I'm watching the coverage of the bomb threat over in NH and I saw some cops (SWAT or bomb squad I'd imagine) in camo with hoods on. The former FBI guy on MSNBC called it a form of terrorism. I bet bank robbers, guys who run away from police, and anyone that isn't a petty criminal is going to be a terrorist.
They also showed footage of the military cops gathering around s0me sort of yellow car. Looked reinforced. Now they're showing the police moving in by using military formations.
Yeah, the militarization of the police is here.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Rudy vs. Ron Supporters
I've heard Hannity say Ron Paul supporters are mad at Rudy for smacking him down. Two problems. First, we dislike Rudy for being a flip flopper, a liar, and a big government jerk. Second, Rudy never smacked down Ron in a debate.
Mon Dieu, MSM!
My God! I never really bought into media bias that much before I supported Ron Paul. They ignore the man, and when they don't, they ridicule him. They attack him. They give him bad questions.
He mentions cutting the IRS, he's a kook. Huckster does and the people cheer and he's a winner. He wants to actually cut taxes by cutting programs, they say he's an extremist. Everyone else says they want to cut taxes while somehow maintaining the Empire and ignoring the paradox, they report it as possible. They don't press Hillary on how she's going to balance the budget while expanding the bureaucracy (I bet it involves making more money).
It's wrong that a brothel owner supports him, but it's not wrong that Rupert Murdoch supports Hillary? It's cool that an old meme and Ric Flair supports him, but they don't say Val Venis or Kane does? Oh, of course...the only people that support Ron Paul are anarchists, libertarians, white supremacists, terrorists, prostitutes, and all kind of fringe kooks.
They air Romney and Giuliani fighting like two little kids that have crushes on eachother. They air when people slap Ron down and he's not allowed to reply. They don't air when he shoots down the Neocons.
The ultimate knife in the American people's back? Hailing Mike Huckabee as the great winner of the debate! No, he didn't win. He showed himself as a tax lovin' liberal. Chris Matthews did make a good point, though. The questions he "hit out of the park" were inappropriate.
In all honesty, no one really won. Not even Ron. Yeah, I said that because he didn't get enough questions. He did a great job defending himself, though. There were clear losers.
Romney lost on the immigration lovefest at the beginning and over the CS navy jack question. Thompson lost on the government program cutting question. McCain lost with his failed attack on Dr. Paul. The audience lost because they booed the golden rule and the Sermon on the Mount. Blessed are the peacemakers (though they might have heard the Cheesemakers)
Check the results in the media. How do they choose the winner? Well, whoever happened to tell the best jokes, and to a lesser extent, whoever spoke the best.
He mentions cutting the IRS, he's a kook. Huckster does and the people cheer and he's a winner. He wants to actually cut taxes by cutting programs, they say he's an extremist. Everyone else says they want to cut taxes while somehow maintaining the Empire and ignoring the paradox, they report it as possible. They don't press Hillary on how she's going to balance the budget while expanding the bureaucracy (I bet it involves making more money).
It's wrong that a brothel owner supports him, but it's not wrong that Rupert Murdoch supports Hillary? It's cool that an old meme and Ric Flair supports him, but they don't say Val Venis or Kane does? Oh, of course...the only people that support Ron Paul are anarchists, libertarians, white supremacists, terrorists, prostitutes, and all kind of fringe kooks.
They air Romney and Giuliani fighting like two little kids that have crushes on eachother. They air when people slap Ron down and he's not allowed to reply. They don't air when he shoots down the Neocons.
The ultimate knife in the American people's back? Hailing Mike Huckabee as the great winner of the debate! No, he didn't win. He showed himself as a tax lovin' liberal. Chris Matthews did make a good point, though. The questions he "hit out of the park" were inappropriate.
In all honesty, no one really won. Not even Ron. Yeah, I said that because he didn't get enough questions. He did a great job defending himself, though. There were clear losers.
Romney lost on the immigration lovefest at the beginning and over the CS navy jack question. Thompson lost on the government program cutting question. McCain lost with his failed attack on Dr. Paul. The audience lost because they booed the golden rule and the Sermon on the Mount. Blessed are the peacemakers (though they might have heard the Cheesemakers)
Check the results in the media. How do they choose the winner? Well, whoever happened to tell the best jokes, and to a lesser extent, whoever spoke the best.
Rudy's Reading List
Happy midnight +7!
(I would have posted at midnight, but I was watching the money thing)
(I would have posted at midnight, but I was watching the money thing)
Alf!
Alf is going to be on Billo's show. Might be the most worthwhile thing he aired.
Or maybe I just really like Alf...
Or maybe I just really like Alf...
McCain Article
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j092999.html
"We Americans are a strong confident people. We know that in open competition our ideals, our ingenuity, and our courage ensure our success. Isolationism and protectionism are a fool's errand. We should build no walls in a futile attempt to keep the world at bay. Walls are for cowards, not for us."-John McCain
Looks like the strong confident McCain got shot down by a weak humble Paul. Just one problem...McCain isn't actually strong and his confidence comes from him hiding behind his military experience. Wait, make that two. Rep. Paul is humble, but certainly not weak. He looks it compared to the other baboons, sure, but he'll smack you down!
"We Americans are a strong confident people. We know that in open competition our ideals, our ingenuity, and our courage ensure our success. Isolationism and protectionism are a fool's errand. We should build no walls in a futile attempt to keep the world at bay. Walls are for cowards, not for us."-John McCain
Looks like the strong confident McCain got shot down by a weak humble Paul. Just one problem...McCain isn't actually strong and his confidence comes from him hiding behind his military experience. Wait, make that two. Rep. Paul is humble, but certainly not weak. He looks it compared to the other baboons, sure, but he'll smack you down!
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Youtube Debate
I'm pretty sure Ron Paul got less time than Fred Thompson even though he leads him in NH. I say pretty sure because I'm waiting to see the exact numbers.
Anyway, my reaction-
Rudy/Mitt lovefest continues. I swear, the front runners seem like they're running for Governor.
More importantly, John McCain is out of his mind. Isolationism caused WWII? Hitler should have been stopped before he came to power? Sorry, but if he was, he would have been a hero and not the reviled man he is. Anyhoo, better that he wasn't a hero to the Germans. I can just imagine "Iran is the new Austria-Hungary!" Speaking of, it was the Allies' (including the US) fault that Hitler came to power and WWII started. The idea of a noble America has been shattered for me mainly because of WWI. That's another post for another day, though.
The biggest heartbreaking moment for me wasn't seeing Ron Paul smeared. No, he can overcome that like he has very time. It was when he (more or less) said we shouldn't be in Iraq telling them what to do because we wouldn't like it and people booed him.
Remember, we see those we stepped on to rise to the top when we fall to the bottom.
Of course, there were lots of jokes. People like jokes and it courts voters. Such a shame that something so shallow courts them.
Finally, thanks to the massive amount of time the front runner candidates took up, there weren't many questions.
Anyway, my reaction-
Rudy/Mitt lovefest continues. I swear, the front runners seem like they're running for Governor.
More importantly, John McCain is out of his mind. Isolationism caused WWII? Hitler should have been stopped before he came to power? Sorry, but if he was, he would have been a hero and not the reviled man he is. Anyhoo, better that he wasn't a hero to the Germans. I can just imagine "Iran is the new Austria-Hungary!" Speaking of, it was the Allies' (including the US) fault that Hitler came to power and WWII started. The idea of a noble America has been shattered for me mainly because of WWI. That's another post for another day, though.
The biggest heartbreaking moment for me wasn't seeing Ron Paul smeared. No, he can overcome that like he has very time. It was when he (more or less) said we shouldn't be in Iraq telling them what to do because we wouldn't like it and people booed him.
Remember, we see those we stepped on to rise to the top when we fall to the bottom.
Of course, there were lots of jokes. People like jokes and it courts voters. Such a shame that something so shallow courts them.
Finally, thanks to the massive amount of time the front runner candidates took up, there weren't many questions.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Special Report and Ron Paul
They just reported that an owner of a brothel is putting in a donation box for Ron Paul. And they said Tucker Carlson told him about Ron Paul.
LOL HOW FUNNIE!
It's time to counter the neocons' poison with charity and explain why Ron is against prostitution but isn't going to let the Federal Government do anything.
When Ron wins, just watch Fox say Ron is a tyrant for vetoing things the government shouldn't do.
LOL HOW FUNNIE!
It's time to counter the neocons' poison with charity and explain why Ron is against prostitution but isn't going to let the Federal Government do anything.
When Ron wins, just watch Fox say Ron is a tyrant for vetoing things the government shouldn't do.
Medievals believed the Earth was flat
No, they didn't. Anti-Catholic Atheists eat this myth up like the protestants do. Hypocrites...if the complete truth and freedom from bias really matters, why wouldn't they question that the myth was written by an anti-Catholic to make us look bad?
Explain this:
The Church of San Vitale
Explain this:
The Church of San Vitale
The History Channel
It's a bit like a newspaper. Some shows are done well, some are absolutely horrid.
I saw a show on General Sherman today. It wasn't that bad, but there was an apologist. I don't care if "foraging" is a part of war. In reality, it's a glorified word for sacking. Somehow the CS was bad worse for killing Union soldiers according to one of the presenters. It still wasn't a bad show, though.
I saw a show on General Sherman today. It wasn't that bad, but there was an apologist. I don't care if "foraging" is a part of war. In reality, it's a glorified word for sacking. Somehow the CS was bad worse for killing Union soldiers according to one of the presenters. It still wasn't a bad show, though.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
His Most Eminent Beatitude Cardinal Patriarch Mar Emmanuel III Delly
The media is also mostly ignoring what the Pope said about Iraq.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2461181420071124
If more people knew what the H.H. had to say about the war, more opinions would change. Not many, but we can use even more.
May the media report more on this courageous Cardinal and all the Chaldeans.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2461181420071124
If more people knew what the H.H. had to say about the war, more opinions would change. Not many, but we can use even more.
May the media report more on this courageous Cardinal and all the Chaldeans.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Just a heads up
Fox reported on the two new American Cardinals. It's one thing to be proud that a fellow countryman is becoming a Cardinal, it's another to be nationalistic about it. Maybe they hope they'll throw their red hats aside and kiss the altar of the state! The arrogance in these hosts' voices is frightening.
The more Americans in the Vatican, the better for America...right?
And no mention of the Chaldean...oh yeah, I forgot...there's a genocide that is America's fault. Whoops!
If there weren't any Americans, would Fox mention them so much? I highly doubt it.
The more Americans in the Vatican, the better for America...right?
And no mention of the Chaldean...oh yeah, I forgot...there's a genocide that is America's fault. Whoops!
If there weren't any Americans, would Fox mention them so much? I highly doubt it.
Thanksgiving-What was I thankful for?
I'd usually say bad food because without it there would be no thanksgiving, and without thanksgiving people would have to go to work and school!
The ultimate wrestling match
The sound of horses marching with drums and fifes playing in the background
Lillian Garcia-Introducing, from the United States of America, The Freetarian, Citizen X, and Ron "The Champion of the Constitution" Paul!
Crowd cheers very loudly. Ron Paul Revolution signs wave about in the audience. The freedom living trio pose in the middle of the ring; tens of thousands of cameras flash
Battle Hymn of the Republic plays
Lillian Garcia-And coming down to the ring, from America, Woooo, Old Meme, and Mike "Taxes, War, and Weightloss" Huckabee!
Mainly nostalgic Ric Flair fans and young DBZ haired fans cheer, though there's a few pops for Huckabee. Mainly from former fatties. Ric Flair lets out a monster "wooooo" while Chuck and Mike tell jokes from his campaign commercial.
Ric-You jitterbuggin' leg tuggin' rooty tootin' 453 pound loosin' fellas know that Chuck Norris facts are, in fact, not real facts
Huckster-So?
and Freetarian comes from nowhere to tell them the true meaning of Christmas...err, the point.
Freetarian-Well, it means that everything Chuck says about you isn't true.
J.R-BAH GAWD KING WHADDAYA THINK THEY'RE TALKIN' ABOUT? KING?
Lillian Garcia-Well, Jerry had to have toe surgery. We got the Burger King King instead. He doesn't talk though.
J.R.-WELL MAYBE THEY'RE TALKIN' 'BOUT MY BARBERQUE SAUSE!
Citizen X and Chuck face off.
J.R.-Will Chuck whip him like a Govuhmint Mule?
Chuck-You know what's under my beard?
Citizen X-Do I have to call the cops on you?
Chuck-That's not funny. This is though---it's another fist
Chuck stares at him, straining to grow another fist out of his chin
J.R.-BAH GAWD HE'S GUNNA SOIL HIMSELF!
And he actually does. Citizen X punches Chuck in the face several times. He falls hard and a sea of Ron Paul signs go up.
J.R.-WHY, HE'S STOMPING A MUD HOLE IN HIM...sorta...eew
Citizen X tags out and the Freetarian comes in. As Chuck Norris rises from the mat, Freetarian chants "Ron Paul Revolution" which starts an audience chant.
Freetarian-Hellllllooooooo Freedom!
Chuck-Hello security!
As Freetarian and Chuck exchange blows, they yell quotes at eachother. Ric Flair, being the dirtiest fighter since Chuck Norris' accident, jumps in.
Ric-Let terrorists blow up my WTC, will ya?
Ric charges at the Freetarian with an iron fist. Cold iron meets the libertarian's skull with such force that the internet started making Flair jokes. Citizen X climbs up the top turnbuckle and smacks Flair with the invisible hand of libertarianism. Flair is confused and flees. Citizen X follows him throughout the arena and eventually into a Subway restaurant. Flair hides in the bathroom with a turkey sandwitch. Citizen X buys a delicious meatball sandwitch on white bread with american cheese and eats it while waiting for Flair.
The Freetarian is put on a stretcher. Ron Paul approaches to see if he's okay.
Freetarian-Ron, they may have got me, but you're the last hope for freedom. They won't get you!
Ron-Freetarian, God speed, and long live the constitution!
J.R.-King, it's a handicap match!
Burger King senses that Ron Paul is hungry and he sneaks up, a la Sneak King. He is refreshed and ready to fight. Ron pulls out a mini-constitution and smacks Chuck's leg off. It lands into the hand of a kid with aspergers. He promptly kills himself because he's so happy. Another asperger kid picks it up to sell on e-bay.
J.R.-Huckabee wants Ron Paul disqualified for using a weapon. It's not like he used my wife's cooking, God rest her soul!
Fan-Jim...isn't your wife still alive?
J.R.-BAH GAWD IF ANYONE ASKS I WAS WITH YOU ALL DAY!
Fan-Cool.
J.R.-The ref said that the constitution is not an illegal weapon!
Ron Paul hits Chuck again. This time his beard flew away. Ron pinned him
Chuck-I don't kick out, I kick up!
Obviously, Chuck couldn't grow a leg from his chest and he lost. The Ron Paul legion screamed with glee and waved their signs.
Huckabee sobbed with Flair in the bathroom of the Subway. He had a turkey sandwitch.
Later that night Subservient Chicken and Burger King had an epic brawl.
J.R.'s trial went well. "If the hat doesn't fit, you must aquit"
I think it's pretty awesome that Val Venis and Kane are endorsing Ron Paul. Pretty cool that Huckster has Ric, though. I bet J.R. is going to endorse Romney, but his barbeque sauce seems like a McCainite.
I wonder how many wrestlers are conservatives, or at least Republicans.
Lillian Garcia-Introducing, from the United States of America, The Freetarian, Citizen X, and Ron "The Champion of the Constitution" Paul!
Crowd cheers very loudly. Ron Paul Revolution signs wave about in the audience. The freedom living trio pose in the middle of the ring; tens of thousands of cameras flash
Battle Hymn of the Republic plays
Lillian Garcia-And coming down to the ring, from America, Woooo, Old Meme, and Mike "Taxes, War, and Weightloss" Huckabee!
Mainly nostalgic Ric Flair fans and young DBZ haired fans cheer, though there's a few pops for Huckabee. Mainly from former fatties. Ric Flair lets out a monster "wooooo" while Chuck and Mike tell jokes from his campaign commercial.
Ric-You jitterbuggin' leg tuggin' rooty tootin' 453 pound loosin' fellas know that Chuck Norris facts are, in fact, not real facts
Huckster-So?
and Freetarian comes from nowhere to tell them the true meaning of Christmas...err, the point.
Freetarian-Well, it means that everything Chuck says about you isn't true.
J.R-BAH GAWD KING WHADDAYA THINK THEY'RE TALKIN' ABOUT? KING?
Lillian Garcia-Well, Jerry had to have toe surgery. We got the Burger King King instead. He doesn't talk though.
J.R.-WELL MAYBE THEY'RE TALKIN' 'BOUT MY BARBERQUE SAUSE!
Citizen X and Chuck face off.
J.R.-Will Chuck whip him like a Govuhmint Mule?
Chuck-You know what's under my beard?
Citizen X-Do I have to call the cops on you?
Chuck-That's not funny. This is though---it's another fist
Chuck stares at him, straining to grow another fist out of his chin
J.R.-BAH GAWD HE'S GUNNA SOIL HIMSELF!
And he actually does. Citizen X punches Chuck in the face several times. He falls hard and a sea of Ron Paul signs go up.
J.R.-WHY, HE'S STOMPING A MUD HOLE IN HIM...sorta...eew
Citizen X tags out and the Freetarian comes in. As Chuck Norris rises from the mat, Freetarian chants "Ron Paul Revolution" which starts an audience chant.
Freetarian-Hellllllooooooo Freedom!
Chuck-Hello security!
As Freetarian and Chuck exchange blows, they yell quotes at eachother. Ric Flair, being the dirtiest fighter since Chuck Norris' accident, jumps in.
Ric-Let terrorists blow up my WTC, will ya?
Ric charges at the Freetarian with an iron fist. Cold iron meets the libertarian's skull with such force that the internet started making Flair jokes. Citizen X climbs up the top turnbuckle and smacks Flair with the invisible hand of libertarianism. Flair is confused and flees. Citizen X follows him throughout the arena and eventually into a Subway restaurant. Flair hides in the bathroom with a turkey sandwitch. Citizen X buys a delicious meatball sandwitch on white bread with american cheese and eats it while waiting for Flair.
The Freetarian is put on a stretcher. Ron Paul approaches to see if he's okay.
Freetarian-Ron, they may have got me, but you're the last hope for freedom. They won't get you!
Ron-Freetarian, God speed, and long live the constitution!
J.R.-King, it's a handicap match!
Burger King senses that Ron Paul is hungry and he sneaks up, a la Sneak King. He is refreshed and ready to fight. Ron pulls out a mini-constitution and smacks Chuck's leg off. It lands into the hand of a kid with aspergers. He promptly kills himself because he's so happy. Another asperger kid picks it up to sell on e-bay.
J.R.-Huckabee wants Ron Paul disqualified for using a weapon. It's not like he used my wife's cooking, God rest her soul!
Fan-Jim...isn't your wife still alive?
J.R.-BAH GAWD IF ANYONE ASKS I WAS WITH YOU ALL DAY!
Fan-Cool.
J.R.-The ref said that the constitution is not an illegal weapon!
Ron Paul hits Chuck again. This time his beard flew away. Ron pinned him
Chuck-I don't kick out, I kick up!
Obviously, Chuck couldn't grow a leg from his chest and he lost. The Ron Paul legion screamed with glee and waved their signs.
Huckabee sobbed with Flair in the bathroom of the Subway. He had a turkey sandwitch.
Later that night Subservient Chicken and Burger King had an epic brawl.
J.R.'s trial went well. "If the hat doesn't fit, you must aquit"
I think it's pretty awesome that Val Venis and Kane are endorsing Ron Paul. Pretty cool that Huckster has Ric, though. I bet J.R. is going to endorse Romney, but his barbeque sauce seems like a McCainite.
I wonder how many wrestlers are conservatives, or at least Republicans.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
What I learned this thanksgiving
I. Puritans weren't fundamentalists.
II. Alexander Hamilton was the first real conservative and Jefferson was the first liberal
III. Being an American is better than being a Catholic.
Now to explain-
I. On Fox, they were reporting on the Seattle schools reminding us that Indians (feather, not dot) mourn. More than when they find a sole piece of litter on the side of a highway. They also said that the site or pamphlet or whatever said that the pilgrims were fundies. Reported in a "yeah, right" tone. Anyone who says the puritans weren't fundies must be really messed up.
II. Well, I heard this yesterday and they were talking in terms of modern politics. Theres nothing liberal about paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism!
III. This came from a report on an American becoming a Cardinal. Sorry, but that's not nearly as important as the Chaldean. I'm still betting that the Church in the US is going to split away. Patriotism is more important than the faith. Heck, American Catholics treat US soldiers as martyrs. The mixing of nationalism and religion is a dangerous thing.
II. Alexander Hamilton was the first real conservative and Jefferson was the first liberal
III. Being an American is better than being a Catholic.
Now to explain-
I. On Fox, they were reporting on the Seattle schools reminding us that Indians (feather, not dot) mourn. More than when they find a sole piece of litter on the side of a highway. They also said that the site or pamphlet or whatever said that the pilgrims were fundies. Reported in a "yeah, right" tone. Anyone who says the puritans weren't fundies must be really messed up.
II. Well, I heard this yesterday and they were talking in terms of modern politics. Theres nothing liberal about paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism!
III. This came from a report on an American becoming a Cardinal. Sorry, but that's not nearly as important as the Chaldean. I'm still betting that the Church in the US is going to split away. Patriotism is more important than the faith. Heck, American Catholics treat US soldiers as martyrs. The mixing of nationalism and religion is a dangerous thing.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Neo-Nazi?
The Falange is most certainly not neo-nazi! Of course, CNN reported that today when bringing news about a clash between anarchists, republicans, and socialists.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/13/europe/EU-GEN-Spain-Right-wing-Rally.php
Right-wing rally gets go-ahead in Spain despite fears of violence
The Associated Press
Published: November 13, 2007
MADRID, Spain: A Spanish court has given the go-ahead for a far-right rally this weekend despite tensions after a fight between leftist and rightist gangs left a teenager stabbed to death, officials said Tuesday.
The demonstration will commemorate the killing of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera in 1936 by leftist forces during the Spanish Civil War.
For decades the anniversary has served as a rallying point for small numbers of people nostalgic for the authoritarian rule of former dictator Gen. Francisco Franco, who died in 1975 after 40 years of hard-line government.
Primo de Rivera founded the Falange, the political movement associated with the Franco regime.
Annual events, including the anniversaries of the deaths of Primo de Rivera and Franco deaths, have attracted sympathizers carrying Franco-era flags — and, more recently, banners bearing anti-immigration slogans.
Madrid's regional government initially banned the rally because it considered its slogan — "Assassinated by Socialists" — provocative enough to trigger violent clashes, Justice Ministry spokesman Enrique Lopez told The Associated Press.
Rally organizers withdrew the slogan and reapplied for permission, and Madrid's provincial court ruled the rally could go ahead.
"In Spain we do not criminalize political thinking, however radical. It only becomes illegal when ideology actively supports violence," Lopez said.
The rally is going ahead despite a fight Sunday between far-right and antiestablishment gangs who clashed with knives, gas dispensers and other weapons inside a subway station in Madrid. A 16-year-old boy with the leftists was stabbed in the heart, and died. Eight other people were injured in the clash.
Police said they had wanted to ban the upcoming rally to avoid a repeat of such violence.
The demonstration is to include a march to the Valley of the Fallen, a massive monument housing the tombs of Franco and Primo de Rivera 54 kilometers (34 miles) northwest of Madrid.
Sorry CNN, but the Yolk was the symbol of the Catholic Monarchs...not somehow a nazi symbol.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/13/europe/EU-GEN-Spain-Right-wing-Rally.php
Right-wing rally gets go-ahead in Spain despite fears of violence
The Associated Press
Published: November 13, 2007
MADRID, Spain: A Spanish court has given the go-ahead for a far-right rally this weekend despite tensions after a fight between leftist and rightist gangs left a teenager stabbed to death, officials said Tuesday.
The demonstration will commemorate the killing of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera in 1936 by leftist forces during the Spanish Civil War.
For decades the anniversary has served as a rallying point for small numbers of people nostalgic for the authoritarian rule of former dictator Gen. Francisco Franco, who died in 1975 after 40 years of hard-line government.
Primo de Rivera founded the Falange, the political movement associated with the Franco regime.
Annual events, including the anniversaries of the deaths of Primo de Rivera and Franco deaths, have attracted sympathizers carrying Franco-era flags — and, more recently, banners bearing anti-immigration slogans.
Madrid's regional government initially banned the rally because it considered its slogan — "Assassinated by Socialists" — provocative enough to trigger violent clashes, Justice Ministry spokesman Enrique Lopez told The Associated Press.
Rally organizers withdrew the slogan and reapplied for permission, and Madrid's provincial court ruled the rally could go ahead.
"In Spain we do not criminalize political thinking, however radical. It only becomes illegal when ideology actively supports violence," Lopez said.
The rally is going ahead despite a fight Sunday between far-right and antiestablishment gangs who clashed with knives, gas dispensers and other weapons inside a subway station in Madrid. A 16-year-old boy with the leftists was stabbed in the heart, and died. Eight other people were injured in the clash.
Police said they had wanted to ban the upcoming rally to avoid a repeat of such violence.
The demonstration is to include a march to the Valley of the Fallen, a massive monument housing the tombs of Franco and Primo de Rivera 54 kilometers (34 miles) northwest of Madrid.
Sorry CNN, but the Yolk was the symbol of the Catholic Monarchs...not somehow a nazi symbol.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
An end to the war?
Limited funding is better than the whole thing.
Neocons are yelling about the pentagon firing civilian workers to fund the war and how the troops are now in harm's way. Somehow, this is the legislative branch's fault. Yes, the congress isn't patriotic because they aren't giving the troops our money! I always thought patriotism was the love of country and not love of the military/soldiers. At any rate, someone has to grow a spine and place the blame on Bush. Something like "Hey, we're ending the war by giving a limited amount of money. He's the one putting them in harm's way by not taking them out by the time the money runs out."
Assuming patriotism is the love of the military/soldiers, congress is ending war and by keeping them in without money, the president is the unpatriotic one. Unless patriotism is re-redefined as the love of war. In that case, yes, the congress is unpatriotic.
Neocons are yelling about the pentagon firing civilian workers to fund the war and how the troops are now in harm's way. Somehow, this is the legislative branch's fault. Yes, the congress isn't patriotic because they aren't giving the troops our money! I always thought patriotism was the love of country and not love of the military/soldiers. At any rate, someone has to grow a spine and place the blame on Bush. Something like "Hey, we're ending the war by giving a limited amount of money. He's the one putting them in harm's way by not taking them out by the time the money runs out."
Assuming patriotism is the love of the military/soldiers, congress is ending war and by keeping them in without money, the president is the unpatriotic one. Unless patriotism is re-redefined as the love of war. In that case, yes, the congress is unpatriotic.
Guns in Boston
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016966.html
Good job, America! You go from the Boston Tea Party to the Boston Gun Search Party!
God Bless America!
In school shootings, I always blame the tool and not the nut!
Good job, America! You go from the Boston Tea Party to the Boston Gun Search Party!
God Bless America!
In school shootings, I always blame the tool and not the nut!
Friday, November 16, 2007
What's up with the Bishops?
Suddenly it's possible to vote for a pro-abortion candidate for grave reasons? Grave reasons like, say...Hillary vs. Rudy? The USCCB have sold out the faith yet again.
Barry Bonds!
I just have to say, I'm on his side. I don't like him but I hate the federal government. They shouldn't arrest him for up to 30 years for taking steroids. In fact, I can see the good in steroids (mainly building muscles for the elderly to be stronger), so if there's people out there willing to take it, they're pretty much (unknowingly) guinea pigs. Hey, it would stink if Barry grew two heads and a lobster claw, but now there's a good reason to keep it from the public (although I wouldn't mind a lobster claw).
How much do you want to bet that they're going to go on a witch hunt and end up giving him 30 years just to punish him for cheating. It wouldn't surprise me since the government wants to control everything.
And baseball fans...just stop. Every big time fan I know is mad at him, but too bad! It could be argued that anyone's record isn't real since the seasons were shorter back then. When the point of baseball becomes smashing the ball over the fence, cheating is bound to happen.
So, keep on fightin' Barry! You smashed the ball to smash a record...now smash the federal government!
Edit-Who cares about records? Anyone who doesn't like Barry won't recognize his, so don't take it away from him.
How much do you want to bet that they're going to go on a witch hunt and end up giving him 30 years just to punish him for cheating. It wouldn't surprise me since the government wants to control everything.
And baseball fans...just stop. Every big time fan I know is mad at him, but too bad! It could be argued that anyone's record isn't real since the seasons were shorter back then. When the point of baseball becomes smashing the ball over the fence, cheating is bound to happen.
So, keep on fightin' Barry! You smashed the ball to smash a record...now smash the federal government!
Edit-Who cares about records? Anyone who doesn't like Barry won't recognize his, so don't take it away from him.
Viva il Papa!
I done did added emphasis
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/16/do1605.xml
By Damian Thompson
Pope gets radical and woos the Anglicans
Damian Thompson
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT
16/11/2007
Two and a half years after the name "Josephum" came booming down from the balcony of St Peter's, making liberal Catholics weep with rage, Pope Benedict XVI is revealing his programme of reform. And it is breathtakingly ambitious.
The 80-year-old Pontiff is planning a purification of the Roman liturgy in which decades of trendy innovations will be swept away. This recovery of the sacred is intended to draw Catholics closer to the Orthodox and ultimately to heal the 1,000 year Great Schism. But it is also designed to attract vast numbers of conservative Anglicans, who will be offered the protection of the Holy Father if they covert en masse.
The liberal cardinals don't like the sound of it at all.
Ever since the shock of Benedict's election, they have been waiting for him to show his hand. Now that he has, the resistance has begun in earnest - and the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, is in the thick of it.
"Pope Benedict is isolated," I was told when I visited Rome last week. "So many people, even in the Vatican, oppose him, and he feels the strain immensely." Yet he is ploughing ahead. He reminds me of another conservative revolutionary, Margaret Thatcher, who waited a couple of years before taking on the Cabinet "wets" sabotaging her reforms.
Benedict's pontificate moved into a new phase on July 7, with the publication of his apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum.
With a stroke of his pen, the Pope restored the traditional Latin Mass - in effect banned for 40 years - to parity with the modern liturgy. Shortly afterwards, he replaced Archbishop Piero Marini, the papal Master of Ceremonies who turned many of John Paul II's Masses into politically correct carnivals.
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor was most displeased. Last week, he hit back with a "commentary" on Summorum Pontificum.
According to Murphy-O'Connor, the ruling leaves the power of local bishops untouched. In fact, it removes the bishops' power to block the ancient liturgy. In other words, the cardinal - who tried to stop Benedict issuing the ruling - is misrepresenting its contents.
Alas, he is not alone: dozens of bishops in Britain, Europe and America have tried the same trick.
Murphy-O'Connor's "commentary" was modelled on equally dire "guidelines" written by Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds with the apparent purpose of discouraging the faithful from exercising their new rights.
A few years ago the ploy might have worked. But news travels fast in the traditionalist blogosphere, and these tactics have been brought to the attention of papal advisers.
This month, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, a senior Vatican official close to Benedict, declared that "bishops and even cardinals" who misrepresented Summorum Pontificum were "in rebellion against the Pope".
Ranjith is tipped to become the next Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in charge of regulating worldwide liturgy. That makes sense: if Benedict is moving into a higher gear, then he needs street fighters in high office.
He may also have to reform an entire department, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which spends most of its time promoting the sort of ecumenical waffle that Benedict abhors.
This is a sensitive moment. Last month, the bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion, a network of 400,000 breakaway Anglo-Catholics based mainly in America and the Commonwealth, wrote to Rome asking for "full, corporate, sacramental union".
Their letter was drafted with the help of the Vatican. Benedict is overseeing the negotiations. Unlike John Paul II, he admires the Anglo-Catholic tradition. He is thinking of making special pastoral arrangements for Anglican converts walking away from the car wreck of the Anglican Communion.
This would mean that they could worship together, free from bullying by local bishops who dislike the newcomers' conservatism and would rather "dialogue" with Anglicans than receive them into the Church.
The liberation of the Latin liturgy, the rapprochement with Eastern Orthodoxy, the absorption of former Anglicans - all these ambitions reflect Benedict's conviction that the Catholic Church must rediscover the liturgical treasure of Christian history to perform its most important task: worshipping God.
This conviction is shared by growing numbers of young Catholics, but not by the church politicians who have dominated the hierarchies of Europe for too long.
By failing to welcome the latest papal initiatives - or even to display any interest in them, beyond the narrow question of how their power is affected - the bishops of England and Wales have confirmed Benedict's low opinion of them.
Now he should replace them. If the Catholic reformation is to start anywhere, it might as well be here.
Yep, let's give the pope a break. I just figured out why the pope didn't go fully traditional. Imagine the schism! Yeah, it could be argued that they already are, but imagine the sorrow of knowing that it could have been possible to keep a lot more people in the Church!
Plus, one objection is that the changes of Vatican II happened too fast. Reverting will take a while, and it'll seem more organic.
Let's stop being super radicals demanding immediate change...it'll come. Just give it time. May God give Benedict XVI a long and healthy life (here's to 20 more years!)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/16/do1605.xml
By Damian Thompson
Pope gets radical and woos the Anglicans
Damian Thompson
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT
16/11/2007
Two and a half years after the name "Josephum" came booming down from the balcony of St Peter's, making liberal Catholics weep with rage, Pope Benedict XVI is revealing his programme of reform. And it is breathtakingly ambitious.
The 80-year-old Pontiff is planning a purification of the Roman liturgy in which decades of trendy innovations will be swept away. This recovery of the sacred is intended to draw Catholics closer to the Orthodox and ultimately to heal the 1,000 year Great Schism. But it is also designed to attract vast numbers of conservative Anglicans, who will be offered the protection of the Holy Father if they covert en masse.
The liberal cardinals don't like the sound of it at all.
Ever since the shock of Benedict's election, they have been waiting for him to show his hand. Now that he has, the resistance has begun in earnest - and the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, is in the thick of it.
"Pope Benedict is isolated," I was told when I visited Rome last week. "So many people, even in the Vatican, oppose him, and he feels the strain immensely." Yet he is ploughing ahead. He reminds me of another conservative revolutionary, Margaret Thatcher, who waited a couple of years before taking on the Cabinet "wets" sabotaging her reforms.
Benedict's pontificate moved into a new phase on July 7, with the publication of his apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum.
With a stroke of his pen, the Pope restored the traditional Latin Mass - in effect banned for 40 years - to parity with the modern liturgy. Shortly afterwards, he replaced Archbishop Piero Marini, the papal Master of Ceremonies who turned many of John Paul II's Masses into politically correct carnivals.
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor was most displeased. Last week, he hit back with a "commentary" on Summorum Pontificum.
According to Murphy-O'Connor, the ruling leaves the power of local bishops untouched. In fact, it removes the bishops' power to block the ancient liturgy. In other words, the cardinal - who tried to stop Benedict issuing the ruling - is misrepresenting its contents.
Alas, he is not alone: dozens of bishops in Britain, Europe and America have tried the same trick.
Murphy-O'Connor's "commentary" was modelled on equally dire "guidelines" written by Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds with the apparent purpose of discouraging the faithful from exercising their new rights.
A few years ago the ploy might have worked. But news travels fast in the traditionalist blogosphere, and these tactics have been brought to the attention of papal advisers.
This month, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, a senior Vatican official close to Benedict, declared that "bishops and even cardinals" who misrepresented Summorum Pontificum were "in rebellion against the Pope".
Ranjith is tipped to become the next Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in charge of regulating worldwide liturgy. That makes sense: if Benedict is moving into a higher gear, then he needs street fighters in high office.
He may also have to reform an entire department, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which spends most of its time promoting the sort of ecumenical waffle that Benedict abhors.
This is a sensitive moment. Last month, the bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion, a network of 400,000 breakaway Anglo-Catholics based mainly in America and the Commonwealth, wrote to Rome asking for "full, corporate, sacramental union".
Their letter was drafted with the help of the Vatican. Benedict is overseeing the negotiations. Unlike John Paul II, he admires the Anglo-Catholic tradition. He is thinking of making special pastoral arrangements for Anglican converts walking away from the car wreck of the Anglican Communion.
This would mean that they could worship together, free from bullying by local bishops who dislike the newcomers' conservatism and would rather "dialogue" with Anglicans than receive them into the Church.
The liberation of the Latin liturgy, the rapprochement with Eastern Orthodoxy, the absorption of former Anglicans - all these ambitions reflect Benedict's conviction that the Catholic Church must rediscover the liturgical treasure of Christian history to perform its most important task: worshipping God.
This conviction is shared by growing numbers of young Catholics, but not by the church politicians who have dominated the hierarchies of Europe for too long.
By failing to welcome the latest papal initiatives - or even to display any interest in them, beyond the narrow question of how their power is affected - the bishops of England and Wales have confirmed Benedict's low opinion of them.
Now he should replace them. If the Catholic reformation is to start anywhere, it might as well be here.
Yep, let's give the pope a break. I just figured out why the pope didn't go fully traditional. Imagine the schism! Yeah, it could be argued that they already are, but imagine the sorrow of knowing that it could have been possible to keep a lot more people in the Church!
Plus, one objection is that the changes of Vatican II happened too fast. Reverting will take a while, and it'll seem more organic.
Let's stop being super radicals demanding immediate change...it'll come. Just give it time. May God give Benedict XVI a long and healthy life (here's to 20 more years!)
Thursday, November 15, 2007
What's the difference?
between these two scenarios:
"Hey, I heard an Iraq War vet spoke out against the war"
"Haha! So what? Most of the soldiers are for it and believe the mission!"
and
"Wow, global warming is really scary!"
"Bah! There's some scientists that don't believe in it!"
Well, one's in the affirmative and the other negative...but otherwise it's the same idea. Yet there's a lot of people who do that. Makes my head explode.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071111/FEATURES15/71109001
"Hey, I heard an Iraq War vet spoke out against the war"
"Haha! So what? Most of the soldiers are for it and believe the mission!"
and
"Wow, global warming is really scary!"
"Bah! There's some scientists that don't believe in it!"
Well, one's in the affirmative and the other negative...but otherwise it's the same idea. Yet there's a lot of people who do that. Makes my head explode.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071111/FEATURES15/71109001
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
I told you...
that the media was pimping certain candidates. Apparently, News Corp is worried that what some lady is going to say about Kerik is going to damage Giuliani.
Fair? If you're Giuliani, yes. Balanced? Only if you happen to be a Giuliani fan (or a Romney/McCain fan...there's not much of a difference). Puts a whole new meaning on "we report, you decide", eh?
So, next time Hannity talks about spamming the text message vote (which wasn't possible without another phone) or stacking the cards, I'll smile ever so giddily knowing that it's really him who's stacking the cards in Giuliani's favor.
I wouldn't worry too much about Hillary being pimped. Her patriotism is bound to be questioned by any Republican that isn't Ron Paul. Of course, it's logically fallacious. If it's a kook, fringe, far *direction*, conspiracy theory position, it shouldn't be too hard to take down.
Fair? If you're Giuliani, yes. Balanced? Only if you happen to be a Giuliani fan (or a Romney/McCain fan...there's not much of a difference). Puts a whole new meaning on "we report, you decide", eh?
So, next time Hannity talks about spamming the text message vote (which wasn't possible without another phone) or stacking the cards, I'll smile ever so giddily knowing that it's really him who's stacking the cards in Giuliani's favor.
I wouldn't worry too much about Hillary being pimped. Her patriotism is bound to be questioned by any Republican that isn't Ron Paul. Of course, it's logically fallacious. If it's a kook, fringe, far *direction*, conspiracy theory position, it shouldn't be too hard to take down.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Yet more on torture
This time I'm going to talk about the troops and real life examples.
"That's not torture", says the soldier, "I went through that!". Well, you also went into a building pumped with gas and had to take your helmet off. And, of course, people sure love to justify it by mentioning the troops! Hey, who's going to argue against them (except for some libertarians and the ever rare discontent conservative)?
Yet not everyone is a soldier. Even terrorists. A lot of them become angry because the US has to act like the world police. They join a terrorist group to fight the Americans. They get captured and are possibly tortured. Our country does this because they apparently hate our freedom. So, instead of showing them that we aren't the great Satan, we end up acting like it, and it's sickening.
Sleep deprivation, standing up for a long time, et al is always defended by the average talking head saying "Yep, I'm a mother and I can attest that it isn't torture!" A baby won't keep someone standing up for days on end or keep them up for 72+ hours. Why am I using these numbers even if the US government never said how long it happens? Well, a long time for us is 4 or more hours. The KGB made people stand for 72+ hours. You can't get information by making someone stand for a handful of hours, but days? Oh yeah, whether it's true or not.
Let's use a real world example where I'm a soldier and a man is the terrorist. I hold him in his room, I force him to stand up, I blast music for days on end, and/or I don't allow him to sleep for days or weeks.
It's justifiable for a soldier since they're good guys and they're doing it to bad guys.
Let's say I wasn't a soldier. Let's say the man wasn't a terrorist. Let's say the man stole my wife. Or better yet, killed my kids in a car accident. I did this to him and justified that he was an evil man. I could be tried for a load of charges.
All that aside, I don't believe it's possible to be fully moral and support torture. Apply the golden rule to everything. Yes, the terrorists cut our heads off, but only because they hate us for being there and because they think we're an evil country. We were told that China and North Korea are evil because they torture. Yet it's a-okay to torture if you're an American! God bless us all!
A bomb is about to go off, we should torture them...right? Well, morality says that the end doesn't justify the means. Logic says if a bomb is about to go off, torture won't be effective by the time it's supposed to go off. Can't get a person sleep deprived in 5 minutes! Better yet, they probably can't even get the person that knows anything about it in 5 minutes.
Seriously, why would they talk if it's about to go off? If water boarding is simulated drowning, they wouldn't care. Of course, if it's gradual drowning, it's torture.
I think I might have stumbled onto something!
"That's not torture", says the soldier, "I went through that!". Well, you also went into a building pumped with gas and had to take your helmet off. And, of course, people sure love to justify it by mentioning the troops! Hey, who's going to argue against them (except for some libertarians and the ever rare discontent conservative)?
Yet not everyone is a soldier. Even terrorists. A lot of them become angry because the US has to act like the world police. They join a terrorist group to fight the Americans. They get captured and are possibly tortured. Our country does this because they apparently hate our freedom. So, instead of showing them that we aren't the great Satan, we end up acting like it, and it's sickening.
Sleep deprivation, standing up for a long time, et al is always defended by the average talking head saying "Yep, I'm a mother and I can attest that it isn't torture!" A baby won't keep someone standing up for days on end or keep them up for 72+ hours. Why am I using these numbers even if the US government never said how long it happens? Well, a long time for us is 4 or more hours. The KGB made people stand for 72+ hours. You can't get information by making someone stand for a handful of hours, but days? Oh yeah, whether it's true or not.
Let's use a real world example where I'm a soldier and a man is the terrorist. I hold him in his room, I force him to stand up, I blast music for days on end, and/or I don't allow him to sleep for days or weeks.
It's justifiable for a soldier since they're good guys and they're doing it to bad guys.
Let's say I wasn't a soldier. Let's say the man wasn't a terrorist. Let's say the man stole my wife. Or better yet, killed my kids in a car accident. I did this to him and justified that he was an evil man. I could be tried for a load of charges.
All that aside, I don't believe it's possible to be fully moral and support torture. Apply the golden rule to everything. Yes, the terrorists cut our heads off, but only because they hate us for being there and because they think we're an evil country. We were told that China and North Korea are evil because they torture. Yet it's a-okay to torture if you're an American! God bless us all!
A bomb is about to go off, we should torture them...right? Well, morality says that the end doesn't justify the means. Logic says if a bomb is about to go off, torture won't be effective by the time it's supposed to go off. Can't get a person sleep deprived in 5 minutes! Better yet, they probably can't even get the person that knows anything about it in 5 minutes.
Seriously, why would they talk if it's about to go off? If water boarding is simulated drowning, they wouldn't care. Of course, if it's gradual drowning, it's torture.
I think I might have stumbled onto something!
Monday, November 12, 2007
A thought about politicians
I just remembered this-
A while ago a friend said to me who I'd rather have as a president and described 3 people which amounted to a perfect one, a bad one, and somewhat lazy one.
He was stunned when I said I would't vote for the perfect one because it was obviously Hitler, and the bad one was obviously Roosevelt. The lazyish one was Churchill.
People would vote for Hitler because he was perfect. Of course, once you know history, you wouldn't vote for the perfect one because he was perfect or electible. For all you know, he'll be the next tyrant.
Of course, 90% of Americans ask "but can X really win?" Well, yeah, if people worried less about winning and more about voting for their principles.
A while ago a friend said to me who I'd rather have as a president and described 3 people which amounted to a perfect one, a bad one, and somewhat lazy one.
He was stunned when I said I would't vote for the perfect one because it was obviously Hitler, and the bad one was obviously Roosevelt. The lazyish one was Churchill.
People would vote for Hitler because he was perfect. Of course, once you know history, you wouldn't vote for the perfect one because he was perfect or electible. For all you know, he'll be the next tyrant.
Of course, 90% of Americans ask "but can X really win?" Well, yeah, if people worried less about winning and more about voting for their principles.
Time for a Crusade!
Or is it? The answer is no of course. Too many protestants like Pat Robertson think they have the authority to call for a Crusade, which is why he endorsed Giuliani.
Of course, the Crusades were mostly defensive wars which is why War on Terror=/=Crusade. Yes, I just said the War on Terror is an offensive war, because it's true. If there's indeed a "5th column", it's not loyal to a country, but a group. Which is obviously why we invade countries or blow stuff up belonging to other governments. I bet if the Klan started raising Hell in Europe and, let's say England, bombed a nuclear power plant, we'd be pretty mad.
Same idea, basically.
Of course, the Crusades were mostly defensive wars which is why War on Terror=/=Crusade. Yes, I just said the War on Terror is an offensive war, because it's true. If there's indeed a "5th column", it's not loyal to a country, but a group. Which is obviously why we invade countries or blow stuff up belonging to other governments. I bet if the Klan started raising Hell in Europe and, let's say England, bombed a nuclear power plant, we'd be pretty mad.
Same idea, basically.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Continuing on schools....
...not only are they trying to control our children, but they're also sissying our boys.
Yeah, I believe problems could be solved with talking...at least as a temporary patchup. Not everything is going to need a good fistfight, but I've seen some pretty heated rivalries cool down after a few slaps. Yes...slaps. Sure, they didn't become friends, but they never bugged eachother again.
We need those good ol' fistfights. "You have a good punch" "Gee, you could take one alright!" So there's generally three types of people that could be broken up into political theory.
Liberals-Never use violence, even if a guy is beating up a gal.
Conservatives-Violence is sometimes justified.
Neocons-Violence solves almost everything.
The faculty advocates liberalism while most students who congregate for a fight advocate neoconservatism. Then you have the coservatives who either don't pay attention or watch from where they are...maybe getting a bit closer to see or hear what's happening.
The liberals would jump in before anything could happen. The conservatives would break it up sometime during the fight, right before someone got hurt. The neocons wouldn't be happy until someone died.
Makes sense? I sure hope so.
Yeah, I believe problems could be solved with talking...at least as a temporary patchup. Not everything is going to need a good fistfight, but I've seen some pretty heated rivalries cool down after a few slaps. Yes...slaps. Sure, they didn't become friends, but they never bugged eachother again.
We need those good ol' fistfights. "You have a good punch" "Gee, you could take one alright!" So there's generally three types of people that could be broken up into political theory.
Liberals-Never use violence, even if a guy is beating up a gal.
Conservatives-Violence is sometimes justified.
Neocons-Violence solves almost everything.
The faculty advocates liberalism while most students who congregate for a fight advocate neoconservatism. Then you have the coservatives who either don't pay attention or watch from where they are...maybe getting a bit closer to see or hear what's happening.
The liberals would jump in before anything could happen. The conservatives would break it up sometime during the fight, right before someone got hurt. The neocons wouldn't be happy until someone died.
Makes sense? I sure hope so.
Burnt out kids
How many kids suffer from burnout at school? Well, I know I was one. And boy oh boy is it a vicious cycle.
It started in 7th grade when I passed History and had to go to summer school anyway. Apparently I didn't pass by enough. Go figure! Well, I failed summer school...not because I failed the tests, but because I had to memorize the preamble to the constitution and some lines from the declaration of independence. I'm a monarchist now...how prophetic, eh?
Well, I had a month of summer instead of two. See, every year I would think "Yep, this is the year where I'm not going to miss homework!". Well, a few months later I was already burnt out from having to go to school from 8:30 until 3 and having only 15 minutes to eat and 15 minutes to play. Oh, and being forced to play basketball twice a week, a game that I absolutely stunk at. Yep, no rest for the weary. So, thanks to all that, I actually failed. Another month gone from my vacation.
"Yay, highschool! Everything is going to be different!" I thought. No...it was worse. We were told to spend at least two hours on homework. Glorious. I did pretty well until I started forgetting books because of all the homework. Then I just sorta gave up. Yep, more summer school. I had summer school for my 4 years in highschool. It was usually from 9-9:50 and 11-11:50 or something like that. It's really not fun having an hour "break". The heat really gets to you...like the time I made over 300 paper airplanes or a skittles mosaic. I'm sure if I had a cup I would have measured how much sweat dripped off of my nose.
Anyway, all this homework really screwed me up. I got bad to mediocre grades because of homework. Sometimes I got good ones. Those classes usually counted homework as 5% of the grade. Some classes actually took a point off of the quarter grade.
So, two or more hours of homework with a 45 minute "break". No wonder I was always so chipper in the morning and didn't get addicted to that drug called coffee.
Yes, it's a vicious cycle for them too. They do all their homework well. They get to bed late because people do have lives (of course, teachers are either suffering from burnout themselves and don't care about other folks or they have no lives and forgot that other people do). They wake up tired and reach for that coffee. Get to school when the coffee is wearing off and are half tired the whole day. They can't pay attention. When they get home they have to review the lesson because they couldn't pay attention. Then they get older, have a massively receding hairline, and choose to have only one kid, if any, because they're too burnt out to deal with any silliness.
So, how do we solve this? Well, let teachers stop teaching while going to school for a master's degree (Catholic High school of course). Or better yet, don't waste any time! I can't count how much time things like classwork takes up. Homework is just basically classwork that they didn't get around to, so there's nothing wrong with classwork, but the time wasted in between waiting for everyone to be finished is laughable at best. So is the time used telling people to shut up, review time, waiting for the stragglers. Time used to make people come up to the board to either show off or embarrass a kid who made a dumb mistake.
Apparently, homework is to help students understand the lesson. Why make it mandatory then? Not everyone is going to understand it, but not everyone doesn't! Of course, they'll argue "If it is optional, then no one will do it!"
Of course, but that's their own problem. Schools are nanny state indoctrination camps. Everyone is equal, everyone has to do the same work, if there's a problem we'll take care of you, and we'll run your life. It even happens at neocon schools.
Us conservatives say that it isn't the school's job to probe into our problems. If we can't take care of something, we ought to ask or parents or someone we actually trust. Yeah, schools give you false trust.
I wouldn't worry too much about what schools teach as much as they teach indirectly. A good parent would raise their child to not totally trust the school. "The schools says contraceptives are cool and I think so too!" says the 11th grader. Who do we blame? The school, and not the parents for properly bringing them up.
The bigger threat is the school replacing the parent and acting like a friend. Schools ought to be viewed as a double edged sword. On one side they're useful, on the other they can wound you.
Schools sure love the cycle of burnt out kids, but they sure love the zombies even more.
Edit-What inspired this rant? http://www.lewrockwell.com/chartier/chartier90.html
It's far better than what I wrote.
It started in 7th grade when I passed History and had to go to summer school anyway. Apparently I didn't pass by enough. Go figure! Well, I failed summer school...not because I failed the tests, but because I had to memorize the preamble to the constitution and some lines from the declaration of independence. I'm a monarchist now...how prophetic, eh?
Well, I had a month of summer instead of two. See, every year I would think "Yep, this is the year where I'm not going to miss homework!". Well, a few months later I was already burnt out from having to go to school from 8:30 until 3 and having only 15 minutes to eat and 15 minutes to play. Oh, and being forced to play basketball twice a week, a game that I absolutely stunk at. Yep, no rest for the weary. So, thanks to all that, I actually failed. Another month gone from my vacation.
"Yay, highschool! Everything is going to be different!" I thought. No...it was worse. We were told to spend at least two hours on homework. Glorious. I did pretty well until I started forgetting books because of all the homework. Then I just sorta gave up. Yep, more summer school. I had summer school for my 4 years in highschool. It was usually from 9-9:50 and 11-11:50 or something like that. It's really not fun having an hour "break". The heat really gets to you...like the time I made over 300 paper airplanes or a skittles mosaic. I'm sure if I had a cup I would have measured how much sweat dripped off of my nose.
Anyway, all this homework really screwed me up. I got bad to mediocre grades because of homework. Sometimes I got good ones. Those classes usually counted homework as 5% of the grade. Some classes actually took a point off of the quarter grade.
So, two or more hours of homework with a 45 minute "break". No wonder I was always so chipper in the morning and didn't get addicted to that drug called coffee.
Yes, it's a vicious cycle for them too. They do all their homework well. They get to bed late because people do have lives (of course, teachers are either suffering from burnout themselves and don't care about other folks or they have no lives and forgot that other people do). They wake up tired and reach for that coffee. Get to school when the coffee is wearing off and are half tired the whole day. They can't pay attention. When they get home they have to review the lesson because they couldn't pay attention. Then they get older, have a massively receding hairline, and choose to have only one kid, if any, because they're too burnt out to deal with any silliness.
So, how do we solve this? Well, let teachers stop teaching while going to school for a master's degree (Catholic High school of course). Or better yet, don't waste any time! I can't count how much time things like classwork takes up. Homework is just basically classwork that they didn't get around to, so there's nothing wrong with classwork, but the time wasted in between waiting for everyone to be finished is laughable at best. So is the time used telling people to shut up, review time, waiting for the stragglers. Time used to make people come up to the board to either show off or embarrass a kid who made a dumb mistake.
Apparently, homework is to help students understand the lesson. Why make it mandatory then? Not everyone is going to understand it, but not everyone doesn't! Of course, they'll argue "If it is optional, then no one will do it!"
Of course, but that's their own problem. Schools are nanny state indoctrination camps. Everyone is equal, everyone has to do the same work, if there's a problem we'll take care of you, and we'll run your life. It even happens at neocon schools.
Us conservatives say that it isn't the school's job to probe into our problems. If we can't take care of something, we ought to ask or parents or someone we actually trust. Yeah, schools give you false trust.
I wouldn't worry too much about what schools teach as much as they teach indirectly. A good parent would raise their child to not totally trust the school. "The schools says contraceptives are cool and I think so too!" says the 11th grader. Who do we blame? The school, and not the parents for properly bringing them up.
The bigger threat is the school replacing the parent and acting like a friend. Schools ought to be viewed as a double edged sword. On one side they're useful, on the other they can wound you.
Schools sure love the cycle of burnt out kids, but they sure love the zombies even more.
Edit-What inspired this rant? http://www.lewrockwell.com/chartier/chartier90.html
It's far better than what I wrote.
Monday, November 5, 2007
We can't have 50 laws regarding " "
Oh yes we can! Let's say it's about abortion. The US can have 50 different abortion laws. Why? Well, the United States is essentially 50 countries! The states unite to make the USA. In other words, I'm a New Yorker before I'm an American!
Besides, murder laws are left up to the states...why would it be any different?
Besides, murder laws are left up to the states...why would it be any different?
Guy Fawkes Day
Holy smokes! So many donations to the Ron Paul campaign! I'm seeing it go up $500 or more at a time! Wow! Good job, guys! I'm pretty sure the one day donation record is going to be broken, if it isn't already.
I'm going to donate $17.93 cents one of these days. Vendee reference of course!
As for Guy Fawkes Day, I might blow up a speaker or cupcake or banana something with the word parliament on the side. Maybe not though. Long live the Pope, long live Guy Fawkes!
I'm going to donate $17.93 cents one of these days. Vendee reference of course!
As for Guy Fawkes Day, I might blow up a speaker or cupcake or banana something with the word parliament on the side. Maybe not though. Long live the Pope, long live Guy Fawkes!
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Non-political Sunday post!
Half truth, I do have to mention that I'm probably going to post something long in here about the worship of the state. I also finished my anti-Rudy video, so I'm going to upload that tomorrow and post it.
Okay, with that out of the way, I get to go on about my incredibly boring life.
My terrain pieces are coming along pretty well. Unfortunately, the hill I'm making is very warped. I'll hot glue it to the board, but I hope it'll be possible by the time I get to it. I've been avoiding sculpting the rock since it's going to be a pain to do. I did paint a tree, and it looks pretty good. I also re-flocked my barrow with Green Glade. It looks absolutely amazing. I might make three more and arrange them like the barrow in Shadow of the Colossus. Of course, that means resculpting the one I have a bit, but I think it'll look even more impressive.
I'm also thinking of starting a new army. I'll probably start a second Bretonnian army, but that's a given. I was thinking Wood Elves since, ya know, they live inside Bretonnia. Then I realised they were pansies that frollicked in the forest. I might consider High Elves when the new models come out, or possibly the Papal States themed Empire army. Of course, the real possibility is just converting some Dwarves into Chaos Dwarves. Or maybe an army of goblins!
On the 40K side of things, I made some rubble out of keyboard keys and some defensive positions out of those cards that to get to add money to your phone. I also made an airbase/helipad out of a platter container. I'm going to build some space marines, paint them bronze, and glue them around it. I love making statue models. I'll probably go hunting for some mesh to texture the landing area. Anyway, the little defensive walls are going to go near the base.
I'll probably be picking up some textured paint while I'm at it. Well, I need to, otherwise it wouln't look very concrete-ish.
Gosh, there has to be more to my life than modelling. Oh, yes, mandolin. I'm going to order a blue one. I should probably get a regular colored one. Oh well!
Okay, with that out of the way, I get to go on about my incredibly boring life.
My terrain pieces are coming along pretty well. Unfortunately, the hill I'm making is very warped. I'll hot glue it to the board, but I hope it'll be possible by the time I get to it. I've been avoiding sculpting the rock since it's going to be a pain to do. I did paint a tree, and it looks pretty good. I also re-flocked my barrow with Green Glade. It looks absolutely amazing. I might make three more and arrange them like the barrow in Shadow of the Colossus. Of course, that means resculpting the one I have a bit, but I think it'll look even more impressive.
I'm also thinking of starting a new army. I'll probably start a second Bretonnian army, but that's a given. I was thinking Wood Elves since, ya know, they live inside Bretonnia. Then I realised they were pansies that frollicked in the forest. I might consider High Elves when the new models come out, or possibly the Papal States themed Empire army. Of course, the real possibility is just converting some Dwarves into Chaos Dwarves. Or maybe an army of goblins!
On the 40K side of things, I made some rubble out of keyboard keys and some defensive positions out of those cards that to get to add money to your phone. I also made an airbase/helipad out of a platter container. I'm going to build some space marines, paint them bronze, and glue them around it. I love making statue models. I'll probably go hunting for some mesh to texture the landing area. Anyway, the little defensive walls are going to go near the base.
I'll probably be picking up some textured paint while I'm at it. Well, I need to, otherwise it wouln't look very concrete-ish.
Gosh, there has to be more to my life than modelling. Oh, yes, mandolin. I'm going to order a blue one. I should probably get a regular colored one. Oh well!
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Soundbites
I love how the debates are just dynamic commercials.
I love how its encouraged to give one liners.
I love how the clip fest the next day is more important than substance.
I love how the media manipulates clips.
Remember during a Fox debate when Ron Paul explained blowback and why 19 thugs attacked us? Well, Giuliani objected, probably still thinking that they hate our freedom. Then Ron Paul replied and blew Giuliani out of the water.
The next day on the news? They cut RP's reply. Looked like Giuliani did well. Yet there was no substance. Just more emotional manipulation.
And they claim to be as fair as possible? At least play the whole soundbite. Oh, a minute is too long, because you have to report on fat people getting cancer at least 5 times or that smoking is indeed bad, right? Give me a break.
They say you better listen to the voice of reason, but the don't give ou an choice 'cuz they think that it's treason.
I love how its encouraged to give one liners.
I love how the clip fest the next day is more important than substance.
I love how the media manipulates clips.
Remember during a Fox debate when Ron Paul explained blowback and why 19 thugs attacked us? Well, Giuliani objected, probably still thinking that they hate our freedom. Then Ron Paul replied and blew Giuliani out of the water.
The next day on the news? They cut RP's reply. Looked like Giuliani did well. Yet there was no substance. Just more emotional manipulation.
And they claim to be as fair as possible? At least play the whole soundbite. Oh, a minute is too long, because you have to report on fat people getting cancer at least 5 times or that smoking is indeed bad, right? Give me a break.
They say you better listen to the voice of reason, but the don't give ou an choice 'cuz they think that it's treason.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Waterboarding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdswfKFt4wo
Not so bad, right? Well, I've heard people say that about boxing, but they're never willing to step into the ring and see just how rough it is.
Seriously, if you support waterboarding and don't see anything wrong with it, go get waterboarded and tell me what you think.
Not so bad, right? Well, I've heard people say that about boxing, but they're never willing to step into the ring and see just how rough it is.
Seriously, if you support waterboarding and don't see anything wrong with it, go get waterboarded and tell me what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)