I was going to head out to Ft. Worth tonight to go see MC Chris do a show, but as I was planning to leave this morning, getting all my directions down and everything, I realized that the dear MC wasn't going to be on deck till about midnight, and the show ended at 2AM. Where I am staying, and to get back there in time for some turkey goodness, would mean I was on the road until 4:30 AM best case scenario.
So sorry, MC. I'll try to catch you in Ft. Lauderdale when I make it back to Florida.
I haven't bellyached much on the blog about my hurricane plight, but let me take just a moment to say how much I hate the Florida Workforce people. They live to screw me over. First of all, their site is one of the best kept secrets in Florida bureaucracy history. Their domain isn't something with a .gov, or even a .org, but it's a .com (fluidnow.com), which makes the site look like an ordinary employment agency site.
Second, and more importantly, after a major Federally-declared disaster, they are charged, by FEMA, with the responsibility of dealing out the monies the government promises to the victims of the disaster in cases where they are prevented from working. Generally, when one is unemployed, they can expect to recieve 80% of their paycheck for usually up to six weeks or so. I'm being told that the most I can expect is around 20% of my paycheck for a couple weeks, if I show them W2s going back two years as well as paystubs going back a number of years as well.
This is ridiculous. What's even more ridiculous is that they are refusing to pay me the meager amount of money that they claim I'm owed until the 28th.
Now, I'm not some sort of entitlement freak. I've never in my life recieved a government check. But my whole life I've paid in to the government my employment tax, social security tax, and all the other sales taxes I've been subjected to my life, not to mention extraneous fines and levvys for traffic infractions and such, and I've paid them more or less without complaint.
Is it so much to ask that I get a little bit of that back? I mean I've paid into the system because the government said "Hey! We know that you, the little people, are incapable of socking money away for your own benefit. So here, give us 60% of your money, and we'll give it back to you when you need it."
I NEED IT, JACKASSES! GIVE IT BACK!
I freakin' hate bureaucracy
/rizzn
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
I Need a Face Lift
Apparently that's the thing I've been lacking. I haven't been paying attention to the buzz in the blogosphere lately, due mostly to the fact that I don't have my own terminal to blog from. You should see my screen sometime. I've got all these RSS and newsfeed panels up everywhere, I'm like one connected dude.
Anyways, yeah, I'm out of touch these days, piggybacking off everyone else's econnection. Apparently I've missed the rise and fall of someone named Daphne Teo or Dawn Yang or something. Somehow these half-assed bloggers, by going through rigorous cosmetic surgery, have been 'discovered' and turned into professional bloggers.
I mean, I have no problem with hot web chicks geting to be big time and stuff (I've had a secret crush on Bonnie since I was 15), but seriously, for me to get behind this web-celeb stuff, they've got to have at least some kind of talent. If you read some of these chicks' stuff, it's like bad livejournal poetry to the power of ten. For the love of John, the site loads up music when you put it in your browser.
Damned if you can find the stop button, either. Playing some stupid WB theme song or something.
Seriously. I implore you. What in the hell, Bobby?
/rizzn
Anyways, yeah, I'm out of touch these days, piggybacking off everyone else's econnection. Apparently I've missed the rise and fall of someone named Daphne Teo or Dawn Yang or something. Somehow these half-assed bloggers, by going through rigorous cosmetic surgery, have been 'discovered' and turned into professional bloggers.
I mean, I have no problem with hot web chicks geting to be big time and stuff (I've had a secret crush on Bonnie since I was 15), but seriously, for me to get behind this web-celeb stuff, they've got to have at least some kind of talent. If you read some of these chicks' stuff, it's like bad livejournal poetry to the power of ten. For the love of John, the site loads up music when you put it in your browser.
Damned if you can find the stop button, either. Playing some stupid WB theme song or something.
Seriously. I implore you. What in the hell, Bobby?
/rizzn
Saturday, November 19, 2005
A Politician Lied, Then People Died
[Rizzn's Note: This is a repost from Broward Craigslist. I have gotten in trouble in the past reposting things from that source as they are notoriously incorrect factually. I know I have some intelligenciaphiles in the RIC and in the readership. I ask someone confirm or deny the contents and facts listed here.]
It was a powerful argument for war made by a politician with long years of experience in the White House.
"(I)ntelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program," said this national leader.
"(I)f left unchecked," the politician argued, "Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, affects American security."
"This much is undisputed," declared this Democrat, as she voted to authorize the war in Iraq.
The question now is: Why did Sen. Hillary Clinton get it so wrong?
Had she -- to use the formulation Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is now using to attack President Bush -- "manufactured and manipulated intelligence"? Did Hillary lie America into war?
No, she did not.
Sen. Clinton got her bad intelligence the same place President Bush got his: the CIA. Specifically, from George Tenet, the man President Clinton appointed director of central intelligence (DCI).
The entire chain of custody on the intelligence Sen. Clinton used in her Oct. 10, 2002, Senate floor speech ran through Democratic politicians back to a Democrat-appointed DCI.
In 2002, Democrats controlled the Senate, and Democratic Sen. Bob Graham of Florida chaired the intelligence committee. On Sept. 9, 2002, Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, a member of the intelligence committee, wrote Clinton-appointed Tenet asking for a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD programs.
NIEs, the intelligence committee later said in its unanimous bipartisan investigative report on Iraq intelligence, "are intended to provide policymakers in both the executive and legislative branches with the best, unvarnished and unbiased information."
An NIE, the committee quoted a CIA document as explaining, "is the director's estimate, and its findings are his."
DCI Tenet was no Bush crony or Republican hack. His career was largely propelled by Democrats. In the mid-1980s, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont made Tenet his intelligence committee aide. Former Intelligence Chairman David Boren, an Oklahoma Democrat, later made Tenet the committee's staff director. President Clinton named him to his National Security Council staff, then deputy DCI, then DCI.
Tenet delivered the NIE requested by Durbin at the beginning of October 2002. Its key judgments included that Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear program," "had chemical and biological weapons" and was developing unmanned aerial vehicles "probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents," and that "all key aspects -- research and development (R&D), production and weaponization -- of Iraq's offensive biological weapons (BW) program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War."
Two months later, according to Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack," Tenet sat in the Oval Office and twice emphatically told President Bush it was a "slam dunk" Iraq had WMDs.
Did Tenet and his CIA lie to Congress about Iraq to help President Bush deceive Sen. Clinton and other Democrats into voting for war? Did he lie to Bush?
On March 31, the presidential Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb of Virginia and senior federal appellate court judge Laurence Silberman, published its report. It concluded the judgments about Iraq's WMD programs in the October 2002 NIE were "all wrong." However, it also concluded, after "querying in detail those analysts involved in formulating pre-war judgments about Iraq's WMD programs," that "(t)hese analysts universally assert that in no instance did political pressure cause them to change any of their analytical judgments."
The CIA ombudsman for politicization, the commission reported, "also found no evidence, based on numerous confidential interviews with the analysts involved, that political pressure had caused any analyst to change any judgments."
The intelligence committee's unanimous report likewise concluded: "The committee did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities."
Reasonable people could and did disagree on whether it was wise to invade Iraq. President Bush and Sen. Clinton, relying on the same intelligence, happened to agree.
But reasonable people can draw only one conclusion now on the argument advanced by some of Sen. Clinton's Democratic colleagues that President Bush lied America into war. It is simply preposterous.
It was a powerful argument for war made by a politician with long years of experience in the White House.
"(I)ntelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program," said this national leader.
"(I)f left unchecked," the politician argued, "Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, affects American security."
"This much is undisputed," declared this Democrat, as she voted to authorize the war in Iraq.
The question now is: Why did Sen. Hillary Clinton get it so wrong?
Had she -- to use the formulation Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is now using to attack President Bush -- "manufactured and manipulated intelligence"? Did Hillary lie America into war?
No, she did not.
Sen. Clinton got her bad intelligence the same place President Bush got his: the CIA. Specifically, from George Tenet, the man President Clinton appointed director of central intelligence (DCI).
The entire chain of custody on the intelligence Sen. Clinton used in her Oct. 10, 2002, Senate floor speech ran through Democratic politicians back to a Democrat-appointed DCI.
In 2002, Democrats controlled the Senate, and Democratic Sen. Bob Graham of Florida chaired the intelligence committee. On Sept. 9, 2002, Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, a member of the intelligence committee, wrote Clinton-appointed Tenet asking for a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD programs.
NIEs, the intelligence committee later said in its unanimous bipartisan investigative report on Iraq intelligence, "are intended to provide policymakers in both the executive and legislative branches with the best, unvarnished and unbiased information."
An NIE, the committee quoted a CIA document as explaining, "is the director's estimate, and its findings are his."
DCI Tenet was no Bush crony or Republican hack. His career was largely propelled by Democrats. In the mid-1980s, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont made Tenet his intelligence committee aide. Former Intelligence Chairman David Boren, an Oklahoma Democrat, later made Tenet the committee's staff director. President Clinton named him to his National Security Council staff, then deputy DCI, then DCI.
Tenet delivered the NIE requested by Durbin at the beginning of October 2002. Its key judgments included that Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear program," "had chemical and biological weapons" and was developing unmanned aerial vehicles "probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents," and that "all key aspects -- research and development (R&D), production and weaponization -- of Iraq's offensive biological weapons (BW) program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War."
Two months later, according to Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack," Tenet sat in the Oval Office and twice emphatically told President Bush it was a "slam dunk" Iraq had WMDs.
Did Tenet and his CIA lie to Congress about Iraq to help President Bush deceive Sen. Clinton and other Democrats into voting for war? Did he lie to Bush?
On March 31, the presidential Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb of Virginia and senior federal appellate court judge Laurence Silberman, published its report. It concluded the judgments about Iraq's WMD programs in the October 2002 NIE were "all wrong." However, it also concluded, after "querying in detail those analysts involved in formulating pre-war judgments about Iraq's WMD programs," that "(t)hese analysts universally assert that in no instance did political pressure cause them to change any of their analytical judgments."
The CIA ombudsman for politicization, the commission reported, "also found no evidence, based on numerous confidential interviews with the analysts involved, that political pressure had caused any analyst to change any judgments."
The intelligence committee's unanimous report likewise concluded: "The committee did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities."
Reasonable people could and did disagree on whether it was wise to invade Iraq. President Bush and Sen. Clinton, relying on the same intelligence, happened to agree.
But reasonable people can draw only one conclusion now on the argument advanced by some of Sen. Clinton's Democratic colleagues that President Bush lied America into war. It is simply preposterous.
General Ruminations
Alright...
Yeah.
Where to begin? Things are in a weird state of flux. I'm keeping myself busy out here in Texas, but not making the forward progress I had envisioned. That's not true. I mean I am making forward progress, I suppose it just doesn't feel like it. I'm not creating a lot of visible stuff lately because I'm doing a fair amount of socializing, and I'm also writing a lot in some larger works that I can't publish in partial form.
The biggest thing bothers me the most out here, believe it or not, is that it's freakin' cold! Damn, I hate winter. Every second I'm here reminds me of why I chose to live in South Florida. I hate waking up in the mornings and never quite warming up to a comfortable level. I hate that my hands are always ice-cubes. I hate sitting under the covers waiting to warm up before I go to sleep at night. A lot of this would be fixed if the heater in my dad's house was less than a century old, but it doesn't do an effective job of keeping the place warm. As I sit typing this right now, I want you to know that my normal uzi-fire-typing-rate has been slowed down to around shotgun blast rate.
Despite all that, it has been fun hanging out with Darrell and PV a lot this week. I've hooked up with quite a few old friends and made a few new ones during my stay here.
Coming up soon (at the end of the month) is decision time. I've got to decide if I'm going back to my place in South Florida or if I'm staying here. Given that it gets even colder than 50 degrees here (which is the temperature I'm currently bellyaching about), I'm not really looking forward to staying. On the other hand, there's not much left for me in SouFla. I don't really see the businesses recovering to a point where I can go back to a normal pay rate again, and I've got some unbelievable offers on the table here in Texas right now. Hopefully I'll get some joy one way or the other soon.
So, on to the things that I've been pondering lately. For one, I've been pondering unloading BlipMedia for a while now. For some reason, its becoming a thorn in my side, due to the excessive amount of work it takes to maintain it, and the partnership it entails. When I decided to take on partners with Blip, for some reason I thought it would be a good idea to bring on Leo and Ricky from AACS, but honestly they've been little to no help in the entire endeavor. The VoIP, at least with the current model, doesn't have enough margin to support the podcasting end of things and still leave room for marketing. On the other hand, I do have a solid plan to make it profitable, I just would prefer to share profits with someone who would make a positive impact on the company, not be a drag on the company.
As for AACS, I've been considering divesting myself from the company, not because it's not a viable business, but mostly because I'm sick of credit repair, and I'm sick of rebuilding the business every eight months when a hurricane blows through and knocks us back to zero.
Essentially, I'm ready to move on to more creative endeavors. I've got a couple of books I'm working on, one with a publishing deal, one that I'm sure can get one. I've got my music, and I'm even dabbling in film a little bit. Hopefully, I'll get my crap together soon and sell off some of these intellectual assets, which will give me some time to contemplate my navel for a bit on my own terms, so to speak.
Also, one more thing.
DAMN I HATE WINTER!
That is all.
/rizzn
Yeah.
Where to begin? Things are in a weird state of flux. I'm keeping myself busy out here in Texas, but not making the forward progress I had envisioned. That's not true. I mean I am making forward progress, I suppose it just doesn't feel like it. I'm not creating a lot of visible stuff lately because I'm doing a fair amount of socializing, and I'm also writing a lot in some larger works that I can't publish in partial form.
The biggest thing bothers me the most out here, believe it or not, is that it's freakin' cold! Damn, I hate winter. Every second I'm here reminds me of why I chose to live in South Florida. I hate waking up in the mornings and never quite warming up to a comfortable level. I hate that my hands are always ice-cubes. I hate sitting under the covers waiting to warm up before I go to sleep at night. A lot of this would be fixed if the heater in my dad's house was less than a century old, but it doesn't do an effective job of keeping the place warm. As I sit typing this right now, I want you to know that my normal uzi-fire-typing-rate has been slowed down to around shotgun blast rate.
Despite all that, it has been fun hanging out with Darrell and PV a lot this week. I've hooked up with quite a few old friends and made a few new ones during my stay here.
Coming up soon (at the end of the month) is decision time. I've got to decide if I'm going back to my place in South Florida or if I'm staying here. Given that it gets even colder than 50 degrees here (which is the temperature I'm currently bellyaching about), I'm not really looking forward to staying. On the other hand, there's not much left for me in SouFla. I don't really see the businesses recovering to a point where I can go back to a normal pay rate again, and I've got some unbelievable offers on the table here in Texas right now. Hopefully I'll get some joy one way or the other soon.
So, on to the things that I've been pondering lately. For one, I've been pondering unloading BlipMedia for a while now. For some reason, its becoming a thorn in my side, due to the excessive amount of work it takes to maintain it, and the partnership it entails. When I decided to take on partners with Blip, for some reason I thought it would be a good idea to bring on Leo and Ricky from AACS, but honestly they've been little to no help in the entire endeavor. The VoIP, at least with the current model, doesn't have enough margin to support the podcasting end of things and still leave room for marketing. On the other hand, I do have a solid plan to make it profitable, I just would prefer to share profits with someone who would make a positive impact on the company, not be a drag on the company.
As for AACS, I've been considering divesting myself from the company, not because it's not a viable business, but mostly because I'm sick of credit repair, and I'm sick of rebuilding the business every eight months when a hurricane blows through and knocks us back to zero.
Essentially, I'm ready to move on to more creative endeavors. I've got a couple of books I'm working on, one with a publishing deal, one that I'm sure can get one. I've got my music, and I'm even dabbling in film a little bit. Hopefully, I'll get my crap together soon and sell off some of these intellectual assets, which will give me some time to contemplate my navel for a bit on my own terms, so to speak.
Also, one more thing.
DAMN I HATE WINTER!
That is all.
/rizzn
Friday, November 18, 2005
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Fifteen Facts about Chuck Norris
1. Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
2. A bextra lawyer once asked Chuck Norris if his real name was "Charles". Chuck Norris did not respond, he simply stared at him until he exploded.
3. Rather than being birthed like a normal child, Chuck Norris instead decided to punch his way out of his mother's womb. Shortly thereafter he grew a beard.
4. Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement.
5. The original theme song to the Transformers was actually "Chuck Norris--more that meet the eye, Chuck Norris--robot in disguise," and starred Chuck Norris as a Texas Ranger who defended the earth from drug-dealing Decepticons and could turn into a pick-up with car GPS navigation. This was far too much awesome for a single show, however, so it was divided.
6. Chuck Norris was the fourth Wiseman. He brought baby Jesus the gift of "beard". Jesus wore it proudly until his dying day. The other Wisemen, jealous of Jesus' obvious gift favoritism, used their combined influence to have Chuck omitted from the Bible. Shortly thereafter all three died of roundhouse kick related deaths.
7. Chuck Norris once shot a German plane down with his finger, by yelling "Bang!"
8. When Chuck Norris plays Oregon Trail, his family does not die from cholera or dysentery, but rather roundhouse kicks to the face. He also requires no wagon, since he carries the oxen, axels, and buffalo meat on his back. He always makes it to Oregon before you.
9. Chuck Norris can make a woman climax by simply pointing at her and saying "booya!"
10. Before each filming of Walker: Texas Ranger, Chuck Norris is injected with five times the lethal dose of elephant tranquilizer. This is, of course, to limit his strength and mobility, in an attempt to lower the fatality rate of the actors he fights.
11. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
12. When Chuck Norris' wife burned the turkey one Thanksgiving, Chuck said, "Don't worry about it honey," and went into the backyard. He came back five minutes later with a live turkey, ate it whole, and when he threw it up a few seconds later it was fully cooked and came with cranberry sauce.
When his wife asked him how he had done it, he gave her a roundhouse kick to the face and said, "Never question Chuck Norris."
13. Chuck Norris took my virginity, and he will sure as hell take yours. If you're thinking to yourself, "That's impossible, I already lost my virginity," then you are dead wrong.
14. Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
15. Chuck Norris once tried to sue Burger King after they refused to put razor wire in his Whopper, Jr., insisting that that actually is "his" way.
2. A bextra lawyer once asked Chuck Norris if his real name was "Charles". Chuck Norris did not respond, he simply stared at him until he exploded.
3. Rather than being birthed like a normal child, Chuck Norris instead decided to punch his way out of his mother's womb. Shortly thereafter he grew a beard.
4. Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement.
5. The original theme song to the Transformers was actually "Chuck Norris--more that meet the eye, Chuck Norris--robot in disguise," and starred Chuck Norris as a Texas Ranger who defended the earth from drug-dealing Decepticons and could turn into a pick-up with car GPS navigation. This was far too much awesome for a single show, however, so it was divided.
6. Chuck Norris was the fourth Wiseman. He brought baby Jesus the gift of "beard". Jesus wore it proudly until his dying day. The other Wisemen, jealous of Jesus' obvious gift favoritism, used their combined influence to have Chuck omitted from the Bible. Shortly thereafter all three died of roundhouse kick related deaths.
7. Chuck Norris once shot a German plane down with his finger, by yelling "Bang!"
8. When Chuck Norris plays Oregon Trail, his family does not die from cholera or dysentery, but rather roundhouse kicks to the face. He also requires no wagon, since he carries the oxen, axels, and buffalo meat on his back. He always makes it to Oregon before you.
9. Chuck Norris can make a woman climax by simply pointing at her and saying "booya!"
10. Before each filming of Walker: Texas Ranger, Chuck Norris is injected with five times the lethal dose of elephant tranquilizer. This is, of course, to limit his strength and mobility, in an attempt to lower the fatality rate of the actors he fights.
11. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
12. When Chuck Norris' wife burned the turkey one Thanksgiving, Chuck said, "Don't worry about it honey," and went into the backyard. He came back five minutes later with a live turkey, ate it whole, and when he threw it up a few seconds later it was fully cooked and came with cranberry sauce.
When his wife asked him how he had done it, he gave her a roundhouse kick to the face and said, "Never question Chuck Norris."
13. Chuck Norris took my virginity, and he will sure as hell take yours. If you're thinking to yourself, "That's impossible, I already lost my virginity," then you are dead wrong.
14. Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
15. Chuck Norris once tried to sue Burger King after they refused to put razor wire in his Whopper, Jr., insisting that that actually is "his" way.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Hate-Bush-First Responses
I'm getting some interesting responses off my Hate-Bush-First rant. Smokehouse has a series he started yesterday called Pretty Well Sums it Up where he nitpicks some of my language a bit, and exposits extensively on other points.
I haven't gotten a satisfactory response from the Libber's yet. There was a member named Jimbo who responded back with "I don't see the connection between the article you responded to and the hate-Bush-first mentality."
This is disturbing to me to find that members of the LP don't know anti-Bush-rhetoric when they see it. Rather than re-writing my article again, I'll just post it below and maybe we'll get some responses from the RIC or something.
First of all, Jim, a lot of the responses weren't direct responses to just what was in this post, but to the category of hate-Bush-first posts that I've seen around here. I've seen more than my fair share of posts from Frank Gonzales regarding vote-hacking and such.
But to directly address the inspirations for each point:
1) Is self explanatory.
2) Was inspired by the line in the beginning of the forth paragraph: "Considering your support of our criminal government hasled to the death, destruction and misery of millions of people on this planet, that is basically a no-brainer." And no, that's not an opinion. That's the crux of that point - if it's not close, they can't cheat. We know both sides cheat in ALL elections. To think otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The election wasn't won by creative cheating, it was lost by ineffective campaigning.
3) Yes, three is an opinion, but I'm just telling you what everyone else is thinking. I can line up hordes of conservatives and go "Hey, what do you think about the incessent attacks on the President?" and they all say the same thing. I'm not making it up, I'm just relaying information.
4) Again, four is not an opinion, it's a fact. In fact, four is the exact reason why this hate-Bush-first strategy exists! I'm not sure how much everyone here knows about the national strategy for campaigns, but the whole idea of this vitriol is to polarize the parties. Libertarians are a party of disillusioned people from a variety of parties - the last thing you'd want to do is polarize your base.
5) See three.
If you truly believe that this was a rant inspired by someone's son coming back from Iraq, then you are very gullible. I want you to just go through the past posts by both Frank Gonzales as well as all the posts on LewRockwell.com by Michael Gaddy. See if you can find one single pro-conservative article on there at all. Let's list a few of his titles, shall we?
The Only Possible Excuse for War, Challenging James Dobson, Liars who Take Us to War, With the Vigilantes, Breeding Ground for Tyrants, Is There Another 'Tet' in Our Future, Indians Should Know Better (than to send their sons to fight for D.C.), and an Inherently Evil Enterprise.
I'm not trying to support the war here (that's not the scope of this piece), but everything he says in all his articles flies in the face of logic, reason, statistics, and good taste. Through his creative phrasing of the facts, he makes it sound as if these covert and overt operations have increasing killed more and more people since Vietnam. We *know* this is not the case. Iraq II is the first war, conflict, or operation to break the historical downward trend of numbers of casualties and deaths. Furthermore, we know that people who *would* try to cite statistics on this to make the same point are lumping in non-combat with combat deaths. It simply doesn't make sense to view Iraq II as a costly war in the same breath as Vietnam or World War II.
Of course the debate comes in where our going there is concerned, but certainly not in the casualty rates like Gaddy was making the points of. This factless approach Gaddy takes to anti-war persuasion is in my opinion a natural evolution of the hate-Bush-first because his paper bears many of the same tell-tale phrases as the hate-Bush-firsties, and it's also devoid of logic and fact, while playing on emotions and fears of the readers.
You said, however, that most of my points were opinions, not facts. Most importantly, who says that my opinions can't be reasons, as long as they logically follow? Most persuasive arguments and debates are filled with opinions. I didn't know it was against the rules to talk about them here. If that is in fact the case, I'll make a note of it. I must say that I'm a bit disappointed that no one at all is making a valid attempt to agree or disagree with my points on this. I'd like to know if the Libertarians are a party of hate-Bush- firsters or if someone actually agrees with me. Seriously. My long standing participation and affiliation in the party is starting to become at stake here. I understand tolerance of divergent views, but when we're not willing to call a spade a spade (i.e. hating-Bush-first as non-productive and something that turns people off, essentially), then I'm not sure I want to be identified with a group that enjoys that sort of behavior.
/mark "rizzn" hopkins
rizzn.com
I haven't gotten a satisfactory response from the Libber's yet. There was a member named Jimbo who responded back with "I don't see the connection between the article you responded to and the hate-Bush-first mentality."
This is disturbing to me to find that members of the LP don't know anti-Bush-rhetoric when they see it. Rather than re-writing my article again, I'll just post it below and maybe we'll get some responses from the RIC or something.
First of all, Jim, a lot of the responses weren't direct responses to just what was in this post, but to the category of hate-Bush-first posts that I've seen around here. I've seen more than my fair share of posts from Frank Gonzales regarding vote-hacking and such.
But to directly address the inspirations for each point:
1) Is self explanatory.
2) Was inspired by the line in the beginning of the forth paragraph: "Considering your support of our criminal government hasled to the death, destruction and misery of millions of people on this planet, that is basically a no-brainer." And no, that's not an opinion. That's the crux of that point - if it's not close, they can't cheat. We know both sides cheat in ALL elections. To think otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The election wasn't won by creative cheating, it was lost by ineffective campaigning.
3) Yes, three is an opinion, but I'm just telling you what everyone else is thinking. I can line up hordes of conservatives and go "Hey, what do you think about the incessent attacks on the President?" and they all say the same thing. I'm not making it up, I'm just relaying information.
4) Again, four is not an opinion, it's a fact. In fact, four is the exact reason why this hate-Bush-first strategy exists! I'm not sure how much everyone here knows about the national strategy for campaigns, but the whole idea of this vitriol is to polarize the parties. Libertarians are a party of disillusioned people from a variety of parties - the last thing you'd want to do is polarize your base.
5) See three.
If you truly believe that this was a rant inspired by someone's son coming back from Iraq, then you are very gullible. I want you to just go through the past posts by both Frank Gonzales as well as all the posts on LewRockwell.com by Michael Gaddy. See if you can find one single pro-conservative article on there at all. Let's list a few of his titles, shall we?
The Only Possible Excuse for War, Challenging James Dobson, Liars who Take Us to War, With the Vigilantes, Breeding Ground for Tyrants, Is There Another 'Tet' in Our Future, Indians Should Know Better (than to send their sons to fight for D.C.), and an Inherently Evil Enterprise.
I'm not trying to support the war here (that's not the scope of this piece), but everything he says in all his articles flies in the face of logic, reason, statistics, and good taste. Through his creative phrasing of the facts, he makes it sound as if these covert and overt operations have increasing killed more and more people since Vietnam. We *know* this is not the case. Iraq II is the first war, conflict, or operation to break the historical downward trend of numbers of casualties and deaths. Furthermore, we know that people who *would* try to cite statistics on this to make the same point are lumping in non-combat with combat deaths. It simply doesn't make sense to view Iraq II as a costly war in the same breath as Vietnam or World War II.
Of course the debate comes in where our going there is concerned, but certainly not in the casualty rates like Gaddy was making the points of. This factless approach Gaddy takes to anti-war persuasion is in my opinion a natural evolution of the hate-Bush-first because his paper bears many of the same tell-tale phrases as the hate-Bush-firsties, and it's also devoid of logic and fact, while playing on emotions and fears of the readers.
You said, however, that most of my points were opinions, not facts. Most importantly, who says that my opinions can't be reasons, as long as they logically follow? Most persuasive arguments and debates are filled with opinions. I didn't know it was against the rules to talk about them here. If that is in fact the case, I'll make a note of it. I must say that I'm a bit disappointed that no one at all is making a valid attempt to agree or disagree with my points on this. I'd like to know if the Libertarians are a party of hate-Bush- firsters or if someone actually agrees with me. Seriously. My long standing participation and affiliation in the party is starting to become at stake here. I understand tolerance of divergent views, but when we're not willing to call a spade a spade (i.e. hating-Bush-first as non-productive and something that turns people off, essentially), then I'm not sure I want to be identified with a group that enjoys that sort of behavior.
/mark "rizzn" hopkins
rizzn.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)