Wow. That's pretty much it. That's all I can think, right now. Wow, that was a fantastically insane opening ceremony.
China may not be politically and ethically perfect, but they know how to throw a party. And how.
I thought the intense applause for the Iraqi team was great (we got a ton of applause too, looks like we're not as hated there as much libs make it out that we are).
Oh, boy. We've got quite a week ahead. Go United States of America!
Comments on a few teams:
US: Definitely wasn't expecting Ralph Lauren berets and formalwear, but at least we looked pretty serious about winning the Games.
China: Best entrance, of course. The story about the little kid in the earthquake was just moving. Yao Ming is a giant.
Israel: Lots of cheering for them, they looked, well, pretty happy to be there. Apparently no bad relations between them and the team from Palestine...yet.
Russia: Looked pretty retro with the old-school uniforms. Extra points for wanting to pose with the US basketball stars.
Niger: Props to the one and only athlete.
Paraguay: The dude holding the flag looked absolutely terrified to be there.
North Korea: Most of the athletes looked like businessmen. I caught a picture of the Great Leader on a lanyard one athlete was wearing. So ronery...
Mongolia: Apparently a large part of the population are nomads. That's all I really remember.
France: Well, what do you expect? Sarkozy was asleep (or just not paying attention) for the shot he was in.
Austrailia: Rudd didn't realize he was onscreen. Humor ensues.
Austria: They came in with a very awesome dance routine. Crowd favorite.
Morocco: The new flag looks very...pagan...
Canada: They're not even a real country anyway.
Iran: Greenshirts. Not very menacing at all. Still, their government remains a threat. Or as Obama would say, a "tiny country"...or maybe one of our 57 states?
I'll be watching the medal stats (and events).
Friday, August 8, 2008
Thursday, August 7, 2008
We Can't Inflate Our Way Out Of This
At the risk of sounding like another right-wing pundit, I've got to say that Obama's energy policy just keeps worsening. It's almost to the point of ridiculousness.
Case in point.
Last week, he advocated the use of the SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserve), a sort of virtual savings account of petroleum that is kept and controlled by the federal government. It's for national emergencies, only to be used if the very infrastructure of our country is threatened. It's got enought petroleum to keep the country running for 1 and 1/2 to 3 days. But wait, Obama (and Nancy Pelosi) wants to risk not having enough so that we can have a very small (and very short-lived) gas price drop? Bollocks. It's about as effective as the McCain-Hillary gas tax holiday.
The SPR is not a political tool meant to be manipulated by political candidates for their own expediency. It's a last-ditch national defense mechanism.
But now, we've stepped it up a notch.
Obama now says we can save "3-4% more oil" by "inflating our tires to the proper level" (what he really means by this is overinflation of tires) and getting "tune-ups". Well, gee, Barry, I had no idea I shouldn't drive on flat tires and crappy systems. Now since You've told me to, I'll do it!!
2 problems with this.
Cars don't really get "tune-ups" anymore, older cars do. Sure, we change oil from time-to-time and change tires not-that-often. But "tune-ups" today really don't comprise of anything, since most problems occur in a specific part of a car, identified by the car's own systems and then fixed by a mechanic.
Secondly, overinflation of your tires causes a lot of problems. First, if you're driving in hot weather (and everything's getting hotter, thanks to Al Glorebal Warming), your overinflated tires have a very high risk of bursting, because of the heat and pressure increase inside the tire and the friction between the tire and the road. Also, on wet roads, you've got a higher risk of hydroplane, making it easy to get into an accident. Heck, even running over a very sharp object would pop the overinflated tire faster than it would a less-inflated one.
Sure, maybe you do save on oil (although those statistics of his campaign may be quite skewered, since to begin the calculations you have to assume that nobody's driving on so-called "properly-inflated" tires) but you lose more in the long run, unless you're a tire salesman.
I'm not saying McCain's policy is particularly great, but it's a heck of a lot better than this drivel we get from Obama and his campaign. I hear the McCain campaign is giving away Obama tire-gauges. Fantastic, because the change I need isn't a tire change or an oil change. And it's not the change Obama offers.
Sometimes he tries too hard to pander to unassuming voters. And this time, it's backfired.
Case in point.
Last week, he advocated the use of the SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserve), a sort of virtual savings account of petroleum that is kept and controlled by the federal government. It's for national emergencies, only to be used if the very infrastructure of our country is threatened. It's got enought petroleum to keep the country running for 1 and 1/2 to 3 days. But wait, Obama (and Nancy Pelosi) wants to risk not having enough so that we can have a very small (and very short-lived) gas price drop? Bollocks. It's about as effective as the McCain-Hillary gas tax holiday.
The SPR is not a political tool meant to be manipulated by political candidates for their own expediency. It's a last-ditch national defense mechanism.
But now, we've stepped it up a notch.
Obama now says we can save "3-4% more oil" by "inflating our tires to the proper level" (what he really means by this is overinflation of tires) and getting "tune-ups". Well, gee, Barry, I had no idea I shouldn't drive on flat tires and crappy systems. Now since You've told me to, I'll do it!!
2 problems with this.
Cars don't really get "tune-ups" anymore, older cars do. Sure, we change oil from time-to-time and change tires not-that-often. But "tune-ups" today really don't comprise of anything, since most problems occur in a specific part of a car, identified by the car's own systems and then fixed by a mechanic.
Secondly, overinflation of your tires causes a lot of problems. First, if you're driving in hot weather (and everything's getting hotter, thanks to Al Glorebal Warming), your overinflated tires have a very high risk of bursting, because of the heat and pressure increase inside the tire and the friction between the tire and the road. Also, on wet roads, you've got a higher risk of hydroplane, making it easy to get into an accident. Heck, even running over a very sharp object would pop the overinflated tire faster than it would a less-inflated one.
Sure, maybe you do save on oil (although those statistics of his campaign may be quite skewered, since to begin the calculations you have to assume that nobody's driving on so-called "properly-inflated" tires) but you lose more in the long run, unless you're a tire salesman.
I'm not saying McCain's policy is particularly great, but it's a heck of a lot better than this drivel we get from Obama and his campaign. I hear the McCain campaign is giving away Obama tire-gauges. Fantastic, because the change I need isn't a tire change or an oil change. And it's not the change Obama offers.
Sometimes he tries too hard to pander to unassuming voters. And this time, it's backfired.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Names, Blogs, and Insight
Well, for the last couple posts, I've mostly been rambling and running my mouth about this-or-thats of politics. I'd say it's time for change. Sort of. I want to talk about why this blog's called "The Religious Conservative" in the first place. Of course, I can, since this is my blog. Hah!
It's not just that fact of which I am, indeed, a religious conservative.
The origin story begins on forums like DemocraticUnderground, MSNBC comment boards, NYTimes editorials. Heck, even the "Discovery Channel" blogs. The term "religious conservative", most commonly known over there as "Conservative Christians" and "Religious Rightists" is used frequently. So much that it's become a sort of staple in political culture, that the label is perfectly OK to use to equate with "bigots", "wingnuts", "religious nutjobs", perhaps the less-recognized "Neanderthals" and "dinosaurs". It's become blanketed synonymously with those, well, insults. anyone with any stink of regressivism that we most certainly have to avoid. Oh yes, we must certainly avoid it.
20 years ago, if you'd have asked someone what they thought of "religious conservatives", you'd get an indifferent answer. Possibly even a proud or benign one. Nowadays, you'd get an "Oh, they're ignorant and intolerant, right?"
Reagan must be turning in his grave.
The media had a large part in this, and trust, the evidence exists that the MSM is left-leaning. Follow the money donated to candidates, committees, causes, follow the ideologies which reporters and writers identify as. As we've aged, so has the current political climate. And right now, that climate is hostile to anyone claiming to be both religious (well, Christian) and conservative.
Even I had been duped. Yes, my glorious, enlightened brain hadn't developed the critical-thinking skills needed for seeing through the ignorance. I can remember a few years ago in a discussion with my class, somehow the subject of politics came up, so did the "Christian Conservative" label. My instinct was to think (and yes, I do remember this clearly), "Don't call them that. They're not like that."
I live in a conservative place. If I once thought that, it's possible lots of others indoctrinated by culture think (or once thought) the same way.
So am I insulting myself by naming my blog "The Religious Conservative"? Hardly. In fact, just the opposite.
If this is what the left characterizes as their enemy, their antagonist, then it's an appropriate moniker for a warrior who stands against it. I take this name upon myself, working for the day it won't have the negative association.
Or what, should I have just named it "RUSH RULEZ"?
It's not just that fact of which I am, indeed, a religious conservative.
The origin story begins on forums like DemocraticUnderground, MSNBC comment boards, NYTimes editorials. Heck, even the "Discovery Channel" blogs. The term "religious conservative", most commonly known over there as "Conservative Christians" and "Religious Rightists" is used frequently. So much that it's become a sort of staple in political culture, that the label is perfectly OK to use to equate with "bigots", "wingnuts", "religious nutjobs", perhaps the less-recognized "Neanderthals" and "dinosaurs". It's become blanketed synonymously with those, well, insults. anyone with any stink of regressivism that we most certainly have to avoid. Oh yes, we must certainly avoid it.
20 years ago, if you'd have asked someone what they thought of "religious conservatives", you'd get an indifferent answer. Possibly even a proud or benign one. Nowadays, you'd get an "Oh, they're ignorant and intolerant, right?"
Reagan must be turning in his grave.
The media had a large part in this, and trust, the evidence exists that the MSM is left-leaning. Follow the money donated to candidates, committees, causes, follow the ideologies which reporters and writers identify as. As we've aged, so has the current political climate. And right now, that climate is hostile to anyone claiming to be both religious (well, Christian) and conservative.
Even I had been duped. Yes, my glorious, enlightened brain hadn't developed the critical-thinking skills needed for seeing through the ignorance. I can remember a few years ago in a discussion with my class, somehow the subject of politics came up, so did the "Christian Conservative" label. My instinct was to think (and yes, I do remember this clearly), "Don't call them that. They're not like that."
I live in a conservative place. If I once thought that, it's possible lots of others indoctrinated by culture think (or once thought) the same way.
So am I insulting myself by naming my blog "The Religious Conservative"? Hardly. In fact, just the opposite.
If this is what the left characterizes as their enemy, their antagonist, then it's an appropriate moniker for a warrior who stands against it. I take this name upon myself, working for the day it won't have the negative association.
Or what, should I have just named it "RUSH RULEZ"?
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Deja vu: The Fall of Wendell Willkie and Why it Matters
We all remember the Great Depression. We all have learned of Hoover's failures and FDR's New Deal. We've (well, some of us) know that the legend Franklin Delano could have stayed for a 4th term if he hadn't been killed in the process.
But who remembers Wendell Willkie?
Wendell Willkie...you know, that Wendell Willkie, the spry runner-up to FDR's throne in the election of 1940. The young, charismatic, Washington outsider who inspired millions and came from a relatively (very) inexperienced political career.
Sound familiar?
American Thinker has posted something new that just tickled me red (since pink is far too girly). It's called "Barack, Meet Wendell". I strongly advise you to click the link below for some intellectual enlightenment in your quest for ammo against Obamautomatons.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/barack_meet_wendell.html
It's great, factual, enlightening, all that jazz. I'd never even considered comparing this election to the 40's, but apparently there is much cause to do so as of now. The article suggests that Obama's hubris and riskiness will ultimately be his downfall. More on this later; I've got to finish the whole thing!
But who remembers Wendell Willkie?
Wendell Willkie...you know, that Wendell Willkie, the spry runner-up to FDR's throne in the election of 1940. The young, charismatic, Washington outsider who inspired millions and came from a relatively (very) inexperienced political career.
Sound familiar?
American Thinker has posted something new that just tickled me red (since pink is far too girly). It's called "Barack, Meet Wendell". I strongly advise you to click the link below for some intellectual enlightenment in your quest for ammo against Obamautomatons.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/barack_meet_wendell.html
It's great, factual, enlightening, all that jazz. I'd never even considered comparing this election to the 40's, but apparently there is much cause to do so as of now. The article suggests that Obama's hubris and riskiness will ultimately be his downfall. More on this later; I've got to finish the whole thing!
Introduction
Voila! In view, a humble, vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin, vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicous and voracious violation of volition!
Those words spoken by the ultimate libertarian, the honorable "V" of "V for Vendetta". A great man, looked on in awe by all, glamorous, shining, new.
Remember, remember, the 5th of November. Those words revive the legend of Guy Fawkes, thwarted terrorist of the 17th century.
Perhaps if Guy Fawkes were currently the star of a widely-acclaimed graphic novel and movie, he wouldn't have to deal with any negative connotations. Yet, he and V are one in the same, only one difference contrasting them.
Time.
He's a revolutionary, a freedom-fighter, working to show the British monarchy that nobody is in control of the lives of individuals but the individuals themselves. He's as popular a figure today since his story began. Ah, but who am I talking about? Well, V, of course. In America, if I mention Fawkes in a conversation, I hear calls of "What?" and "Who?", not to mention "Wait...you mean that phoenix in Harry Potter?" Most people recognize V. Yet in Britain, Fawkes is looked upon by many as that revolutionary.
In 50 years, who will remember "V for Vendetta"? Most likely long-forgotten, a relic of the past, something we can study as cultural significance, nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps more libertarianesque freedom-fighting terrorists will be penned, crafted. Better than V? Well, I don't know.
But the legend of Guy Fawkes? Well, the 5th of November is still remembered after all this time. Guy Fawkes was V's inspiration, what V modeled off of. Fawkes shan't disappear. Not even after he died, way back in 1670. He created the message that many stand for today.
This is how I equate liberalism and conservatism. Both based on the Constitutional republic created by our forefathers, sharing many of the same notions, those of the Bill of Rights.
Our modern liberalism is edging away from them at awesome speeds. It's new, a fad, a reminder of wishful-thinking utopianism from the 60's. It's the desire for a runaway federal government so large that it borders on socialism. The supression of religious views in politics. The social de-evolution that some of our, ahem, friends across the pond have been subjected to. Advocation of hysteria, disrespect to our country, division and hate-mongering. This is what liberalism offers today.
However, conservatism today is based on the classical liberalism of our country's Founding Fathers, the type of which they chose to break off with Britain for, a liberalism of virtue and individuality, one of personal responsibility. Caring for the poor without the screwing-it-up intervention of the federal government. These views have stood the centuries, for as long as this great nation has lived. Traditional virtue in legislation, small government is not dead yet; not yet, and won't be in 50 years.
The only verdict is vengeance. A vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant, and the virtuous... Surely this vichysoisse of verbiage veers most verbose, so allow me to simply add that it is my great honor to meet you, and you may call me Guy Fawkes.
Those words spoken by the ultimate libertarian, the honorable "V" of "V for Vendetta". A great man, looked on in awe by all, glamorous, shining, new.
Remember, remember, the 5th of November. Those words revive the legend of Guy Fawkes, thwarted terrorist of the 17th century.
Perhaps if Guy Fawkes were currently the star of a widely-acclaimed graphic novel and movie, he wouldn't have to deal with any negative connotations. Yet, he and V are one in the same, only one difference contrasting them.
Time.
He's a revolutionary, a freedom-fighter, working to show the British monarchy that nobody is in control of the lives of individuals but the individuals themselves. He's as popular a figure today since his story began. Ah, but who am I talking about? Well, V, of course. In America, if I mention Fawkes in a conversation, I hear calls of "What?" and "Who?", not to mention "Wait...you mean that phoenix in Harry Potter?" Most people recognize V. Yet in Britain, Fawkes is looked upon by many as that revolutionary.
In 50 years, who will remember "V for Vendetta"? Most likely long-forgotten, a relic of the past, something we can study as cultural significance, nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps more libertarianesque freedom-fighting terrorists will be penned, crafted. Better than V? Well, I don't know.
But the legend of Guy Fawkes? Well, the 5th of November is still remembered after all this time. Guy Fawkes was V's inspiration, what V modeled off of. Fawkes shan't disappear. Not even after he died, way back in 1670. He created the message that many stand for today.
This is how I equate liberalism and conservatism. Both based on the Constitutional republic created by our forefathers, sharing many of the same notions, those of the Bill of Rights.
Our modern liberalism is edging away from them at awesome speeds. It's new, a fad, a reminder of wishful-thinking utopianism from the 60's. It's the desire for a runaway federal government so large that it borders on socialism. The supression of religious views in politics. The social de-evolution that some of our, ahem, friends across the pond have been subjected to. Advocation of hysteria, disrespect to our country, division and hate-mongering. This is what liberalism offers today.
However, conservatism today is based on the classical liberalism of our country's Founding Fathers, the type of which they chose to break off with Britain for, a liberalism of virtue and individuality, one of personal responsibility. Caring for the poor without the screwing-it-up intervention of the federal government. These views have stood the centuries, for as long as this great nation has lived. Traditional virtue in legislation, small government is not dead yet; not yet, and won't be in 50 years.
The only verdict is vengeance. A vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant, and the virtuous... Surely this vichysoisse of verbiage veers most verbose, so allow me to simply add that it is my great honor to meet you, and you may call me Guy Fawkes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
