?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 

Michael

About Recent Entries

Dec. 13th, 2004 @ 07:02 pm
This is jsut rediculous. Something similar is happened in California last year as well. Basically some school districts have been putting stamps on books that warn that evolution is theory not fact when it comes to the origins of life. This is absolutely 100% true. Evolution only makes sense when you consider species in the context of other species. Unfortunately our friends at the ACLU, when not busy sueing the boy scouts, have decided to embrace a fundumentalism as rediculous as the one they are warring against. Science should be taught as gospel no more than gospel should be taught. Science is about THEORY and constantly questioning ALL assumptions. As suspicious as I am of the "inteligent design" movement, people need to be reminded that we don't have all the answers yet. Crap like this is why I've lost all faith in the ACLU. They would be better off filing FIA requests 24/7.

Dec. 11th, 2004 @ 07:52 pm
Interesting, there is some shitty, all black sitcom on, and someone has complained about them doing stuff "in front of all those white people" at least a half dozen times. Why is it racist for whites to talk about racial seperation/support/identity but funny for blacks to do it?

Nov. 14th, 2004 @ 05:04 pm
There is a fascinating article here talking aboutdemocratic re-alignment. On the whole urban re-alignment would be a lot easier for the Democrats to swallow, though it might not be enough of a shift. After all, the Democrats already win the cities solidly, and it isn't enough.However, embracing thishighly federal model and going after some long despised problems (ag subsidies, small state appropriation gaps) they could woo a lot of the same libertarian support. Unfortunately it would promote a lot of the nanny state initiatives I dislike, but in a federal framework, its ok. The whole point of federalism is live and let live. All in all it would be a huge step foreward for the democrats to get a real political vision to get behind. The "party" is really nothing more than a collection of interest groups with nothing to hold them together.

Food for Thought Nov. 8th, 2004 @ 01:14 pm
This bit of election cartography presents an interesting picture. First, the country is, despite the "divided electorate" the puditocracy goes on about, overwhelmingly purple. Second, the red states are not seas of mindless republicanism, but up for grabs by reasonable candidates. Third, the only area not up for grabs wasn't the south (which kerry totally wrote off), but the big cities. While primary elections and gerrymandering have forced our leaders into warring red and blue camps, America, it seems, is divided only between blue America and up for grabs America. One more thing, only 3 counties went 99% or more Republican; 307 went 99% Democrat.

Finally over! Nov. 4th, 2004 @ 12:54 am
Well, Bush has, despite being the worst president since carter, managed to win, popularly, an impressive victory. I'm not really happy about it. I'm happy that Kerry lost, I just wish Bush could have lost as well. The Libertarians got as many votes as Nader, but are still being ignored, I wonder why. More importantly, I think this election needs to be for the Democrats what 1964 was for the Republicans, major re-alignment time. After 64, Nixon's southern strategy allied western and southern conservatism, and worked furiously hard to build a base. Unfortunately, the wrong side has taken over the party.

I don't know a single person who likes bush, I only know people who liked kerry less. Bush's brand of big government conservatism combines all the worst elements of the republican party into a disturbing trend. While the party appears unified there are deap divisions. The situation is almost exactly that (but reversed) of that in '64.

The Democrats need to take advantage of this, and re-align '64 style. Not to the right, at least not in a traditional sense, but to abandon the european social democracy model in exchange for something americans can believe in. Its not an easy thing, the republican re-alignment didn't pay off until '88 or '94. We need to oppose bush's big government conservatism, but the current democratic party is too weak and divided. Social democracy has been rejected in america, its time for something new. Maybe what we need is a Blair style 3rd way, or libertarianism, but the current Democratic party has proven utterly inept.
Other entries
» (No Subject)
Well its crunch time, and with armies of lawyers deploying on both sides, its highly likely that, if someone doesn't win by a lot, the loser will drag democracy down with him. Institutionally, this is hte most important election this country has had since 1800, the first time an incumbent lost. Then, as now, people feared that the loser wouldn't accept it and marshall his resources to hold onto power. Of course, then they talked about stockpiling powder and shot, not briefs. Honestly, I would prefer the powder and shot, legal tyranny is far more insidious. Democracy is about trust in the rule of law, not voting. Voting is easy, accepting it when your guy loses is hard. If this election is decided by the courts, its likely EVERY election will be, at least until the country tears itself to pieces, and if that happens, the developed world (and much of the industrial revolution) could come down with us. Now, of course, thats a worst case scenario, but not an impossible one.

Neither side is innocent in this, but from all evidence it appears the democrats are giving the worse of it. The paranoid hatred they have for Bush combined with the long term decline of their party (they haven't gotten the majority of the popular vote since Carter) makes them desperate not to lose. While it would greatly please me to announce the doom of a modern political party, the democrats have too much money to simply disapear, and a split is unlikely. The Democrats aren't really a party anymore either, just a collection of unrelated interest groups. Thats the big reason I don't want Kerry. Carter won because people hated Gerald Ford, and once in office, was torn to pieces by his own party. Kerry will be in the same position, and the next 4 years are going to be too important to have an impotent White House. That said, I'd rather have Kerry win by a lot than either win by a little, since I doubt either of the candidates has so much common decency as Richard Nixon.
» (No Subject)
Someone did it, they won the X-prize!!!! Let the new age of space exploration and tourism begin!

Well, not really. What the X-Prize will really do is deomonstrate that the prize method of funding works exceedingly well. This WAS proven during the 20's and 30's with aircraft design, but we apparently forgot it in the 50's. NASA is considering some "Centential challenge grants" after YEARS of effort to get them to do so.

This method really works, I'm waiting for bill gates or paul allen to put up, say, a billion dollars for the first person to get into geo-sync orbit, or hell, to land on the moon. The guy who owns virgin atlantic has said he's gonna start launching people into space ASAP. We may finally be seeing the beginings of a space industry that consists of more than boeing ripping off NASA for billions.
» (No Subject)
So i've been thinking a lot about Iran lately, and how its exceedingly likely that they'll develop nuclear weapons during the next for years, and how either candidate would respond. If it does happen, people will call for everything from an immediate invasion to live and let live, but I think, at the core of it, a nuclear Iran cannot be tolerated and it would have to be removed. I've never really feared terrorism, It needs to be dealt with, but it will never affect me personally. Nuclear terrorism I fear, and if ANYONE would do it, Iran would.

So how would kerry respond? I couldn't say. He talks about multilateralism and "restoring" our alliances, but the truth is that the rest of the world doesn't have any military forces to speak of that are capable of invading Iran. Sure they could send a few brigades, but the bulk of the force (90%+ in the gulf war I) will be American, as will most of the casualties. I would hope than any american president would refuse to negotiate with a nuclear Iran. To do so would show how weak american resolve is. Unfortunately, I can't exclude hte possibility that such a disgusting course would be taken. Unfortunately, I think you can't rule it out in a bush presidency either. Put a gun to my head and I'd say bush would go to war, but I couldn't sya one way or the other about kerry.

Ultimately this is probably the most important question not being asked this election but, god dammit, we definately know Bush was lazy about his guard service, and isn't that what truly matters?
» Two things
One, I've finally found a situation which might call for a draft, if Iran detonates a nuke. Iran has been emboldended by the US army being bogged down in Iraq. Without nukes, it stands as the most dangerous country in the world. With nukes, its an intolerable and immenant threat.

Second, The Bush presidency has seen the biggest rise in discretionary spending in history, but it can't manage to spend the 18 billion earmarked for iraqi reconstruction? This is the only time you'll hear me say this, but get spending you bastards. its been 18 months and all they've managed is a paltry 1 billion!
» (No Subject)
Yay! The unconstituitional assault weapon's ban is gone! I noticed something today reading the editorials. Virtually everyone celebrating the ban talked about how the ban didn't affect crime, how it was poorly worded, and how it used the term "assault weapon" to scare people. The weapons banned were no more dangerous than any hunting rifle. Folding stocks and pistol grips do not make weapons more dangerous. Whether or not you agree with these arguments is besides the point, because, by contrast, the lamenters didn't argue the mertis of the bill. They predicted a surge in gun violence (despite the fact that these weapons were never pupular with criminals do to their size) or lamented the power of the NRA. When crime continues to decline (as it has every year since welfare reform) how many of these people are going to run and retract their statements?
Top of Page Powered by LiveJournal.com