House of Eratosthenes

So now that I’ve flown in and unpacked and settled again, I hit Buck’s blog and found a link to a handy tool over at MSNBC. You hit these spaces on a checkerboard to find out what each Republican or donk candidate for President has said about each issue, and then you get to — this is the fun part — click to define whether you agree, and if so, how much. Then you can submit your results where they’ll be tallied, to get this handy error message telling you there was some kind of glitch.

Conspiracy? Naw…couldn’t be.

Anyhow, I thought I’d jot down some of my impressions now that I’ve gone through those three steps…or the first 67% of those, anyway.

One. There are only five issues. That’s a load of crap.

Two. Hillary Clinton’s positions seem to be defined according to the message she would like to have broadcasted as we open the fourth quarter of ’07. In other words, according to her convenience. Hillary has been in the public eye for a very long time by now, and even within this tiny sub-selection of five issue she hasn’t been entirely consistent…don’t forget what her last name is.

Three. I’m seeing a lot of references on both the Republican side and on the donk side about this fence. Everyone wants to build that fence. We luuuuuv the fence. You’re about as likely to see me (b. 1966) collect all my Social Security benefits as you are to see that fence. I notice some of the donks are put in the patently absurd position of waggling their fingers at us, lecturing us that we’re a bunch of racists and we shouldn’t be trying so hard to keep the poor put-upon “undocumented migrants” out of our sovereign nation, they’re good for us and all the crime is being committed by the white racist rednecks that are already here…and then broadcast their support for the fence. I do not know how they’re able to get away with this. You’ll have to ask someone else. Kind of reminds me of that absurd discombobulation of a defense of President Clinton nine years ago (post DNA test). So what if he lied, everybody lies, they do it all the time, we all do it…and he didn’t.

Four. Overall, there is evidence that whatever is wrong with the country, is to be blamed on…The People. And I’m afraid the electorate that is marching off to the polls a year from now, are about to score more miserably than any generation that came before. There really does need to be some sort of standard for voting. We could start here…I heard on the radio Michael Savage was addressing this, and he had some interesting ideas. I.Q. of a hundred, not a single point less. Can’t be accepting public assistance, because then you’re voting on giving yourself a raise at the expense of others, which is wrong. I would further add that you can’t be opposed to capital punishment, since the only way to support that position is to proceed from the assumption that all people have the capacity to live safely with all other people…in other words, to unmoor yourself from reality.

Five. To continue the thought meandering in Four…the glowbubble-wormening thing is working too good. I don’t blame the people using it, they’re just socialists marching under a new name, brandishing a new propaganda tool, this one working as well as or better than the propaganda tools that came before. I blame the people buying into this garbage. Wake up. You are literally being told the world’s going to end if your taxes aren’t raised. There’s some faux-scientific psychobabble tossed in to make it more palatable, but that is the crux of the message. You being allowed to keep your own money, is going to make the planet uninhabitable. C’mon, if you’re going to be ripped off, get ripped off by something good.

Six. It seems to be a feat of considerable difficulty, to vote for a Republican without casting a vote to drill in ANWR. Well, good. As is the case with the ManBearPig follies, the aim of the anti-ANWR people is not to preserve any kind of environment, but to bully and cudgel the rest of us into apologizing for our existence…to live life less. That’s what it’s all about. Enviro-hippies don’t give a rip about polar bears or caribou; it isn’t hard to prove this. Just ask them the right questions, and they’ll be changing the subject, or resorting to sarcasm, or both, in no time at all.

Seven. Who decided that any candidate, anywhere, should be able to announce his support for a “timetable” for leaving Iraq, or pulling out immediately, and just leave it at that?? In fact, who decided the name of this issue should be “Iraq”? The issue is that Islamic terrorists want to kill us; the decision to be made, is what, if anything, we are to do in response to this. We’ve tried that “do nothing” option, and on 9/11/01 it was demonstrated to not work out that good. The question that confronts us, therefore, is whether or not we should go back to that “do nothing” option. Hey, that’s a more accurate name for the issue, if I were in charge we’d use that. And what’s the best argument you could possibly conjure up against that? The “Doing nothing about terrorism” issue; I like it. It’s exactly what all the huffing and puffing is about. Politicians who are in favor of doing nothing, should say exactly that, which is much more sincere than anything containing the words “timetable” or “redeploy.” Redeploy…pfffft.

Eight. I didn’t realize this before, but Giuliani kind of…well, he sorta sucks. He can’t even be counted on to defend the country’s border. He would kill some terrorists, I think, so that’s good. But Thompson would kill more. So what’s the point?

Nine. Continuing my concerns about the voting public being idiotic, and probably more to blame for our problems than any one candidate. The tax cuts. The candidates are arguing about the tax cuts. This is not valid. The supply-siders were right; rates were cut, revenues went up…again. Anybody who wants to presume that it works any other way, is choosing to directly contradict established fact and documented history. And should be treated as if that’s what they’re doing. Which, if that included immediate disqualification, the country would be much better off. It’s not a legitimate squabble to have, for any reason.

Thanks… yet again… for the link, Morgan. And the great analysis. I tend to leave waaay too much unsaid in my posts, an example from the linked post about the matrix being “One has to approach the matrix with something of a jaundiced eye, however. Keep in mind: this is MSNBC we’re talking about here.” My words weren’t just about the content (e.g., “the issues”), but were more directed to MS-NBC’s constituency (e.g., the comments on/about the matrix). I mean, what do you expect from people who think Olbermann is the cat’s ~~meow~~ ass?
- Buck | 10/20/2007 @ 15:32

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Duh MatrixSaturday, October 20th, 2007

Duh Matrix
Saturday, October 20th, 2007