|
|
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. |
|
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. |
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. |
| » (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.
Oct. 25th, 2004 @ 01:18 pm
|
| » (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.
Oct. 6th, 2004 @ 01:46 pm
|
| » (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?
Sep. 30th, 2004 @ 01:36 am
|
| » 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!
Sep. 19th, 2004 @ 01:43 pm
|
| » (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?
Sep. 13th, 2004 @ 11:32 pm
|
| » (No Subject) |
|---|
I was always a fan of rebuilding the world trade center exactly as it was, but 10 stories taller. This is really the only idea I've liked more.
Sep. 2nd, 2004 @ 02:04 pm
|
| » My head is going to explode |
|---|
Ok, so we all chuckled at the naked peope protesting bush in New York, but we were laughing for the wrong reason. Apparently, these people were wandering around chanting "George Bush, drop the debt and stop AIDS now."
Ok, lets analyze this. First, the debt isnt stopping anyone from curing AIDs. In fact, being massively in debt, in a wierd sort of way, frees us from fiscal responsiblity and allows us to spend more money on aids. How these people want to drop the debt and cure aids would requring curing aids WITHOUT SPENDING MORE MONEY! To make matters worse, Bush has spent more on AIDs than ANY other president. Now, this money won't make a difference, becuase AIDs can't be solved by trhowing money at it. In fact, asking a president to stop AIDs is a ludicrous demand. Short of invading and nationbuilding all of africa and central aisa there is nothing a president could convieveably do to stop aids, and we clearly don't have the troops for that.
The worst part is these people are obviously dedicated and CONVINCED they are helping, and making demands that are reasonable, feasible, and important. This is what really gets me about the vehement bush hatred. If you want to hate the man, fine. He's been a lousy president and doesn't deserve a second term, but HATE HIM FOR THE BAD THINGS HE'S ACTUALLY DONE! This isn't a president you need to invent stuff for. I keep half expecting Bush to announce that the sky is blue, then have Kerry run out, immediately call the sky purple, realize what he's done, explain it by saying that purple is a mix of red and blue, and since the sky is red at sunset, it averages out to be "Purpler than my purple hearts! Did you know I was a war hero?" And then have bush criticized for politicizing the issue of the color of the sky. Ok, from now on, everyone repeat after me, some things are true even if George W. Bush says them.
Aug. 30th, 2004 @ 10:22 am
|
| » (No Subject) |
|---|
I've been thinking a lot about turkey these days, becuase turkey is wierd. For more than a decade, the turks have been begging to get into the EU, and the EU has mostly been stalling. The turks are teh most dynamic, democratic, and stable of the islamic countries, but are not Arabic. They actualyl come from central asia, but thats not really the point, the point is that turkey is BIG. 70 million people and a half a trillion dollar economy means that it could compete for power with Germany and France. Its also not a sclerotic aging socialist state, so its power is only going to grow. Cultural issues a side, this means that while they'll gladly admit cyprus, turkey has a much harder road. it would be very good for the US to have an allie in the union that could compete with the french/german union. I think they'll be forced to accept the turks, but will make them jump through enough beauracratic hoops to drive anyone who wasn't european mad. I see full membership for Turkey in 20 years minimum. They probably won't even get fauz-full membership (like the latest 10 members) for another decade or more.
On another note, I can't get why this Sadr guy is still breathing. He's rebelled and lost two or three times now, has desecrated a holy city, and is bitterly hated by most Iraqis. My one thought is that he's going to provide evidence he was working with Iran. the Bush administration has been building up for a confrontation with them for a while, and now that they're clearly intervening in Iraq AND blustering about nuclear weapons, the international community might finally get its ass in gear. I doubt it though. Short of detonating a nuke Iran will get a free pass, france has oil interests there after all. Given how well the "family of nations" is handling the situation in the Sudan, i'm not holding my breath for them to tackle the most dangerous country in the world.
Aug. 20th, 2004 @ 12:55 pm
|
| » Hrm... |
|---|
So it turns out I misquoted, chavez is claming he won the election, despite exit polling showing he lost by nearly 20 points. Ironically, it appears their touch screen balloting machines were tampered with, but they have paper backups to count. I wish we had those. Anyhow, its very likely they'll find fraud, exit polling is highly accurate, the question is how we'll oust chavez.
Aug. 18th, 2004 @ 07:26 pm
|
| » Crisis in Venezuela |
|---|
The biggest crisis in the wester hemisphere is getting even less coverage than Darfur, and perhaps rightly so. After all, people in venezuela aren't being systematically murdered by Hugo Chavez, though his national socialism* is driving millions into abject poverty. Also, Venezuela has a lot farther to fall than sub-Sarahan africa. Thousands will die every year in africa for the forseeable future, but Venezuela was rising out of the mire of abject poverty until Chavez came around. He's destroying the independance of the judiciary and undermining the electoral process by his continual fight against the legality of the recall against him. Now that he's lost the recall, he is of course, claiming voter fraud. The bush administration has hesitated to act, given Chavez' ability to spin anti-americanism into support for himself. I'm not really sure what we should be doing here, but something needs to be done. After all, Venezuela has lots of oil.
In other news, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the only way the US is ever going to extricate itself from Bagdhad is by marching on Tehran. Here's for Bush War III, coming to a desert near you, hopefully in '05-'06.
*National Socialism is the doctrine perfectly suited to winning over poor, disenchanted people. Developed by an austrian politician (he called it Christian Socialism) and perfected by Hitler, you use nationalism to win over the country folk and socialism for the urban poor. It'll work in any country that has a large enough poor population. Tell the people their problems aren't their fault and they'll follow you towards whomever you finger instead.
Aug. 16th, 2004 @ 05:03 pm
|
| » Update |
|---|
Fareed Zakaria is just as concerned about Iran as I am. The reason I mention this is because the guy is brilliant, and anyone who wants to discuss modern politics really should read his book.
Also, Bush's apointee for the head of the CIA is creepy. Don't get me wrong, we need an ass kicking, risk taking CIA, but the guy, Goss, wants to let the CIA spy in the US, which would be an actual theeat to civil liberties. The 9/11 Commisison fortunaetly rejected an MI5 type agency, but missed the real problem. There are 15+ intelligence agencies spread over 3 departments. We don't need to coordinate them, we need to eliminate them. Except for specialty agencies (i.e. the guys that run the spy satalites should be independant and neutral) eliminate all of these agencies except for 3, the CIA, FBI, and the NSA. The CIA is relatively unrestricted but it totally prohibited from working inside the US. The FBI does what it does now (and what the DEA, ATF ect. does), and the NSA is in charge of crosschecking between the two, but can't run its own operations.
This goss guy sounds like the ype we need, someone who isn't afraid of transformation and risk taking, but this bit pushed him passed the creepy point.
Aug. 11th, 2004 @ 07:03 pm
|
| » Najaf |
|---|
You gotta love this Sadr guy. He raises a militia 6ish months ago, then launches a rebellion, which gets utterly crushed by the marines. People suspect he funded it with Iranian money and weapons, but despite that, the ProGov decides the best way to stop this sort of thing is to bring guys like this into the fold and give them a say in the government, which isn't such a bad idea. Sadr plays along, but quietly raises another militia with more Iranian money and guns. He starts another rebellion, whcihte same old tricks. Using holy sites as cover (against the geneva convention) so the Americans won't risk going after them doesnt work though, becuase our troops are good enough to deal with it. Not only that, but the first couple days of this rebellion were taken care of by the Iraqi police and army without coalition support.
They'll probably get Sadr this time, and a good thing. Most of the Iraqis HATE the Iranians and do not want them messing in their political soup. Things are finally looking up in Iraq, and ditto for afgahnistan. Looks like Bush is going to pull it off after all. Not the election I mean, that I've stood firm on my 300 electoral vote prediction, but the far more important task of integrating Iraq and Afgahnistan into the Core.
Aug. 11th, 2004 @ 02:32 pm
|
| » (No Subject) |
|---|
"President Bush is better on terrorism, national defense and homeland security. Even on Iraq, even on the worst days, they give Bush a 10- point margin over Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. On the other hand, they give Kerry a lead of double digits on job creation, education, health care, Social Security, prescription-drug prices and the environment." SanFran Chronicle
Just to point out, presidents don't control job creation, education, or drug prices. They have very limited levers to control the environment and healthcare. Kerry doesn't have a plan to fix social security. Bush has done a lousy job on terrorism, nat'l defense, and homeland security.
So in this presidential election, people like the incumbent for the stuff he's done poorly, and the challenger for his oppinion on things he can't control, and the media niot only goes along with the deception, but actively participates in spreading it. I can't say that things were ever better in the past, people are always nostalgic, but this farce needs to end.
Aug. 11th, 2004 @ 01:10 am
|
| » Iran and N.Korea |
|---|
So the NYT has apparently admitted that Iran and North Korea are deadset of obtaining nuclear weapons. and thea diplomacy isnt working THis is old news, at least for korea, but it exposed Iran as the most dnagerous country in the world. Kim Jong might be an absolute nut, but he's surrounded by threeeof the most powerful militaries in the world and has absolutely no friends. Iran has oil, friends, and a wonderful local strain of radical islam.
The western world (core) realizes that nuclear wepaons are for having but not using. When you ahev them, people can't fuck with you. Iran realizes this too, but Iran is dangerously close to a massive civil war. Half the population is under the age of 25, poor, and pissed about it. The mullahs would not hesitate to turn over some nukes to terrorists if they were falling out of power, and nukes are the only real WMDs.
Al Capone said you can get more with a smile and a gun than you can get with a smile alone, and he was right. Unfortunately, america's gun is firmly trained on someone else right now, and that has emboldended Iran (though it made Quadafi piss himself). This is one reason america's invasionof IRaq is so important, it shows we're willing to use the gun we have. Nuclear non-proliferation is arguably the most important par tof the war on terror, and it looks like we're going to need to be marching on Tehran. If we don't, any tinpot dictator worthj his salt is going to start trying to get nukes, and the genie will get out of the bottle.
Lastly, I'm really getting sick of people refering to Sadam as the former leader, president, head of state, or anything other than brutal dictator. Lets call a spade a spade people, calling yourself a president doesn't make you one.
Aug. 9th, 2004 @ 05:24 pm
|
| » (No Subject) |
|---|
SO bush and Kerry were in the same crap town the other day. I don't kow about the rest of you, but I wuld have been greatly relieved if they'd just settled it with pistols at dawn and saved us from 3 more months of mindless election year drivel. Alas, I yearn for simpler times...
Aug. 6th, 2004 @ 08:01 pm
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
hobomagic's journal