Finally, I have enough free time to post on my blog. However, I have some news. A View Inside the Mind, this blog, will be retired as of right now. Politics as Usual will be retired shortly afterwards. My new blog, A Nasty Sport with That Smart Guy, will become active within a week or so. It will be found at the address http://nastysport.blogspot.com/ . I will be using some of the unfinished series I started here and on PaU in NS, including On the Campaign Trail (which I will be renaming Campaign 2028), Third Rails, They Decide '08, and others.
I also have some more exciting news. I may begin podcasting in the future. However, I will only do so if:
-I get some free time
-I will have an audience
-I can get it recorded and uploaded to the Internet
So, don't expect anything before November at the earliest.
Thank you all for reading and I hope to see you on my new blog! Keep commenting!
-tsg
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Third Rails of American Politics, Pt. 1
(In case anyone noticed I didn't post last week, it was because I was gone all week. I'm also busy working on stuff for school [countdown - 20 days], so my posting hasn't been perfect. Just wait until September and I should be in the swing of things again.)
I don't know when exactly I first heard the term, but the concept of a Third Rail of American politics interests me. For those of you who don't know, the third rail in a modern train track is the one that carries all of the electricity. It is also unique in that you die when you touch it. True to the metaphor, politicians die the second they decide to touch this issue. Of course, being the brilliant genius I am, I decided to put on some rubber gloves and try them out for myself. A fair warning: Do not try this during an election!
1 - Cutting the Department of Education (or, better yet, Eliminating it entirely)
This is pretty lethal. Just about anyone who tries this ends up frying in the end. The reason - teacher's unions. More specifically, the fact that they make make an already broken system even worse. In the always brilliant words of John Stossel, "America's decision to have its public schools run by a government monopoly is stunningly stupid. Having a union-dominated monopoly run them is even stupider. [italics Stossel's]" In the minds of most normal people exists the unquestionable idea that free markets work. But not in the minds of the folks at the Department of Education and the Federal Government. That's why we put more than half a billion dollars into the ED last year. Billion! With a B! In fact, this Third Rail wasn't too controversial for a long time. As recently as 1996, Bob Dole, the GOP candidate at the time suggested the Department be "cut out." But in 2000, Bush II, the King of NeoCons, decided to expand the ED and passed No Child Left Behind, which any child can see put us far behind the rest of the world, or, at the very least, did nothing to help for a lot of money.
2 - A Non-Socialized Health Care Plan
All of the Democratic candidates (excepting Obama and Gravel, who are sensible people) must have had a few too many "prescription drugs" from Canada, because they seem to love the broken system of Single-Payer (i.e., Marxist-Leninist) Health Care Plan that makes our public school system look like it was designed by Jefferson himself (who, by the way, abolished taxes while President). Hillary and Edwards, for the first time in world history, both took one (1) single stance on an issue the first time - for a mandated national Health Care system funded by taxpayers. If one would like to see how that's turned out in Canada, try and get a life-saving procedure performed on you there and see if you live to tell the tale. Rudy Giuliani has proposed a non-Socialist plan to fix our (terrible) system. We'll see just how long it takes the liberal Land Sharks to devour him for it.
I'll continue these another time. They're vital to the survival of any potential political creature of the future. Plus, I like them, and it is my blog, isn't it?
I don't know when exactly I first heard the term, but the concept of a Third Rail of American politics interests me. For those of you who don't know, the third rail in a modern train track is the one that carries all of the electricity. It is also unique in that you die when you touch it. True to the metaphor, politicians die the second they decide to touch this issue. Of course, being the brilliant genius I am, I decided to put on some rubber gloves and try them out for myself. A fair warning: Do not try this during an election!
1 - Cutting the Department of Education (or, better yet, Eliminating it entirely)
This is pretty lethal. Just about anyone who tries this ends up frying in the end. The reason - teacher's unions. More specifically, the fact that they make make an already broken system even worse. In the always brilliant words of John Stossel, "America's decision to have its public schools run by a government monopoly is stunningly stupid. Having a union-dominated monopoly run them is even stupider. [italics Stossel's]" In the minds of most normal people exists the unquestionable idea that free markets work. But not in the minds of the folks at the Department of Education and the Federal Government. That's why we put more than half a billion dollars into the ED last year. Billion! With a B! In fact, this Third Rail wasn't too controversial for a long time. As recently as 1996, Bob Dole, the GOP candidate at the time suggested the Department be "cut out." But in 2000, Bush II, the King of NeoCons, decided to expand the ED and passed No Child Left Behind, which any child can see put us far behind the rest of the world, or, at the very least, did nothing to help for a lot of money.
2 - A Non-Socialized Health Care Plan
All of the Democratic candidates (excepting Obama and Gravel, who are sensible people) must have had a few too many "prescription drugs" from Canada, because they seem to love the broken system of Single-Payer (i.e., Marxist-Leninist) Health Care Plan that makes our public school system look like it was designed by Jefferson himself (who, by the way, abolished taxes while President). Hillary and Edwards, for the first time in world history, both took one (1) single stance on an issue the first time - for a mandated national Health Care system funded by taxpayers. If one would like to see how that's turned out in Canada, try and get a life-saving procedure performed on you there and see if you live to tell the tale. Rudy Giuliani has proposed a non-Socialist plan to fix our (terrible) system. We'll see just how long it takes the liberal Land Sharks to devour him for it.
I'll continue these another time. They're vital to the survival of any potential political creature of the future. Plus, I like them, and it is my blog, isn't it?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
No, the OTHER Other Conservatism!
Well, my friends, I've made a discovery: no one has any idea what "liberal" and "conservative" mean any more. Then again, I can't really blame them on liberalism: no one could possibly know what that means because it doesn't really mean anything at all. Allow me to clarify with a short description from a paper I wrote for no particular reason (which I may include in some later post or publication):
"One of the most difficult political ideologies to capture accurately is American liberalism. While most Americans simply call it liberalism, the word “liberal” was originally used to describe libertarianism (hence the term “classic liberalism”), neoliberalism is used to describe paleoconservative, free-market economic policies (called Thatcherism in the UK), and the Liberal Party of Australia is a neoconservative group in the mode of the modern Republican Party. Therefore, I choose to use another term often rejected by conservatives as a euphemism, but which I believe is the best way to sum up the beliefs of the Democratic Party base. That term is progressivism."
Needless to say, there is quite a problem getting exactly what "liberal" is, and modern American left-wingers aren't helping. In the much-hyped YouTube debates, Hillary Clinton shunned the liberal label in favor of the new phrase, "Modern American Progressive." However, Nancy Pelosi, who fits quite comfortably into the neoprogressive label, chooses to continue to use liberal. That helps ensure that this War of the Words will continue for a long time on the left. But what about the Right?
That question is a bit easier to answer. There is a relatively clear divide between the neoconservatives and the the paleoconservatives. It boils down to this: Isolationism vs. Interventionalism, Spending, and Amnesty. The neocons like spending more, granting amnesty, and intervening everywhere, while the paleos don't. This simple divide places me cleanly in the paleo side, along with many conservatives in the Boomerang Generation, Generation Y, and my own iGeneration.
However, there is a problem, one that places me outside of mainstream Gen X paleo/neoconservatism. I'm a libertarian. I want to shrink government to a managable size. I want to legalize marijuana. I like the motives behind Iraq, but wouldn't have wanted to go there to begin with. I like Ron Paul (although, I must say, I like Rudy more). However, I'm not quite the loyal libertarian, either. I support the death penalty. I'm pro-life. I think Reagan was a better president than Jefferson (but not by much). Amazingly, I've found that most young conservatives agree with me on these points. Therefore, we have a legitimate faction here. So where's our name.
I've been toying with a few options. The first is the most obvious: neopaleoconservatism. However, it doesn't quite roll off the tongue, and it's a bit long. I've also thought about using neolibertarianism, but that's also long. Paleoliberalism seems to be a good name, but the association with FDR/LBJ liberals will be strong. Right now, my favorite is one I came up with not too long ago: neofederalism. It seems to me to be the best option for the name of the best option for the future of America.
"One of the most difficult political ideologies to capture accurately is American liberalism. While most Americans simply call it liberalism, the word “liberal” was originally used to describe libertarianism (hence the term “classic liberalism”), neoliberalism is used to describe paleoconservative, free-market economic policies (called Thatcherism in the UK), and the Liberal Party of Australia is a neoconservative group in the mode of the modern Republican Party. Therefore, I choose to use another term often rejected by conservatives as a euphemism, but which I believe is the best way to sum up the beliefs of the Democratic Party base. That term is progressivism."
Needless to say, there is quite a problem getting exactly what "liberal" is, and modern American left-wingers aren't helping. In the much-hyped YouTube debates, Hillary Clinton shunned the liberal label in favor of the new phrase, "Modern American Progressive." However, Nancy Pelosi, who fits quite comfortably into the neoprogressive label, chooses to continue to use liberal. That helps ensure that this War of the Words will continue for a long time on the left. But what about the Right?
That question is a bit easier to answer. There is a relatively clear divide between the neoconservatives and the the paleoconservatives. It boils down to this: Isolationism vs. Interventionalism, Spending, and Amnesty. The neocons like spending more, granting amnesty, and intervening everywhere, while the paleos don't. This simple divide places me cleanly in the paleo side, along with many conservatives in the Boomerang Generation, Generation Y, and my own iGeneration.
However, there is a problem, one that places me outside of mainstream Gen X paleo/neoconservatism. I'm a libertarian. I want to shrink government to a managable size. I want to legalize marijuana. I like the motives behind Iraq, but wouldn't have wanted to go there to begin with. I like Ron Paul (although, I must say, I like Rudy more). However, I'm not quite the loyal libertarian, either. I support the death penalty. I'm pro-life. I think Reagan was a better president than Jefferson (but not by much). Amazingly, I've found that most young conservatives agree with me on these points. Therefore, we have a legitimate faction here. So where's our name.
I've been toying with a few options. The first is the most obvious: neopaleoconservatism. However, it doesn't quite roll off the tongue, and it's a bit long. I've also thought about using neolibertarianism, but that's also long. Paleoliberalism seems to be a good name, but the association with FDR/LBJ liberals will be strong. Right now, my favorite is one I came up with not too long ago: neofederalism. It seems to me to be the best option for the name of the best option for the future of America.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The Indie Factor: Republicratic Meltdown in 2008
(I know this is better suited for PaU, but I just couldn't resist putting it here. Enjoy.)
The 2008 Presidential Election is almost, kinda, sorta here-ish, and people are starting to wonder about the configuration of the final race, after the primaries are over. Will it be Clinton vs. Giuliani? How about Obama vs. McCain? Obama vs. Thompson? Maybe Edwards vs. Giuliani? Actually, think something like Clinton vs. Giuliani vs. Bloomberg vs. Nader. The notion that only Democrats and Republicans, Republicrats, as I like to call most of them, can win a presidential election may finally be meeting its well-deserved demise.
Although this may come as a surprise to many around my age or younger, the concept of a viable independent or third-party candidate isn’t brand new. It began in 1992, with a smart businessman by the name of Ross Perot. Perot, a centrist, found himself opposed to George H W Bush, the incumbent President, as well as Bill Clinton, Governor of Arkansas at the time. He decided to run as an independent, and although he didn’t win, he gained 20% of the vote. The next time around, he wasn’t so lucky, gaining only 8%. However, the damage to the system had already been done. A recent Unity08 poll showed that 78% of Americans wish that they had choices beyond the two major parties. In 2008, it seems like we just might get some.
Now, another man stands poised to improve on Ross Perot’s accomplishments. That man is Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg is a billionaire businessman and the Mayor of New York City. A centrist, he left the Democratic Party to join the Republicans in 2001, and he left the Republican Party to become an independent on June 19th of this year. Although he has not announced that he plans to run, many people want him to do so. In fact, in a recent CNN poll, he has obtained 17% of the vote when up against Clinton (41%) and Giuliani (38%), about double what Perot received in 1991 polls (around 8% before the debates).
Although not nearly the force Bloomberg would be, a run by Ralph Nader could also yield decent results. Nader first became famous in America in 1965, with a book attacking the auto industry. Since then, he has become the Green Party’s rising star, getting nearly 3% of the vote in the 2000 election. Although he has not decided whether or not he wanted to run, he has a decent support base and a strong dislike for Hillary Clinton, which could convince him to run simply to pull votes from her should she become the Democratic nominee. If he does run for this purpose, he could be successful in doing so: a February Fox News poll (in fact, the most recent one I could find with Nader) showed that he would get 5% of the vote when up against Giuliani (46%) and Clinton (40%).
And that isn’t even all that could pop up! Dan Carlin, host of the popular podcast Common Sense with Dan Carlin (which I highly recommend), devoted the first half of his June 23rd show to the topic of independents running for President in 2008, saying, “What might a Bloomberg candidacy prompt? If it looked like Bloomberg was getting in and Nader was getting in, might you not see a few more people jump in? There’s a lot of smart people out there that are going to realize the same thing that those two have realized: that this is the best chance to upset the apple cart in a generation.”
There are a lot of people with the desire to run who would be fun to speculate about. For example, Donald Trump lost the 2000 Reform Party (the party Perot founded in 1995) primary to Pat Buchanan, a famous paleoconservative. If the Donald decided he wanted to run in 2008, he could change the race a lot. Think about it: aren’t there people you would much rather have in Washington, DC, than the ones we have now? How about Andy Rooney? He’s a pretty smart guy, even though I disagree with his liberal politics. How about John Stossel from 20/20? I think that Stossel, a libertarian, is exactly the shock the system needs. And the speculation doesn’t need to stop there. Who’s stopping John McCain from running as an independent if he loses the primary? How about John Edwards? The whole idea of the presidential race could completely change.
However, even with all of this good news, a Republicratic victory is almost guaranteed. Although many Americans want an independent candidate, few are willing to actually cast a vote for one, especially since 2000, when Nader took 3% of the nation’s people who would have most likely voted for Gore, throwing the election to Bush. But things are changing. People have been voting for independents like Perot and Nader, and they’ll certainly vote for Bloomberg. In fact, I’d take Bloomberg over some of the true Republicans (Romney, for example). I suppose we’ll just have to wait (and wait, and wait) and see where this one goes.
The 2008 Presidential Election is almost, kinda, sorta here-ish, and people are starting to wonder about the configuration of the final race, after the primaries are over. Will it be Clinton vs. Giuliani? How about Obama vs. McCain? Obama vs. Thompson? Maybe Edwards vs. Giuliani? Actually, think something like Clinton vs. Giuliani vs. Bloomberg vs. Nader. The notion that only Democrats and Republicans, Republicrats, as I like to call most of them, can win a presidential election may finally be meeting its well-deserved demise.
Although this may come as a surprise to many around my age or younger, the concept of a viable independent or third-party candidate isn’t brand new. It began in 1992, with a smart businessman by the name of Ross Perot. Perot, a centrist, found himself opposed to George H W Bush, the incumbent President, as well as Bill Clinton, Governor of Arkansas at the time. He decided to run as an independent, and although he didn’t win, he gained 20% of the vote. The next time around, he wasn’t so lucky, gaining only 8%. However, the damage to the system had already been done. A recent Unity08 poll showed that 78% of Americans wish that they had choices beyond the two major parties. In 2008, it seems like we just might get some.
Now, another man stands poised to improve on Ross Perot’s accomplishments. That man is Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg is a billionaire businessman and the Mayor of New York City. A centrist, he left the Democratic Party to join the Republicans in 2001, and he left the Republican Party to become an independent on June 19th of this year. Although he has not announced that he plans to run, many people want him to do so. In fact, in a recent CNN poll, he has obtained 17% of the vote when up against Clinton (41%) and Giuliani (38%), about double what Perot received in 1991 polls (around 8% before the debates).
Although not nearly the force Bloomberg would be, a run by Ralph Nader could also yield decent results. Nader first became famous in America in 1965, with a book attacking the auto industry. Since then, he has become the Green Party’s rising star, getting nearly 3% of the vote in the 2000 election. Although he has not decided whether or not he wanted to run, he has a decent support base and a strong dislike for Hillary Clinton, which could convince him to run simply to pull votes from her should she become the Democratic nominee. If he does run for this purpose, he could be successful in doing so: a February Fox News poll (in fact, the most recent one I could find with Nader) showed that he would get 5% of the vote when up against Giuliani (46%) and Clinton (40%).
And that isn’t even all that could pop up! Dan Carlin, host of the popular podcast Common Sense with Dan Carlin (which I highly recommend), devoted the first half of his June 23rd show to the topic of independents running for President in 2008, saying, “What might a Bloomberg candidacy prompt? If it looked like Bloomberg was getting in and Nader was getting in, might you not see a few more people jump in? There’s a lot of smart people out there that are going to realize the same thing that those two have realized: that this is the best chance to upset the apple cart in a generation.”
There are a lot of people with the desire to run who would be fun to speculate about. For example, Donald Trump lost the 2000 Reform Party (the party Perot founded in 1995) primary to Pat Buchanan, a famous paleoconservative. If the Donald decided he wanted to run in 2008, he could change the race a lot. Think about it: aren’t there people you would much rather have in Washington, DC, than the ones we have now? How about Andy Rooney? He’s a pretty smart guy, even though I disagree with his liberal politics. How about John Stossel from 20/20? I think that Stossel, a libertarian, is exactly the shock the system needs. And the speculation doesn’t need to stop there. Who’s stopping John McCain from running as an independent if he loses the primary? How about John Edwards? The whole idea of the presidential race could completely change.
However, even with all of this good news, a Republicratic victory is almost guaranteed. Although many Americans want an independent candidate, few are willing to actually cast a vote for one, especially since 2000, when Nader took 3% of the nation’s people who would have most likely voted for Gore, throwing the election to Bush. But things are changing. People have been voting for independents like Perot and Nader, and they’ll certainly vote for Bloomberg. In fact, I’d take Bloomberg over some of the true Republicans (Romney, for example). I suppose we’ll just have to wait (and wait, and wait) and see where this one goes.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Hi, Everyone...
I just got back from Philadelphai a few hours ago, so I didn't have an opertunity to get a post up today. Expect one at PaU tomorrow and one here either tomorrow or the next day. Also, try to tell people you know about my blogs. That way, I can actually have a sizable audience to rant at.
-tsg
-tsg
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Podcast Watch
I know reading blogs isn't totally convenient. However, ther is hope: political podcasting! Unfortunately, I don't have the spare time to podcast. Many people do, though. Here is my list of the top 5 political podcasts on iTunes.
5) Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points: If you don't watch Fox News every night (I know I don't), you probably miss Bill O'Reilly rambling about the news of the day. Worry no more! Bill podcasts the first couple of minutes of his show, giving us people with live an ability to hear whatever he's talking about. Be warned: he is very "traditionalist," so if you think my opinions on social issues are too strict, you'll think the same about Bill. I'm to his left on social issues and to his right on economic issues.
4) The Fred Thompson Report: Presidential candidate Thompson finally speaks the truth in Washington's world of lies. The information he talks about was enough to shake my total faith in Giuliani for president in 2008. His politics are near my own, but he's to my right socially. The show is short and sweet, and you won't lose your concentration - unless you hate Southern accents. The you're screwed.
3) Barack Obama's Podcast: He has a few, and he hasn't updated in a while, and he's quite a bit to the left of the center. However, he has an amazing ability to unite all people and make you like him and most of his ideas. I would rather have him in the White House than many Republicans. He could talk about nothing for hours and I'd still be interested. Even if you are afraid of liberal views, give Obama a chance. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
2) The Sean Hannity Show: Brilliant, conservative, insightful, and a great interviewer. These couple of minutes of Sean's radio show are always interesting to hear. He is to the right of everything else here (including Bill), but don't let that scare you, centrists. He interviews a wide variety of people all across the political spectrum, and it's always interesting to listen to.
1) Common Sense with Dan Carlin: A brilliant independent who has described himself as "the love child of Ann Coulter and Michael Moore," Dan's 40-minute show brings a great new perspective to the table. I can listen to his shows for hours (and I often do) because of his new ways of thinking with conservative, liberal, and Martian ideas. EVERYONE should hear his show. It's worth it.
5) Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points: If you don't watch Fox News every night (I know I don't), you probably miss Bill O'Reilly rambling about the news of the day. Worry no more! Bill podcasts the first couple of minutes of his show, giving us people with live an ability to hear whatever he's talking about. Be warned: he is very "traditionalist," so if you think my opinions on social issues are too strict, you'll think the same about Bill. I'm to his left on social issues and to his right on economic issues.
4) The Fred Thompson Report: Presidential candidate Thompson finally speaks the truth in Washington's world of lies. The information he talks about was enough to shake my total faith in Giuliani for president in 2008. His politics are near my own, but he's to my right socially. The show is short and sweet, and you won't lose your concentration - unless you hate Southern accents. The you're screwed.
3) Barack Obama's Podcast: He has a few, and he hasn't updated in a while, and he's quite a bit to the left of the center. However, he has an amazing ability to unite all people and make you like him and most of his ideas. I would rather have him in the White House than many Republicans. He could talk about nothing for hours and I'd still be interested. Even if you are afraid of liberal views, give Obama a chance. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
2) The Sean Hannity Show: Brilliant, conservative, insightful, and a great interviewer. These couple of minutes of Sean's radio show are always interesting to hear. He is to the right of everything else here (including Bill), but don't let that scare you, centrists. He interviews a wide variety of people all across the political spectrum, and it's always interesting to listen to.
1) Common Sense with Dan Carlin: A brilliant independent who has described himself as "the love child of Ann Coulter and Michael Moore," Dan's 40-minute show brings a great new perspective to the table. I can listen to his shows for hours (and I often do) because of his new ways of thinking with conservative, liberal, and Martian ideas. EVERYONE should hear his show. It's worth it.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
I'm Baaaaaack!
Yes, it's true. I have returned to give my commentary on what happens in the world. I have also created my new blog for American politics, That Smart Guy's Politics as Usual. You can find it at tsgspoliticsasusual.blogspot.com . I will try to post there every Wednesday and here every Tuesday. If I'm not at home on those days, I will try to post either on the next day or on Saturday.
Thanks for your patience!
-tsg
Thanks for your patience!
-tsg
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Gone for a While
I will be gone for most of the next two weeks, so I will not be posting very much or at all until Monday the 16th. Thanks for reading, everyone!
-tsg
-tsg
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Some Changes!
CHANGES???, you say? Yes. CHANGES!
I will be changing the layout/template/color of my blog over the next week or so, so if my blog looks really ugly in a few days, or it looks like a "during" shot from a design show, you'll know why.
Also, in a few weeks, I will most likely be starting a second blog, That Smart Guy's Politics As Usual, to deal with domestic politics, i.e., the 2008 race, Bush's approval rating, the immigration debate, and the like. I will post the link and add it to the links section of this blog.
-That Smart Guy
I will be changing the layout/template/color of my blog over the next week or so, so if my blog looks really ugly in a few days, or it looks like a "during" shot from a design show, you'll know why.
Also, in a few weeks, I will most likely be starting a second blog, That Smart Guy's Politics As Usual, to deal with domestic politics, i.e., the 2008 race, Bush's approval rating, the immigration debate, and the like. I will post the link and add it to the links section of this blog.
-That Smart Guy
Friday, June 22, 2007
Blair Out, Brown In
Almost everyone in the US has an opinion on the second-most powerful man in the free world. No, not Bill Gates - Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister. He has been both loved and hated by the people in his country and abroad. To the delight of many people, his 10 year reign as the UK's leader is coming to a (somewhat quiet) close this coming Wednesday. He will be succeeded by Chancellor of the Exchequer (similar to a Treasurer), Gordon Brown.
Gordon Brown is, without a doubt, an able Prime Minister. His economic programs lowered taxes and continued economic growth in the UK, which have hardly dropped since the nation's 1992 downturn in John Major's Conservative Government. These programs, intruduced during Blair's administration, have been hailed as some of his (Blair's) greatest accomplishments. Brown has also committed to his nation's allience with the US; however, he has stated that he will not be as close to the US as Blair was.
However, in a way, it seems as though Brown's term will be more of the same, a potential problem after 10 years of good-but-not-great Blairism. The UK has been accused of becoming the 51st state under Blair, which, oddly enough, may contribute to European (and American) anti-American sentiment. In fact, Tony Blair was labeled "George Bush's b*tch" by SNL, and others, no doubt. This could pose a problem for the new PM.
I have confidence in Gordon Brown and his ability to govern America's most important ally (NOT state) in the world today. I hope that he can fill Tony Blair's shoes. In my opinion, they are big ones to fill, so it's pretty likely that he'll fall short. But, that's okay. If it doesn't go as it should there, the Conservatives will take over. Talk about a win-win!
Gordon Brown is, without a doubt, an able Prime Minister. His economic programs lowered taxes and continued economic growth in the UK, which have hardly dropped since the nation's 1992 downturn in John Major's Conservative Government. These programs, intruduced during Blair's administration, have been hailed as some of his (Blair's) greatest accomplishments. Brown has also committed to his nation's allience with the US; however, he has stated that he will not be as close to the US as Blair was.
However, in a way, it seems as though Brown's term will be more of the same, a potential problem after 10 years of good-but-not-great Blairism. The UK has been accused of becoming the 51st state under Blair, which, oddly enough, may contribute to European (and American) anti-American sentiment. In fact, Tony Blair was labeled "George Bush's b*tch" by SNL, and others, no doubt. This could pose a problem for the new PM.
I have confidence in Gordon Brown and his ability to govern America's most important ally (NOT state) in the world today. I hope that he can fill Tony Blair's shoes. In my opinion, they are big ones to fill, so it's pretty likely that he'll fall short. But, that's okay. If it doesn't go as it should there, the Conservatives will take over. Talk about a win-win!
Monday, June 18, 2007
A Minor Error I Wanted To Correct
In my article "The iRevolution," I quoted a Cingular commercial, NOT a Verizon commercial. I apoligize for any confusion.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
They Decide '08: The Frontrunners
(This article will be the first in an ongoing series of articles about the 2008 Presidential election, which, being only 15 years old, I won't be able to participate in.)
It's really crunch time now: there's only 506 days until the election! While all of the frontrunners find themselves nearing a point in time where they might have to actually say something, I figured I might as well do a rundown of the 7 people with any hope of winning. As a conservative, I mostly prefer the conservative candidates over the liberal ones (duh). I will list the candidates in order from my favorite to my least favorite, with a breif description of each.
#7 - Hillary Rodham Clinton - Democrat
Clinton is a Senator from New York. As the wife and possible love interest of Bill Clinton, the former president, we already have a good idea on where she stands. She supported the War for a while before switching to the current Democratic stance. She is pro-choice and supports socialized medicine.
#6 - John Edwards - Democrat
Edwards is a former Senator from North Carolina. He was the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 2004. Edwards has similar views to Hillary, but his stance on Health Care is a bit less radical.
#5 - Mitt Romney - Republican
Romney is a former Governer from Massachussets. Although formerly pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gun control, he flip-flopped to the other side to run in the GOP's primary for President. Although he is likeable and I agree with a lot of his positions, I don't quite trust his newfound conservatism.
#4 - John McCain - Republican
McCain is a Senator from Arizona. He is famous for being a centrist and working with many members of both parties. McCain has made a lot of progress in removing excess spending, usually known as pork, from Washington, has continued to support the War, and is pro-life. However, he failed to vote on the Iraq Bill and opposed the Bush tax cuts, which hurt my perception of him.
#3 - Barack Obama - Democrat
Obama is a Senator from Illinois. He entered national politics in 2004, when he gave an address at the Democratic National Convention and won a Senate seat. Although I disagree with many of his positions (he is pro-choice, anti-Iraq, and will raise taxes), I like many aspects of his Health Care Plan, and he is famous for working out deals with members of both parties. He is also a great leader and a very intelligent man.
(The final two leaders, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, are by far the best choices. I think that Thompson may soon prove to be the better candidate, but for now, I support Giuliani.)
#2 - Fred Thompson - Republican
Thompson is a former Senator from Tennessee. After some time away from politics as an actor, Thompson is returning for a run at the Presidency. He is the only true conservative in the race, having always had the views that Romney just took on. Also, he has had little experience in Washington, meaning he will most likely be less corrupt than the others.
#1 - Rudy Giuliani - Republican
Giuliani is a fromer mayor from New York City. He cut taxes and crime in his three terms in office and will forever be remembered by many people for keeping his cool and doing what was right on 9/11. However, his pro-choice and pro-gun control stances are scaring off many conservatives. I beleive, however, that Giuliani is the right choice for President.
As of right now, the Primary polls are as follows:
GOP: Giuliani - 30%, Thompson - 22%, Romney - 18%, McCain - 11%
Dem: Clinton - 39%, Obama - 19%, Edwards - 13%
It's really crunch time now: there's only 506 days until the election! While all of the frontrunners find themselves nearing a point in time where they might have to actually say something, I figured I might as well do a rundown of the 7 people with any hope of winning. As a conservative, I mostly prefer the conservative candidates over the liberal ones (duh). I will list the candidates in order from my favorite to my least favorite, with a breif description of each.
#7 - Hillary Rodham Clinton - Democrat
Clinton is a Senator from New York. As the wife and possible love interest of Bill Clinton, the former president, we already have a good idea on where she stands. She supported the War for a while before switching to the current Democratic stance. She is pro-choice and supports socialized medicine.
#6 - John Edwards - Democrat
Edwards is a former Senator from North Carolina. He was the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 2004. Edwards has similar views to Hillary, but his stance on Health Care is a bit less radical.
#5 - Mitt Romney - Republican
Romney is a former Governer from Massachussets. Although formerly pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gun control, he flip-flopped to the other side to run in the GOP's primary for President. Although he is likeable and I agree with a lot of his positions, I don't quite trust his newfound conservatism.
#4 - John McCain - Republican
McCain is a Senator from Arizona. He is famous for being a centrist and working with many members of both parties. McCain has made a lot of progress in removing excess spending, usually known as pork, from Washington, has continued to support the War, and is pro-life. However, he failed to vote on the Iraq Bill and opposed the Bush tax cuts, which hurt my perception of him.
#3 - Barack Obama - Democrat
Obama is a Senator from Illinois. He entered national politics in 2004, when he gave an address at the Democratic National Convention and won a Senate seat. Although I disagree with many of his positions (he is pro-choice, anti-Iraq, and will raise taxes), I like many aspects of his Health Care Plan, and he is famous for working out deals with members of both parties. He is also a great leader and a very intelligent man.
(The final two leaders, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, are by far the best choices. I think that Thompson may soon prove to be the better candidate, but for now, I support Giuliani.)
#2 - Fred Thompson - Republican
Thompson is a former Senator from Tennessee. After some time away from politics as an actor, Thompson is returning for a run at the Presidency. He is the only true conservative in the race, having always had the views that Romney just took on. Also, he has had little experience in Washington, meaning he will most likely be less corrupt than the others.
#1 - Rudy Giuliani - Republican
Giuliani is a fromer mayor from New York City. He cut taxes and crime in his three terms in office and will forever be remembered by many people for keeping his cool and doing what was right on 9/11. However, his pro-choice and pro-gun control stances are scaring off many conservatives. I beleive, however, that Giuliani is the right choice for President.
As of right now, the Primary polls are as follows:
GOP: Giuliani - 30%, Thompson - 22%, Romney - 18%, McCain - 11%
Dem: Clinton - 39%, Obama - 19%, Edwards - 13%
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
40 Nights With Paris?: Prison Might Stay "Hot"
Usually, I avoid topics involving pop culture, unless you count my crazed questioning about the previous night's episode of Lost. However, I simply can't avoid the (completely STUPID!) developing story of Paris Hilton's... erm... situation.
In case you haven't left your bed in the past few weeks, Paris Hilton was arrested for driving with a suspended license. Now, first off, don't you think that if you were a famous person with a suspended license, you wouldn't be driving? Don't you think that someone might notice that THE Paris Hilton was driving right next to them? Then again, when you are famous simply for breathing, the whole "thinking" thing must be above you.
Violating the unwritten rule of not sentencing celebrities, Paris was sentenced to 45 days in prison. Showing just how "hot" she was, Paris screamed for her mother (who, by the way, was right there in that room) and said, "This isn't right!" However, her sentence was shortened to 23 days later on.
After only 5 days (barely; this counts the last few hours of Thursday and the first few of Monday as their own seperate days), Paris was relaesed from prison for "medical reasons." However, only one day into her home stay, a judge ordered that Paris return to jail and continue to serve her sentence.
Now, I don't understand the public's obsession with Paris Hilton. Aside from a reality show with decent reviews and a flop album, Paris has done little to deserve her star status. Not only that, she's serving as a poor role model to millions of young girls. However, Paris has said that "God has given [her] this new chance" to stop "act[ing] dumb" and "make a difference." While the socialite should be commended for her newfound morals and good intentions, I don't think it's likely that she'll keep it up. We'll just have to wait and see, I suppose, which is a shame. I, for one, would like to see something good happen now for a change.
In case you haven't left your bed in the past few weeks, Paris Hilton was arrested for driving with a suspended license. Now, first off, don't you think that if you were a famous person with a suspended license, you wouldn't be driving? Don't you think that someone might notice that THE Paris Hilton was driving right next to them? Then again, when you are famous simply for breathing, the whole "thinking" thing must be above you.
Violating the unwritten rule of not sentencing celebrities, Paris was sentenced to 45 days in prison. Showing just how "hot" she was, Paris screamed for her mother (who, by the way, was right there in that room) and said, "This isn't right!" However, her sentence was shortened to 23 days later on.
After only 5 days (barely; this counts the last few hours of Thursday and the first few of Monday as their own seperate days), Paris was relaesed from prison for "medical reasons." However, only one day into her home stay, a judge ordered that Paris return to jail and continue to serve her sentence.
Now, I don't understand the public's obsession with Paris Hilton. Aside from a reality show with decent reviews and a flop album, Paris has done little to deserve her star status. Not only that, she's serving as a poor role model to millions of young girls. However, Paris has said that "God has given [her] this new chance" to stop "act[ing] dumb" and "make a difference." While the socialite should be commended for her newfound morals and good intentions, I don't think it's likely that she'll keep it up. We'll just have to wait and see, I suppose, which is a shame. I, for one, would like to see something good happen now for a change.
Monday, June 11, 2007
The iRevolution - Technology is Taking Over (Repeat)
(As I said in my first post here, I will occasionally post old articles I did for something other than this blog. This article, one of my favorites, was written on April 23, 2007, for the Monthly Growl, Vol. 1, Issue 3.)
I bet you’ve seen the new Verizon commercial with the girl who texts too much. If you haven’t, here’s a transcript:
Mom: Honey, come here!!
Daughter: W.A.u? (What’s up?)
Mom: Have you seen these phone bills?
Daughter: OMG, INBD! (Oh my gosh, it’s no big deal!)
Mom: It is a big deal!! Who are you calling to get a big phone bill like this!?!?!?!
Daughter: IDK, My BFF Jill? (I don't know, my best friend Jill?)
Mom: Well, tell your BFF Jill I'm taking your phone away.
*daughter hands the phone*
Daughter: TISNF!! (This is so not fair!!)
Mom: This phone bill! That’s what’s S… 10… F!
This commercial is, of course, a parody of a scene that I’m sure repeats itself in homes all across America. About half of teens own cell phones, and most of them text frequently. However, phones are just part of what’s changing the entire world. We are in the middle of a time with technology to help every part of our lives. Welcome to the iRevolution.
The iRevolution is the term I use to refer to all of the technology that has developed over the last 15 years, or, basically, since just before most of us were born. In 1992, the DVD was an idea in the mind of some technicians and inventors, MP3 players were brand new, CDs were finally more common than records and cassettes, cellular phones were those big brick-shaped things rich people carried around to look cool, the whole internet had 50 websites (all for Government use), and (gasp!) MySpace had not yet been invented. Now, just look around! We’re talking to people wherever we go (if we aren’t texting), there are more websites than people in the world (I myself have two or three), I haven’t seen a VHS tape since 2002, I never go a day without hearing someone say WTF, OMG, LOL, or ROFL, and I am the only person in America without at least three blogs, a Zanga (or whatever), and two MySpace pages.
I still know more than a lot of adults do about this new technology. Many adults, specifically parents of teens, are feeling increasingly left behind in a world of “S-10-F”. Being iNtelligent is still not absolutely vital to a lot of adults, but that’s changing quickly. Even the most trivial jobs will soon require knowledge of computers, except for the ones that computers will soon take over. Those will simply require new technicians. Despite all that, however, many parents are still left in the dark about this new world of the iRevolution. I’m sure your parents have asked you to fix the computer several times in the past month.
The old world of snail mail is dying out. The iRevolution is taking over the world. I think that Lev Grossman said it best in TIME Magazine’s April 30, 2007 issue: “Just about everybody in both the entertainment and the technology worlds believes that it is the fate of all media to shed their analog past and transubstantiate into pure data. Newspapers are becoming websites, photos are becoming JPEGs, and songs are becoming MP3s.” By this he means what I’ve been trying to say: the iRevolution is here, and you’re going to love it.
I bet you’ve seen the new Verizon commercial with the girl who texts too much. If you haven’t, here’s a transcript:
Mom: Honey, come here!!
Daughter: W.A.u? (What’s up?)
Mom: Have you seen these phone bills?
Daughter: OMG, INBD! (Oh my gosh, it’s no big deal!)
Mom: It is a big deal!! Who are you calling to get a big phone bill like this!?!?!?!
Daughter: IDK, My BFF Jill? (I don't know, my best friend Jill?)
Mom: Well, tell your BFF Jill I'm taking your phone away.
*daughter hands the phone*
Daughter: TISNF!! (This is so not fair!!)
Mom: This phone bill! That’s what’s S… 10… F!
This commercial is, of course, a parody of a scene that I’m sure repeats itself in homes all across America. About half of teens own cell phones, and most of them text frequently. However, phones are just part of what’s changing the entire world. We are in the middle of a time with technology to help every part of our lives. Welcome to the iRevolution.
The iRevolution is the term I use to refer to all of the technology that has developed over the last 15 years, or, basically, since just before most of us were born. In 1992, the DVD was an idea in the mind of some technicians and inventors, MP3 players were brand new, CDs were finally more common than records and cassettes, cellular phones were those big brick-shaped things rich people carried around to look cool, the whole internet had 50 websites (all for Government use), and (gasp!) MySpace had not yet been invented. Now, just look around! We’re talking to people wherever we go (if we aren’t texting), there are more websites than people in the world (I myself have two or three), I haven’t seen a VHS tape since 2002, I never go a day without hearing someone say WTF, OMG, LOL, or ROFL, and I am the only person in America without at least three blogs, a Zanga (or whatever), and two MySpace pages.
I still know more than a lot of adults do about this new technology. Many adults, specifically parents of teens, are feeling increasingly left behind in a world of “S-10-F”. Being iNtelligent is still not absolutely vital to a lot of adults, but that’s changing quickly. Even the most trivial jobs will soon require knowledge of computers, except for the ones that computers will soon take over. Those will simply require new technicians. Despite all that, however, many parents are still left in the dark about this new world of the iRevolution. I’m sure your parents have asked you to fix the computer several times in the past month.
The old world of snail mail is dying out. The iRevolution is taking over the world. I think that Lev Grossman said it best in TIME Magazine’s April 30, 2007 issue: “Just about everybody in both the entertainment and the technology worlds believes that it is the fate of all media to shed their analog past and transubstantiate into pure data. Newspapers are becoming websites, photos are becoming JPEGs, and songs are becoming MP3s.” By this he means what I’ve been trying to say: the iRevolution is here, and you’re going to love it.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
The Chavez Controversy, And How It Helps The US
I'll admit one thing about Hugo Chavez: he knows how to keep people on his side. He was elected President of Venezuela in 1998 as a Socialist who advocated change, which appealed to the population of the dirt-poor nation. Since then, he has proceded to take control of the Congress and Supreme Court of his nation, rewrite its Constitution, and institute various programs to try and help the poor in Venezuela. One of the most controversial figures in Latin America, Hugo Chavez is keeping the world watching - well, most of it, anyway. Just not his own people.
Late last month, Chavez seized the broadcast equipment of Radio Caracas TV, one of Venezuela's most popular TV stations. He claimed that this action was necessary because he believed that the station was "a threat to the country" because it was broadcasting views that were against his own. To put that in perspective, that would be like George Bush shutting down CNN or MSNBC because they disagree with the War in Iraq. However, Chavez still says that Venezuela is a democracy.
Needless to say, there has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the shutdown. There have been several rallies by people on both sides. However, the polls turn out fairly one-sided. According to a poll by Datanálisis, a Venezuelan polling group, more than 80% of Venezuelans disagree with Chavez's decision, and almost three-quarters of Venezuelans believe that democracy is at stake due to Chavez's actions. Of course, this is what always happens when Socialists are elected and then "re-elected in a free election." Socialists believe in national control of almost everything, whic, as Americans know, NEVER works.
This event, although bad for Venezuelans, should help the US on the world stage. It will show the world that Socialism solves nothing and simply creates unpopular problems. It also creates monopolies; Chavez replaced RCTV with a government-run TV station called TVes. This means that the Government runs almost all TV. Could you imagine if your choices when you turned the TV on were PBS, PBS2, or PBS3? Not too exciting. This should be shown clearly in the upcoming weeks by the marches against Chavez. One step forward for Chavez, two steps back for Socialism.
Late last month, Chavez seized the broadcast equipment of Radio Caracas TV, one of Venezuela's most popular TV stations. He claimed that this action was necessary because he believed that the station was "a threat to the country" because it was broadcasting views that were against his own. To put that in perspective, that would be like George Bush shutting down CNN or MSNBC because they disagree with the War in Iraq. However, Chavez still says that Venezuela is a democracy.
Needless to say, there has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the shutdown. There have been several rallies by people on both sides. However, the polls turn out fairly one-sided. According to a poll by Datanálisis, a Venezuelan polling group, more than 80% of Venezuelans disagree with Chavez's decision, and almost three-quarters of Venezuelans believe that democracy is at stake due to Chavez's actions. Of course, this is what always happens when Socialists are elected and then "re-elected in a free election." Socialists believe in national control of almost everything, whic, as Americans know, NEVER works.
This event, although bad for Venezuelans, should help the US on the world stage. It will show the world that Socialism solves nothing and simply creates unpopular problems. It also creates monopolies; Chavez replaced RCTV with a government-run TV station called TVes. This means that the Government runs almost all TV. Could you imagine if your choices when you turned the TV on were PBS, PBS2, or PBS3? Not too exciting. This should be shown clearly in the upcoming weeks by the marches against Chavez. One step forward for Chavez, two steps back for Socialism.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Hello, Everyone!
Needless to say, this is the first post of what I hope to be many over time. I will soon begin posting my regular articles. Usually, there will be one a week, but sometimes there might be two if I have spare time or none if I'm busy. I'll also begin reposting old articles I wrote before this blog came to be.
If you enjoy this little view into my mind, be sure to tell the other people you know. If more people know about my blog, I'll (obviously) have more people reading it, which is a good thing.
If you enjoy this little view into my mind, be sure to tell the other people you know. If more people know about my blog, I'll (obviously) have more people reading it, which is a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)