps me in any way...they will just raise prices further to compensate and keep their greedy hands on as much cash as they can get.
As for Obama (and McCain), I'm sick of neither party being able to produce a candidate that is worth a crap. If one said I am going to drill and build refineries in Alaska (I know Obama won't because he probably doesn't know where Alaska is and McCain is still working on understanding this "interwebs craze the kids have going"), that would get my vote. The government can subsidize airlines - why can't they build some refineries (and I'm looking in republicans' direction since they've had the helm the last few years)?
"Exxon Mobil does make $1,400 a second in profits -- hear the sharp intakes of breath from liberals with pursed lips -- but pays $4,000 a second in taxes and $15,000 a second in operating costs."
I didn't read the article (didn't see the link), but if this is Will's attempt to justify gas prices, it fails in my opinion. Using productions costs, taxes, etc that are paid are all net cost before profit. I don't see how taxing big oil helps me in any way...they will just raise prices further to compensate and keep their greedy hands on as much cash as they can get.
As for Obama (and McCain), I'm sick of neither party being able to produce a candidate that is worth a crap. If one said I am going to drill and build refineries in Alaska (I know Obama won't because he probably doesn't know where Alaska is and McCain is still working on understanding this "interwebs craze the kids have going"), that would get my vote. The government can subsidize airlines - why can't they build some refineries (and I'm looking in republicans' direction since they've had the helm the last few years)?
Some perspective on Exxon
From George Will today:
"Obama thinks government is not getting a "reasonable share" of oil companies' profits, which in 2007 were, as a percentage of revenue (8.3 percent), below those of U.S. manufacturing generally (8.9 percent). Exxon Mobil pays almost as much in corporate taxes to various governments as the bottom 50 percent of American earners pay in income taxes. Exxon Mobil does make $1,400 a second in profits -- hear the sharp intakes of breath from liberals with pursed lips -- but pays $4,000 a second in taxes and $15,000 a second in operating costs."
"Obama thinks government is not getting a "reasonable share" of oil companies' profits, which in 2007 were, as a percentage of revenue (8.3 percent), below those of U.S. manufacturing generally (8.9 percent). Exxon Mobil pays almost as much in corporate taxes to various governments as the bottom 50 percent of American earners pay in income taxes. Exxon Mobil does make $1,400 a second in profits -- hear the sharp intakes of breath from liberals with pursed lips -- but pays $4,000 a second in taxes and $15,000 a second in operating costs."
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Re: the most beautiful people
I am more interested on someone explaining how this didn't make #1 on the list:
Stuff White People Like
Can't remember if one of you guys posted this site. Moderately humorous.
A taste from #82 Hating Corporations:
"When engaging in a conversation about corporate evils it is important to NEVER, EVER mention Apple Computers, Target or Ikea in the same breath as the companies mentioned earlier. White people prefer to hate corporations that don’t make stuff that they like."
A taste from #82 Hating Corporations:
"When engaging in a conversation about corporate evils it is important to NEVER, EVER mention Apple Computers, Target or Ikea in the same breath as the companies mentioned earlier. White people prefer to hate corporations that don’t make stuff that they like."
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The most beautiful people
on Capitol Hill includes Dennis Kucinich's wife. Scroll down to No. 4. Explain that?
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
good news, ladies
I know you're out there reading SPSW. The BMG is officially back on the market as of 10am today.
Birthday and divorce all in one day. I don't know whether to drink or...to drink.
Birthday and divorce all in one day. I don't know whether to drink or...to drink.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Norman Mailer
Apparently even Norman Mailer had reservations about the New Left and its destructiveness. Interesting book review by Hitchens. (I had to try hard not to write anything bad about Mailer before posting this.)
Nick, is there any Mailer worth reading?
Nick, is there any Mailer worth reading?
Karaoke
I've found my best karaoke perfomance was of Queen's Don't Stop. And maybe The Cars' Just What I Needed is a close second.
How does one do a "fine Dylan" anyway? Horrid, drunk, and unintelligible?
How does one do a "fine Dylan" anyway? Horrid, drunk, and unintelligible?
FACT:
My KTV (that's karaoke tv to you newbs) setlist from tonight, read it and weep:
Like a Rolling Stone (song directly below #3 on the list, accidental, although I did a fine Dylan)
Nothing Compares 2 U (w/ Prince falsetto)
Like a Prayer
S.O.S. >
Babe (somehow the big hit of the night, moreso than my flower dance)
Beat that.
Actually, I know no one I know can. We don't have awesome karaoke places like this. For shame.
Like a Rolling Stone (song directly below #3 on the list, accidental, although I did a fine Dylan)
Nothing Compares 2 U (w/ Prince falsetto)
Like a Prayer
S.O.S. >
Babe (somehow the big hit of the night, moreso than my flower dance)
Beat that.
Actually, I know no one I know can. We don't have awesome karaoke places like this. For shame.
Kobe Bryant, patriot
Sometimes good things come from bad people. Sounds like he recognizes how fortunate he is to be an American even if he is not a good one.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Nutritious Sandwich as advertised only half-correct
So I tried a "Nutritious Sandwich" last week in Keelung. Don't get me wrong, it was good. And it was indeed a sandwich. But I would not call it nutritious by any stretch. Here is what it looked like:
Now it was delicious. But here is what it is made of: tomato, cumcumber (sort of pickled), hammy meat (Taiwanese ham? I have no clue). And mayonaise. Lots and lots of mayonaise. Too much for me. All of this is shoved into fried bread (FANTASTIC!). Mayonaise and fried bread? Delicious, not very nutritious.Also I tried "fried fish paste" which turned out to be more like "fried fried" with Red Hot, so not too bad.
I'm not sure why it came with pickles. Finally, I tried the craziest thing I think I've tried here, an ice cream burrito. Or spring roll, I guess. Peanut shavings + ice cream + cilantro + spring roll wrap = weird-ass dessert. Here's the lady making it:
Friday, August 15, 2008
Body of Lies
It does look pretty cool, but I sense that stale plot of lone CIA agent (good guy) vs. US government (center of evil in the universe) like the Bourne movies and just about every other CIA/FBI movie.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Disgusting
Also from WSJ Online:
"An American who deserted the U.S. Army to protest the Iraq War and who has been ordered deported back home will file a new appeal in Canada's Federal Court, his lawyer said on Thursday," Reuters reports:
Jeremy Hinzman is the first U.S. deserter in recent years to apply for refugee status in Canada. Immigration authorities determined that he did not face persecution or hardship if he were returned to the United States and told him on Wednesday he had until September 23 to leave the country.
Hinzman has already managed to drag this thing out for 4½ years; we first noted his case in February 2004. And there is something of a whitewash going on. Reuters describes him as having deserted "to protest the Iraq War." Congress authorized the use of military force in October 2002, and the shooting began in March 2003, but Hinzman didn't desert until January 2004. Why? Probably because he was about to be deployed.
At the same time, Hinzman was not only against the Iraq war; he seems to have been thoroughgoingly anti-American, as described by the Toronto Globe and Mail article we quoted back in '04:
On Sept. 11, [Hinzman's wife] heard a news broadcast and knew immediately that life was going to change. The young couple suddenly found themselves amid frenetic patriotism they didn't share. They were horrified by the jetliner attacks but intellectually (Mr. Hinzman read the left-tilting Nation and Noam Chomsky) saw them as a consequence of U.S. foreign policy.
What then motivated Hinzman to join the military? He wanted to go to college, and he didn't want to go into debt for fear of, as he put it, "starting a whole cycle of middle-class existence." It is a tribute to America's freedom that the military permitted him to join even though his motives were mercenary and his loyalty to the country apparently nonexistent. But he ought to pay a heavy price for failing to keep his end of the bargain.
"An American who deserted the U.S. Army to protest the Iraq War and who has been ordered deported back home will file a new appeal in Canada's Federal Court, his lawyer said on Thursday," Reuters reports:
Jeremy Hinzman is the first U.S. deserter in recent years to apply for refugee status in Canada. Immigration authorities determined that he did not face persecution or hardship if he were returned to the United States and told him on Wednesday he had until September 23 to leave the country.
Hinzman has already managed to drag this thing out for 4½ years; we first noted his case in February 2004. And there is something of a whitewash going on. Reuters describes him as having deserted "to protest the Iraq War." Congress authorized the use of military force in October 2002, and the shooting began in March 2003, but Hinzman didn't desert until January 2004. Why? Probably because he was about to be deployed.
At the same time, Hinzman was not only against the Iraq war; he seems to have been thoroughgoingly anti-American, as described by the Toronto Globe and Mail article we quoted back in '04:
On Sept. 11, [Hinzman's wife] heard a news broadcast and knew immediately that life was going to change. The young couple suddenly found themselves amid frenetic patriotism they didn't share. They were horrified by the jetliner attacks but intellectually (Mr. Hinzman read the left-tilting Nation and Noam Chomsky) saw them as a consequence of U.S. foreign policy.
What then motivated Hinzman to join the military? He wanted to go to college, and he didn't want to go into debt for fear of, as he put it, "starting a whole cycle of middle-class existence." It is a tribute to America's freedom that the military permitted him to join even though his motives were mercenary and his loyalty to the country apparently nonexistent. But he ought to pay a heavy price for failing to keep his end of the bargain.
Mr. T across the pond
From WSJ Online
London's Mail on Sunday:
A chocolate bar advertisement featuring Mr T has been taken off the air after accusations that it is "homophobic."
In the Snickers commercial, Mr T--who played BA Baracus in the 1980s show The A Team--pulls up in a truck alongside a man exercising in tight yellow shorts and shouts: "Speed walking. I pity you fool. You are a disgrace to the man race. It's time to run like a real man."
He then forces the man to break into a sprint by taking pot shots at him with a Snickers machine gun. The commercial ends with Mr T uttering the slogan to the current Snickers campaign--"Get some nuts."
Only two people complained to Britain's Advertising Standards Authority about the ad. "However, it prompted strong protests from the U.S.--even though it was never shown on American television."
The Mail quotes gay Brits who were unperterbed. One describes himself as "fed up with the ultra-politically correct stance" of a complaining organization. Another says, "'I'm gay and I found the ad hilarious."
Should we despair that Americans are so much more humorless than the rest of the world? Or should we look on the bright side and appreciate how unwittingly funny the enforcers of political correctness are? We'll opt for the latter.
London's Mail on Sunday:
A chocolate bar advertisement featuring Mr T has been taken off the air after accusations that it is "homophobic."
In the Snickers commercial, Mr T--who played BA Baracus in the 1980s show The A Team--pulls up in a truck alongside a man exercising in tight yellow shorts and shouts: "Speed walking. I pity you fool. You are a disgrace to the man race. It's time to run like a real man."
He then forces the man to break into a sprint by taking pot shots at him with a Snickers machine gun. The commercial ends with Mr T uttering the slogan to the current Snickers campaign--"Get some nuts."
Only two people complained to Britain's Advertising Standards Authority about the ad. "However, it prompted strong protests from the U.S.--even though it was never shown on American television."
The Mail quotes gay Brits who were unperterbed. One describes himself as "fed up with the ultra-politically correct stance" of a complaining organization. Another says, "'I'm gay and I found the ad hilarious."
Should we despair that Americans are so much more humorless than the rest of the world? Or should we look on the bright side and appreciate how unwittingly funny the enforcers of political correctness are? We'll opt for the latter.
Does our not knowing this count as an epic fail?
Apparently there's a rock opera based on Othello called Catch My Soul. At one point it starred Richie Havens, whom I imagine is an awesome Othello. Strangely enough, I found this out in the Patrick McGoohan bio on Wikipedia. The album was not available on itunes on my last check.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Pill post
That explains my ex-girlfriends. Problem solved. *hangs up detective hat*
And for your reading enjoyment, I give you The Ultimate Warrior's personal blog. While you're trying to decide if it's worth reading or not (it is - see excerpt below), let me just tell you the blog is called "Warrior's Machete." I also encourage you to use the "Notable Links" tab and go to his web page" "Warrior Web."
From The Warrior's Mouth: "Martin Luther King can have his own self-titled birthday recognized as a National Holiday, but not our country’s First President? Should I go on? Should I have to? Do I want to? Will I? You bet your ass I will."
Continued on his blog....
And for your reading enjoyment, I give you The Ultimate Warrior's personal blog. While you're trying to decide if it's worth reading or not (it is - see excerpt below), let me just tell you the blog is called "Warrior's Machete." I also encourage you to use the "Notable Links" tab and go to his web page" "Warrior Web."
From The Warrior's Mouth: "Martin Luther King can have his own self-titled birthday recognized as a National Holiday, but not our country’s First President? Should I go on? Should I have to? Do I want to? Will I? You bet your ass I will."
Continued on his blog....
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Interpret as you like...
"Bill Clinton Gets a Choice Slot at Democratic Convention"--headline, Agence France-Presse, Aug. 8
Re: Gayest high fives
huh....based on what I've seen out of chinese men around here, I would have assumed if china did have men's gymnastics team, the world would literally turn inside-out and everyone would turn gay. chinese men might be the gayest men on the planet (accidental or otherwise).
Bluefish sort of defeated - muskie here I come
Went bluefishing with the bro...here is evidence to their mightiness (that's a 4'O stainless steel hook attached to a wire leader that one bent while I was fighting him before he got off - they have nasty teeths!) and also me with one. I had many blisters from catching 6 of them...also bro's car was struck by lightning and he has to get new one. So much for rubber insulating against such things. Anyways, muskie are next on my list.
Monday, August 11, 2008
WWJVVF?*
Fun article from Jonny Voight on how Obama will turn the country into a socialist hellhole. I apologize if you get the gross add with the kid with a hairlip or some such disgustingness. Not me - wash post. Fun aside, though. As I read the article, I could hear Voight talking. He writes exactly how is characters act, which makes me believe he is not acting at all...
*Who Would Jon Voight Vote For?
*Who Would Jon Voight Vote For?
Iraq 5 years on
Hitchens again making the case better than anyone in the administration has for invading Iraq. They guy rubs me wrong, but he's been very clear sighted and consistent about Iraq (even I had my doubts three-and-a-half years in).
He also weighed in on Pat Buchanan's new WWII book, Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, with Victor Davis Hanson here. (Scroll down to five parts titled In Defense of WWII.)
He also weighed in on Pat Buchanan's new WWII book, Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, with Victor Davis Hanson here. (Scroll down to five parts titled In Defense of WWII.)
Well, I coulda' told you about Cleveland...
"America's fastest dying cities"
How to fight this trend? I don't know. Cleveland is depressing as Hell, so I'm glad to get out.
How to fight this trend? I don't know. Cleveland is depressing as Hell, so I'm glad to get out.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Friday, August 08, 2008
Re: So....
Yes...get them. I will make a birthday trip to buffalo to watch that game. I may also wear my gb favre jersey. Or get a jets one and cut them in half for two half-n-half jerseys. Not sure....
This country is goddamn fantastic.
Here is my new favorite song (yeah, I know this probably changes weekly). Also, it's helping me remember my numbers in Mandarin! The rest is in Taiwanese (or English). Still, totally awesome.
I can't decide if this is easier to get stuck in my head than "The Flower Song" or not. I gotta learn that countdown thing she does with her fingers though.
I can't decide if this is easier to get stuck in my head than "The Flower Song" or not. I gotta learn that countdown thing she does with her fingers though.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
So....
....should I try to get tickets for NYJ at Buffalo, November 2?
Cleveland at Buffalo is a Monday night game, November 17.
Cleveland at Buffalo is a Monday night game, November 17.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Just to remind you:
The soundtrack to Dumb and Dumber is still one of the best soundtracks to any movie. Now back to whatever it was you were doing.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Bush not = Batman
It seems a little far fetching to me to paint Bush as a savior, but whatever. I guess that makes Cheney Superman and they have their Justice League Cabinet: Carlos Gutierrez (Aquaman!), Dirk Kempthorn (Flash), Michale Mukasey (Green Lantern), Steve Preston (Wonder Woman - come on Steve - housing and urban development is a woman's job), and Michael Chertoff (Green Arrow) with support from lesser heroes: Elaine Chao (Black Canary), Mary Peters (Hawkgirl), James Peake (Atom) and Condaleezza Rice (Black Lightning).*
More importantly, skeksis are real (at least that's what I am choosing to believe):
* I based these solely on looks (and entertaining me), not on what any has done.
More importantly, skeksis are real (at least that's what I am choosing to believe):
* I based these solely on looks (and entertaining me), not on what any has done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)