Posts filed under 'Politics'

Will Feingold work for Clinton?

This article about a possible Feingold vs. Clinton contest suddenly made me realize something:

I bet Hillary is orchestrating the whole thing.

I suspect she told Russ Feingold that he could be Vice President, generic cialis and if he ran a polite (but ultimately predetermined) preliminary contest against her.

Seriously, viagra buy pharmacy who BUT someone as far to the Left as Russ Feingold could make Hillary Clinton seem like an actual Centrist?

3 comments February 4th, 2006

If we were just smarter, we’d vote Liberal.

At least according to Dave Berkman.

In his current Media Musings column in the Shepherd Express, viagra sales viagra sale Dave basically says Americans don’t know what the hell is going on…and even if we did, cialis canada we’d probably still be too stupid to vote the “right” way.

He actually says:

The problem with so many of us on the left is the naive faith we place in the intelligence of a public whom we aim to defend. Suppose the true facts about the costs of welfare were widely known. Would that counter the racism that leads so many white Americans to believe the worst about blacks?

Would the truth about our miniscule foreign aid counter the xenophobia that forms such a cornerstone of America’s thinking?

Yes, David, everyone who doesn’t see how right you are MUST be a moron, a racist, a xenophobe, or all three. Only explanation I can think of, too.

In the same article, Dave says:

Polls consistently revealed that most Americans believed that next to the military, the largest expenditure of tax funds was for welfare—which was perceived as a reward to undeserving black women for their profligate sexual behaviors. But welfare never totaled more than 3% of government expenditures.

Apparently Dave doesn’t consider Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc…to be social welfare programs. (Of course, they aren’t. They’re entitlements!)

He’s also annoyed that we’re not giving enough money to countries like Brazil, Iran, North Korea, etc…:

Second is the belief still held by a majority of Americans about the hundreds of billions we give away in foreign aid. Last year the actual figure was just over $16 billion, or 15-one-hundreths-of-one-percent of our Gross National Product—which ranks the United States dead last among developed nations.

He’s right. As a percentage of GNP we’re near the back of the pack. (Of course, in absolute terms, we still give about twice as much as the next biggest donor.)

I’m glad David is feeling so generous with our money, but I must have missed the day in Civics class when they said the purpose of government was to take as much money as possible from your own citizens and give it to people who don’t like you.

Seriously, if you want to win the American people to your side, implying that they’re ignorant, stupid racists who aren’t sending enough of their hard-earned money to people who mostly hate them probably isn’t the best way to go about it.

1 comment February 3rd, 2006

Religous “morality” at work?

In reponse to the Danish publication of satirical images of Muhammad:

viagra canada view ,1889112_ind_1, malady 00.html”>Arabs burned the Norwegian flag.


Palestinians threatened to kidnap Europeans.

And the leader of Lebanon’s Shi’ite Hizbollah group said:

the cartoonists would have thought twice if Muslims had fulfilled a 1989 edict by late Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to kill Britain’s Salman Rushdie over his novel The Satanic Verses.

“Had a Muslim carried out Imam Khomeini’s fatwa against the apostate Salman Rushdie, cialis sale then those lowlifers would not have dared discredit the Prophet, not in Denmark, Norway or France.”

I’m not surprised to see any of that.

I was surprised to find a Canadian website (cited by Google News that defended the Muslim overreaction and condemned Western freedom of expression.

I swear it’s like watching a cow argue in favor of McDonalds.

Let me make this clear to the guy in Canada, the folks in the Middle East, the liberals in Madison and the conservatives in Congress:

The one thing I’m willing to fight any of you to the death over is my right to say whatever the hell I want.

(And I promise to defend your right to do the same.)

Add comment February 2nd, 2006

Let he who does not live in a glass house cast the first stone.

I’d barely recovered from my last religious wrestling match with Rick Esenberg of Shark and Shepherd when he decided to endorse this anti-atheist diatribe by Dale Reich.

I wonder if someone has been slipping something into the holy water at these guys’ churches?

That’s the only thing I can think of that might have inspired such parochial pablum.

For the record, viagra usa stuff I’m not an atheist.

I’m an agnostic.

But I think that still qualifies me to debunk Dale.

Dale challenges atheists to “…embrace the world as you say it is: a purely physical and random place where goodness and evil don’t really exist…”

First news flash: Christians don’t own good and evil. Look up good or evil on Dictionary.com and you’ll notice the entries don’t mention God, there Jesus, patient or Satan once.

Just because I don’t believe in the guy with the pitchfork and the horns doesn’t mean I can’t believe in good and evil.

Dale goes on the to say, “What I meant to say is that God is the basis for good and evil, and once you reject him and his rules, you’re left with nothing but self-serving and self-preservation.”

Or you’re left with the opportunity to determine your own purpose in life rather than finding your life’s meaning in a book that sits on the exact same library shelf as:

The Koran
Bullfinch’s Mythology
The Vedas
The Book of Mormen
And Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard.

(Be careful which one you pick up, by the way. I’d hate for you to get confused about which is Gospel and which is garbage.)

Then Dale asserts, “For them, life should be merely an exercise in seeking personal pleasure, procreating and then dying.”

Thank you for the suggestions, Dale, but I think I’ll do my own thing if you don’t mind.

The whole problem here is that Dale would find life meaningless and immoral without Jesus, so he can’t fathom how the 4.5 BILLION people on Earth who are not Christians can handle it.

(That’s right Dale 77% of the people on the planet do NOT believe in Jesus and they somehow manage to make it through their day.)

Rick is much less contentious than Dale manages to sound, so the only thing I want to point out to him is the danger of tossing out a statement like:

My sense is that the abandonment of some source of transcendent value tends to result in utilitarianism and utilitarianism tends to result in slaughter.

I’m sorry, but I’d be willing to bet that religious fanaticism has led to far more slaughter than utilitarianism could ever dream of.

Just off the top of my head I can name:

the Spanish Inquisition
The Crusades
the Salem Witch Trials
Oliver Cromwell
The Troubles in Ireland
Today’s Islamic terrorists
And most cases of ethnic cleansing (including the Holocaust) which are usually at least partially based on religious differences.

No offense guys, but before you decide to devalue everyone who doesn’t share your exact view of the Universe, you might want to reread Jesus’s advice about throwing stones.

For the record, I applaud (and envy) anyone with a settled belief structure. But just because I respect your beliefs, doesn’t mean I’m going to give you a free shot at me because you don’t respect mine.

8 comments February 2nd, 2006

Should I vote Green? Or just take a Walker?

I’d like to invite the Cheddarsphere to treat me like the ignorant git I am.

I’m trying to decide who would make the better Republican candidate for Governor: Mark Green or Scott Walker?

Please outline the differences you see between the two men and why you think one would be the better choice.

You can do it on your own sites and leave links in the comment section or just do it in the comments.

Think of it… here’s your chance to actually influence an infamous “undecided” voter!

11 comments February 1st, 2006

The most cynical gun proposal I’ve ever seen.

Seth of In Effect makes Machiavelli seem like Mickey Mouse with his despicably cynical proposal that Wisconsin Democrats pass their own version of a concealed carry law.

Basically he thinks they should create a “carry” law that would prevent most law-abiding citizens from actually carrying a gun.

The Democrats could then take “credit” for passing a bill, cialis sick but not be troubled by very many citizens actually taking advantage of it.

I respect people who want to ban guns because they truly believe it’s the right thing to do. (Even though I disagree with them.)

I agree with people who think we have a constitutional right to bear arms and are therefore in favor of a real concealed carry law.

But to suggest that the legislature should pass a law that fools people into thinking their rights are being respected – but would make no real change – is cynical and unprincipled.

If Seth thinks Republicans will be satisfied by a law that forces you to beg some bureaucrat for permission to exercise a right that is enumerated in both the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions, viagra buy he’s not just cynical…he’s delusional.

I wonder how Seth would feel about a law that made you prove you had something worthwhile to say before your speech was protected by the First Amendment?

7 comments February 1st, 2006

Concealed carry veto override failed.

According to the Journal Sentinel’s Daywatch the state Assembly failed to override Doyle’s veto of the concealed carry law.

No big surprise.

Democratic Reps. Terry Van Akkeren of Sheboygan and John Steinbrink of Pleasant Prairie switched their votes.

(I know, cialis canada illness I know. Flipflopping Democrats? Seems impossible, don’t it?)

1 comment January 31st, 2006

The Santa Barbara postal shooting is going to kill concealed carry in Wisconsin

Sorry guys.

But there is no way any Democrat is going to vote to override their governor to allow concealed carry a day after a disturbed woman in Santa Barbara killed six people (including herself).

It won’t matter that she probably didn’t have any sort of permit.

It won’t matter that she was probably severely disturbed.

It won’t matter that she could have killed even more of them by building a bomb.

Or that an armed worker on the site might have been able to stop the killings.

What matters is that a gun was used and people died.

And so did the Personal Protection Act in Wisconsin.

1 comment January 31st, 2006

Dave Berkman bombs again.


In his latest Media Musings column in The Shepherd Express Dave Berkman wrote:

A question at the forefront of any engaged Arab’s thinking is why the United States refuses to condemn Israel for maintaining a nuclear arsenal and for refusing to sign on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty while this country aggressively pursues Muslim Iran for developing its own atomic weapons.

I’d like to point out to Mr. Berkman that Israel already has nuclear weapons.

Iran doesn’t.

Our differing stances towards Israel and iran are about proliferation, buy cialis ailment not partiality.

Pakistan, generic viagra and India, France, England, Russia, China and – yes – Israel already have the bomb.

It’s too late to put those genies back into those particular bottles.

But it is not too late to keep Iran from developing the capacity to realize its President’s avowed desire to see the nation of Israel wiped off the map.

Of course, accusing the United States of having a nuclear-containment policy based strictly on anti-Muslim prejudice isn’t enough for Mr. Berkman.

He wants to lay the entirety of Middle East strife on our doorstep.

He says:

… until America demonstrates an even hand in how it treats the Jewish state and its Muslim neighbors, the Middle East will remain a powder keg

In otherwords, if the United States was more impartial about Iran’s and Hamas’ insistence on ending Israel’s existence, the Arabs would embrace their Israeli brothers.

And the President of Iran would stop saying things like:

The Holocaust is a myth.”

…and…

God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States.”

Perhaps someone should remind Mr. Berkman that (as distasteful as he may find it) he himself lives in the United States.

And it can be counterproductive to extend your symapthies to those who are uninterested in returning the favor.

4 comments January 29th, 2006

It seems Hillary doesn’t know a hill of beans about how the government works

Hillary Clinton says Democrats should filibuster Judge Samuel Alitio because, best viagra cheap “I do not think Judge Alito would advance the principles Americans hold most dear.”

Shouldn’t a lawyer AND a U.S. Sentator like Ms. Clinton understand that “advancing” things is the role of the Legislative branch (or possibly the Executive), but NOT the Judicial?

And she was doing such a good job pretending to be a centrist.

For Ms. Clinton’s enlightment I’ve included a link to Congressforkids.net. They explain the various functions of the three branches of government so simply that even Ms. Clinton should be able to understand them.

3 comments January 28th, 2006

Newer Posts Older Posts


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta