If you haven't figured it out yet...

The blog moved here a looooong time ago!

Woes

The new site is coming, don't fret, but it appears as it may be delayed until next week. The reason for this is due to me breaking my right hand, which makes using the computer effectively little more than a pipe dream. However, the cast should be off within a few days as long as a re-break and re-set is not required by the orthapedic physcian (and I don't think they will be.)

Regardless, the new site's looking good, so there is definitely something to look forward to come next week or sooner, dependent on my ability to tweak code and make graphics with one hand.

The Big One

700 WLW airs a number of talk radio programs every day, and while there is an obvious trend in sports programs, the morning-afternoon shows have a great degree of variety. While I'm usually not up and listening early enough to catch Mike McConnell or Jim Scott, Willie Cunningham's 12:30-3PM show almost always fits into my schedule. I must say that I absolutely love this program, and that more people should listen to AM talk radio. Ideas are intelligently discussed, and the sound byte plague that infests vile television stations like Fox News or CNN is generally absent. I suggest everyone tune in, either by dialing up 700 amplitude modulation on your radios (Flash Gordon decoder ring not required) or hooking up with the simutaneous webcast, which can be found on the main 700 WLW page linked above. You will find Willie to be a hardcore right-winger, and he's not afraid to say it. He's guaranteed to offend, and that's what makes him so interesting to listen to. I'm not a right-wing man. I'm not a leftist, either. I don't think such artificial distinctions matter. Instead, I think you should just listen and enjoy, and to hell with what you really believe.

Moreover, I wish to discuss briefly a topic Bill has showcased repeatedly for the past week or so: illegal immigration and the resistance of Latino immigrants (legal or illegal) to adopting our culture. I will restate what Bill has essentially been saying, obviously paraphrased. America is for Americans. If you are not an American citizen or legal tourist, get the hell out, because you do not belong here. If you are a legal immigrant, good. America is currently a land of unprecedented opportunity, and as long as you're willing to work and carry your portion of the load, you're welcome. If you're going to come here, please don't insist on making America a new place to practice your old culture. It's fine if you want to still speak your foreign language among family, or among fellow native speakers. But learn English, written and spoken, because that's how Americans operate. We use English, so if you belong here, you must know it. I should not have to learn to espeeka espanish to do business in my own country. Become Americans, not Mexicans living in America. I agree with Bill 100% on his immigration ideas. For the reasoning behind a lot of this, listen to his show. Hopefully this topic is covered repeatedly, because it is one we need to hear, one that needs addressed.

A Right to Speak

On Fox's "Special Report with Brit Hume," a panel of three guests was quizzed by the host about whether the head of the Swiftboat anti-Kerry group had the right to write a book criticizing the potential candidate. Of course he does! I have the distinct right to sit down and write a book detailing what really happened to John Kerry during Vietnam, and I can claim all my lies are true. (I just can't cross the libel line, but that's a given.) Hell, I can claim he died over there, that we've got a Mecha-Kerry campaigning for the White House. It doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't mean I'm right. It doesn't mean you should believe me. But you also don't have the authority to shut me up. I have, as part of that whole Bill of Rights business, the ability to make an utter jackass out of myself. The framers never said free speech had to be rational. Quit complaining and learn to evaluate statements yourselves. It isn't hard.

Important People to Bruce Springsteen: Shut the Hell Up

Today I picked up, as I usually do, a copy of the USA Today, perhaps my favorite newspaper. While reading through the editorial section, I came across a couple of letters bashing musicians who have come out to talk politics and play politically-charged shows. "Bruce Springsteen's Born in the USA just doesn't feel as good as it used to; it doesn't have the same ring, because it is really directed at only half of America." "Music should cross cultures. It should be everyone's music." "I will not purchase another recording of any of the musicians whose purpose is to use the stage to spew their political venom at us." "People who look to rock stars for political guidance might as well be asking a street sweeper for investment advice."

Please tell me when participation in the democratic proces required a degree? Certification? Licensure? A drug screening? Pain tolerance tests? Allow me to sum up what underscores the concept of "democratic politics." There are no qualifications necessary for participation in democratic politics. (Outside of the obvious requirement of being a citizen of said democracy...) If I want to write a political message, I can do it. I'm doing it right now. Anybody can. Why should I be denounced simply because I'm not "certified" or "qualified" to discuss such things? True, you should always consider your source, and you should weigh information carefully, but you should rarely discount it outright.

Moreover, musicians and actors are getting blasted for speaking out about issues and candidates. Why? In the history of one "liberal art," writing, we find people like Dante and Chekov and Orwell and More all discussing "hifalutin" ideas. Why can't they? Should they abstain because they are "mere writers?" So, if a medium as versatile as the written word can be used to convey intelligent discourse on politics, and its practicers not looked down upon for their attempts, then why should we malign people whose works are, while not as important or influential (I'm making a judgement call here) as the standard written word, still within the realm of the "liberal arts?" If writers can use their medium to talk politics, musicians can use music to talk politics, and actors can, well, do whatever they do. I don't know acting. But I do know that attempting to stifle these people based on their occupations is absurd. Sure, they're rich. So is Bill O'Reilly, but he's intelligent, and most people are probably willing to listen to what he says in full before agreeing or disagreeing with him. In fact, I'm willing to stretch and say that most people who are willing to take the time to open their mouths and say something reasonably well thought out about a political or governmental issue/concept/etc. is probably smart enough that they should be listened to and considered before being judged. I apologize for how convoluted this rant has become. It began as one thing and ended up being a true, all-out diatribe. But I will end this with a question, a thinker for all of you. Why shouldn't actors and musicians who are American citizens use their talents and stations to discuss things that are on their minds, whether those things be political in nature or personal? Why mark a distinction between the personal and the political in this case?

Addendum:
Isn't it funny that (mainly) the rightists are the ones attacking Hollywood's "intrusion" into the political ring, when they heralded former two-bit actor Ronald Reagan as their Messiah for 8 years? I love irony.

Maybe They're Just Short on Peak Minutes...

According to a CNN article, counterterrorism experts are alarmed by the recent decline in terrorist "chatter." Before you begin asking why a decline would be bad, they do cite a reason for their concern: a similar trend in such communications was noticed before the second World Trade Center bombing. What concerns me is that no matter what the report is, it's bad. I've seen a hundred news stories about an "increase in terrorist 'chatter'" spooking people in Washington. Now, I'm hearing that the exact opposite is spooking them. While I do fully understand what's going on, the irony in this situation is simply amusing, so I figured I should share it with the world.

Back in Action?

I'm preparing to move this week, which is what has kept me out of action recently. However, next week should see my return in full force along with several major changes to the blog. New design, forums, and possibly a new system running the site's internals, including the commenting system. Stay tuned, and until next week, here's something to whet the appetite:



The new logo.

The Sky Isn't Falling

While surfing the indispensable TomPaine.com, I came across Rory O'Conner's blog and a post complaining about the Democrats' convention marketing technique, that which focussed on the nominee's ability to make war and not peace that I don't totally agree with.

And what I expect to hear from Democrats is a plan to wage peace, not war without end. At least, that’s what I expect to hear from the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,” as Howard Dean once admirably phrased it. Now even Dean seems to wish he had enlisted and fought in Vietnam, instead of dodging the battles to go skiing… Now it’s all upside down and standing in its head, and the Baby Boomers want to play boom-boom and transmogrify themselves into the “Greatest Generation, Part Deux.”

Dude, Where’s My Party?

How did it come to pass that thirty years on we’re still on Vietnam– only this time “our guy” is the one who volunteered to go over and kill Cong, and ‘their guy” is the one who did his best to duck out?

Marketing. Money. Mad Ave.

But the Democrats are trying to sell us a pig in a poke by trying to come off as something they’re not, something even they don’t believe in – and it will inevitably show. People aren’t stupid, the camera doesn’t lie (even when the politicians do) and sooner rather than later enough undecided ’swing voters in the battleground (here we go again!) states’ will figure out that the message is phony and the detergent isn’t new or improved in any way. So why switch brands? By focusing on war, the Democrats (Republicrats?) will play right into the hands of their opponents, because when Americans think war, they think Republican.

I will concede this to Mr O'Conner: traditional left-Democratic war policies were most definitely absent from the convention. However, that was for a reason, primarily being campaign strategy. The convention was a marketing event scripted by the Democratic party, one that focussed on what was perceived to be Kerry's biggest weakness: his supposed laxness on security issues. After being brow-beaten by Clark, Cleland, and the Swarmy Swiftboat Squadron, middle-of-the-road Americans may not write Kerry's stance on national defense issues off so quickly. Was this done at the expense of traditional Democratic (brace for the buzz word) "values"? Most definitely, but that's what comes with a presidential election. Mr O'Conner seems to be in line with Nader's misbegoten vision, that being that Kerry is in a fight for the voters on the left, when it's the voters in the middle that he must truly win over. Simply because the convention decided to squash a perceived weakness does not mean it changes Kerry's Democratic heritage. Middle-ground voters have lived under Bush's "War on Terror," they have seen the damage it has caused, and they are ready for a change. So, Roy, calm down. It's a new era, Kerry is not preaching for constant war, and he is not pulling the wool over undecided eyes -- he's simply ready to deal with real crises with real strategies and real alliances, something that Bush has been unable to do since he took office.