Two movies have produced the same two governors, so I think that it's a good shot that we could find a third from one of them. Jesse Ventura and "The Governator" Arnold Schwarznegger both starred in "The Predator" and "The Running Man". My friend Chuck nominated Carl Weathers, citing his excellent leadership skills as Apollo Creed. However, not to be crass, but Apollo didn't make the cut because he couldn't stand up to the Soviets. Therefore, I nominate Richard Dawson for the next star to be Governor. Master manipulator as Killian in The Running Man, able to control crowds, but with a mix of rascally rebelliousness in Hogan's Heroes and charming intoxication in Family Feud. A negative is that he's British, but his teeth are good enough that I think we can overlook that. Any other star nominations?
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Ungrateful and Paranoid Muslims
If Ayn Rand's theory that the rich and powerful are the last acceptable target for discrimination did not ring true for some people in the past, it sure as hell should now. First, the United States is called "stingy" by this sanctimonious asshole who's only purpose in life is to preach about how to spend others' money. Hey, Jan, did anyone ever tell you that we didn't have to get involved at all? I mean, I am sure that all of those other Islamic nations will get to it, right?
Oh, wait, I guess that brings me to my next point. The best way to prove that you are not psychotic paranoid fools that hate America simply for being America would be to show us up at our own game and help your own people more than we do. But I guess that it is easier to spin lurid tales about the Americo-Zionist conspiracy (or read the even crazier one here) and close your fist around your dollars with the other.
Of course, if you believe that the United States and Israel caused the tsunami in the first place, it would only make sense to take the jackals money to help you rebuild right? Oh, wait.
If the world was ravaged by Catholic terrorists, and every day the pope allowed radical cardinals to ascend to the top of St. Peter's basilica and preach radical, 13th-century Catholicism about how the holy lands need to be cleansed of heathens and Jew/Muslim dogs, I would have no problem nuking the Vatican and assassinating its leaders. Does anyone really think that the worldwide jihad is anything more than a modern-day, more hateful Crusades, and that it's just as wrong and deadly as the first? Therefore, if the nuclear option needs to be exercised against Mecca because the religious leaders of Muslim nations have wrongly and hatefully turned the people against the United States, then so be it. Take the wind out of their sails, and let them invent a new place where Mohammed ascended.
Oh, wait, I guess that brings me to my next point. The best way to prove that you are not psychotic paranoid fools that hate America simply for being America would be to show us up at our own game and help your own people more than we do. But I guess that it is easier to spin lurid tales about the Americo-Zionist conspiracy (or read the even crazier one here) and close your fist around your dollars with the other.
Of course, if you believe that the United States and Israel caused the tsunami in the first place, it would only make sense to take the jackals money to help you rebuild right? Oh, wait.
If the world was ravaged by Catholic terrorists, and every day the pope allowed radical cardinals to ascend to the top of St. Peter's basilica and preach radical, 13th-century Catholicism about how the holy lands need to be cleansed of heathens and Jew/Muslim dogs, I would have no problem nuking the Vatican and assassinating its leaders. Does anyone really think that the worldwide jihad is anything more than a modern-day, more hateful Crusades, and that it's just as wrong and deadly as the first? Therefore, if the nuclear option needs to be exercised against Mecca because the religious leaders of Muslim nations have wrongly and hatefully turned the people against the United States, then so be it. Take the wind out of their sails, and let them invent a new place where Mohammed ascended.
Monday, January 03, 2005
Just Say NO to the Party in Power
Many smart scholars and classical writers (Locke, Rand, Rothbard) recongize that it does not matter which political party that controls the government that makes a difference, but the fact that the power is available to whoever is in control in the first place. The GOP, for example, abandoned the true ideas of small government on the same day FDR was elected, because they saw that, in order to gain access to power they had to play the game, and give people what they want, that is, "free" stuff from the government, stolen from others.
It is then we must realize that the goals of individualists cannot be achieved through political ends. A lot of people are angry that the Libertarian Party refuses to compromise its principles, to negotiate and compromise with the two parties to make some political gains. However, until we break the hold of the philosophy that makes people think that it's acceptable to use the government to seize others' property to enrich themselves, libertarianism will be relegated to the truly enlightened. It is only by refusing to water-down and weaken this philosophy can we show people we are serious. As soon as Libertarians start playing the game, we become nothing more than a party that has a name that doesn't really mean what it says (see: republican, democrat, etc.)
I applaud Libertarians for refusing to compromise, for it is only through a serious, rigorous and consistent defense of freedom that our ideas will start to be taken seriously. The second that Libertarian logrolls to gain some kind of political pittance is the moment we die inside.
It is then we must realize that the goals of individualists cannot be achieved through political ends. A lot of people are angry that the Libertarian Party refuses to compromise its principles, to negotiate and compromise with the two parties to make some political gains. However, until we break the hold of the philosophy that makes people think that it's acceptable to use the government to seize others' property to enrich themselves, libertarianism will be relegated to the truly enlightened. It is only by refusing to water-down and weaken this philosophy can we show people we are serious. As soon as Libertarians start playing the game, we become nothing more than a party that has a name that doesn't really mean what it says (see: republican, democrat, etc.)
I applaud Libertarians for refusing to compromise, for it is only through a serious, rigorous and consistent defense of freedom that our ideas will start to be taken seriously. The second that Libertarian logrolls to gain some kind of political pittance is the moment we die inside.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
