|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
News Archives - Posts #24-34, 3-11 to 3-25, 13:11 PST
#34
2004-3-25, 13:11 PST
I don't know who's worse: left-wing nuts or right-wing nuts.
By "left-wing nuts" I'm not just talking about communism; it can't cause mass starvation in industrialized countries (how the hell do you force the 3% of the population that's in agriculture into collective farms?), and besides, most left-wing nuts are not communists - some are socialists but not communists, some are anarchists, some are liberals, and some don't really have a political ideology.
I'm talking, for instance, about all the conspiracy nuts on DU and PFC, whose faith in the unsubstantiated theory that Diebold intentionally rigs elections, or about all the idiots who think that a revolution is a good idea, or the so-called anti-elitists.
These guys are scary. They have no qualms about killing for The Cause, or intimidating people who act rationally by bashing them as sheep, or using any tactic that the Nazis or communists used.
But then again, many right-wing nuts are just as bad.
First, there're the militias in Idaho; they're nuts, but they are insignificant microbes.
Then, there's the Christian Coalition, which is far better organized than the aforementioned left-wing nuts, and consequently has a much higher chance of achieving its dark ends.
Besides, in the United States people are far more susceptible to Christianity than to communism.
Blah. I'm just venting, I know. Consider the alternative, though: not writing anything...
#33
2004-3-23, 09:15 PST
I have seen that many people have found my site by Googling the phrase "redeye constitution." If you read this, then please answer by email or on my forum: what were you looking for when you searched for that phrase?
At least that's better than finding A Theist Tale by searching for beautiful captured "handcuffed me" master. What the hell were you looking for when you typed that? If this is what I think (S&M), then you're at the wrong place, obviously.
Addendum: I give myself a week to find this page hgih up on that last search phrase... *L*
#32
2004-3-22, 21:47 PST
I have yet to decide which presidential candidate to endorse, but he/she/it will probably be one of the following:
1. Ken Lay - because with him we at least know he's a crook.
2. Nixon - because he's dead so he can't do any real harm...
3. Mickey Mouse - because fictional characters couldn't take bribes, last time I checked.
4. Mahatir Mohamed - because he at least admits he's a dictator.
5. Saddam Hussein - because he has a pretty good record in preventing Islamic terrorism...
6. Hillary Clinton - because she's already served two terms and is so very experienced.
7. A yellow dog - because it can't really bomb people.
8. The average American - because that will prove that Bush is not the most idiotic world leader possible.
The list is not finalized yet, but this is what it'll probably be.
#31
2004-3-22, 19:40 PST
I didn't really promise to post more often. That's another conspiracy of my enemies...
I've just finishd a one-day ordeal on a forum called People for Change (http://www.peopleforchange.net - click at your own risk).
I was told that it sprung up from the Democratic Underground after the latter's shift to the right, and took the best of DU. So I checked it...
And my observation is, "Best of DU, my ass."
I'm seriously thinking of contacting a psychologist or a psychiatrist I might know online and asking him/her to check that forum and tell me if I'm right to say that the people there are paranoid.
A small selection of paranoid thoughts includes thinking that Israel assassinated Sheikh Yassin only because he wanted to make peace, believing that Diebold rigged elections on purpose, and believing that DU moved to the right because some Democratic insider bought off the admins.
These people have reminded me what's so good about blogs - the political blogs are a lot more moderate than the forums. Talking Points Memo is a lot more moderate than DU; even Daily Kos, arguably the most left-wing of the major American blogs, is a fascist compared to PFC; and Instapundit may be vitriolic, but he's a communist next to Free Republic (Andrew Sullivan is, too, but that's a given).
So far, I got bashed for:
- Calling Dean a sellout (I forgive PFC on the grounds that I was bashed for saying that also on OSP, where the quality of arguments is ten leagues higher);
- Asking for hard evidence that Diebold was rigging elections on purpose;
- Condemning the Hamas for wanting to avenge Yassin's assassination by killing hundreds of Israeli civilians;
- Talking about the upcoming Newdow hearing in front of the Supreme Court as a political litmus test and mentioning Dean, after which someone attacked me for "trying to find every opportunity to brawl about Dean."
If I find the thread where I said that I couldn't care less about Islamic cultural traditions, I could add several more items to the list above (remember: I registered in that forum less than 24 hours ago).
Sigh.
#30
2004-3-21, 00:58 PST
Chomsky sells out and backs Kerry.
Et tu, Noam? Even Chomsky, a left-wing nut who considers 9/11 to be comparable to anti-Nazi resistance? I can't believe it.
At least he said Kerry was Bush-lite...
The 2003 Sellout spills into 2004. You know that something is wrong when even Chomsky, hardly a moderate or otherwise someone who lets facts stand in his way, endorses Kerry. Bah.
#29
2004-3-19, 00:15 PST
Three things:
1. Pressure at college is now weaker, so expect more frequent posts, and hopefully more frequent postings of new articles.
2. Many conservatives accuse the Spanish electorate of "surrendering to terrorism."
I beg to differ. As far as I'm concerned, Spain will need to replace its constitution with the Shari'a for the explicit purpose of appeasing Al Qaida for it to count as surrendering to terrorism.
Voting for another government is hardly a surrender to terrorism.
Besides, the expression "surrendering to terrorism" as used here is in Patriotic; in English, it means, "caring about human life" or "thinking that governments that fail to curb terrorism should be changed."
3. There are only two things, actually... *L*
#28
2004-3-18, 21:31 PST
I have a new article up. About liberalism vs. conservatism? Nope. It's about terrorism and how to ensure that people in the Islamic world don't support it.
As with many other articles I write, it simply sprung out of basically nowhere and turned into a full-fledged article in two or three days.
Hence, I never really had the chance to put it on my to-do list. Maybe the best way for me to get myself to write that wretched article about liberalism vs. conservatism is to remove it from the to-do list...
Anyway, this terrorism article is yours to enjoy. It is not culturally relativistic and has some serious attacks on the Islamic world (e.g. toward the end I comment on the need for an Enlightenment in the Islamic world, which of course indicates that there hasn't been one already), but i's not neoconservative, either.
It's basically liberal.
#27
2004-3-14, 20:47 PST
As you can see, I created news archives because the news page was getting too unwieldy (31 kilobytes' worth of unwieldiness, to be exact).
Happy quick loading of this page... :-)
#26
2004-3-14, 20:19 PST
Aznar's party lost the election, and further, this loss is directly attributed to not only the Madrid bombings, but also to their having been done by Al Qaida rather than the ETA.
Let's hope that it means that Spain will withdraw from Iraq...
#25
2004-3-13, 00:11 PST
2.3 million people protest against terrorism. And that's really going to help, right?... Terrorists aren't particularly famous for caring about what the majority population thinks. Protesting against a government makes sense; protesting against a movement, such as a nonviolent resistance movement, also makes sense. But what's the point in protesting against a terrorist organization?
On another note, Al Qaida took responsibility. In other words, not only did 2.3 million Spaniards waste their time on protesting against an organization that didn't give a fuck about protests, but also they protested against the wrong organization. Oh well.
There might be a tendency to now blame Bush for that, since he didn't do enough, and since his invasion of Iraq and Aznar's cooperation made Spain a target. This is stupid. As I said on a certain forum to someone who advanced that view: "Had it not been for Al Qaida, this attack wouldn't've occurred at all." I stand by that statement. If you want to play the game of accusations, then blame Bush for the ~70,000 Iraqi civilians he killed, but not for the 200 Spaniards that Bin Laden killed.
Idiotic tendency number two is to use this as a justification for the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Bill, etc. There's no evidence that they actually work better than alternative methods; from a political perspective, they may even backfire because they help stifle dissent and thus let the government get away with less action to curb terrorism.
#24
2004-3-11, 20:39 PST
Finally, I have a chance to comment on the Madrid Blast.
I have three reactions:
One, the humanitarian one: that's terrible.
Two, the confused reaction: will they decide whether it was Al Qaida or the ETA on the basis of something more solid than circumstantial evidence?
Three, the cynical reaction, which as usual wins out: 350 more bombings like this and whoever did it will surpass the number of civilian casualties in Iraq so far.
In an unusual move for him, Bush condemned the attack and praised the Spanish government for its "resolute stance"; this is surprising because up until now I didn't know that Bush knew that Spain existed...
This site has gotten
hits since 2003-12-25.