Here's my [delayed] post for Veteran's Day.

I certainly appreciate the efforts of those who are willing to risk their lives on the behalf of my country. I am just sorry that there is ever a need to do so.


Introducing Moonbat & Wingnut

Here is a new site that I'm playing around with.
Tell me what you think of it so I know if should spend any more time on it.


The Decider makes his decision

Current President Bush finally kicked SecDef Rumsfeld to the curb. As this is coming the day after a midterm beatdown by the Democrats, the timing of this is fairly clear. What I’d like to know is the real reason behind the move.

Did Bush do this to show the incoming Democratic leadership that he was willing to work with them? Did he just do it now instead of waiting for the Dems to spend their first year demanding that Rumsfeld go, so that it didn’t look like he was being forced? Is he taking steps to prepare for the upcoming Congressional investigation into Iraq? Or did the election results finally convince Bush that the American people are not too happy with the way the war in Iraq has been handled?


Before the election, Lou Dobbs said something I found interesting. “While the name of the party in charge may change from Republican to Democrat, it's really only a branding issue. And just as my friend James Mtume says, it's still the same bird, just a different wing. And believe me, middle-class America will still be getting the bird.”

It appears that the Democrats have won control of the House, and maybe the Senate, depending on the final results from Virginia. It is clear that we were not real pleased with the Republicans. What’s not so clear is what will happen next.

Let me break things down for you.

The Democrats are in a tricky spot now. Now that they’ve managed to get some power, everyone will be watching to see what they do with it in the next two years. They’ve mainly run on anti-Bush and anti-Republican sentiments, and now they will be judged to see if they are capable of anything better. Unfortunately for the left wing of the party, it was mostly moderate Dems that took new seats, the so-called Blue Dogs. That, with organized Republican resistance and a Bush veto, will limit their ability to do anything too radical. And not much will change in the next two years. It’s going to be difficult for them to keep their momentum, especially once the issue of removing Republican control is gone.

In all reality, this election helped the Republicans more than the Democrats. It cleared out some dead weight in the party. More importantly, it gave voters a chance to vent before the 2008 election. Now the Repubs can say they’ve changed, they’ve cleared out the corruption. And it should be pretty easy to fire up the conservative base for 08.

To be clear, I don’t support Democrats any more than I do Republicans. But I do support a balance of power. So I was happy with that. I am also happy because Stage 1 of my plan is now complete. American voters chose to reject Republicans and voted in a large number of moderate candidates. Stage 2 will come with the 08 primaries, as both parties try to gain/regain power by going further to the left/right. This leads to Stage 3, when the moderates split from both wings and form a moderate party.

It’s possible that the moderates of one or both of the parties will hold off the wingers. Doubtful, but possible.

Wisconsin voters, I’d like to say you disappointed me. Then again, you did just what I expected you to do.

In general, you voted against Republicans, because you are tired of what has gone on in Washington, DC. Then you voted for the referendums, because you are still conservative hicks.



As I hope you know, it is Election Day tomorrow. If you don't know where to vote, you should find out.

I certainly have my personal preference as to who will win, which I will tell you, but even if you disagree, make sure you get to the polls and express your opinion. And before you do that, get some information on what you will be voting on.

The most significant race is obviously for governor. I'm not a fan of either Doyle or Green. Neither one is going to do anything to keep tuition from rising more. Green is more likely to push for more development of nuclear power, which gives him a slight edge to me, a nuclear engineering student. But I may still write in for no one.

Both candidates for State AG are competent. I think Van Hollen's experience as US Attorney makes him a little more qualified.

Baldwin and Kohl will both be re-elected. So no matter how much you may say they haven't done anything for the state, it doesn't matter. I can not vote for Magnum, but I may vote Green against Kohl.

And that brings us to the referendums. One for the reinstatement of the death penalty, one defining marriage as only between a man and a women. I find it interesting that neither one will actually do anything themselves. The death penalty referendum is only advisory, it will not change current law. The marriage amendment also will not change existing law preventing same sex marriage, but if it passes it will prevent the courts from eventually declaring the existing law as unconstitutional.

I really have never seen any good argument for the death penalty. Every single point for it can be disproven. So I would prefer to err on the side of not killing someone. That's just me.

For the marriage amendment, I will also vote no. Being a fan of non-discrimination, I do not like seeing age, sex, or race being written into laws. The gender-neutral policy of allowing any two people to marry is fine with me. The problem is that everyone still thinks of marriage in a religious context. Churches can still define their sacraments however they wish. But a legal marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between two individuals and the state, allowing for the combination of property, the transfer of medical decisions, child custody issues, and various other legal aspects. It may not be very romantic, but that's what it is. And there is absolutely no reason why two men or two women in a committed relationship should be treated differently than a man and a women. As long as no one is going to force me to marry a man, I say leave the government out of this issue.

I've given my opinions here, but that's all they are. They aren't facts or orders. You are free to vote for what you wish. Again, just make sure you vote. Even if you hate all the candidates, just go and write in no one for every race. Not voting for anyone and voting for no one are two very different things. The first expresses apathy, the second disapproval. If instead of not voting, people voted for no one, then there would be no candidate with a winning majority, and then the system will have to be changed.

And if anyone was wondering, although I am not officially running for any office this election, feel free to write in a vote for Dorshorst for any race as a protest vote.


Don't get Kerried away

The other day Senator Kerry said something that he's getting a lot of flak about now. If you somehow hadn't heard, this is what he said. "You know, education, if you make the most of it and study hard and do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can really do well. If not you're going to end up stuck in Iraq."

He is now being criticized because it appears that he was calling our troops stupid. My only question: so what? How is this news?

Kerry claims that he was trying to make fun of President Bush. He says the joke was scripted to end with "If not you're going to end up getting us stuck in Iraq." Either way, it's not very clear, nor is it funny. So what? Senator Kerry is not funny. How is this news?

Throughout this, Kerry has come off as arrogant and elitist. So what? This is the same impression I got when he was running for President in 04. How is this news?

Kerry isn't even running for re-election this year. So how is anything he says important? How is this news?

This whole spectacle comes down to two things. The Republicans are tired of getting Abramoffed, Cunninghamed, Delayed, and Foleyed. So they have been desperate for anything at all that they can hold up against Democrats. The fact that all they could come up with is a misspoken joke from the senator who lost the 06 presidential election and isn't even running for anything this year (and that Harry Reid thing from a while back) points less to the fact that the Democrats haven't been involved in any scandals than it does to the fact that the Democrats haven't been involved in anything lately.

The other issue is the growing disconnect within the Democratic party with the contradictory statement, "I don't support the war in Iraq, but I still fully support our troops." Those on the right like to accuse Democrats of being anti-military, of not supporting the troops. This should be true, if those on the left had the balls to stick to any sort of principles. I'll come back to this in a second.

It has been pointed out that enlisted soldiers actually have higher levels of education than the average citizen. However, I would bet that the average college grad has more education than the average enlisted soldier. So Kerry's [misspoken] statement is not entirely false. Nor is it true. My view has always been that enlisting is not an opportunity for stupid people to get employment, but an opportunity to get a college education for those who would have difficulty going otherwise.

So enlisted men and women are not stupid. It could be said, however, that they lack a certain type of intelligence. The ability to think for themselves. Nearly everyone I have encountered who was, is, or will be in the military has shown an inablilty to think independently and a tendency to parrot back what was told to them by authority figures.

Throughout history, soldiers have always just 'followed orders'. This was the excuse given at Nuremberg. This was also heard after Abu Ghraib. I, on the other hand, hold each person accountable for their own actions. If someone makes the decision to voluntarily enlist in the army, goes to Iraq, goes on combat duty, and shoots and kills someone, that soldier is personally responsible for everything that they did. If you believe that our mission in Iraq is just, then the soldier's actions are just. If you don't support the war in Iraq, there is no way you can support the actions of the soldier who chose to go there. It's as simple as that.

This is what Democrats are too scared to admit to the public. It's really not any different than other statements I've heard from Democrats ("I personally don't agree with abortion, but I don't think it should be illegal," "I don't think people should enter the country illegally, but I don't think they should be forcibly removed," "I don't believe everything in the Bible is literally true, but I believe most of it") Perhaps this was just a Freudian slip by Kerry. Perhaps he is just a jackass who doesn't know how to tell a joke. Either way, the smart thing to do should have been to immediately apologize for the way it sounded. Because the only way the Democrats can win next week is if they can keep the attention off of themselves.