Friday, July 30, 2004
Well, the Spawn of Satan convention (as Ann Coulter accurately termed it) is over and off go John and John to campaign. Has anyone noticed they're campaigning together? Kerry can't even go out by himself anymore. For all the help Edwards is supposedly giving Kerry, it won't do much good if they can only cover however much ground they can do together. Bush on the other hand can send Cheney or Laura or a good number of people out to campaign in other places while he's campaigning somewhere. This way Republicans can actually cover more ground. The press of course is suiting up for a Kerry victory but I strongly doubt it. The whole scenario reminds me of the McGovern campaign in 1972. A Republican incumbent, "investigated" constantly by the media, waging a supposedly "unpopular" war, challenged by the dream ticket of the media--two left-wing lunatics standing for nothing yet trying to stand for everything. Does anyone remember the result? The dream ticket won MA and DC and fell flat everywhere else. Do I think it will be that big this Fall? Maybe not, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Monday, July 26, 2004
I hear this alot: "I'm not sure who to vote for, because they're all conservatives and liberals and I don't know what I am." Or better yet, "I'm above this partisan bickering." Translation: I'm pretty easy to classify. I used to say stuff like that myself but now I've come to terms with it: I'm a conservative. What people really mean when they say that is, "I want to flatter myself that I'm somehow inscrutable to common mortals." Usually it means they're liberals (although not always). Liberal is a term most people can't stand, even those to whom it's like their middle name. Hence they describe themselves as "middle of the road."At least compared to Vladimir Lenin, I suppose. Liberals can't even be honest about the fact that they're liberal. That's why John Kerry, the most liberal member of the Senate, who recently declared Hollywood movie stars to be symbolic of the American spirit, can claim to represent "traditional family values" with a straight face. It's on the level of Clinton giving marriage counseling. If you vote for Kerry, you are liberal. If you support Kerry, you are liberal. If you support gay marriage, you are liberal. If you champion abortion, surrender to terrorists (or the UN), mad tax hikes for the middle class, or stem cell research, you are a liberal. If you don't like that, change your views, not what you call yourself.
Sunday, July 25, 2004
It's amazing the depths to which the media will sink in lionizing anti-American "protesters." In next month's Republican Convention, the protesters will be the only ones who escape having their luggage searched. Interesting that the people most likely to be a security threat are the ones who escape security checks. The whole convention should just show up as protesters.
The latest celebrity is Toronto Blue Jays' "slugger" Carlos Delgado, who refused to stand for "God Bless America." It's his right of course but why does the media make it into a story when the Yankees buried his team both nights that he did this? It's simply another way to make a hero out of a moron. Delgado claims the Iraq war was "the stupidest war ever", apparently never explaining what he meant, and that's all the media needs to know. Sorry, Carlos. The stupidest war ever was when 600,000 Americans died to make people like you free so you can bad mouth your country. That's right: I'm saying the Civil War was stupid, if this is what it led us to. The Iraq War was fought for the same reason as the Civil War: to end tyranny of one group over another. Or one might say Lincoln fought the Civil War to make his power absolute, to avoid losing control of valuable cotton supplies, and to take people's minds off a failing economy. That could be argued, possibly with equal validity. It's all a matter of perspective. One thing I am sure of: you wouldn't be a baseball player without it.
The latest celebrity is Toronto Blue Jays' "slugger" Carlos Delgado, who refused to stand for "God Bless America." It's his right of course but why does the media make it into a story when the Yankees buried his team both nights that he did this? It's simply another way to make a hero out of a moron. Delgado claims the Iraq war was "the stupidest war ever", apparently never explaining what he meant, and that's all the media needs to know. Sorry, Carlos. The stupidest war ever was when 600,000 Americans died to make people like you free so you can bad mouth your country. That's right: I'm saying the Civil War was stupid, if this is what it led us to. The Iraq War was fought for the same reason as the Civil War: to end tyranny of one group over another. Or one might say Lincoln fought the Civil War to make his power absolute, to avoid losing control of valuable cotton supplies, and to take people's minds off a failing economy. That could be argued, possibly with equal validity. It's all a matter of perspective. One thing I am sure of: you wouldn't be a baseball player without it.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
Anyone reading this blog with a hint of understanding, or even without it, can hardly fail to come to the conclusion that I support President Bush's re-election pretty strongly. Even in 2000, suffering under eight years of the Felon inhabiting our beautiful White House, I was not this convinced that Bush is the man to lead this country. Now it comes time to tell you why.
First of all, Bush is a man of conviction. He still stands where he did four years ago and for all the press' continued attempts to make some slight withdrawal into a retraction he does not back down. He promised to push through tax cuts for the middle class and he has, repeatedly. He promised to spend more on education and he did. He promised to reform social security and he has. He promised to support a marriage protection amendment and he did. He promised to fight the abortion rights crowd and he has done his best to this day. He promised that our military would be used "to fight and win wars" and not as lackeys to run errands for the U.N. and indeed they have been so used. He promised that is Saddam Hussein continued to pose a threat to the US he would "take him out" and in the days following 9/11 he vowed to hunt down the terrorists into whatever nation they fled. And he has done all this and more. Most politicians lie and do whatever they can to gain political advantage. Bush does not. Whether he's right or wrong at the end of the day, the man does not lie to you. His daughters said in an online chat yesterday (I know because I was involved in this chat) that if he promised to come to their soccer games he was always there, regardless of what else.
We can't have anyone else. For years we have been satisfied with politicians who will say anything to get elected and then bend with the political winds, although in the long run it doesn't help. Bush I did that and he was defeated at the polls by a real tax-hiker. Bush II is a different sort of man, however, a real man. The values he espouses are the values of America, if not of Hollywood (the real mainstream according to John Kerry). He is also a determined leader who is not afraid to call a fig a fig. Too many times I have heard the complaint, "But it's too simplistic to call Muslim terrorists evil and ourselves good." Such triping merely blurs the lines and certainly would have led to US defeat in either World War just like it did in Vietnam. Osama Bin Laden is every bit as evil as Hitler, as is Saddam Hussein. But you'll never catch the left-wing press suggesting that perhaps with a little understanding Hitler could have been a very fine fellow. No, instead no imprecation is too vile for him. Rightly so. But what distinguishes Hitler from Bin Laden or Hussein? Only an anti-American sentiment that makes the press willing to call everything evil, except of course evil. We lived like that through all of the 90s, surrendering and retreating, and we did not lose fewer people. At least the same number of Americans died in terror attacks from 1992 to 2001 as have died in Iraq. We cannot go back to retreating before evil and letting it run the world. We must stand and fight. Only under Bush will we do that. Under Kerry, evil will again prevail. That is why I believe that Bush must win this election and why I have pledged to help as much as I can through the time that is left.
First of all, Bush is a man of conviction. He still stands where he did four years ago and for all the press' continued attempts to make some slight withdrawal into a retraction he does not back down. He promised to push through tax cuts for the middle class and he has, repeatedly. He promised to spend more on education and he did. He promised to reform social security and he has. He promised to support a marriage protection amendment and he did. He promised to fight the abortion rights crowd and he has done his best to this day. He promised that our military would be used "to fight and win wars" and not as lackeys to run errands for the U.N. and indeed they have been so used. He promised that is Saddam Hussein continued to pose a threat to the US he would "take him out" and in the days following 9/11 he vowed to hunt down the terrorists into whatever nation they fled. And he has done all this and more. Most politicians lie and do whatever they can to gain political advantage. Bush does not. Whether he's right or wrong at the end of the day, the man does not lie to you. His daughters said in an online chat yesterday (I know because I was involved in this chat) that if he promised to come to their soccer games he was always there, regardless of what else.
We can't have anyone else. For years we have been satisfied with politicians who will say anything to get elected and then bend with the political winds, although in the long run it doesn't help. Bush I did that and he was defeated at the polls by a real tax-hiker. Bush II is a different sort of man, however, a real man. The values he espouses are the values of America, if not of Hollywood (the real mainstream according to John Kerry). He is also a determined leader who is not afraid to call a fig a fig. Too many times I have heard the complaint, "But it's too simplistic to call Muslim terrorists evil and ourselves good." Such triping merely blurs the lines and certainly would have led to US defeat in either World War just like it did in Vietnam. Osama Bin Laden is every bit as evil as Hitler, as is Saddam Hussein. But you'll never catch the left-wing press suggesting that perhaps with a little understanding Hitler could have been a very fine fellow. No, instead no imprecation is too vile for him. Rightly so. But what distinguishes Hitler from Bin Laden or Hussein? Only an anti-American sentiment that makes the press willing to call everything evil, except of course evil. We lived like that through all of the 90s, surrendering and retreating, and we did not lose fewer people. At least the same number of Americans died in terror attacks from 1992 to 2001 as have died in Iraq. We cannot go back to retreating before evil and letting it run the world. We must stand and fight. Only under Bush will we do that. Under Kerry, evil will again prevail. That is why I believe that Bush must win this election and why I have pledged to help as much as I can through the time that is left.
Friday, July 23, 2004
Today I believe I shall take a short break from politics and discuss the movie "King Arthur" released a couple of weeks ago. It has sparked controversy of course--what movie doesn't these days? Here are my thoughts on the matter.
While the movie does tend to take a more historical approach to Arthur than is traditional (no pulling a sword out of a stone, for example), some have complained that it continues to refer to Arthur's henchmen as knights although there was no such thing in the 5th century. This is a small point though since they don't act like knights anyway. It's just a use of terminology.
Conservative Christians complain that Guinivere fights with a man and is sassy to Arthur and his men. This is true but it hardly rates her being called a "proto feminist". It may be a useful term but early Britain historically had many warrior queens. At least she didn't spend the whole movie harping about equality, she simply took up her weapons and fought. There may be an ironic lesson in this for female soldiers but maybe we can get into that another time. The love scene with her and Arthur was unnecessary in my opinion but not as horrid as some movies and at least there was only one.
The major complaint orthodox Christians will and do have with this movie is that Arthur is a follower of the heretical monk Pelagius and orthodox Christians are not cast into fine a light. This charge has some merit. I simply choose to overlook this for two reasons. The first is that nothing Pelagius wrote has survived, except what his enemies wrote that he taught. The charges made against him are the same charges made against Arminians by Calvinists all the time. But the second and most major reason is that even if he was indeed a heretic, "King Arthur" is attempting, if not always succeeding, in being historically accurate. And at this time in British history, I imagine most Britons were Pelagian. We may not like the idea of a heretic-hero but that's probably how it was considering Pelagius was a British monk and an important figure in a pre-Roman Catholic British Church made up mostly of former druids and their followers. While there may be a subtle attack on orthodox Christianity here, I prefer to just go along and assume the movie is attempting to paint a picture of the times.
Besides this, the acting was fantastic! (Keira Knightly finally found a man who could act alongsider her and complement her and, surprise! It was neither Johnny Depp nor Orlando Bloom from that absolutely waste of a movie "Pirates of the Caribbean.") Arthur certainly came off well and the battle scenes were very well done. I always love to see a fight against the odds and to see Arthur, six knights, and Guinivere lined up against a host of several hundred Saxons stirred my blood like nothing since Aragorn's solo charge in "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King." When Lancelot taunted Guinivere that "there are a lot of lonely men over there," she calmly replied, "I won't let them rape you." The end is a little hashed with Arthur going from grieving over his fallen knights and bitter towards God to reconciled and accepting his kingly responsibility in one scene change but that's a small point. I found the movie highly enjoyable and recommend it to anyone who loves Arthurian legend and wondered about the real men behind it. (You can tell I'm one of them--look at what I called my blog.)
While the movie does tend to take a more historical approach to Arthur than is traditional (no pulling a sword out of a stone, for example), some have complained that it continues to refer to Arthur's henchmen as knights although there was no such thing in the 5th century. This is a small point though since they don't act like knights anyway. It's just a use of terminology.
Conservative Christians complain that Guinivere fights with a man and is sassy to Arthur and his men. This is true but it hardly rates her being called a "proto feminist". It may be a useful term but early Britain historically had many warrior queens. At least she didn't spend the whole movie harping about equality, she simply took up her weapons and fought. There may be an ironic lesson in this for female soldiers but maybe we can get into that another time. The love scene with her and Arthur was unnecessary in my opinion but not as horrid as some movies and at least there was only one.
The major complaint orthodox Christians will and do have with this movie is that Arthur is a follower of the heretical monk Pelagius and orthodox Christians are not cast into fine a light. This charge has some merit. I simply choose to overlook this for two reasons. The first is that nothing Pelagius wrote has survived, except what his enemies wrote that he taught. The charges made against him are the same charges made against Arminians by Calvinists all the time. But the second and most major reason is that even if he was indeed a heretic, "King Arthur" is attempting, if not always succeeding, in being historically accurate. And at this time in British history, I imagine most Britons were Pelagian. We may not like the idea of a heretic-hero but that's probably how it was considering Pelagius was a British monk and an important figure in a pre-Roman Catholic British Church made up mostly of former druids and their followers. While there may be a subtle attack on orthodox Christianity here, I prefer to just go along and assume the movie is attempting to paint a picture of the times.
Besides this, the acting was fantastic! (Keira Knightly finally found a man who could act alongsider her and complement her and, surprise! It was neither Johnny Depp nor Orlando Bloom from that absolutely waste of a movie "Pirates of the Caribbean.") Arthur certainly came off well and the battle scenes were very well done. I always love to see a fight against the odds and to see Arthur, six knights, and Guinivere lined up against a host of several hundred Saxons stirred my blood like nothing since Aragorn's solo charge in "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King." When Lancelot taunted Guinivere that "there are a lot of lonely men over there," she calmly replied, "I won't let them rape you." The end is a little hashed with Arthur going from grieving over his fallen knights and bitter towards God to reconciled and accepting his kingly responsibility in one scene change but that's a small point. I found the movie highly enjoyable and recommend it to anyone who loves Arthurian legend and wondered about the real men behind it. (You can tell I'm one of them--look at what I called my blog.)
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Martina McBride's song "Independence Day" was originally written about domestic abuse but the chorus certainly has implications for the War on Terror.
Let freedom ring; let the white dove sing;
Let the whole world know that today is the day of reckoning;
Let the weak be strong; let the right be wrong;
Roll the stone away, let the guilty pay!
It's Independence Day!
Cliche perhaps. But still the truth. As the campaign heats up, and people continue to attack Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, the question remains: Was the war justified? Well, let's see: We removed an inhumane dictator from power. Good idea, I think. We have found weapons of mass destruction, just not stockpiles of nuclear weapons. We uncovered mass graves. We liberated millions of people. Michael Moore may try to convince us that kids attended school and played in the streets while their mothers (women!) shopped happily under Saddam until the big bad US came along. Considering Moore never even leaves the US except to hobnob with European Freedom-phobes, I doubt he's really an expert at anything but twisting the truth. For all the liberal's whining about getting allies on board, it only applies to people who hate us. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who remain by our side are particular favorites for liberals who say we should be attacking them. It would do these people good to remember the word ally and what it means: people who hate you, make fun of you and actively undermine everything you do are not allies, they are enemies. Rather than attack Pakistan because it is not a Jeffersonian democracy, why don't we lob a few bombs into Paris or Berlin?
The war in Iraq was justified, many times over. The broader war on terror is justified. America (and the world) is safer because of it. And when terrorists get done attacking us and turn to weaker prey like France and Germany (and they will--appeasers only buy a little time to prolong their destruction, remember Neville Chamberlain) America will still stand with them. We will be the first on the scene and the first to lend our aid. Would that they would do as much for us.
Let freedom ring; let the white dove sing;
Let the whole world know that today is the day of reckoning;
Let the weak be strong; let the right be wrong;
Roll the stone away, let the guilty pay!
It's Independence Day!
Cliche perhaps. But still the truth. As the campaign heats up, and people continue to attack Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, the question remains: Was the war justified? Well, let's see: We removed an inhumane dictator from power. Good idea, I think. We have found weapons of mass destruction, just not stockpiles of nuclear weapons. We uncovered mass graves. We liberated millions of people. Michael Moore may try to convince us that kids attended school and played in the streets while their mothers (women!) shopped happily under Saddam until the big bad US came along. Considering Moore never even leaves the US except to hobnob with European Freedom-phobes, I doubt he's really an expert at anything but twisting the truth. For all the liberal's whining about getting allies on board, it only applies to people who hate us. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who remain by our side are particular favorites for liberals who say we should be attacking them. It would do these people good to remember the word ally and what it means: people who hate you, make fun of you and actively undermine everything you do are not allies, they are enemies. Rather than attack Pakistan because it is not a Jeffersonian democracy, why don't we lob a few bombs into Paris or Berlin?
The war in Iraq was justified, many times over. The broader war on terror is justified. America (and the world) is safer because of it. And when terrorists get done attacking us and turn to weaker prey like France and Germany (and they will--appeasers only buy a little time to prolong their destruction, remember Neville Chamberlain) America will still stand with them. We will be the first on the scene and the first to lend our aid. Would that they would do as much for us.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Will it never end? Donald Trump today said, "I would never have done it that way," in regard to President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. He said Bush deserved to be fired. Who the heck is Donald Trump anyway? Why should we want his opinions on running a war? "I wouldn't have done it that way." Big deal. It's almost as funny as Senator Kerry announcing to a group of Hollywood stars and starlets that they "represent" the greatness of America. Oh really? Well, for the multi-million dollar ticket of Kerry-Edwards perhaps they do. But I suspect most Americans don't live like they do...the wife swapping and binge drinking and drug use isn't really as widespread as they'd like us to think.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
I find it mildly amusing that the press is dredging up horror stories from the 2000 election to cast doubt on the outcome of this one. There is some room for concern. Since Democratic candidates aren't getting any more honorable, any close states will be contested hotly. Never mind that there was far more reason last time to doubt the returns in Michigan, Illinois and Pennsylvania than in Florida. Bush probably won by a much greater majority than reported, considering the illegal votes cast for Gore in these states and then the illegal methods for recounting the Florida ballots the Gore campaign initiated. No, the press is more concerned that the fact that most states have the same voting systems will produce the same result: an election won by a Republican. Hopefully this time at least it won't go to court.
I'm not too worried about it. Our democracy worked last time despite Al Gore and his dogs in the media. Anyone remember how the media called Florida for Gore before the largely-Republican pan handle finished voting? Or how judges tried to keep polls open in largely-Democratic Saint Louis three hours longer than the rest of Missouri? Ironically enough these things have not been dealt with either. But the press isn't too worried. And why not? Maybe this time it will work.
I'm not too worried about it. Our democracy worked last time despite Al Gore and his dogs in the media. Anyone remember how the media called Florida for Gore before the largely-Republican pan handle finished voting? Or how judges tried to keep polls open in largely-Democratic Saint Louis three hours longer than the rest of Missouri? Ironically enough these things have not been dealt with either. But the press isn't too worried. And why not? Maybe this time it will work.
Monday, July 12, 2004
The Democratic dream ticket of John and John is such a joke. While the two Johns (must be porta since they're constantly traveling) appear to be having amnesia about all the nasty things they said about each other a few months ago, the American voters should not forget it. Kerry said Edwards was "still in diapers" when he served in Vietnam and that this was no time for "on the job training." Now apparently he doesn't mind. When confronted with President Bush's reaffirnmation of his trust in Dick Cheney, Edwards could only stammer, "Well, uh, the P-P-P-President is wrong on several counts...I, I am ready to be President." That was one, John (which John are you again? oh yeah. Edwards. sorry about that.) What other points was Bush wrong on? I think he only made one. Watching this ticket self-destruct is going to be a lot of fun.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Happy Independence Day! In honor of the day on which Americans celebrate our nationhood, I am including on this blog the rest of our national anthem, including the three verses we do not sing at ball games. As you read, I am sure you will see why. Verses 2 and 3 are about fighting and verse 4 is about God. Not very politically correct. Enjoy the day!
Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming.
And the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there!
Oh, say! Does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep
Where the foes' haughty host in dread silence reposes;
What is that which the breeze o'er the towering steep
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam
And in full glory reflected now shines on the stream.
'Tis the star-spangled banner; oh, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge can save the hireling and slave
From the terror of the flight and the gloom of the grave!
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
And thus be it ever when freed men shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,Blessed with victory and peace, may the Heaven-rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserved us a nation;
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just
And this be our motto: In God is our trust!And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming.
And the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there!
Oh, say! Does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep
Where the foes' haughty host in dread silence reposes;
What is that which the breeze o'er the towering steep
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam
And in full glory reflected now shines on the stream.
'Tis the star-spangled banner; oh, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge can save the hireling and slave
From the terror of the flight and the gloom of the grave!
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
And thus be it ever when freed men shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,Blessed with victory and peace, may the Heaven-rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserved us a nation;
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just
And this be our motto: In God is our trust!And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
