I just realized several things all at once...
1. Atlas Shrugged has been made into a movie, and I cannot wait to see it.
2. It comes out - no doubt intentionally - on April 15th.
3. By sheer serendipity, there is a very good chance that the federal government will be CLOSED at the time of the release, because of the same unsustainable levels of government taxation and regulation that the story is about.
Beautiful.
07 April 2011
05 April 2010
Arizona Congressional District 8
Arizona CD 8
Tomorrow night (April 6th) there is going to be another debate between the four Republicans competing to see who gets to replace Gabrielle Giffords as our representative to Congress this fall. I'd like to share my impressions of the candidates from the last debate, and we can see how they compare with who shows up tomorrow night. I’m not going to go into detailed examples, because I want this post to be read (so I’ve got to keep it short).
I like Jesse Kelly a lot. He is articulate, straightforward, and he understands the constitution and freedom. He runs his own business, which should be a prerequisite for any public office. He knows when to fight, and when to let an ad-hominem attack go by. Mostly, I trust him and his instincts. I trust that when he represents me, he will actually REPRESENT me, and that his own moral compass is aligned well enough with my own that I won't have to wonder which way he'll vote. I already know how he'll vote, because I know who he is.
Andy Goss. Andy Goss is a good man, and I actually like his instincts a little bit more than Jesse Kelly's (but not much). On one debate question in particular - airline security - he was the only candidate that even suggested airport security might not be handled best by the government, but by the airlines themselves. Sacrilege to many, but I love that his instincts tended toward solving a problem with freedom rather than with more government. Unfortunately for Mr. Goss, I think that Jesse Kelly is more polished, and has a better chance of defeating Giffords in a fairly liberal town where style will carry more weight than it should, so my vote still goes to Jesse. (In the best of worlds, Goss would run for the House, and Jesse Kelly would take McCain’s Senate seat! Maybe in 6 more years... But I digress.)
Jonathan Paton is a decent guy. If he wins, I’ll vote for him. Politically speaking, he strikes me as a junior McCain. Everything he says is measured and balanced against what he thinks everybody wants to hear. The answers he gave at the debate compared to what he says in smaller settings are pretty different: more stridently conservative in the personal setting, more generally palatable when the cameras are rolling. For nearly every question at the debate his answer had something to do with legislation he would, would like to, did, tried, or once thought of passing, either in the Arizona legislature, or someday in Congress. He said things along the lines of "Unlike any of my opponents, I've actually written legislation for... blah blah" so many times I wanted to pull my hair out. Basically, he’s conservative, but he is in no way an “undo legislation that does harm to the constitution” type of conservative that I’m looking for. Put another way, he’ll play the game on our side, while Jesse Kelly is in it to break the rules.
Brian Miller. Wow. He’s a dyed in the wool Ron-Paul nut, and that means you get the good with the bad. He knows the constitution inside and out, and he’s passionate about it, which is great. He also says things like “this illegal war” and that there are only 100 Al Qaeda left in Afghanistan (without mentioning the Taliban... which there are a whole lot more of). There are reasonable arguments about where Afghanistan is going, but those aren’t the ones he’s making. But here’s the thing that made me lose any and all respect for the man: This Air Force pilot – a Major – called Jesse Kelly a quitter for honorably serving 4 years in the Marine Corps and then choosing to have a child and join the family business. That’s right, Marines who go to war for their country and serve their terms of enlistment are quitters. He said this in front of hundreds of people at the closing of the last debate. Major Miller does not deserve the salute his rank demands let alone my vote, and if I see him on base, he won’t get either. His personality and his style would be abrasive and counter-productive in Congress. If he wins, Gabby can keep her seat, and maybe she’ll just get bored with commuting to Houston.
Tomorrow night (April 6th) there is going to be another debate between the four Republicans competing to see who gets to replace Gabrielle Giffords as our representative to Congress this fall. I'd like to share my impressions of the candidates from the last debate, and we can see how they compare with who shows up tomorrow night. I’m not going to go into detailed examples, because I want this post to be read (so I’ve got to keep it short).
I like Jesse Kelly a lot. He is articulate, straightforward, and he understands the constitution and freedom. He runs his own business, which should be a prerequisite for any public office. He knows when to fight, and when to let an ad-hominem attack go by. Mostly, I trust him and his instincts. I trust that when he represents me, he will actually REPRESENT me, and that his own moral compass is aligned well enough with my own that I won't have to wonder which way he'll vote. I already know how he'll vote, because I know who he is.
Andy Goss. Andy Goss is a good man, and I actually like his instincts a little bit more than Jesse Kelly's (but not much). On one debate question in particular - airline security - he was the only candidate that even suggested airport security might not be handled best by the government, but by the airlines themselves. Sacrilege to many, but I love that his instincts tended toward solving a problem with freedom rather than with more government. Unfortunately for Mr. Goss, I think that Jesse Kelly is more polished, and has a better chance of defeating Giffords in a fairly liberal town where style will carry more weight than it should, so my vote still goes to Jesse. (In the best of worlds, Goss would run for the House, and Jesse Kelly would take McCain’s Senate seat! Maybe in 6 more years... But I digress.)
Jonathan Paton is a decent guy. If he wins, I’ll vote for him. Politically speaking, he strikes me as a junior McCain. Everything he says is measured and balanced against what he thinks everybody wants to hear. The answers he gave at the debate compared to what he says in smaller settings are pretty different: more stridently conservative in the personal setting, more generally palatable when the cameras are rolling. For nearly every question at the debate his answer had something to do with legislation he would, would like to, did, tried, or once thought of passing, either in the Arizona legislature, or someday in Congress. He said things along the lines of "Unlike any of my opponents, I've actually written legislation for... blah blah" so many times I wanted to pull my hair out. Basically, he’s conservative, but he is in no way an “undo legislation that does harm to the constitution” type of conservative that I’m looking for. Put another way, he’ll play the game on our side, while Jesse Kelly is in it to break the rules.
Brian Miller. Wow. He’s a dyed in the wool Ron-Paul nut, and that means you get the good with the bad. He knows the constitution inside and out, and he’s passionate about it, which is great. He also says things like “this illegal war” and that there are only 100 Al Qaeda left in Afghanistan (without mentioning the Taliban... which there are a whole lot more of). There are reasonable arguments about where Afghanistan is going, but those aren’t the ones he’s making. But here’s the thing that made me lose any and all respect for the man: This Air Force pilot – a Major – called Jesse Kelly a quitter for honorably serving 4 years in the Marine Corps and then choosing to have a child and join the family business. That’s right, Marines who go to war for their country and serve their terms of enlistment are quitters. He said this in front of hundreds of people at the closing of the last debate. Major Miller does not deserve the salute his rank demands let alone my vote, and if I see him on base, he won’t get either. His personality and his style would be abrasive and counter-productive in Congress. If he wins, Gabby can keep her seat, and maybe she’ll just get bored with commuting to Houston.
23 August 2009
10 July 2009
My water has a fever
So here's the downside of Arizona in the summer. Our cold water always gets warm in the summer, but I've never actually checked to see HOW warm. I just measured. 101.2ºF. From the cold faucet.
08 July 2009
Hilarious
I've been ridiculously busy lately, and politics have been making me almost too angry to write about them. It reaches a point where the cause and effect of bad choices are so blatantly obvious that I can no longer believe that people can possibly be so stupid. Maybe half. The other half are just evil.
Anyway, THIS is hilarious. I hope to get back to writing soon.
Anyway, THIS is hilarious. I hope to get back to writing soon.
17 June 2009
If this doesn't make you cringe, you are the problem. (updated)
Irregardless of whether or not ending a sentence with a preposition is one of your personal peeves, I think Western Pennsylvanians supposably say it wrong more often. So, for all intensive purposes, I was right that it's an eastern peccadillioe. Not that you need to call the calvary or anything; No need to go nucular about it. It's prolly not a big deal anyhow. Though I do admit that it can be really fustrating when people say things that bother you. Aks yourself: is it just the way people are brought up? I could care less personally, it's just an itch that I've always wanted to, you know, itch. But are we loosing any attachment to grammar, spelling, and sentence usage? Maybe it's the evils of spell-check, or perhaps people just don't spend enough time in the libary. Whatever the problem, we need a concerned effort to nip it in the butt because less and less people are good writers.
09 June 2009
"Daily" short: Conservative Politics are Harder
I've put my finger on another one of those things that has bothered me for a while, but refused to take shape in my brain: When a conservative goes against his principles or makes a mistake, it's because he's wrong. When a liberal goes against his "principles"... or at least his campaign promises, he's actually right!
Pretty basic, but also a pretty good explanation of why the Republican takeover of the 90's ended because they failed to live up to their own goals, but Barack Obama can continue to contradict his party, his campaign, and even himself from week to week and get away with it: He's usually flip-flopping to the correct answer. OK... to the less wrong answer.
Put another way, if a conservative runs on conservatives principles - also known as reality - but then governs like a liberal, he's useless. He's a liar, he's a bad leader, and he's quite frankly wrong. The governor of California comes to mind. And, in fact, the vast majority of Republicans in Congress come to mind. They say one thing during the campaign, but then screw everything up when in office. But liberals don't carry this onus. They're wrong the whole time they're campaigning. So when they actually do something that goes against those principles, everybody's happy. If you run on closing Gitmo, immediate withdrawal of troops, and banning guns, but then leave the prison open, keep the preceding secretary of defense running a continuing war, and respect - or at least pretend not to notice - the 2nd amendment... well, it's hard to criticize those things. And because conservatives attack ideas, we also acknowledge when people get things right. A liberal would never stray so far from his agenda just to acknowledging truth.
Pretty basic, but also a pretty good explanation of why the Republican takeover of the 90's ended because they failed to live up to their own goals, but Barack Obama can continue to contradict his party, his campaign, and even himself from week to week and get away with it: He's usually flip-flopping to the correct answer. OK... to the less wrong answer.
Put another way, if a conservative runs on conservatives principles - also known as reality - but then governs like a liberal, he's useless. He's a liar, he's a bad leader, and he's quite frankly wrong. The governor of California comes to mind. And, in fact, the vast majority of Republicans in Congress come to mind. They say one thing during the campaign, but then screw everything up when in office. But liberals don't carry this onus. They're wrong the whole time they're campaigning. So when they actually do something that goes against those principles, everybody's happy. If you run on closing Gitmo, immediate withdrawal of troops, and banning guns, but then leave the prison open, keep the preceding secretary of defense running a continuing war, and respect - or at least pretend not to notice - the 2nd amendment... well, it's hard to criticize those things. And because conservatives attack ideas, we also acknowledge when people get things right. A liberal would never stray so far from his agenda just to acknowledging truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
