Saturday, May 24, 2008

Commies are funny

Commies are funny

Very rarely do I ever find a story on that causes me to crack up uncontrollably for a sustained period of time. This one however has.

the long and short is the Russian Communist Party’s (yes they still exist) outrage over the portrayal of the communists as the bad guys of new Indiana Jones movie.

The Communists claim that the movie “aims to undermine communist ideology and distort history.” I don’t think any American will lose sleep over undermining an enemy we’ve already defeated and as for distorting history… movies that have supernatural arcs that explode Nazi’s (no matter how cool that was) or ancient alien artifacts that suck commie’s into space are not really concerned with historical accuracy. It’s a fun movie and I thoroughly enjoyed seeing an American movie hero back on the big screen.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Going Away For the Weekend

I'll be on a four day backpacking trip in the Gila Wilderness starting tomorrow, so you won't hear anything from me. I just didn't want the three people who might read this to think I've disappeared again.

However, I am looking forward to getting away from political news for a few days. I can't take it anymore.

One More Reason to Despise Hillary Clinton

I fully intended to write something completely unrelated to the Democratic nomination, but then Hillary Clinton came out yesterday and said something so mind-numbingly stupid, I couldn't just pretend like she hadn't said one of the most intellectually dishonest statements I've ever heard come from a politician's mouth (that's right, I said it).

Before we get to the stupid, let's see where Clinton stood on the issue back when the DNC decided to strip Florida and Michigan of its delegates for breaking the Party's rules concerning primary dates. This is from a campaign statement from last September that still resides on Clinton's website:

We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.

However, while campaigning in Florida yesterday, Clinton compared the DNC's decision to denying women's sufferage and civil rights. Then the real jaw-dropper came when she compared it to Zimbabwe's political woes:

“We’re seeing that right now in Zimbabwe," Clinton explained. "Tragically, an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people,”

My first question is: where was all this outrage about voter disenfanchisement when she blessed off on the DNC's decision? If nothing else, these are outrageously hypocritical statements from a politician whose desperation for power has reached sickening heights. Second...I'm not even going to waste time pointing out how this is nothing like any of the instances Clinton referred to. The voters of Michigan and Florida knew going in that their votes would not count, which undoubtedly altered the results. If the voters of the states want to hold someone responsible, the fault lies with the members of their respective state Democratic parties who decided to break the rules int he first place. However, if the DNC is at any fault here, then just as much fault lies at Clinton's feet because she agreed to it at the time.

Besides, what about the poor voters in Michigan who wanted to vote for the Democrat candidates besides Clinton, but couldn't because Clinton's name was the only one on the ballot? If Clinton is such a great champion for voter rights, then when is she going to start fighting them?

And just to think, there was a time when I thought a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a good thing. Now I don't think she's even fit to serve in public office.

Cause for concern in the Obama camp

A recent interview on MSNBC and article at concerning the Obama’s search for a running mate has caused enough consternation in me I feel the need to comment.

It is most unfortunate that I cannot remember the name of the man being interviewed on MSNBC, honestly it was just kinda on in the background while I played a computer game. But here is what the unknown brilliant man said…

“Does anyone really believe that Obama’s selection of a VP candidate will definitely deliver a swing state or demographic group? Honestly does anyone really think Hilary supporters will simply jump on board with Obama if he takes her as a VP candidate?”

Let me tell you about an observation I have about VP candidates. They can only hurt you. People are not going to like you more because some one else they like is playing second fiddle to you. The historic job of the VP has been the “hatchet man,” the one who does the dirty work, says the slightly taboo thing for shock value. The best VP’s have done this. Dismantled the others camps, attacked their credibility, their backgrounds, and all the things that would be beneath the primary candidate. Failed campaigns commonly had poor VPs. I am not sure if the Obama camp has acknowledged this fact.

My concern increased because of the following article by CNN.

“A veteran Democratic activist told CNN that former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson has accepted Obama's request to begin a screening and selection process for the No. 2 spot.
Johnson performed a similar role for Democratic presidential nominees Walter Mondale in 1984 and John Kerry in 2004.”

Why exactly is Obama choosing as his lead screener a man who selected VP’s for two LOSING democratic tickets.

Previously I have privately credited the Obama camp with being extraordinarily well run… but the choice of VP screener certainly doesn’t instill confidence. John Edwards is a great guy, a good hatchet man for Kerry he was not. And while the choice of the first female VP candidate for Mondale was ground breaking, she could do nothing to dent Reagan’s armor.

Obama is a nice guy. He needs a strong VP candidate who will pull no punches to save their own political futures. He needs a hatchet man to do the dirty work. Failure to do so is another weakness the Obama camp cannot afford.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Hillary Clinton's Continued Descent Towards Insanity

You know, there was once a time when I would have happily supported Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate. Sure, she was never my first choice, but I certainly agreed with her on virtually all of her policy stances. Then she became a sore loser and started acting like a Republican. Whether it was throwing out the idea that white people won't vote for Obama (even though he has trounced Clinton in the mostly white Midwest) or threatening to obliterate Iran, she has amazed me with her growing disconnect from reality and reason.

The simple fact remains that Hillary Clinton is losing by every possible metric, delegates, superdelegates, states won, and the popular vote. However, she now claims to lead in the last one, saying Kentucky's results put her ahead in the popular vote total. There's only one small problem. It's a lie. First off, she includes Michigan and Florida, which were disqualified in the first place. Whether it was right or wrong is irrelevant. Those were the rules all the candidates agreed to adhere to going into the contest. Then there's one other fudging to Clinton's math. She doesn't include the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington because they never released vote totals (thanks to Markos for pointing this out). With those states included, Obama still leads, even with Michigan and Florida's results (via RealClearPolitics).

More than anything, this reveals Clinton's shameless hypocricy and her willingness to say anything for power. She decries the injustice of not counting Michigan and Florida while ignoring other because they use a different primary system and it's convenient to do so. It's downright disgusting. I know it shouldn't surprise me coming from a politician, but I want a leader who can face reality instead of mindlessly continuing with a lost cause. We've had more than enough of that with our current president, thank you very much.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Where I Stand on the Presidential Primaries

Since I'll probably devote a large number of keystrokes in the coming months to the presidential election, I figured I'd share my thoughts so you know where I'm coming from.

First, I've become a huge supporter of Barack Obama. Early on, I was pulling for John Edwards...until I heard Obama speak the night he lost the New Hampshire primary. The whole thing was and incredible speech, but one line in particular has stuck in my mind:

"In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope."

I'll admit, after watching the Republican Party systematically destroy our nation domestically and on the world stage while the American people battled over trivial shit like abortion and gay marriage, I felt like an outsider in an increasingly backwards nation. This country felt less and less like home. But the nation's response to the Obama campaign has been amazing. It has shown that there are vast numbers of people who desperately want to but our country back on the right path.

However, I'm still skeptical that anything can be done. Far too many Americans insist America can do no wrong, and anything is justified if we do it. And far too many Americans simply don't care or don't pay attention.

Nevertheless, as Obama has said, there is nothing wrong with hoping for a better future because it compels us to do the work necessary to realize that future. That's the attitude we need to turn this nation around. Furthermore, the fact that Obama has focused on the issues that truly matter has been incredibly refreshing. He's the first candidate who has ever inspired me to donate to a campaign, and I'm clearly not the first as Obama's online fundraising has shown. I don't know if he'll be able to overcome the ignoramuses, but I have hope, and it seems huge swaths of the American people feel the same way.

As for Hillary Clinton, I was pretty much neutral towards her, but I intended to vote for her if she won the nomination. Never again will I vote for a Republican. However, she showed an appalling sense of entitlement to the presidency and proved she was no better than Bush in the way she surrounded herself with ideologues and sycophants. I probably still would have voted for her, but I would have been torn by the decision. Luckily, the delegate math makes it impossible for her to win at this point, and the superdelegates won't go against the votes of the people.

As for John McCain, I'm sure he would be an improvement over Bush, but he strikes me as hopelessly out of touch with the general mood in the country. Besides, after the sheer criminality of the Bush Administration, I don't think I can will myself to vote for a Republican ever again. Regrettably, I cast my first vote for president for Bush in 2004. I learned firsthand the perils of not paying enough attention, and I won't ever make that mistake again.

Anyway, I just wanted to establish my position on the whole thing since I sat out blogging during the interesting part of the primaries, alas.

My Apologies...

I'd like to apologize to my readers (if they haven't departed for more reliable realms) for my extended disappearance from blogging. I was hoping to get back at it in earnest when I renamed this blog. However, I became busy with my new job and just didn't feel the desire to blog. It's not that I haven't been interested in the nation's political events for the past few months--I've kept a very close eye on the presidential primary--I just haven't felt compelled to share my thoughts.

That being said, I've settled into more of a routine now and I've been feeling the bug to get back at it. There's just too many things that I feel the need to rant about. Now, I can't guarantee I will post as regularly as I used to, but I just feel like throwing my opinions out there once again. Also, I won't guarantee it will always be discussions on religion, science, and politics, but I'm sure I won't stray too far since that's still where my interests lay.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy it.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Huckabee: Make the Constitution Adhere to the Bible

I don't know what to say about this, but I can't say I'm surprised since it's coming from a former Baptist preacher. Here's a bit from the article at The Raw Story (they even have video if you don't believe me):

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

So basically this bastard came out and said we need to turn the US into a Christian theocracy. What's worse is the nitwits who cheered him for it.

Do these people not realize that favoring no religion in government is the best way to protect all religion? More importantly, do they not realize that freedom of religion is one of this nation's most important principles and an essential component of our liberty?

I've said it before and I'm saying it again, Mike Huckabee becoming president is the worst thing that could happen to this nation. What terrifies me is the fact that this man actually has a chance even after publicly declaring that he would work to deprive us all of an essential freedom. There's so much I could say, but I think the man's words speak for themselves and no rational person should want this potential theocrat in office.

Thursday, January 3, 2008

A Word On My Absence

Hello everyone. I apologize for my absence, but I went on vacation to Cozumel (which I highly recommend, especially if you scuba dive) and then began getting moved into my new place in El Paso, so I have had little time or energy for blogging. However, I am now fairly settled in here and plan on continuing shortly.

For the three of you who actually read this blog, I appreciate your patience.