on the dnc
okay, i only caught bits and pieces of the john kerry show tonight, but i think i saw enough to ask one relevant question: when making a political speech, no matter how good, can't one cite some facts, somewhere, maybe?
i caught some really horrible speeches (some monotone governor from who knows where) to some really good speeches (i thought wes clark did an excellent job, stylistically speaking). but aside from the fact that john francois kerry served in vietnam, i did not catch a single solid fact or citation of anything kerry has done anywhere.
the speakers went on and on about how great he would be as president on domestic issues, on social issues, and especially on foreign relations issues. but there was not a single, logic based argument as to why
. can't we come up with something, somewhere? is there nothing more than assuring the people that he is both smarter and better...without any referance to a factual basis?
i've argued in south side coffee shops with people that present better arguments than this. which is what kills me, i know that these professional politicians know better; hell, any public speaking 1o1 student knows better.
is this the best they can do for him? and is that their fault, or his? i'm going with his. it's hard to use his record to present a moderate, sensible argument as to why kerry would be better at anything.
especially military affairs.
just makes me all that more anxious to see what happens at the rnc, though. if we can't beat these guys, then we don't deserve to have our president in office. fortunatly, our candidate has actually done some things that can be pointed out.
let's hope the talking heads that perform there use it.
i need a hobby
i don't think i've mentioned this yet, but i don't have tv. i have a television for the dvd player, and cable internet, but haven't bothered to put the cable into the tv. we'd never watch the thing anyway, so we haven't bothered with it. news from the web, radio and papers, watch sports at the bar...i don't get to watch the latest "american idol", but somehow i don't feel i'm missing much.
but c-span seems like it would be neat. when i was a kid, i remember flipping past that station thinking "who watches that boring crap?" now i want to watch it, and i don't have it. or so i thought. it turns out c-span does a live intarweb feed
the sad part? i'm actually really excited to have learned this. i can now watch stuff live, and find out what these politicians i'm always reading about actually look and sound like.
for example, right now dennis kucinich is on, and not only is he giving a really stupid speech, but wow, what a funny looking little man. i've always said that kucinich is the president for people who believe that they have been abducted by space aliens, but now i'm sortof starting to wonder if he isn't a space alien himself.
i feel so...empowered.
think "digital brownshirt"
via nro's the corner
, excerpted from a letter to cnn
Tattoo this on your foreheads: Democratic wives speak their minds, Republican wives don't have any."
the funny part about this is, it's almost true. swap the parties around and substitute "vice presidents" for "wives"...you're on to something.
a tale of two city papers
continuing on from my last post sunday night, i got a kick out of comparing the trib's coverage of tehrayazah's "shove it" comment to that of the post-gazette, two days after the event.
the (rightie) trib
, to whose editorial editor the remark was directed, today not only had one front-page
story about how the incident is pushing her into the spotlight, but a second front-page story
about wtae keeping the tape exclusive and not allowing it to be aired by rival networks in pittsburgh. they also had an editorial cartoon about it, the letters section was all over it and had pictures accompanying, and the "quote of the day" was the full sentance from the "unamerican" speech.
the (leftie) post-gazette
, on the other hand, did not do a story on it. they didn't do one yesterday, either. i thought that they were simply going to put their fingers in their ears and pretend the whole thing never happened, until i found it: in a front-page kerry-cheerleading piece
, they actually did report what happened. sortof. they very briefly refrence it toward the start of the piece, then finally expand at the very end, after the jump. the rest and majority of the story is the usual kerry fellating nonsense, about just how really super spiffy and brady-esqe his family and edwards's family are. the best part? the subtitle of the piece, and the title used after the jump: "wife, stepchildren softening kerry's image." they even have the stones to use a pic of her "listening to a question" from mcnickle, during a "spirited exchange", according to the caption. needless to say, there is no mention of the substance of the exchange there.
i don't think the whole thing is all that huge of a deal, just fun. i mean, it's not like she walked out of the national records office with keyword classified documents or anything. but it does make for good quality entertainment, watching 'em squirm.
i luv the trib
here in da 'burgh, we have two major newspapers. there's the post-gazette, which is the dominant paper by a longshot, and is similar to the new york times, or cnn. it's also the paper i read the most, because we get it delivered to work (i call it balance). then there's the pittsburgh tribune review, which is fairly new. it's an outgrowth of the greensburg trib (a much smaller city nearby), which expanded into the city after the pittsburgh press folded. it's our version of the new york post, or fox news. in fact, it's owned by someone that ownes a bunch of other right wing media stuff, or so i understand.
their sports reporting isn't the best, and the post-gazette has better comics, but stuff like this is why i love the trib
sadly enough, i found that link at ace's
, despite it being a hometown newspaper.
and even better, te-ray-zah's spokespeople call the trib a "right wing rag". she called some folks "unamerican", and just a few minutes later denied saying it when pressed by a reporter from the trib. and when she found out who the guy works for, she said "'Of course, understandable. You said something I didnt say. Now Shove it!".
nevermind that she did say it just a couple of minutes ago, and the reporter (i thought) was extremely reasonable; you call her to the carpet, and you can "shove it".
this video from wtae
has it all (click on "scott baker's report on the exchange"), if you have a spare couple of minutes it's a definate must-watch.
michael moore: repulsive waste of skin
i disagree politically with alot of people. friends, family, cow-workers, fellow students. and i enjoy a good arguement.
but there's some things so disgusting...i just don't understand how some people can do the things they do.
from greyhawk, via the milblogs ring:
From John McCaslin's July 12th Inside the Beltway column in the Washington Times:
The family of U.S. Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone was shocked to learn that video footage of the major's Arlington National Cemetery burial was included by Michael Moore in his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11." Maj. Stone was killed in March 2003 by a grenade that officials said was thrown into his tent by Sgt. Hasan K. Akbar, who is on trial for murder.
The movie, described by critics as political propaganda during an election year, shows video footage of the funeral and Maj. Stone's fiancee, Tammie Eslinger, kissing her hand and placing it on his coffin.
The family does not know how Mr. Moore obtained the video, and Miss Gallagher said they did not give permission and are considering legal recourse.
She described her nephew as a "totally conservative Republican" and said he would have found the film to be "putrid."
And this follow-up from July 16:
Outrage from across the country after Inside the Beltway wrote this week about the family of U.S. Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone being shocked to learn video footage of the major's Arlington National Cemetery burial was included by Michael Moore in his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11." The mother of the major labeled Mr. Moore a "maggot that eats off the dead.
If the family wishes to seek a suit against Michael Moore ... I will donate $100 toward legal fees and will solicit my friends to do the same," promises Manny Gagliardi of Arlington, Texas."
Mountain States Legal Foundation was founded in 1977 by the late Joe Coors," writes William Perry Pendley, foundation president and chief legal officer, of Lakewood, Colo. "It has litigated many cases, including many against President Clinton's abuses. Could you forward MSLF's information to the family of the Air Force officer whose burial was used without permission by Michael Moore?"
Given that Mr McCaslin has included that bit of correspondence in his follow up I'd speculate that the family might be pondering the offer.
While there may be very few "fence sitters" remaining on the issue of Michael Moore's credibility, there's still no reason not to shine a bright light of truth on the murky world Moore presents in his films.
Not to mention his actions are simply wrong.
Should you wish to contact Mr McCaslin to encourage him to continue to pursue this story he can be reached at 202/636-3284 or email@example.com.
If the Mountain States Legal Foundation does join this effort, expect to see press releases on their web site.
that, my friends, is simply disgusting. i don't even care to elaborate, anybody who isn't nauseated by that needs to figure out where they left their humanity at.
two things. first, is this all it takes
? (last item) in that case, lileks will never, ever link to me. even though his name is in my sidebar (if not a link...need to fix that). nor will glenn
, or michelle
, or the other frank
there, i should be rolling in traffic tommorow. then i'll probably go catatonic with nothing to say for two weeks, and be back to my usual traffic, which i'm much happier with anyway. i'm glad i'll never be popular, it scares the crap out of me. as long as a few people out there see this nonsense, i'm a happy camper.
secondly, and speaking of popularity, i just attempted to explain to my girlfriend what an instalanche is
. keep in mind, to her blogging is "the other thing he does when he's on his computer and i'm not around". didn't go so well. the sentance "it's a good thing for us geeks" seemed to be satisfactory, if less than explanitory, but good enough.
anywho, congrats to robert and steve the llama butchers
. like i said, you guys certainly deserve it. even when i don't understand what the hell you're talking about, this is top of the list great stuff, and a daily read in this minor empire.
yip! yip! yip!
project 21: rall almost as bad as limbaugh
on the one hand, it makes me happy that an african-american group is finally defending rice against the attitude that just because she's a republican, she's not really "black".
especially when the attack is coming from ted rall, who i'm fairly certain is also not really "black".
on the other, it sortof bugs me that the article is almost more about the limbaugh/mcnabb screwup than what a race-baiting tool rall is. it's even in the subtitle. " ...hold cartoonist to the same standard to which it holds rush limbaugh". (note that that line is laughable in and of itself) then, there's a full paragraph about limbaugh. what relevance does it have to anything in the story? none, really, just wanted to remind you. you know, in case you forgot about it. kindof like kerry with his vietnam service, you know, we just don't want you to forget.
some things need much greater attention than my little non-read homespace can give them.
the first is this blog
, that isn't read nearly as widely as it should be.
as evidinced by my finding this blog
there. i've never seen this one before, but anybody that can come up with this
video has earned it. i don't know if it will change moderate's minds, but it is worth a serous watching none the less.
hopefully, that video gets picked up by one of the big names sometime soon, or an emailing campaign should ensue
(disclaimer: the latter blogger could be rather well known, i've never heard of him before, but that dosen't really mean that much, and if he really is widely known then that much the better)
explain to me again...
why castro is still alive?
i mean, why haven't we gotten rid of this little third world dictatorship yet? i know that there are dozens of countries like this around the world, but why the hell do we suffer one in our own backyard? it's not like we have to worry about the u.s.s.r. coming to their rescue, another bay of pigs is not happening. for the most part, we have managed to keep this sort of virulent assholism out of the americas. a country from which people risk their lives daily to try to get to america. a country that oppresses it's people under a cruel regime. in the middle east and asia, we have to worry about overall regional effects. what is our excuse here? it would take little or no military effort to rescue cuba. anyone that tries to make the argument that castro has just as much a right to rule as anyone else is obviously wacky, there is no doubt anywhere that castro and his government are a throwback that need to be removed.
there is obviously at least some popular support in the country to get rid of him, and judging by what i have seen and heard it is not uncommon among people not afraid to speak their minds (no small proposition there). so why is this dinosaur still in power? he's what, four thousand years old? why do we tolerate this midevil cruelty, right outside our own border?
arg. i just don't understand.
steve says it better than i.
the link above is from a cuban american. read it again, and then explain to me why this is still happening.
still better than those books you can buy on ebay
a how-to on building a computer.
let's just say it involves a shoebox, "gubbins", and a rabbit. and i'm fairly sure it's british, which is fitting. think "monty python's guide to building a computer".
it's funny for anyone who has ever used a pc or seen inside one, but doubly funny if you've ever built one.
the governator tells it how it is
how does one satarize ahnald? the man's a walking parody of himself. i mean that in the nicest possible way, of course, but really. when he's going to walk around calling people "girly men" in that accent of his...what do you do? how do you make that more surreal?
and as for the accused girly-men... the man protests a bit too much, hmmmmm? i know, you aren't a wuss, you're sensitive...to the special interest groups. and you're caring...about who signs your campaign checks. all very proper in a modern masculine political figure...if, by which, you mean "girly man"
i'm not sure exactly what this is, i dont' have enough time to fully investigate this but i wanted to share this breaking zombie-news with you all.
it looks like romero's next film, the diamond dead, is a go, and is allready in pre-production. george's official webpage
could apparently be stillborn, it hasn't changed or developed much since it was put up months ago. but there is an official diamond dead webpage
, which looks to be pretty cool. again, i'm going to fully investigate later, but it appears you can sign up and be "behind the scenes" through the whole process, from script chunks and rewrites, to the effects being used, even to some of the production email. i'm going to be sure to sign up, it could be a bust but has the potential to be very interesting.
and of course, just the excitement that george is back at it is big over here, i've been waiting for this since i've been old enough to see the dead movies.
as the man says, stay scared!
upon further review at hompage of the dead
, it appears that "diamond dead" is a completely seperate project, but that the fourth in the "night/dawn/day" series has also been greenlighted, with a rumored budget of $15 mil (compared to what, $15 and some pocket change for the first one). the working title is "land of the dead". i'll sort all this out eventually, when i have time to really sort through that webpage, but apparently he's doing two seperate films. either way, after the remake of "dawn" was so huge, it'd be great to see what romero can do with an actual budget backing that morbidly creative brain of his.
procrastination is key
since i'm falling asleep into my english book, i'm going to try one of these meme things everyone's always going on about. this is, of course, from the llama butchers.
1. Do you prefer to be out in the sun or in the shade? shade. i actually prefer this shade of pale, thank you.
2. Regarding the walls in your house, do you prefer neutral colors or bright colors? ummmmm, i'm going to consult the empress on this one. there's neutral colors? well, i don't like bright colors, that's like yellow and pink and stuff, that would give me a headache. is black a neutral color? i just mentioned to her yesterday that we have the most monochromatic wardrobe, almost all of both our clothes are black. so i guess if we got a house it would mostly be shades of grey, which sounds pretty neutral to me.
3. When hanging pictures on your walls, do you like things symmetric or asymmetric? actually, i think i prefer asymmetric, although right now it's pretty straight line, just posters lined up on the walls.
4. How about where you'd like to live; country or city? i'm still trying to get into the city, i grew up in the country and am currently in love with the frenetic drive of the city, all the stuff people hate about the city i think is great. but i'm sure i'll tire of that eventually, then it's back out to pennsyltucky for me.
5. Your blog; Blogger, Blogdrive, Blog-City, or another one altogether? blogsplat, for better or for worse.
6. Email; Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail, or other? still on snotmail, because i haven't found anything better. can't wait for gmail to open up, i'm sick of hotmail and hopefully the folks at google will provide me with the answer to my prayers.
7. Air conditioning or just a fan when it's hot at night? a/c all the way. neither of my parents houses had a/c when i was growing up, when they got window units it was like a miracle. and on top of that, ever try to sleep in a room with 110 other people in the middle of the desert, with just fans? we were glad to get that, but a/c, again, a hallelujah moment.
8. Dinner; seafood or steak? steak, all the way. i eat steak pretty often, but almost never make seafood at home (the girlfriend won't eat, as she says, "fish or friends of fish"), and only occasionally get it when i'm out
9. Your all-time favorite music media; CD's, cassette tapes, or vinyl (or 8-tracks)? cd's, they're too convinent. i think most music sounds best on the media it was produced for (modern stuff sounds best on cd, while there's nothing like floyd on vinyl, and of course pumpkins on cassette). but convinence trumps all that anyway, most of the time.
10. When learning a new software program, do you find it easier to follow a book or an online tutorial? um usually books...every time i use a tutorial, it seems i'm either clicking madly on the "next" button while the thing tries to instruct me how to perform a double click, or else it is the opposite, and i wind up sitting down tring to puzzle it out on my own anyway. books work on my speed.
well, that was fun. for me, anyway.
a weekend unplugged
i went away to the jersey shore for a while, my girlfriend went on vacation with her family and i joined them for the last few days (actually, one night, a day, and the drive home). it was a gorgeous day, and strathmere, where her family goes, is so much nicer than the places i think of when i think "jersey shore", like seaside heights. cleaner, friendlier, it dosen't have the atmosphere of being in an overcrowded mall on a friday night, but with more water.
the other side of this is that i spent the whole last week left to my own devices. i didn't have time to do much, but it's always sortof nice to do nothing more than what you want, eat what you want and entertain yourself as you please. and it's nice to get back to the person who left after a few days as well.
for some reason, it seems every day i don't log in for a bit blogger changes their layout. these people are template butterflies, which wouldn't be so bad except every time they make a change, something else gets screwy. all i want is to have a place to rant, i don't need all the fancy bells and whistles, and i think i can handle coding a bold font in html.
but, to each his own, i suppose this works for some people, and as long as it works
, i'm happy. (see that! hand coded italics! frigging computer genius over here!)
what will the cake look like?
regular readers of this rantpage will know that i am generally conservative in my beliefs. however, i have been acussed of being a liberal a few times. one of those times was because i was arguing that completely and immediatly eliminating the welfare system would be a disaster. the other was on gay marriage.
(this is extremely lengthy, skip to the third from last paragraph if you don't care to listen to me babble)
personally, i don't really have a problem with gay marriage. alot of conservatives talk about how it will destroy the fabric of one of the basic building blocks of society, that marriage in its idealized form is essential to the continuance of our culture. i say, you're about thirty years too late.
to keep this all in perspective, i should say that i don't have a particularly high view of marriage alltogether. my parents are divorced, all (that's a literal all) of my friends' parents are divorced, most have remarried at least once, and most of the married couples i know and have grown up around aren't happy in their marriage, but stay together for stupid reasons: fear of being a failure, a feeling of not being able to do better, fear of being alone, or for their children (the absolute worst reason for continuing a bad marriage, but that's a whole seperate blog post).
i should also say that i am not really oppossed to homosexuality in general. three rules: don't preach it to my children, don't rub it in my face, don't expect my tax dollars to pay for it. after that, you can have great big massive sausage-fest orgies for all i care.
i don't understand really where the huge problem is. two people want to say they're going to spend the rest of their lives together, good for them. i hope they're happy. they want the bennies of being married, whatever tax breaks and hospital visitation rights that accords them, i don't see where their request is any less legitimate than anybody else's. sure, the plumbing isn't exactly compatable, but marriage is suppossed to be about more than just sex, right? hell, we aren't even suppossed to have sex until we get married. so if two people love each other, how is that love lessened by their sexual attractions? if a man and a woman want to marry and never, ever do the nasty, that's okay. but not for two of the same gender. and if a man and a woman want to get married and have weird crazy kinky sex beyond our wildest, horniest dreams, that's cool too. until there's two peniseees involved, then it's a problem.
another argument is that the primary function of marriage is to produce children. i say, maybe a million years ago. there are plenty of people that come from families where parents were never married, and turn out just fine if both parents are responsible adults about it, and even sometimes when they aren't. there are also plenty of people who get married and never reproduce, either because of infertility or simply because they don't want kids. so if that's all kosher, there must be another reason for getting married. perhaps, love? people don't get married just so they can have kids, and they occasionally get married because they're unexpectedly having kids. but the primary purpose of getting married is suppossed to be because you want to spend the rest of your life with the person; just as with sex not being the foremost motivation, if you are getting married just so that you can legitamately have kids you're doing it for someone else (the child) and not for yourself and your love for the other person. while wanting to have children with a certain person and seeing them as a good mother/father can be a factor in qualification for marrying a person, marriage for the sole purpose of raising children is not only usually doomed for disaster, it is not the reason you should be getting married in the first place. marriage is about a commitment to that other person; while other reasons may play a part, they are not the focus of the idea of marriage.
gay marriage is not beastiality, nor is it polygamy. the argument of "where do we stop", in my mind, has little basis in reality. we on the right have been bitching about moral equivalence from the left for years, and now it seems that we are doing it ourselves. having sex with someone of the same gender is not the same as having sex with a sheep, and one does not lead to the other. we all know that in a free country, you have to allow for legalization of some things we don't agree with, but that there is a societal maximum to how far it can go. as an example, a hardcore catholic will find paganism incorrect, perhaps even offensive. but both catholics and pagans allow each other to be wrong, so long as they don't hurt each other. saying that gay marriage leads to polygamy and beastiality is like saying that paganism automatically leads to human sacrifice, if we allow one than the next is just a step away. i don't know if this is a good example, the point is that there are allowances given, with the understanding that there is a limit. saying that allowing some will automatically lead to an extreme perversity is ridiculous, we allow a certain amount to all, with an understanding that there is a limit. moderation is key, the trick is finding that moderate point.
you know what's funny, is that this above seems to me to be the most obvious point, but for some reason i don't feel that i have argued it very well. eh, ah well.
finally, i find it interesting that the whole debate seems to be over one relatively minor point: the word "marriage". the gay lobby refuses to accept anything less than full recognized marriage; while the opposite side is generally accepting of a "civil union", consisting of most of the legal benefits of marriage but not the further implications carried by actually being married. opponents say that this is due to the social acceptance and religious connotations of the word, proponents say that anything less is discrimination. personally, i think the religous aspect of the word (as far as the government is concerned) went out the window as soon as we started issuing "marriage liscences" and letting judges marry people, but that homosexuals need to learn to accept that many people are not in agreeance with their lifestyle. if all they want (as they say) is the superficial benefits of being married, then a civil union should be satisfactory. if they are looking for increased acceptance among the general public, then they are barking up the wrong tree.
as a strictly political point, i'm against the gay marriage amendment to the constitution, the constitution is the document upon which our country is built, adding a cluttering social disagreement like this to it is wasteful and diminishes the rest of the great ideas that propel this country. i don't think it stands a chance of passing, and if it did it will be overturned as soon as we have a democrat majority (pray god we never have a democrat majority again, for seperate reasons...). and while i don't find this a lynchpin issue as some (cough andrew sullivan cough cough) do, a surprising percent of gays voted for bush in '00; so, as a political point, bush could've just as easily gotten away with "i'm against gay marriage, and i'm introducing this bill into congress blah blah blah"...i'm no political strategist, but he could've easily satisfied his (anti-gay marriage) base without so spectacularly pissing off so many people, even some republicans, with this unnessecary amendment. even just remove the sentance about legal rights; i still don't think it would have lasted long, but the reaction to it wouldn't have nearly so negative.
anywho, if you've made it this far, thanks for reading! disagreement is welcomed and encouraged, but i won't be here much for the next few days so response time will be slow. and, agree or disagree, i hope i made my point, and that you find this babbling of mine thought-provoking, even if it's not thought-changing.
mccain gets in line
this may be old, but i haven't seen it before.
it looks like the old vrwc finally came down hard on mccain, get in line or get out.
last time i checked, he was still not-denying that kerry had asked him to be vp. it's good to see that, since we have this huge conspiracy, we're finally using it. i just wish i could've been there for that conversation.
update: that link may not work, goto georgewbush.com
, it's the top vid presently
that other frank
happy birthday to imao,
the funniest illegitimate child chirac has fathered
. so far, anyway.
will they shut up now?
Seebach: Researchers surprised by liberal bias of media
see? proof. i'm tired of hearing that while some leftys admit the nyt and cnn have some leftist tendancies (if you can even get that out of them), fox news and drudge are some kind of ultra-right tool of the vast right wing conspiracy, in collusion with the christian-baptist crusaders and, of course, the joooooooos!
"Our results show a very significant liberal bias," they write. "One of our measures found that The Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist."
The authors say they expected to find that the mainstream media leaned to the left, but they were "astounded by the degree."
read the article, it's good stuff. further empirical evidence of what those of us on the right have been observing through practical experience, and trying to pound into people's think heads, for years.
hat tip to protien wisdom
, who has gotten even weirder since the drugs kicked in. (it's a good thing)
happy birthday, america!
fireworks always got to me. even when it was a kid, for some reason a bunch of colorful shit blowing up in the sky was a moment of unreserved meditation on what a great place i live in. i, like so many, take what we have here for granted, but it's nice to have a few moments of peace to just sit back, let all the criticism and negative thoughts about this imperfect nation go and just love it. it's an institiution of man, therefore not infallable, but far and beyond the closest man has ever gotten; we spend so much time arguing over the negative stuff and the flaws that it can be overwhelming. a moment to sit back and focus on the many positives and beautiful ideals and unrepentant, agressive drive for freedom can leave a powerful feeling. love, i guess, is the word for it.
anywho, enough soapboxing for me. if you're sad the fireworks are over and want more, check out this.
just click on the skyline. found it at drumwaster.