Let's say there is a woman named Caroline Smith who wants Hillary Clinton's senate seat. She has never run for any public office and, as far as I know, even held a real job. No, I don't count being on boards of charities. Those are like political appointments.. She did write a book about the Constitution, she's good with socialite parties and is a lawyer, though not licensed. She kind of let that go for several years though I hear she's going to pay her dues this year.
My point is, that if Caroline Smith had the same qualifications that Caroline Kennedy has, Caroline Smith would have no chance of getting this seat. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I'm tired of hearing "Think of her DNA" as an excuse to vote for someone who doesn't even think enough of her state to vote in a regular election, much less represent that state by...voting.
So the same crowd who was hissing at Sarah Palin, who owned her own business for years, was a City Councilman, Mayor and then Governor of her state are giving us....Caroline Kennedy???
Oh, and I love the rumors about Chelsea Clinton who is like Caroline Kennedy but constitutionally too young for the position, even though some people don't quite care about a little thing like the Constitution.
C'mon, Democrats, show some backbone. If your principles allowed you to maul Sarah Palin, then those principles should not allow Caroline Kennedy to seriously ask the question.
There's Something Here...
I've been watching several of Penn Jillette's YouTube posts and I've got to say, I admire the man. Sure, we disagree on several issues, but there's a respect there for differing opinion and you can't help but admire that. Any politician would be wise to adopt that stance, not making their campaign about hating the other guy/party but to present the issues.
No, that's not Pollyanna thinking.
The American people aren't stupid. We know when a politician is trying to play us. If they are on our side, we agree with the negative attacks against "the other guy/party" but any attacks directed against us are automatically defended. So far from actually moving anyone, they merely cement a person's beliefs.
Let's be honest; today's politicians are about polling before they respond. Why can't a politician stand on what they believe, what they know in their heart to be the right thing to do?
FEAR.
Fear that if they do, the opponent will twist their words to mean something they don't. We need politicians who can rise above party and run on ideology. If you want my vote, be honest with me and let me decide if I want to vote for you, not your polling group or marketing director.
Don't insult me. Lead me.
No, that's not Pollyanna thinking.
The American people aren't stupid. We know when a politician is trying to play us. If they are on our side, we agree with the negative attacks against "the other guy/party" but any attacks directed against us are automatically defended. So far from actually moving anyone, they merely cement a person's beliefs.
Let's be honest; today's politicians are about polling before they respond. Why can't a politician stand on what they believe, what they know in their heart to be the right thing to do?
FEAR.
Fear that if they do, the opponent will twist their words to mean something they don't. We need politicians who can rise above party and run on ideology. If you want my vote, be honest with me and let me decide if I want to vote for you, not your polling group or marketing director.
Don't insult me. Lead me.
A Further Note
The more I think about my last post, the more I am puzzled by the Left's logic when it comes to free speech. Think about it; when you break it down, religion is just one type of philosophy, but it is the only specifically named philosophy protected by the Constitution. For that to somehow mean that it has fewer protections than any other philosophy is illogical.
A teacher in school who promotes a secular philosophy is given all kinds of protections to promote their viewpoint. Okay, that's fine; they have freedom of speech. I get that. My question is how then can they be restricted just because the philosophy in question is religious? Teachers have the same freedom of speech that the secularist enjoys as well as the specifically stated freedom of religion.
The only answer I have ever heard is that by allowing religious viewpoints, it somehow possibly demeans a minority viewpoint that is not religious; that it violates a "right not to be offended". But this answer doesn't make sense. The Pro-Choice crowd is always screaming how their viewpoint is the majority, so why don't they advocate censoring the Pro-Choice viewpoint to avoid offending someone with a Pro-Life viewpoint?
And if it is a matter of a mythical "freedom not to be offended" then how come this right is only exercised against the freedom of religion? That is, why isn't it invoked with it comes to freedom of speech, or press, or assembly?
For too long the Left has taken the good intentions of the American people and tied them with their own noose. The American people don't mind allowing divergent viewpoints; in fact, we thrive on them. But to use that as a basis to censor the majority runs specifically counter to the American way of life. More on this later; I'm not through with this topic yet.
A teacher in school who promotes a secular philosophy is given all kinds of protections to promote their viewpoint. Okay, that's fine; they have freedom of speech. I get that. My question is how then can they be restricted just because the philosophy in question is religious? Teachers have the same freedom of speech that the secularist enjoys as well as the specifically stated freedom of religion.
The only answer I have ever heard is that by allowing religious viewpoints, it somehow possibly demeans a minority viewpoint that is not religious; that it violates a "right not to be offended". But this answer doesn't make sense. The Pro-Choice crowd is always screaming how their viewpoint is the majority, so why don't they advocate censoring the Pro-Choice viewpoint to avoid offending someone with a Pro-Life viewpoint?
And if it is a matter of a mythical "freedom not to be offended" then how come this right is only exercised against the freedom of religion? That is, why isn't it invoked with it comes to freedom of speech, or press, or assembly?
For too long the Left has taken the good intentions of the American people and tied them with their own noose. The American people don't mind allowing divergent viewpoints; in fact, we thrive on them. But to use that as a basis to censor the majority runs specifically counter to the American way of life. More on this later; I'm not through with this topic yet.
Federal Funding and Speech Rights
I wonder how Planned Parenthood can officially support a political candidate while receiving tax dollars but somehow churches can't...
Election Aftermatch
This election didn't work out the way I wanted to, but there are still benefits of an Obama win. For instance, some people who have been disenfranchised from being a "full" American now say they feel like they belong for the first time. Whoopi Goldberg (who I am not a fan of except for her appearances on Star Trek) said that now she feels like she can unpack her bags and that's a good thing.
Never mind that the Democrat Party feeds black people a message of victimhood; if now they can now put themselves in step with every other American, then something good is happening.
Welcome to America.
One word of questioning hope; can you now consider yourselves full Americans, not just "African Americans"?
After the loss, I reflected on what I thought, the good and the bad. I asked myself if I really believed in "Country First" and if I meant what I said when I asked Democrats to call George Bush their President. If what you say is right, then it is right, which is why I will refer to Barack Obama as my President and I ask all Americans, including my conservative friends to do the same.
That doesn't mean I will silence myself in opposition; it just means that when I disagree with Mr. Obama I will be as respectful to him as I was when I opposed President Bush on an issue.
Hindsight is 20/20 but foresight is better.
Never mind that the Democrat Party feeds black people a message of victimhood; if now they can now put themselves in step with every other American, then something good is happening.
Welcome to America.
One word of questioning hope; can you now consider yourselves full Americans, not just "African Americans"?
After the loss, I reflected on what I thought, the good and the bad. I asked myself if I really believed in "Country First" and if I meant what I said when I asked Democrats to call George Bush their President. If what you say is right, then it is right, which is why I will refer to Barack Obama as my President and I ask all Americans, including my conservative friends to do the same.
That doesn't mean I will silence myself in opposition; it just means that when I disagree with Mr. Obama I will be as respectful to him as I was when I opposed President Bush on an issue.
Hindsight is 20/20 but foresight is better.
Liberal vs. Conservative; It's Not What You Think
The two sides of the political spectrum are not "liberal" and "conservative" but "liberal" and "libertarian". It's pretty simple once you think about it.
You have the Constitution as it was written. There are only two ways to go from the Constitution:
1) If you support giving government MORE power than it Constitutionally is delegated, you are a LIBERAL.
2) If you support giving government LESS power than it Constitutionally is delegated, you are a LIBERTARIAN.
Conservatism is, BY DEFINITION, a belief in the status quo of the Constitution. Whether a specific candidate who CLAIMS to be conservative actually IS, is the subject for another time.
The EXTREMES on those two directions are that LIBERALS turn into TOTALITARIANS and LIBERTARIANS turn into ANARCHISTS. Here's a small chart that explains it: [LINK]
BTW, these stances are possibly regardless of support of a specific claim. For instance, if abortion was literally a Constitutional Right, then the Conservative position would be a Pro-Choice one.
You have the Constitution as it was written. There are only two ways to go from the Constitution:
1) If you support giving government MORE power than it Constitutionally is delegated, you are a LIBERAL.
2) If you support giving government LESS power than it Constitutionally is delegated, you are a LIBERTARIAN.
Conservatism is, BY DEFINITION, a belief in the status quo of the Constitution. Whether a specific candidate who CLAIMS to be conservative actually IS, is the subject for another time.
The EXTREMES on those two directions are that LIBERALS turn into TOTALITARIANS and LIBERTARIANS turn into ANARCHISTS. Here's a small chart that explains it: [LINK]
![[LINK]](http://www.destroyerclub.com/images/polchart.jpg){kind=link}
BTW, these stances are possibly regardless of support of a specific claim. For instance, if abortion was literally a Constitutional Right, then the Conservative position would be a Pro-Choice one.
Welcome to America
This year's election of Barack Obama was not welcomed by me. I supported Palin/McCain (yes, I stated that correctly). But the political aftershocks of Obama's election sprout some good fruit.
I'm not a big Whoopi Goldberg fan. Politics aside, she's not really that funny, though I loved her role in Star Trek: The Next Generation. But after the election, she said, "I've always been proud to be an American, now I feel like I can unpack my bags." For a lot of Americans, the statement was kind of a shock, especially after her insulting and disingenuous question to John McCain asking if she were supposed to be worried about becoming a slave.
Though Ms. Goldberg came from humble origins, she can afford to live where she wants (which apparently is a multi-million dollar mansion, nice digs for a slave if you can get them), but some blacks truly believe this because they've been told their entire life that they are victims. I truly hope that, if nothing else, this election removes that stigma of victimhood. After all, it's pretty good if you can be elected to the most powerful office on Earth.
So, you who feel you have been disenfranchised: Welcome to America. Let's sit down and talk about the rest...
I'm not a big Whoopi Goldberg fan. Politics aside, she's not really that funny, though I loved her role in Star Trek: The Next Generation. But after the election, she said, "I've always been proud to be an American, now I feel like I can unpack my bags." For a lot of Americans, the statement was kind of a shock, especially after her insulting and disingenuous question to John McCain asking if she were supposed to be worried about becoming a slave.
Though Ms. Goldberg came from humble origins, she can afford to live where she wants (which apparently is a multi-million dollar mansion, nice digs for a slave if you can get them), but some blacks truly believe this because they've been told their entire life that they are victims. I truly hope that, if nothing else, this election removes that stigma of victimhood. After all, it's pretty good if you can be elected to the most powerful office on Earth.
So, you who feel you have been disenfranchised: Welcome to America. Let's sit down and talk about the rest...
Fun Topics to Debate: Time Travel
I enjoy a serious political debate just as much as the next person, but every once in awhile I like taking on something more akin to science fiction. Today, I will argue against the popular belief that someone couldn't go to the past and kill their grandfather; or, if they did, they would cease to exist.
I believe that if time travel were possible, that I could not only go to the past and kill my grandfather, I would still live after doing so, because time is linear.
As such, my Time Theory is simple: Past Actions > Present Actions > Future Actions
Let's look at the famous example of a man going to the past to kill his grandfather, using my theory. If someone went to the past and killed their own grandfather, the grandfather would indeed be dead, but the grandson would still exist (more on this aspect later).
Basically, the action of killing the grandfather in the past takes precedence over even the birth of the grandson in the present or future. And the grandson would not disappear. Why? Because he exists in the past and therefore his existence in the past takes precedence over the future repercussions of his actions, even his non-birth.
Even if he were to return to the future, he still would not cease to exist. After all, why would he? His presence in the past proved his existence. Therefore, his moving forward in time would not negate that fact. His moving through time, in fact, guarantees his existence during any time period that he travels to!
The only problem would be that when he traveled to the future again, no one would know him, since in that Time/Space continuum he was never born, never met his friends, never got the job he had, never married his wife, etc.
TIME TRAVEL RULE #1: If you travel to the past, make sure you have a DVD of home movies showing your wedding, stuff at work and movies of all your friends. Why? Because you would paradoxically, but quite literally be a man (from a parallel universe that no longer exists anywhere but in his memory) without mother, father or even BIRTH.
End result?
Again, my Time/Space Theory: Past Actions > Current Actions > Future Actions
"Parallel Universe" is the description of a Time/Space continuum that no longer exists outside the memory of a person or persons. Time is linear. It cannot be used in any other context. Even if you believe in "anti-time" (effect and cause instead of cause and effect) it works.
The traditional view of parallel universes states that any time a divergent action is caused other than normally what happened in the past (Joe walked on the left side of the street instead of the right), then an alternate or "parallel universe" is created. That is not correct.
"Parallel universe" is simply the description of a Time/Space continuum that no longer exists outside the memory of a person or persons. It is human vanity to believe that one person manipulating an event in the past or present can create a copy of the entire universe.
Think about it: the proposition of this theory requires you to somehow believe that if you go to the past, changing one thing would literally create (down to the molecular level) another universe, with another exact set of STARS, PLANETS, PEOPLE, etc???
As any scientist knows, such creation would require a near beyond belief expenditure of energy and there is nothing in the "Parallel Universe" theory that explains :
1) Where this energy comes from
2) How it is expended and
3) Why / how it precisely duplicates the known universe with the exception of one event (and therefore, the resultant consequences)
"Ah," one of you says, "The energy that transported you to the past is what makes the change."
That adds even MORE problems:
1) There is not enough energy in such a transfer (There is not enough energy on Earth to duplicate the entire universe)
2) The energy transference is not linked directly to changing a past event. (i.e., the energy isn't related to the fact that Johnny walked on the left side of the street instead of the right and even IF it were, how would that cause said energy to duplicate the universe?)
"Parallel Universe" therefore can only be recognized as a term used to describe the memory of how the universe used to be, no more.
That all being said, I make no claims to be a physicist and would not be insulted if a physicist were to prove me wrong. Don't forget; comments are welcome.
I believe that if time travel were possible, that I could not only go to the past and kill my grandfather, I would still live after doing so, because time is linear.
As such, my Time Theory is simple: Past Actions > Present Actions > Future Actions
Let's look at the famous example of a man going to the past to kill his grandfather, using my theory. If someone went to the past and killed their own grandfather, the grandfather would indeed be dead, but the grandson would still exist (more on this aspect later).
Basically, the action of killing the grandfather in the past takes precedence over even the birth of the grandson in the present or future. And the grandson would not disappear. Why? Because he exists in the past and therefore his existence in the past takes precedence over the future repercussions of his actions, even his non-birth.
Even if he were to return to the future, he still would not cease to exist. After all, why would he? His presence in the past proved his existence. Therefore, his moving forward in time would not negate that fact. His moving through time, in fact, guarantees his existence during any time period that he travels to!
The only problem would be that when he traveled to the future again, no one would know him, since in that Time/Space continuum he was never born, never met his friends, never got the job he had, never married his wife, etc.
TIME TRAVEL RULE #1: If you travel to the past, make sure you have a DVD of home movies showing your wedding, stuff at work and movies of all your friends. Why? Because you would paradoxically, but quite literally be a man (from a parallel universe that no longer exists anywhere but in his memory) without mother, father or even BIRTH.
End result?
Again, my Time/Space Theory: Past Actions > Current Actions > Future Actions
"Parallel Universe" is the description of a Time/Space continuum that no longer exists outside the memory of a person or persons. Time is linear. It cannot be used in any other context. Even if you believe in "anti-time" (effect and cause instead of cause and effect) it works.
The traditional view of parallel universes states that any time a divergent action is caused other than normally what happened in the past (Joe walked on the left side of the street instead of the right), then an alternate or "parallel universe" is created. That is not correct.
"Parallel universe" is simply the description of a Time/Space continuum that no longer exists outside the memory of a person or persons. It is human vanity to believe that one person manipulating an event in the past or present can create a copy of the entire universe.
Think about it: the proposition of this theory requires you to somehow believe that if you go to the past, changing one thing would literally create (down to the molecular level) another universe, with another exact set of STARS, PLANETS, PEOPLE, etc???
As any scientist knows, such creation would require a near beyond belief expenditure of energy and there is nothing in the "Parallel Universe" theory that explains :
1) Where this energy comes from
2) How it is expended and
3) Why / how it precisely duplicates the known universe with the exception of one event (and therefore, the resultant consequences)
"Ah," one of you says, "The energy that transported you to the past is what makes the change."
That adds even MORE problems:
1) There is not enough energy in such a transfer (There is not enough energy on Earth to duplicate the entire universe)
2) The energy transference is not linked directly to changing a past event. (i.e., the energy isn't related to the fact that Johnny walked on the left side of the street instead of the right and even IF it were, how would that cause said energy to duplicate the universe?)
"Parallel Universe" therefore can only be recognized as a term used to describe the memory of how the universe used to be, no more.
That all being said, I make no claims to be a physicist and would not be insulted if a physicist were to prove me wrong. Don't forget; comments are welcome.
Alan Colmes is Leaving
I just found out that Alan Colmes is leaving the #1 rated "Hannity and Colmes" and on Hannity.com they have a poll asking who should replace him. I chose Susan Estrich because she has done a good job in the past. Also, she's not rabid; she can convey her viewpoints quite well. If not her, then perhaps Juan Williams of NPR. Another person I disagree with but can do so agreeably.
Good luck, Alan! I wish you the best in your future.
Good luck, Alan! I wish you the best in your future.
Blu-Ray
I waited until the war was over to invest in high definition electronics. As a casualty of the VHS/Beta war and the Amiga/PC wars, I learned the hard way that the best format doesn't always win. So when HD finally gave up the ghost, I bought a 42" LCD screen and a Playstation 3 (a console and Blu-Ray player for the same price) and a cool Bose 3-2-1 system (worth every penny!).
So I started playing my normal DVD's in the system and compared it to the single Blu-Ray disk I owned at the time, Spider-Man 3. Wow. Okay, so my DVD's had gone the way of the dinosaur when I hadn't been watching.
The smart thing to do when building a collection is wait for crazy sales or buy them slowly. So I've been buying a Blu-Ray movie every payday and on a whim, I went to a local pawnshop that I knew had lots of movies. They have about thirty Blu-Ray movies but they're selling them 3/$20 so I bought three (I-Robot, 300 and Fifth Element).
Next paycheck I'm heading back. I can afford three a paycheck like that, but I'm not going to buy one just to buy it.
So I started playing my normal DVD's in the system and compared it to the single Blu-Ray disk I owned at the time, Spider-Man 3. Wow. Okay, so my DVD's had gone the way of the dinosaur when I hadn't been watching.
The smart thing to do when building a collection is wait for crazy sales or buy them slowly. So I've been buying a Blu-Ray movie every payday and on a whim, I went to a local pawnshop that I knew had lots of movies. They have about thirty Blu-Ray movies but they're selling them 3/$20 so I bought three (I-Robot, 300 and Fifth Element).
Next paycheck I'm heading back. I can afford three a paycheck like that, but I'm not going to buy one just to buy it.
Politics and Religion
Thanksgiving is almost here and that means that most of us will unite with friends and family over a large dinner, taking the day off to feast and have fun, being sure to stray from the dynamite topics of politics and religion.
But why?
Why do we silence the two most important subjects in our existence? Someone could possibly get angry, true but this is my point; if we only talk about these subjects with people who agree with us, then we become more excluded from discussion and more "extreme".
One of my favorite things to do is debate - not argue; arguments get you nowhere - and my favorite thing about debating is not "beating" someone; (there really is no such thing on the internet) it's the fact that I learn more about myself...what I truly believe...and why I believe it. Because people will be questioning and challenging my beliefs from viewpoints I could never conceive.
This is a good thing.
Look at my links to the right. Camille Paglia and I probably have nothing but human DNA in common, but she is my favorite blogger. She presents her case in such a professional manner that I can't help but love her columns. Again, I disagree with most of what she says, but Camille's my idol when it comes to blogs. She is my example of what blogging should be. She is my example of what political discourse should be.
So this Thursday, eat some Turkey and dressing, watch the football game (talk about serious arguments!) and see what you can politely discuss concerning your and everyone else's rights. You might be surprised at what you find out about yourself.
But why?
Why do we silence the two most important subjects in our existence? Someone could possibly get angry, true but this is my point; if we only talk about these subjects with people who agree with us, then we become more excluded from discussion and more "extreme".
One of my favorite things to do is debate - not argue; arguments get you nowhere - and my favorite thing about debating is not "beating" someone; (there really is no such thing on the internet) it's the fact that I learn more about myself...what I truly believe...and why I believe it. Because people will be questioning and challenging my beliefs from viewpoints I could never conceive.
This is a good thing.
Look at my links to the right. Camille Paglia and I probably have nothing but human DNA in common, but she is my favorite blogger. She presents her case in such a professional manner that I can't help but love her columns. Again, I disagree with most of what she says, but Camille's my idol when it comes to blogs. She is my example of what blogging should be. She is my example of what political discourse should be.
So this Thursday, eat some Turkey and dressing, watch the football game (talk about serious arguments!) and see what you can politely discuss concerning your and everyone else's rights. You might be surprised at what you find out about yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)