Saturday, May 31, 2008
[On a side note I like Coke, McDonalds, Microsoft, The Beatles and (if forced to choose between the two) Hillary Clinton... yet I seem to like Marvel more. Hmmm...]
I sure hope so.
Let me explain for a moment- I'm a McCainiac, I have been for years. I'm drinking the kool-aide on the guy and think he'd make a supremely fantastic American president. Unfortunately I have no such illusions about Barack Obama. Barry is the first serious presidential candidate in my lifetime to scare me, truly and deeply scare me. I don't think he knows square one about how to lead America and has an almost Bush-Level Niavte about what the world thinks about us. Gore, Kerry, Bill Clinton, they were people I didn't want to see in office, but I was positive America would still be here when they were done. Barry Obama? Not so much (then again, he scares me less the Howard Dean...)
So in this election I have a chance to be either very pleased with America's choice or terrified with America's choice. IF Obama is the nominee. If Clinton pulls of what would go down as the greatest comeback in American primary history (Sorry J-Mac, be happy with #2) I'd get a chance to be very pleased or mildly unhappy... but positive that america would still be here in 4 years when we vote her out of office.
So can she win? Perhaps. She's going to need a favorably worded decision from the RBC today in order to pull it off and a 15-to-20 point lead in PR when they vote to make her argument, but stranger things have happened...
Tonight Obama will declare Victory in the campaign, regardless of the outcome of the meeting. Clinton will probably (if she's smart) counter-address him from Puerto Rico or Montana. Stay Tuned...
Environmentalist giving out fliers: Excuse me sir, do you care about helping our environment?
Man: Oh no thank you, I'm a Republican.
--14th & 5th
Overheard by: Dave
via Overheard in New York, May 30, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
...unless you're in the bush administration. Can't win 'em all can I?
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
"What people ought to say and people ought to ask is, why answer the question by throwing a friend under a bus? The question people ought to ask is, why didn’t he answer the questions?" Coburn said.
"I mean, Barack is a good friend of mine, but I think he's way too young and way to inexperienced to lead this country," he said.
I guess Obama is Bipartisan after all. He'll throw anyone under the bus to justify his goals.
A few days ago, I blogged about a German Couple who "jokingly" put there child up for sale on eBay for 1 euro.
Now I'm blogging on a Canadian couple who "jokingly"put there newborn child up for sale on craigslist for 10,000 dollars.
Are you friggin kidding me? Look at the police inspector holding a print-out of the ad. If it was a "Hoax" as the mother of the 7-day old little girl had protested, why did they put there PHONE NUMBER on the ad? The Police X'ed it out for the one to show to the press, but it was on the real ad. I'm a firm believer that most people should not be allowed to have children, its one of my few "statist" leanings. I'd like to think if you had to fill out a form to sign up for the right to be pregnant, you'd have to check a box labeled "Will not try to sell baby over the internet".
But news and opinion often seem to merge on primary nights. MSNBC's coverage is anchored by Matthews, a onetime Democratic operative, and Olbermann, the "Countdown" host who recently finished one anti-Bush commentary by instructing the president to "shut the hell up."
On election nights, Griffin says, Matthews and Olbermann "put on different hats. I think the audience gets it. . . . I see zero problem." MSNBC, he adds, offers "a little irreverence, entertainment, and sometimes it's even borderline dangerous."
REALLY? THAT'S the excuse they are giving?
Lets set aside for a moment that these men anchor a news broadcast that's supposed to be non-partisan when they clearly are not. That's a news network, it can be rationalized away, even if the above is such total bull---- that there are fertilizer companies in the midwest who want to contract MSNBC so they can get a cut of "the good stuff". Instead lets remember these people were once picked to MODERATE A GOP DEBATE. Who did the dems get? Brian Williams, Mr. Serious News Journalist. Who did the GOP get? A Man who recently called General Petraus, who gains wide acclaim as a man of honor from bot sides of the isle, one of "the worst people in the world", and a man who famously said Obama sent a "thrill up his leg."
It is THIS reason why MSNBC is the most horrifying channel of the infotainment age. At least Fox and CNN can find a line of demarcation between there opinion people and there news people. MSNBC is too busy setting out the tenants of the church of Obama to notice they've thrown journalistic integrity out the window.
Lets imagine if the opposite had happened on the right-leaning channel, Fox. Lets say the republicans debated and they got Chris Wallace, someone who's universally respected and actually a registered democrat despite being the lead political moderator on "the republican channel". Then lets say when the Democrats walked out there moderators were Sean Hannity and Bill O'Riley. Anyone see a problem here? What if CNN had a democratic debate run by Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs? Or a republican one hosted by Paul Begala and Donna Brazile?
And that's why MSNBC is (to steal a phrase from the odious Mr. Olbermann) THE WORST NEWS NETWORK IN THE WORLD!!!!
-Tucker Carlson, NBC political analyst
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
McCain has 2 sons in the military, one who is currently a marine in Iraq. How many times has J-Mac brought it up during the GI Bill discussion? None.
Obama 2008: There's No Low We Can't Stoop To.
And Change and stuff.
When the media asked McCain about it the next day, he decided he liked the idea, if the junior senator was willing. After all, the little punk junior senator hadn't been there since 2006, when violence was at its peak and the surge had not yet taken hold. Now that violence is at a 4 year low, McCain figured Obama would do well to actually speak to our commanders in a private manner and see our troops in action.
Obama of course declined. But he took it a step further, doing the press release equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling loudly. Saying-
"John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any... walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. "He then goes on to say that talking about Iraq is distracting us from the important issues of Iraq. He's a bloody wonder that one. How dose that logic work? You don't need to see things first hand to know what's going on? I can't wait to see how he weasels out of the debates in the fall...
"I don't need to actually talk to senator McCain for people to know I'm the second coming! People can tell from my scripted remarks and wall of sycophantic aides that I'm plenty smart!"
Hillary Clinton- If you don't know who Hillary Clinton is by now I can't help you. The former first lady and current junior senator from my homestate is a household name.
Pros- She's a Clinton, and they tend to be able to win elections (the democratic primary non-withstanding). She connects well with "White Middle-Class" voters and has managed to brilliantly position herself as a champion of the little guy. A great campaigner with a solid record of reaching across the isle, some conservatives now like her more then the republican nominee. Picking her could be Obama's best shot at uniting the party again. Her husband becomes another great tool in the general election, provided he can keep on message. Also, she probably has enough delegates to FORCE him to pick her if she wants to so he might pick her to avoid looking weak.
Cons- Highly polarizing. High unfavorables. His most die-hard supporters (aka MSNBC) loath her. Having her on the ticket also ruins what most consider his greatest asset- the "Change" message (We would have had a bush or a Clinton on a major party ticket every election since 1980). Her husband has seemingly lost his ablity to keep his mouth shut since
My Take- A Bad Choice. Clinton can't do much but drag the Obamessiah off his perch at this point. She's old-school retail politics and picking her makes Obama a part of that same system. He'd be better off offering her a high-profile cabinet post then the Vice-Presidency. Still, if she wants it there's almost nothing he can do to stop her other then playing the same kind of hardball that would damage him as much as picking her. In other words, he might be screwed.
ODDS- 2 to 1
Jim Webb- Former Reagan-Era Republican Navy Secretary, Vietnam Vet, and now Democratic Senator.
Pros- from a state the democrats have been doing wonders in in recent years, Virgina, Webb brings not only Foreign policy experience to the table but could bring Virgina into the democratic column. His populist themes are tailor-made for the current political climate and he would undoubtedly help with less-educated white southerners that Obama needs to court.
Cons- He's insane. He shoots his mouth off more then he should. He apparently doesn't want to be vice-president. He's been in the senate even less then Obama has, and somehow has more legislative experience. He wrote novels where men engaged in sex acts with small boys.
My Take- A bad choice. He's good for Obama in many ways, but the odds are very good that he'll say something during the campaign that will hurt more then it helps. He's a lazy campaigner that doesn't like to be told what to do. If he disagrees with Obama on something he's going to make it known, and that could be destructive on the trail.
ODDS- 10 to 1
Tim Kaine- Current governor of Virginia, moderate democrat and early Obama supporter (back when supporting Obama was seen as a risky thing to do, dare you anger the Clinton gods and gain there wrath)
Pros- Would help greatly with white Christan voters, particularly Conservative evangelicals that are wary about McCain. Brings Virgina into the dem column and becomes the southern ambassador for Barack Obama. brings executive experience running a red state. Proven crossover appeal and a good campaigner overall.
Cons- Only served one term as governor (then again, in VA you can't serve more then on term in Richmond...). Pro-Life stance could hurt him with female voters still stinging over the clinton loss. His religious overtones may remind the far-left of bush's early speeches. Not well known. Limited appeal in western states. Adds zero FP experience.
My Take- Good Pick. He's squeaky-clean, has crossover appeal and is a longtime obama backer. He helps Obama win Virginia, and perhaps some other southern states. Only downside would be that he adds no real foreign policy experience (though his time as a missionary in Honduras may count for something later on). Overall he's still a good choice.
ODDS-4 to 1
Wesley Clark- Former NATO commander in Kosovo, 4-Star general, Clinton family friend, Candidate for President in 2004.
Pros- Could be seen as VP candidate to unite party with his deep ties to the Clinton camp. Brings international credibility and military chops. Could bring Arkansas with him into the dem column.
Cons-No real goverment experience. Who remembers Kosovo these days? He's never won an election for anything. Domestic views untested. Poor debater.
My Take- A good pick. His lack of goverment exposure becomes a positive with obama as it reinforces change while bringing southern cred and military experience to the table. Would help heal the rift between Obama and the Clinton wing of the party. The fact his veiws are unknown would help him get in lockstep with obama without been seen as a flip-flopper. Probably the best choice on this list.
ODDS- 5 to 1
Kathleen Sebelius- Governor of Kansas.
Pros-Democrat from one of the reddest states in the union. BRILLIANT political operator (she got a GOP state chairman to switch parties to become her running mate) she adds savvy to the obama ticket. Her father was the governor of Ohio, making her popular there as well. Also, a woman.
Cons- Her views on abortion may ensure that the Christian vote goes for McCain. Supports late-term abortions unwaveringly, taking even moderates by surprise. The Clinton supporters would fume if Obama picked a woman not named Hillary.
My Take- A mixed bag. She's a good campaigner, but there seems to be enough dirt on her abortion stance being hardline to successfully paint her and obama as far-left on the issue (something that's not a winning issue at the ballot box.) She's more likely to try and win Brownbacks senate seat in 2010.
ODDS- 12 to 1
Just annoying, that's all...
Short Answer- No
Long Answer- Hell No.
Unless we build a giant army of Ron Paul clones to populate the senate and house (something Ron Paul would oppose because of his strong pro-life views), the overwhelming majority of these supporters are already democrats. I'll admit that among there were some disaffected far-right republicans on his side who basically fell into the Pat Buchanan mold of non-interventionism, but we all know the primary reason he caught on with young people was...
Drugs. Obscene amounts of drugs. He even did an interview with "High Times" in 1988 when he ran on the libertarian party ticket for president. The man wants to make everything, and I mean EVERYTHING legal. This is the issue and the War are the two issues that Ron Paul supporters care about the most and they are two issues that the Republican Party cannot shift on.
Pauls supporters by and large are Liberal or "Liberaltarian" voters who belong to the democratic party anyway and will never support non-paulite republicans. They are a waste of our time and effort to go after because they fundamentally agree with the democrats on most things.
So what shall we republicans do? Shall we add Pro-Stoner and Anti-War planks to the party platform in order to roll the dice on America's future and try to pick up a group of people that don't vote anyway? Or shall we back our Hippie loathing War Hero candidate and keep America safe and prosperous into the future? It's not exactly a tough choice...
Of course the Decemberists have a nasty habit of playing the Soviet National Anthem before every concert. They apparently did so before they played there set that led into the rally.
So in the end we have Obama, with an opening act that has extreme-far left sympathies, starting his rally with the national anthem of a nation that wanted to destroy everything we stand for.
You just can't make this stuff up!
Monday, May 26, 2008
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Celebrate it well, folks. Some gave it all for you to be able to have the freedom to do so.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Still Obama feels the need to needle him on it. It's a legitimate issue if you've got no one on your team that's a lobbyist, but it's quite another when your chief adviser and campaign guru is discovered to have engaged in lobbying, without being declared a lobbyist!
See in the good goverment capital of America that is the State of Illinois, things like what David Axelrod did don't count as lobbying (though as newsweek points out when his firm did the same thing in New York, it counted as the "largest lobbying contract of the year"),
So now Barack, are lobbyists on your campaign team somehow better because they were more underhanded and didn't actually let anyone know they were lobbying? McCain's people were open about there intentions from the start, and its for that reason McCain says that he's not influenced by who they worked for in the past. But when your staff is hiding who they worked for... isn't that a little CORRUPT for the golden calf of the democratic party? Better start coming up with a nice rhetorical response to this now Barry, I have a feeling the questions aren't going to go away...
I mean read the Ad-
Offering my nearly new baby for sale, as it has gotten too loud. It is a male baby, nearly 28 inches (70 cm) long and can be used either in a baby carrier or a stroller.Don't you think that's funny? No? You think it's sick and twisted that they put a photo of there child up in EBay and wanted the equivalence of a buck-fifty for him? You think these people are obviously twisted and need to have the state intervene? You're a sane and rational human being? Good.
It doesn't matter if these people really were joking. It's a sick and twisted joke, done at the publics expense. Shame on them.
It's not a classic Indy movie. As a matter of fact it seems almost like an epilogue for the character, a REAL last crusade. The plot is kinda out there, very very different then what has come before, but it fits with the new times that the film is set in.
The film, in my opinion, lacked grounding- a feeling reinforced by use of Computer Graphics. the old Indy movies felt very real precisely because "special effects" were used perhaps once in the entire movie. This movie uses these effects MUCH more liberally, and it detracts that element of realism that I so enjoyed about Indy's action sequences.
The KGB makes a great villain and Kate Blanchet works wonders as the head commie. Her speeches are peppered with Soviet Propaganda and her comments about the rise of Soviet power are chilling. Her minions make good foils for Indy and his new James-Dean-Jacket-Clad sidekick, Mutt.
In all, it's still a fun movie, particularly if you were a big fan of the previous movies. It's recomended for a lazy afternoon.
Final Score- 7.7 out of 10
The flap on Clinton's "Assassination" comment is utterly moronic. She invoked Kennedy's assassination to show that he was STILL CAMPAIGNING in june when he got shot. Everyone remembers that Kennedy was assassinated during the primaries. The first season of 24 is based on it!
And of course the flap is led by the "Worst Person in the World" Keith Olberman, a man who turns hyperbole and overreaction into bizarre and nauseating art form.
News to Olbermann- Your Journalistic Bias is showing. Sure you never had a "Thrill up your leg" moment like your cohort in clear Bias, Chris Matthews, but you haven't earned what Matthews has earned. You got your TV show from being a loud-mouthed sportscaster, not from being a real political player and commentator like Matthews was. You want to play in the big leagues like your Idol Edward R. Murrow, then you've got to actualy start reporting the news like a real journalist rather then spinning your wheels at people you don't like. Unfortunately you were never a real journalist to begin with so I doubt you can do anything to fix that.
[This comment was edited after posting]
2) Chris Van Hollen just said he didn't want "Amnesty" for companies that "Collaborated" with the bush administration. Collaborated? Really?
3) Van Hollen just rambled off a list of legislation the democratic congress did... How many of those bills passed? or had any positive effect on the economy?
4) Chris Wallace just slammed Tom Cole on Congressional Earmarks. Tom Cole is NOT against all Earmarks regardless of what he just said. Republicans should set the example by removing there personal earmarks.
5) Van Hollen just called for Cole and he to disavow all "shadowy" 527's. Dose that count MoveOn.org congressman?
More commentary on the insanity after I get back from Indiana Jones. Die, Commies, Die!
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Tim Pawlenty- Considered by many to be the odds on favorite for the spot, Pawlenty is the governor of Minnesota, a consistent conservative, and a long-time supporter of McCain.
Pros- From the competitive Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin area, T-Paw helps put the upper mid-wests 27 electoral votes in play and probably brings Minnesota into the McCain column. He brings executive experience and a fairly good reputation among the right-wing of the party, an area most commentators believe McCain, with his moderate maverick image, needs to shore up.
Cons- Has a tendency to say stupid things. The Establishment doesn't like him. And he seems to drag McCain down in public polls, turning close states into blowouts for the other side (probably due to his name sounding stupid). He's not well known outside of the Upper Mid-West and isn't the most charismatic of potential veeps.
My Take- A Bad Choice. Pawlenty brings nothing to the ticket that someone else wouldn't bring, and has baggage that would harm McCain on the trail. It's also snotty and presumptuous to have someone in your employ register a website for your run.
ODDS- 4 to 1
Bobby Jindal- First Term Governor of Louisiana, Jindal is lauded by conservative columnists and seen as the face of the New GOP. He's also a first generation Indian-American governor, making him one of the few elected Minority members of the Republican Party. He was invited to McCain's Potential Veep Pow-Wow in Sedona.
Pros- Did I mention conservatives love him? He's Indian and would most likely bring members of that closely knit community over to the GOP, perhaps to stay. He's gotten raves for past work in Louisiana and has proven to be a great campaigner (he's a first generation immigrant who's become a first term governor, 'nuff said). He also shares a passion for "good government" (His major efforts in Baton Rouge have been on ethics reform).
Cons- Jindal on the ticket steals one of McCain's best arguments- That Obama is too inexperienced to be running for national office. Jindal is only one year into his first term, and only served two terms in the house, meaning that he has slightly more experience in non-state legislature then Obama.
My Take- A Good Pick overall. Jindal shores up McCain's support among the far right AND helps him move into the center. He backs up McCain's Reform credentials and makes him look more energetic. I don't think America is going to go for the inexperience argument (it didn't stop them from electing GWB) so it might be worth it. Still, he hasn't finished a single term in the governors mansion, and would seem to be more suited to deliver the Keynote address at the Republican Convention then be veep.
ODDS 18 to 1
Mitt Romney- One term governor of the state of Massachusetts, savior of the Salt Lake City Olympics and highly successful hedge fund millionaire, Willard "Mitt" Romney is most widely known as a man who spent over 30 million dollars of his own money on the 2008 republican primaries.
Pros- The rare times when Romney seemed to really connect with voters was when he was discussing his first love, economics. It's this ease in the economic arena that McCain could benefit from the most since he has admitted that economics is not his strong suit. Romney reassures the skittish investor class that the GOP is not abandoning them, even if McCain has been railing against CEO pay. Romney would also bring his money with him, not only the large fund raising network he built before Iowa, but his personal bank account, allowing him to help the campaign should it fall on hard times.
Cons- Romney's persona is a little TOO squeaky clean and as such people tend to view him as a bigger stiff then Al Gore. Social Conservatives, already afraid of McCain, see Romney's Mormonism and are reluctant to pull the lever for him. In addition, Romney and McCain seem to genuinely dislike each other, and the media would note it constantly. Romney was also a Hedge Fund manager, and in a year that seems to stink of voter backlash against Wall Street and the Banks, Romney could remind them of that even more.
My Take- A Mixed Bag. McCain needs to reassure voters on economic issues and Romney would be able to do that in spades. The man clearly understands how our national monetary system works and can speak very convincingly on it. He complements McCain well on almost every issue, shoring up his weak spots and compensating for his few biographical gaps. He's also won election in one of the most Democratic states in the union, albeit as a very different politician. However, these points are all made moot if McCain and Romney really do loath each other as much as the press indicates they do. Also, he comes off as a giant Tool.
ODDS- 10 to 1
Mike Huckabee- Ex-Governor of Arkansas, Ex-Baptist Minister, Ex-Fatty, Huckabee was the second tier candidate that broke through and made it to the big leagues, managing an upset victory in Iowa on a non-existent budget and no staff.
Pros- Huckabee is, in many ways, Romney's exact opposite. Huckabee brings an enormous popular charisma on his side (His rise in the polls was based almost purely on his well-received debate performances). In the last year he's become the new figurehead of a more compassionate Religious Right, uniting almost all social conservatives behind his run. Huckabee also steadfastly refused to go negative during the primary, and McCain reportedly likes the governor quite a bit.
Cons- Huckabee scares the Tax-Cut crowd like Romney scares the religious right. His economic performance as governor has been widely derided on the right, and he has the same apostasies to conservatives that McCain dose- the exact facets that make them compatible make them intolerable as a team to segments of the republican populace.
My Take- A fairly good match, if they can find another way to keep traditional conservatives on board. Huckabee would be a good get-out-the-vote leader for McCain with the religious right, while also acting as a good faith ambassador to minority Christian groups. He's proven he can preform well among African Americans and he's charismatic enough to send to any Christian community and expect him to come back having changed some minds. Still, the far right hates him as much as McCain so unless J-Mac is going to write them off, he's going to have to promise them a big cabinet post before the election is over.
ODDS- 8 to 1
Charlie Crist- The wildly popular governor of a state that has a slight importance to national politics (Florida), Crist is a furious campaigner and decent legislator. Many pundits credit McCain's Nomination-securing win in Florida to Crist' influence and endorsement in the state.
Pros- Takes Florida into the McCain Column without doubt. This alone would get him on the list, but in addition he brings a deft skill at campaigning along with him. He's good at raising money and there is a sense that not only dose McCain like him, but McCain "owes" him.
Cons- Is as Tan as McCain is pale. They Look TERRIBLE standing next to eachother. Doesn't really add anything to the ticket beyond Florida. Is the only candidate I can think of that has been accused of being gay and fathering children out of wedlock simultaneously (that's right they make the accusations in the same article).
My Take- Ok Choice. I'm still kinda shocked to see the overly pale McCain standing next to the overly tanned crist, but beyond that he doesn't really fire up the base or make inroads beyond Florida. The argument that he can bring Florida with him is his best one, look to see lots of polls of a McCain-Christ Ticket vs. Obama-Whoever. If Christ can deliver the state when McCain would lose it, he just might be the nominee.
ODDS- 14 to 1
In the next Veepstakes I'll bring you Obama's own version of the Big Five
Friday, May 23, 2008
Mr. Rosenbaum opts not to go with satirizing, but actually PRAISING the concept of White Liberal Guilt. I kid you not. Apparently, our guilt is enough of a reason to vote for Obama. In essence we should vote for a candidate for the color of there skin.
But lets look beyond this simple idiocy. Like most arguments made by the far left, this one can’t help but try and assert there unassailable superiority to the right. Take this quote for example:
“It's especially surprising to hear ‘guilt’ being disparaged by conservatives, since they present themselves as moralists; they are quick to decry liberals for seeking to abolish guilt over various practices conservatives deem immoral. But was slavery not immoral? For those conservatives who make a fetish of "values": Was not the century of institutionalized racism and segregation that followed the end of slavery a perpetuation of "flawed values" that the nation should feel an enduring guilt over? For those conservatives who are forever speaking of the way they value history and memory more than liberals: Should we abolish the history and memory of slavery and racism just because they're no longer legally institutionalized?”Unknowingly, Mr. Rosenbaum gives us a perfect example of the differences between Left-Liberal thinking and Right-Conservative thinking, namely where we assign fault.
We Right-of -Center people feel guilty, some of us intensely guilty about things WE DID. If it was US, we'd feel bad about it. We'd make amends. We’d take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for it. We believe that a person is responsible for themselves and no one else. That's where the whole "tough on crime" aspect of conservatism comes in. We could care less about feeling bad for things done hundreds of years ago by people we're not connected to. We study the past not to obsess over what others did wrong and weep about it, but to understand where we came from and how we can avoid mistakes in the future.
Our dear friends on the other side of the ideological isle have a very different approach. They don't tend to feel guilty about there personal choices (it's clearly the system/the nation/society's fault) they care more about things that happened hundreds of years ago to which they also have no connection. Why? Because people who sort of look like them were involved in it. They embrace this guilt not out of actual feelings of guilt but as a way of transferring the actual guilt to others, namely those who are not “enlightened enough” to feel guilty about something they didn’t do and had no part in. In essence, it’s a way of transferring there guilt to others.
Or to reduce it to it’s basic level, Conservitives take personal responsibility, rather then “societal responsibility” and Liberals take “societal responsibility” rather then personal responsibility.
Or as Shelby Steel once put it, liberals engage in "a form of self-congradulation, where whites initiate 'compassionate policies' towards people of color, to showcase their innocence to racism."
You knew it was only a matter of time before I graced you with my innermost thoughts and ramblings, and since most of you have never had the overwhelming joy of hearing my nasal and frequent outbursts about the world, I have decided to share with you in the only way my generation knows how- anonymously, over the internet, without having to actually do anything.
But, you may ask me, why should you care? Who are you? How did you get this phone number? Are you the one who's been going through my garbage at night?!
In short- Because I say so, Mr. Hedge (Grand Admiral Hedge to my friends), It's on your facebook page, and emphatically yes.
In long- I'm someone who thinks, nay knows, most people on earth are full of it and that hypocrites run the planet. I'm of the center-right persuasion, and I'm not going to hesitate to throw some punches at my fellow self-labeled conservatives, but the majority of my political ire will be addressed to the left side of the spectrum. To help you understand me I release this: My Statement of Principals!
Mr. Hedge's Statement of Principals
1) Hypocrisy is the greatest of sins. Hypocrites have no place in society, particularly in government. In relation to this, pointing out the Hypocrisy of others is not an excuse for your own hypocrisy and just makes you look like an even bigger jackass then before. I reserve the rights to call shenanigans on hypocrites.
2) A Man is as good as his word. If you make a promise, you darn well keep it. If you are forced to break it, you grovel and have a darn good excuse.
3) Government will never work perfectly. Since it will never work perfectly, we should limit it's interaction with areas of our lives that can't afford the intervention. We should however, not hesitate to use it if no other organization can provide the service (IE National Defense).
4) I am more conservative then not. I do not hold grudges against people based on there political affiliations. To me, the other side of the spectrum is not evil, just horribly misguided or uninformed. I can see legitimate reasons to disagree with me on some issues (not all issues are one sided after all), and if I can see a legitimate argument AGAINST something I feel, I shall point it out.
5) I am a geek. Some times I shall slide into discussing the most dorky of things, like comic books, movies, TV shows and Lost (Note: Lost is not a TV show, despite the common misconception. Lost is a way of life.) You can expect AT LEAST one post a week on these topics.
6) Snarkiness and other forms of humor are prized regardless of political affiliation. I will enjoy any mass media presentation, even if it's targeted at me and it's amusing. If it's not amusing, I'll hate it.
7) RealClearPolitics.com is life.
8) Everything is politics.
And there we go. Those are my principals. Onward to the commentary!