Wicked Fragments

I simply cannot believe that after 8 years of pure and absolute hell that it is finally over.  (Well, almost...)  Buh-bye Bush.  Buh-buy Neo-cons.

Now, of course, we just need to try to make sure we don't go totally crazy spending government dollars on millions of social programs.

Either way... thank whatever may be considered holy.

Our current election system is pretty screwed up.  Consider if you will...

• Electoral College can over-ride popular vote.
• Electoral College may sometimes elect a president that does not have the popular vote.  (see: Bush Jr., aka Satan)
• Electoral College makes it so that if you vote in a state that generally votes differently than you that you may as well not bother voting since your vote has no impact.
• Primaries pre-dispose people to thinking their candidate can or cannot win, swaying their vote.
• Polling can sway results by convincing people that their ideal candidate can or cannot win, forcing them to pick a different candidate so their "vote is not wasted".
• Paper-based and/or piss-poor shoddy electrical systems that do not take advantage of current technological advances. (not all states and districts, but most)
• Candidates who are not insanely wealthy unable to effectively compete in any election.  Elections wind up being "bought".
• Relatively low voter turnout.

So I have a new idea to resolve these issues.  I'm totally serious about this.  Fox, give me a call if you want to talk about licensing the right to do this from me.

The answer?  We do the elections in a hybrid American Idol/Apprentice style.

» Read More

Our latest campaign process is bringing a very real problem to light; God.  Religion has always been a presence in our country, and as it should be... many people are religious.  That cannot and should not be ignored.  What I do not understand, however, is why it is becoming more and more important to bring God into government.

Those may seem like opposing remarks, so let me clarify.

First, this country was based off of a need and a desire for religious and political freedom.  Arguably, it was based almost entirely off of religious freedom, since the first settlers here were really running away from being persecuted by the government and social classes for their religious faith.  These people came here so that they could settle and practice their religion in peace, without fear of oppression by those who felt differently.  The result?  America was born.

Now anyone could practice any religion they wanted, and as an added bonus we tossed in a whole bunch of social and political freedoms as well.  To a certain extent, it was very much a "look, do whatever you want, just don't hurt anyone else while you're at it, ok?" kind of setup.  Something we would call "Libertarianism" today.  Was it perfect?  Of course not... there were references here and there to the Christian God in the government, but it was a pretty good start.

» Read More

Everywhere I look I see people trying to "encourage diversity" in one way or another.  From simple conversations like "You know, we should consider Amil for that position... after all, we would like to have a more diversified workforce" to extreme measures such as "Equal Opportunity Employment" and quotas; ensuring that any given group has a mix of skin colors is apparently a critical part of success.

Me, personally... I think it's hogwash.  What's more is I think that rather than reducing or eliminating discrimination, it actually amplifies the problem.

Consider for a moment, if you will, what we're trying to do.  We're really trying to make the color of one's skin (and their choice of religion, or any other social or cultural elements) not just irrelevant, but ideally completely invisible.  The absolutely ideal situation would be for me to be able to select someone and not even realize that the person was any different from me at all.

"Oh he was black?  Geez, I didn't even notice!"

» Read More

See this article detailing his speech.

In this speech he says: "What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

I'm sorry, what was that?

Freedom is about saying its okay for the government or some similar body to be deeply involved in my affairs in some way?

Holy shit.

If you want to pretty much make sure that the solid foundation of freedom and rights-crushing legislation that Bush has laid down is properly utilized, a vote for Giuliani will pretty much ensure a nice solid fortress built on top of it.  I'm not sure, but at this point I think I might even vote for Romney over this idiot.

This whole general concept sort of blows my mind.

My synopsis of this issue is that "traditionalists" of one kind of another feel that "marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman" and therefore, any other bonding of two people is inappropriate and somehow nullifies or undermines the strength of the marriage concept as a whole.

In other words, if I allow two men to marry, then suddenly all marriages, whether traditional man/woman or otherwise, are suddenly weakened.  Perhaps violated?  I'm not sure.

See the general problem here is that, when pressed, anyone making this argument can do little more than talk about the "definition" of the word, or perhaps note that it's eluded to or referenced some way in the bible.  I'm sorry, but that really doesn't help me as a logical thinking human being, because it's not really an argument.  Or at least, not one that cannot be instantly nullified.

For example, and we'll use one with a touch of irony to it.  A great many years ago, the word "gay" was exclusively used to mean "happy" or "joyous".  However, somewhere along the line, the word suddenly came to be another word for (typically male) "homosexual".  Interestingly, since many of the people I've heard speak on this issue, also refer to "gay" people and are clearly referring to their sexual preference and not their disposition, one must wonder... if we are not protecting the "sanctity" of definitions of all words, can we really selectively protect only the sanctity of one? 

» Read More

Ok, most of the republican candidates have some issues, sure.  Hell most of the democratic ones do too.  Ok, hell, they're all a bunch of useless twits.  Fine.

But Romney?

Romney is the lead candidate?

Don't get me wrong, he's a smart man and I'll give him credit for whipping out the big guns when it gets to be crisis time.  If you screwed up in a Romney run government, he is going to hang your ass out on a line, and fast.  Not a lot of loyalty there, but then blind loyalty is one of our problem issues in government anyway, so maybe that's a good thing.

That, however, is not really the issue.

The real problem is that Romney is a lying, opportunist, manipulative jerk.  Oh sure he goes on and on about how he changed his mind on the abortion thing.  Oh and the gay marriage thing.  Bullpucky.  He changed his outward position on it just to please his target voters.  I'm not going to bother doing some big analysis to prove it.  If you don't see it, you're a blind idiot... or someone who votes republican universally... either way works, it's pretty much the same thing.

Romney changed his positions around to get voted into office in Massachusetts, and it was fairly clear from early on he had little intention of doing much more than work his way to the whitehouse.  Now that it's time, he's going to change again to get there.

Why shouldn't he?  We're setting a very clear precedent here in the US where apparently we'll ultimately believe pretty much any lie that is fed to us.  If for some reason that lie doesn't take, they make up another one.  It doesn't even matter if it's blatantly obvious that it's a lie and counter to the previous lies, as eventually we'll swallow one and stick with it and the others will be denied and forgotten by the retards who seem to own the majority share of this country.

It's a sad sad future we are facing.

You know for quite some time not, I've been waiting for George Bush to try to basically usurp all powers and maintain his presidency beyond his term.

Well, check this out: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

As far as I can tell this is him basically saying "If something bad happens, I own the US government."

This would enable the killing stroke to our slowly eroding freedoms.

Nice job, middle America and anyone stupid enough to think that this man is all that stands between you and terrorism.

Now all we need is for Bush to plan some sort of internal attack on our country, and he can fire this puppy up.

I imagine you'll see me thrown in jail sometime immediately thereafter.

So the US Attorneys that were fired, presumably for cause due to performance related issues... well, suddenly it turns out that they had all received good performance reviews, which would somewhat indicate that the firing had very little to do with poor performance.  Well, gee, what a surprise.  I never saw that one coming.

What I also never expected was the spokesman claiming that they never said that the firings were due to performance issues to begin with.  Even though I can pretty much sift around and find video showing the same guy making completely contradictory statements over a few months.  Also a complete and total shock for me, personally.  I'm astounded.

Also in the general column of shock is the fact that Bush summarily over-rode the supreme court decision to throw "Scooter" Libby in jail for 2.5 years, stating that the sentence was "excessive".  The probation and fine are intact, but apparently "Scooter" didn't agonize too much over the fine since he promptly showed up with a banker's check, probably (my speculation) drawn on the contributions made to the Libby Defense Fund.

Again, severe shock.

Shocked, I am.

BTW, what kind of moron allows himself to be called "Scooter", anyway?

(Read CNN Story Here)

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's office refused to cooperate with an agency that oversees classified documents, then tried to abolish the office when it challenged the actions, House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman said."

See, if you just revised this as follows:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's office refused to cooperate with an agency that oversees classified documents, then tried to abolish the office when it (that) challenged the actions, House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman said."

You wind up with a perfect model for how George W. Bush and his cronies run the entire country.  Let's clean that up a touch:

"George W. Bush and his staff, refused to cooperate and then tried to abolish the office that challenged the actions."

Oh wait!  I missed something!

"George W. Bush and his staff, refused to cooperate and then tried to abolish the offender who dared to challenge their absolute authority to whatever they feel appropriate.  Anyone that stood in the way of such abolishment was accused of not being a patriot, and supporting 'tehrizm'."

This handy guide provided to you by someone with a brain cell.  God I hate knowing that there are people who I otherwise respect who voted for this asshole.