Do you like to talk about politics or current
events? The web is great, posting is okay, but sometimes don't
you want a real time response? If you do, come talk to us
on the IRC channel #news_garden. Connect to
Undernet IRC, type /join #news_garden, hit enter and
there we'll be.
If you aren't familiar with IRC (Internet Relay Chat) the
best way to get to it is to download mIRC at www.mirc.com.
(It's shareware which means you can try it until you decide
you want to buy it.)
Download mIRC and install. (It installs
in a snap.) Then fire it up while you're connected to the
internet. In the mIRC menu go to File > Options
and you'll get a dialogue box. The first heading is Connect.
There you'll find a scrolling menu with LOTS of different
IRC servers. Scroll down toward the bottom and choose one
of the Undernet servers. I find those in Scandinavia
work best. Then hit "Connect to IRC Server"
and in a minute you'll be there. Then type /join #news_garden
and all your political chat dreams will be come true! The
first time shouldn't take but about 10 minutes total. After
that less than a minute.
Come see us. We chat mostly about politics
and current events and our chatters represent all points of
We even have a pretty nice website here at
Note: Anyone who wishes to
become a columnist
or submit a column or a response
to a column
please contact Alllie.
of an Angry, Fed Up Conservative
And they told you my types don't get angry. HA!
Let's set some ground rules: I am a conservative, but not a Republican.
I defend Bush on some issues, but I will not support him or vote
for him. I will often compare Democrats to Republicans, Bush to
a Democrat, it does not imply that I am for one and not the other,
or throwing my support in either direction. Let's get that clear.
I think I reached a boiling point watching Jeopardy tonight. Who
else put on a campaign commercial but John Kerry, who had a bunch
of laughing dancing kids on display in the snow with a voiceover
about "foreign dependence on oil."
He ended it on a note of something along with "I don't think we
should have to go to war for oil." Y'know what, John Kerry? Fuck
you. Not only did you vote for the fucking thing to begin with,
you even said, very clearly, that your reasoning for voting for
the war was a because of Saddam's standing
off in the face of law and the UN. In fact, you only said the
word "oil" once, and it was in terms of Saddam setting oil rigs
on fire. So you obviously didn't think it was about oil then, even
if the WMDs didn't pan out (and they weren't even the crux of YOUR
argument). Besides, your whole argument is fundamentally flawed.
We're not any "more dependent on foriegn fuel" since Bush got
into office due to anything he's done, for starters. Second, Bush
has pushed and signed various legislation for advancement
and incentives for
alternative fuel sources, and you know that even the most conservative
estimates say it will take a significant amount of time to standardize
any sort of new fuel technology (and, by my own estimates, you figure
at least 7-10 years before you get the majority of used cars that
can't or won't be retrofitted), so what did you do when presented
a plan to reduce the need for foriegn oil? You
I'm sick of the hypocrisy. I'm sick of the bullshit I get from
the parts of the left who present a holier-than-thou attitude about
their points of view and their thoughts. Let's pick Howard Dean
apart, since he's the left wing darling of the moment.
(And if any of you are still with me, if you're going to say "But
Dean isn't left wing!", I'm curious as to why Ralph Nader says that
"Reading his position papers
sounds eerily similar to what we've been saying.")
So yes, Mister Dean. Championed as a hero, a good guy who's not
too much like a politician, he's down to earth. But, wait, the man
career politician. Hell, technically, all you folks who are
saying "Oh, Bush is too close to the establishment," you're supporting
a guy who, for the exception of the last couple years, has been
in public political office. Bush is truly further away from this
"establishment" people fear than Dean is. Bush is only rich. Class
warfare? I hope not...
But whatever. I mean, it's not really about the establishment.
I mean, look at how Bush has governed! He's too secretive...you
mean, like Dean? In the 8 December edition of Newsweek, there's
an article about how Dean has convieniently
locked away about 40% of his governor records until, lucky him,
2013. Amongst them is a Dick Cheney-esque secret energy meeting
that lead to the selling of Vermont Yankee. A sale, by the way,
that didn't help consumers
the way he said they would.
But it's okay, Dean isn't "in the pocket" of the energy industry
one bit. I mean, he surely didn't...wait...it appears he has recieved significant
contributions from energy interests, including money from a
group involved in the Vermont Yankee sale as well as an energy
executive. Executive from what company? You guessed it right: Vermont
So yeah, your left wing jewel likes gay marriage (nothing wrong
there), supports affirmative action (a polarizing issue I'm opposite
of, but not strongly), and wants to repeal Bush's tax cuts (which
I believe is a big mistake). But the left, they like to point at
the tax cuts and say "oh, they were for the rich, oh, they don't
help the middle class." Well, interestingly enough, Dean is on record
as saying he wants to repeal "all of the Bush tax cuts." Whether
you want to live in a fantasy world or not, Bush's tax cuts did
lower taxes on the middle class (by not nearly enough, but they
did). So Dean's plan is to...raise taxes on the middle class?! So
since Bush screwed the middle class out of a tax cut, the reasonable
thing is to not lube up first? Diary of a Dean-o-Phobe
goes into good detail here. Hey, it's a blog. Dean supporters LOVE
blogs. And he's a liberal, so I'm not just picking people out of
So of course, what does this leave us? I mean, most people can't
tell the 9 Democrats apart, except that they'll take "anyone but
Bush." Unless you're pretty firmly on the left or are very socially
liberal, Bush has actually been a good friend to you. A short laundry
list of Bush's not-conservative-at-all accomplishments and statements
over the course of his term thus far:
- Signed John McCain (a left-leaning centrist Republican) and
Russ Feingold's (a firm left Democrat) campaign finance reform
bill, and then applauded the US Supreme Court's upholding
on the law (more on that shortly)
- Signed a bill that expanded
medicare. Don't believe the hype: It will cost more than $400
billion, and contrary to what's disguised as popular belief, will
not force the elderly into private HMOs. At best, it's an imperfect
prescription drug benefit, at worse, half a trillion dollars down
the toilet. For what it's worth, the AARP endorsed it, and it's
a hot button issue for the left.
- Pushed for and signed more unemployment
benefits and extensions. - Recently, via executive order,
created stricter environmental
restrictions. This has been largely ignored by the media.
- Even though he allowed Congress to underfund it, signed the
No Child Left Behind act, co-penned with lefty Ted Kennedy,
which costs billions to implement.
- Homeland Security. Huge new bureaucracy, huge new budget line
item, no real use.
- $600 billion deficit? Continued amazing rises in government
The list goes on. Bush is not the right-wing wacko that some would
like to paint him. Yes, his taxation policy and his social issues
are decidedly conservative, and his foriegn policy is certainly
of the neo-conservative (which is NOT CONSERVATIVE) persuasion,
but Bush is to the Democrats as Clinton was to the Republicans.
Remember, Clinton's the same guy who also had plenty of anti-homosexual
items, for example, such as the infamous Don't Ask,
Don't Tell ban on homosexuals in the military and his signing
of the Defense
of Marriage Act. Aren't these the same things we crucify Bush
for? Want more conservative things Clinton did, you can go to Michael
Moore's "Stupid White Men." But Moore's voracious attacks on Bush
only show he's a stupid white man himself, as Bush is eerily similar
to the GOP's best friend/worst nightmare.
I'm running out of steam, but the US Supreme Court is in my sights
now, too. This last month sent me over the edge, when they upheld
the most disgusting parts of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance
Reform Act. Not only was the court dead wrong on one part of this,
a good argument can be made for another. But one step at a time:
- Someone needs to explain, in clear, consise english, how prohibiting
political issue ads 60 days before an election is not prohibiting
speech. How does that not fly in the face of the first amendment?
I simply don't get it!
- Soft money ban. Some people say it "takes the money out of
politics." One person on my LJ friends page
went as far to say only "rich idiots" could be against that ban,
believing that money equals expression. Well, y'know what, I don't
know how it doesn't. I'm certainly not rich, and whether I'm an
idiot will be up to you to decide individually, but it seems pretty
clear that one way to express support for a candidate is to give
him or her money, and one way to express opposition is to give
his or her opponent(s) money. It's fairly clear. It costs money
to speak in elections, expression is a form of speech, what's
the problem. I've said before that I have less of an issue with
the soft money ban than the issue ads, but I have issues.
So what's the tree I'm barking up? It has two trunks:
1) Demonstrate that much of the left is dead wrong about who
they support and who they're against.
2) Show that there is at least one conservative who's ripping
mad about the route this country is going.
3) That Bush doesn't equal conservative, thus conservatives aren't
actually all lock step behind Bush.
A RECAP OF
THE USSC'S 2002 TERM
The United States Supreme Court ends
another session this past week, and not without its share of
landmark cases, and many that should worry anyone who cares about
individual rights and the further erosion of the Constitution.
Now, I put on the table that I'm by no means a Constitutional Law
student, merely someone who's fascinated by law, and even had genuine
aspirations for law school at one point. I believe in a strict interpretation
of the Constitution, and I'm not afraid to admit it. This is essentially
why the Court is worrying me as of late.
Most notable on the list are the rulings from this past month are
the rulings on Michigan's
Affirmative Action policy, and the striking down of the Texas
Sodomy Laws. Many Conservatives are against both rulings, I
fully support one and not another, and it raises a simple question.
I present the 14th Amendment, which
states the following:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws."
Now, riddle me this: Why are homosexual relationships (which is
what was being appealed, although I fully understand the capability
of straight couples engaging in similar activities) worth "equal
protection of the laws," and not different races? What makes sexual
orientation that much more special? Shouldn't BOTH statutes have
been shot down under the auspices of the 14th?
The Court, in its two
regarding affirmative action, made it a stricter policy, but still
allow public colleges and universities to discriminate via race.
So, isn't the court essentially saying that affirmative action is
bad, and we must curb it, but its okay to keep it, because it increases
"diversity?" Is this backwards? Scalia's dissent was interesting,
as well as overboard, in condemning the concurring side of the court,
but was he wrong? I fel like the Court has essentially okayed state
racism, and I'm not convinced that this helps anything.
The sodomy ruling, however, was, in my opinion, a correct one for
plenty of reasons. The thing is, (and it's probably a good thing),
is that Rick
Santorum, at least in regards to the legal ramifications, was
probably correct. Santorum said back in April, causing great unnecessary
commotion, that "[i]f the Supreme Court says that you have the right
to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right
to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to
incest, you have the right to adultery, you have the right to anything."
While "anything" may be a bit of a stretch, this is probably something
that the country would be better off to achieve, so for once the
Court may have taken a step in the right direction.
This is an odd step from a court that has okayed
the mandating of library internet filters, which just flies
in the face of the privacy rights that the court so happily bestowed
on the population, and, perhaps more importantly, is just another
slap in the face of a wounded first amendment. It's an odd step
from a court that has also taken an odd stance on Cross
Burning, saying it's okay to ban that too. My first amendment
just took another blow. The ability to ban speech, especially political
and social speech that may be abhorrent to the majority, is a major,
major turning point. Granted, the First Amendment has been under
attack for a long time, but why weaken it further? It is very disappointing.
A recap of the Court's year can be found here.
So it's been a year of overall disappointment from our friends in
the Court. The smarter of us complained of activist
court rulings in 2000, yet many of the same people now are applauding/condemning
the same activism now. What we need are neutral strict constructionists
on the court. I don't care if they're conservative, liberal, green,
libertarian, mutant, cyborg, anything, as long as they can read
the Constitution and interpret it with some sort of accuracy. We
don't need two rulings in one week that seemingly go against eachother.
So what does this bring for the future? Well, in September, the
Court rules on Campaign Finance Reform, one of the more important
First Amendment issues to come in a long time. I think the Court
has proven that it's certainly not a conservative court, and that
we need to appoint more strict constructionists.
Am I confident that we'll get justice, however? Judging from the
2002 term, I'm not too sure.
DONE WITH LACK OF EVIDENCE OR CONCERN FOR ACCURACY
First off, for your referencing pleasure, read
Bush Resume Rebuttal.
It requires Adobe Acrobat, as an FYI.
When I tripped up on this earlier this afternoon, it really kinda
bugged me on a few levels. I take part in a lot of different political
chats, and you typically get your psycho right wingers, your looney
libertarians (like myself), and your equally psycho hard lefties.
You tend to discount those people who have really amazingly moronic
things to say, like "Oh, Bush coordinated the terror attacks on
11 Sept," or "Karl Rove killed Paul Wellstone," but it still promotes
a really scary attitude about political discussion and belief in
general, and this "resume," taken alone, is no different.
I'm not a Bush fan, overall. I didn't vote for him in 2000, I won't
vote for him in 2004, and while I agree with him on a number of
issues, I have a major problem with his lack of focus and tiny-sized
balls to actually get anything done. A pittance of a tax cut and
a "cut" in spending by jacking up the budget another 3% while preaching
fiscal responsibility isn't going to get you well in my book. So
why is it that when I express doubt about things like Bush
going AWOL (link discussed in resume) while with the National
Guard, or say to someone "Yeah, I like the tax cut," I become a
lock-step Bush supporter? How exactly does that work?
It's an interesting concept. Many on the left are (going overboard,
in my opinion, in) feeling nervous about having dissent pertaining
to the President to begin with, and feel ostracised when they speak
out, pointing to moronic publicized episodes like Eddie
Vedder impaling a Bush mask, or the
Chicks, as evidence of it. So why is it that they can go ahead
and essentially throw anyone who agrees with a couple Bush policies
in a huge box? It reeks of hypocrisy. But of course, would we expect
anything less? These are the same people who complained of a smear
campaign against Clinton, but instead of taking the high road with
the new guy, attempt the same thing.
So with that said, moving back to the actual resume, I guess the
question is this: Who writes this stuff? This guy has obviously
done his research, and it seems that, for the most part, these things
were readily available for fact checking, and completely vague when
they were completely out of line. I feel like this is a total waste
of time, and the sad thing is that the internet hasn't come to a
point of self-censorship yet, so people are going to sit there and
read this and say "oh my god, I never knew that about Bush," when
the truth is that it's probably false in the first place. We'd rather
focus on those things, or talk about an uncorroborated story of
Bush asking the
Brazilian President whether he had blacks in Brazil.
I'm not going to play liberal/conservative media, I think it's largely
a crock of shit, although sometimes it does go one way or another.
The problem is not whether the media is conservative or liberal,
or rather why they do nothing to dispel this nonsense, even in print
form. We have many good news sites on the internet right now, and
we'd rather let these conspiracies go away. The news lately is all
about how WMD
really factored in the war with Iraq. Never mind that they convieniently
leave out what Iraq
declared in 1998, or what Saddam was even about, or anything
like that, right? How does a famous national political observer
like Michael Moore flat-out
lie to millions of people in his book and movie (which probably
shouldn't have won an Oscar)
and get away with it, while we nitpick and assume that Bush automatically
does? Maybe I'm missing something, I don't know.
Am I saying the right gets a raw deal here? Absolutely not, some
of the odd things from the Clinton years (anyone remember how Clinton
killed Vince Foster? Classic) continue to amuse me, so I suppose
it's far from unordinary from either side. I guess it's too much
to ask to look for a bit of honesty. Come out and say "Y'know what,
no, you're a liar, and here are the facts, and we'll let the public
decide." Is it too much to ask?
Well, maybe it is. And maybe that's the problem. 11 Sept brought
about a reactionary climate on both sides, where strange bedfellows
reside. Who would have thought that the left would say that Bush
goes too far with his terror policy, when it was a leftie in Joe
Lieberman who originally came up with the idea? Who would have
thought that the Republicans would get all up in arms with an Estrada
filibuster when they did similar things to Clinton nominees. Hypocrisy,
I want honesty to come out of all this. If you have something to
say, back it up. Don't go and say "Oh, Bush invaded Iraq for oil"
without some evidence. Don't say John Edwards is in the pocket of
the trial lawyers unless you can point to something. And for god's
sake, if you're going to say something SAY IT. Unless McCain gets
into the Oval Office, no one's going to stop you from expressing
your opinion. Dissent is a good thing, as long as you're aware of
the baggage it carries, and the evidence it requires. -
Friday Night Quiz
of the Wise
Bush and the Assassination
of JFK by Paul Kangas
OF DEMOCRACY : COUNTING VOTES by Ronnie Dugger (Nov
Systems for Voting Seen as Vulnerable to Tampering by David
The New York Times (July
29, 1985) plus emphasis, links and comments
Terrorist's Achilles Heel: An Alternative Blow to Terrorism
(June 24, 2004)
2.9 meg, Oct 4, 2002)
Souces:Artist: Kumi Tanioka
Album: Final Fantasy XI Original Soundtrack (CD
Track :The Awakening
Vocals: George W. Bush
Plus Additional sounds & subliminal track
Editing by Aleister
(May 19, 2003)
Arachne & TaoUrso
TALES: Exodus in a Tin Can on Wheels
Part 2 -
Part 3 -
Tales II: The Road Warrior (November
is the American Way of Life
America is Under Siege
(Dec 3, 2002)
Ozzy Osbourne - American Idol (Nov 26, 2002)
and Ann Coulter - Comparison and Contrast (Nov 21,
Some Thoughts on American
Media (Nov 11, 2002)
Some Thoughts on Addiction (Oct 28, 2002)
What Color is the
Sky? (Oct 25, 2002)
The End is Near - And Other
Truths (Oct 7, 2002)
(Sept 15, 2002)
is not chosen, the chosen becomes virtuous
(October 14, 2003) Conspiracy
Theory This!(November 18, 2003)
Black & White (November
From Cordoba to Jerusalem
(November 25, 2003)
Free Speech and Intolerance
(January 20, 2004)
of the Old Union seen from the New Union (Febuary 2,
Lunar Cheese And Federal Pork (January
& Ethics: A case study of the Carlyle Group
2000-Highway Robbery and a Supreme Court Disgrace-
Part 2 (May
Part 3 (June 12,
Part 4 (July 8,
Is Packing The Federal Courts: What Can I Do? (June
Rantings of an Angry, Fed Up Conservative
BASHING DONE WITH LACK OF EVIDENCE OR CONCERN FOR ACCURACY
(July 1, 2003)
RECAP OF THE USSC'S 2002 TERM (July 5, 2003)
Myth of Free Trade (Febuary 3, 2004)