A blog about a girl who speaks her mind and talks about whatever she wants. So its a blog about everything, and absolutely nothing, all at the same time. . .
Profile
Name: Kami
Alias: Risawn
Location: Washington State, United States
An avid Snowboarder, rabid NRA supporter, Starving Artist, Military Junkie, anti-fru-fru Glorified Private that basically posts incoherant ramblings and things better left unsaid.
People who have bumper stickers on their car that you have to tailgate to read. It's annoying. Especially when you're on the freeway. If people hate tailgaters, they would be wise to not have microscoping lettering on their bumpers that encourage people to read them.
So as I was driving today, I ran across somebody who had some bumper stickers on their car and I noticed a few things about them that really annoyed me.
One is the rainbow sticker. Why is it that whenever you see a rainbow it is immediately attributed to LGBT groups? It supposedly means diversity, at least it did when they first came out with it, but there is more to diversity then who you prefer to have sex with. And even if you are in support of LGBT groups, if you have a rainbow sticker on your car, people will think you are gay. So the only people who can really get about using Rainbows are those who are Gay, or those that don't care.
I'm sorry, no offense to gay people, but a rainbow is a universal symbol and its annoying that its come to a point where it means one thing.
Well, there was the other sticker where it said "another family for Peace", thanks for the info.
And of course, the liberal slogan of attributing the phrase 'Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism' to Thomas Jefferson, which was on this same vehicle.
They must be liberal.
Ok, this saying is just stupid. Though Jefferson has attributed the need for resistence to government from time to time, as 'quoted'** here:
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then."
You know, I would agree with this quote. However, for some reason, I don't think this means dissent being the highest form of patriotism. For one, that doesn't make any sense. There are many greater forms of patriotism then dissenting, and I don't think that Jefferson would say this being the highest form. I've heard liberals use this as their battle cry in support of the war against the war on terror.
But I thought the urban legend that this saying belongs to Jefferson was done by now. When people still use it and put it on their cars, it makes them look like morons.
I don't think I want to make political statements with my car. At least, if I were to make a political statement, I would make sure it is at least accurate.
**I don't know if this is really a Jefferson quote or not. I surfed the internet, found it attributed to him, and think it is a quote that makes more sense then the other. And since the internet is not always the most reliable source of information, this quote comes with this disclaimer.
So I got an email today. I found it intriguing, because it's been a while since I had an email such as this. I'm sure I get these from time to time, but I thought I would comment on it because it made me scratch my head and think 'huh?'
Hello Risawn.
I felt compelled to write to you, as I read your blog purely by accident and found it disturbing reading.
I am a former British soldier who has lived in the USA for 4 years. I love Guns, Pistols and Rifles and used to work at Wal-Mart selling in that department. While I acknowledge your freedom of choice and speech and the right to bear arms, brandishing them around and posting them on the internet makes America look stupid and infantile.
As for political preference, these things are private in my country, and exercised through the ballot box, in secret. As an Historian of good repute, may I add that history will not endeavour George Bush Jr kindly as time goes on. His reputation is lower than Harding at the moment.
As for your religious beliefs, those too, are deemed private, the Mormons have not exactly had a good press in the recent years, and a GWB voting, gun-toting lady in camoflage maybe the last thing that they need to have.
On a lighter note, America is but one small country in a big world, just as my country found out in 1776.
May your country quickly learn Humility and may America soon have Universal Healthcare.
So, that was it. He'll probably think I'm being arrogant by posting this on my blog, but you know what? Anything people email me may find itself on my blog. Here is my reply.
Wow, thanks for your enlightening letter. I think I'm going to desert the military and get rid of all my guns while I vote for Ralph Nadar in the next presidential election. I've also converted to Atheism so I never have to worry about shaming Mormons again. < / sarcasm >
My blog is my personal webspace, it is a public forum where I post my thoughts on anything I wish to discuss and has always been that. If you find it that disturbing, don't read it.
I will comment further on his email here.
First Topic- Guns. I like Guns. I like to shoot them. I think they are fun. Every now and again I like to go out and go plinking as a hobby. This is a hobby of mine and I tend to write about things that interest me (not just limited to guns I might add). And this is a blog about me that for some reason has at one time garnered an unusual amount of fascination from people that I still sometimes don't understand (both the fascination and the people), and a few of the readers I got left have lingered for some reason, and a lot of them like guns too. I post about my interests, one of my interests is guns. Sometimes I post gun posts to remind my readers that I'm a gun user, because I have had concerns of stalking in the past. People are less likely to stalk me if I'm armed and they know it.
So I will continue to post topics about guns, about me firing them, and show some bad ass pictures of me holding them with a snarl on my face. Don't mess with me. If you think I'm delving into the stereotype of the infantile and stupid American that the rest of the world apparently sees, so be it. Because you obviously don't know me.
My former NCOIC made a similar comment to me about why I like to pose with military assault weapons, but I might need to add that I now think that man is a retard.
Newsflash, there are 300 million people in America, and I hardly represent our population as a whole. I don't like to consider myself fitting into any particular stereotype, and I don't care what the hell anybody else thinks of me. Especially these days. If you think I look stupid and infantile because I happen to like to pose every now and then with instruments of death, go read somebody else's blog. Nobody is forcing you to read this one.
Topic Two - Politics. Nice to know that they do things that way in Britain. This is a blog that I sometimes voice my opinion on. I'm of a conservative persuasion. This is a blog about me. People who read it for whatever reason are reading my perspective on things. Nobody is telling you to read it.
Furthermore, I don't really write about politics that much, in previous election years I wrote more and I even got a bit more vindictive. I've also grown somewhat since then and that is not the central focus of this blog by any means. It sometimes holds a commentary of my opinions on current events and political matters, but that is not a large interest to me at the moment. If you disagree with me, good for you. You have every right to disagree with me. That's the beauty of personal opinion. But you might notice that there are a whole lot of blogs out there that voice their politics. Some are left, some are right, some are centrist. And some of these aren't even American! *gasp!* I know a few Brits who post about politics.
Topic Three - George W Bush. For some reason, because I posted a picture of me holding an M203 stating I wasn't sorry for voting for the man in 2004, people see me as an unapologetic Bush Supporter. Ok, maybe I am, but this doesn't mean I love the guy. He was never my ideal candidate for President and these last four years have been a disappointment. Still, I don't regret voting for him. I saw the alternative as a worse candidate, whether that is true or not we will never know, because unless somebody can create a device that enters us into an alternate dimension where Kerry was elected President instead, we will never know.
I don't apologize because the only thing you can do about the past is learn from it and drive on. You may notice that I don't post a lot about George W Bush and what a great job he's doing as President, because I don't think he's doing that great. Again, he was never my ideal candidate for President, I voted by my political stance and who I thought was the better man for the job. I didn't like Kerry.
Whoever wins the presidency this year, be it Obama, Clinton or McCain, I think I'll get by as best as I can with whoever wins and get on with my life. I say something every now and again about the candidates, but honestly I'm not fond of the whole lot of them. I guess I'll get by the best I can.
In conclusion. Yes, I voted for GWB. So what? So did about 50 million other Americans. But that's right, we're all retards.
Topic Four - Religion. Now this I don't get about you going off on me not remaining private about my religious beliefs. I'm getting two things from you. You think I should keep my religious affiliations to myself because I should be ashamed of myself considering all of the negative press surrounding my religion as of late. Or you think I should talk about religion less. Or you're anti-Mormon.
Ok, big question mark here. Yes, I am Mormon. I have never denied that I'm a Mormon. And I'm not ashamed of being a Mormon so why should I keep it hidden? But I have never used my website to advertise my religious beliefs to try to convert people EVER. I rarely ever mention my religion or my beliefs here. The fact that I'm a Mormon is part of who I am, I think I may have mentioned it once or twice in a little survey thing that I'm LDS.
Besides, I'm not a stereotypical Mormon Girl. If you actually knew Mormons, you would know that most Mormons will be more then eager to tell you everything about their faith you want to know. I'm the same way, but I choose not to do it here, I only do it when I'm in the company of a person who wants to know more. I am never pushy about my faith and this blog is the last place I should be preaching about it.
I admit I'm not the best example of a Mormon. But I really don't think your judging me on my religion or vice versa because of this blog is really a matter of concern. What confuses me most is this whole phrase that my religion is recieving a lot of negative press lately and 'a GWB voting, gun-toting lady in camoflage maybe the last thing that they need to have.'
What in bloody hell is that supposed to mean anyway? This statement is ridiculous on several counts because of the fact that 1) I very rarely advertise my religious beliefs so why should anybody other then you care, 2) my faith is mostly conservative and therefore most DID vote for GWB because like me, they didn't like the alternative, 3) why does the fact that I'm serving my country in the military have anything to do with my religion and would cause people to look down upon it unless the person judging me is a liberal hate-monger? and 4) a lot of Mormons like guns. Just to let you know.
Also, the FLDS have their roots in my faith, but they are NOT Mormon. They are a sect that broke of a hundred years ago. I'm not going to go into detail because that's not what my blog is about. If you want me to post my beliefs on the FLDS church, I think they are a strange group of people. But I try to be tolerant of other people's faith because I hope people would be tolerant of mine *hah!* I disagree with a lot of things they do, and I mean a LOT of things, but that is not for me to judge. I claim the privilege of worshiping the almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscious, which allows all men the same privilege. My religion and how I worship I HAVE kept mostly private (well, other then just now).
I don't want to go into detail because as I may have mentioned before, I don't really talk about religion a lot because I think it IS a private matter and often times, unless both sides are truly open to discussion, only breeds a mass amount of contention. That is why I don't discuss my religion here.
Topic Five: America, Humility, and Universal Healthcare.
You must think I'm cocky or something. You obviously haven't read much of my blog because my regulars will let you know I poke fun at myself and my many MANY mishaps all of the time. I am not a graceful person, I often put my foot in my mouth and I believe in personal responsibility and accountability, though I tend to lose things quite frequently. I'm not really an arrogant person, at least I don't see myself as arrogant. What arrogance and cockiness I have I have to cultivate and nurture due to my profession as a Drill Sergeant. And I'm not afraid of the opportunity to kick terrorist behind if I were to be given the chance.
As for Universal Healthcare, yeah, you must be European. I'm all for taking care of people, but there is also the matter of Personal Responsibility. I am all for Preventive Medicine. I think we should educate the masses and let them know, 'hey, stupid, if you do this, you're going to get sick', though it is more common these days with the 'tobacco causes cancer' spiel, and let them deal with the consequences. Of course, there are plenty of people out there who live perfectly healthy lives and still get sick due to matters out of their own hands. The current health care system in America needs to be fixed, but I don't think Universal Healthcare is necessarily the way to go.
But that is another topic for another post that needs plenty space of its own and this one is long enough.
I love how patronizing and condescending this letter is. This dude appears to think he has all the answers and makes it quite apparent that he thinks I'm an idiot. I don't know why I even bothered to give him the benefit of replying. Oh well, if nothing else, you get the chance to see exactly what I wrote too.
This is shaping up to be an interesting political season, I'm rooting for Hillary now. As long as chaos is reigning amongst the Democrats, it keeps things interesting.
Everyone knows I'm not a big fan of politicians, or politics, but during election years I tend to get into them, and this year is a big year for a whole lot of nothing, as it seems that no matter what, we're screwed.
So Hillary Clinton is making her way into winning the democratic nomination for President. At first I was in the ABC (anybody but Clinton) camp, until I learned that Barack Obama ain't much better and might as well be running as a communist.
We were talking during drill about one campaign promise both are touting that they can't keep. That would be the withdrawing from Iraq within 60 days in office, or at least that's Obama's promise.
What are people going to say when he doesn't back up that promise? Because if he pulls out, it's going to be slaughter over there and then they'll have a huge mess on their hands (of course, he'll blame it on Bush) and that four years will be all about trying to contain whatever happens as it escalates out of control. Pulling out of Iraq is the wrong answer. But if they find themselves unable to pull out of Iraq and talked into staying there, it will be a campaign promise they are unable to keep, and perhaps they'll get disenfranchised voters on that front when they don't pull out right away.
Pulling out of Iraq is a horrible campaign promise where you simply can't win. At least McCain has it right.
Yeah, I'm voting for McCain. And I'll be spending the time until the Presidential Election looking for reasons to vote for him, because as we all know, when you ride on a campaign of 'anybody but (enter name here, whether it be Bush or Clinton)', it doesn't win elections. I'm going to vote for somebody, not against somebody. And if I find that I can't find a good enough reason to vote for McCain, maybe I'll look at a suitable third party candidate.
But the thought of Hillary Clinton becoming my Commander in Chief makes my blood run cold.
Why do I feel that no matter what happens, in November we're screwed?
For a while I was on the anybody but Hillary stump, but right now I'm feeling a bit of a chill from the whole Barack Obama camp, as though I still believe that Hillary is the worst thing that possibly could happen to this country, Obama ain't much better.
We'll be in a Socialist haven by January 2009. And Iraq will be in ruins by the middle of next year.
McCain won't be a whole lot better, but if he does get the Republican Nomination for President, I'll probably end up voting for him.
I'm worried where this country will be in four years.
I'm thinking this might be the year for a valid third party candidate to emerge from the wreckage of this primary season and become a viable candidate for President. I know a lot of people who are adamently opposed to Hillary, the GOP is on it's deathbed as a political party, they've burned too many bridges with the voters.
McCain is like 82 years old. If he wins the presidency to serve for two terms, he will be 91 or something. And he's too liberal in some of his politics, though I do like his stance on Pork Spending, but when you have conservatives like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck saying they'll vote for Hillary over McCain, well, that's not promising. And I'd rather vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning the election rather then Hillary.
So, can a viable third party come out of the wood work to run for President? I hope so, if we want to get rid of this ridiculous two party system, this is the year to do it.
Otherwise, well, I was going to vote for Romney, but I guess I'll vote for Obama during the Primary, to get votes away from Hillary. I'd rather have Obama as President then Hillary, she's trying to come off as a moderate but anybody who does their research knows she's a socialist to her core, and a bit power hungry. And a closet lesbian.
No Hillary for me, thanks. I hate to think of what she'll do to my military if she gets in office. I shiver at the thought.
Well, apparently tomorrow is a big day in the political scheme of things. Across the country, people get to vote on who they want to run in the big race in November.
I'm backing Barack Obama for the Democrats and Mitt Romney for the Republicans.
I just realized I don't have any idea when the Washington State Primary is being held. Hmm. . .
How can I convince people to NOT vote for Hillary Clinton? Do we honestly want this woman as our next president?
Granted, I'm not a big fan of any of the democrats, but this woman is the last person I want to see as President. She is a conniving politician and I don't know what she's saying to get people to vote for her, but I will never trust Hillary.
I do admit that Barack Obama likely doesn't have enough experience for the Presidency, and is a bit on the socialist side for my likings (Hey, he's a liberal, I'm a conservative) but I would much rather see him win the Presidency then Hillary.
So I'm going to campaign for Obama with my Liberal Friends, because I don't think I can convince them to vote for a Republican. Team Obama all the way!
So with the primaries in full swing, election year is coming upon us *shivers*
I got sent a link to an interesting questionare that will help you discover who your ideal candidate is. Here's my results.
82% John McCain 74% Mitt Romney 73% Mike Huckabee 72% Tom Tancredo 70% Fred Thompson 62% Rudy Giuliani 53% Hillary Clinton 52% Bill Richardson 49% John Edwards 49% Chris Dodd 48% Barack Obama 46% Ron Paul 43% Joe Biden 29% Mike Gravel 22% Dennis Kucinich
Hmm, McCain looks to be my ideal candidate for the most part, though I find it interesting that Hilary of all people is coming up as my top Democrat *gag!*. I don't trust her and think many of her policies that has her playing as a moderate is a ruse to get her elected.
I'd rather have Barack Obama get elected over her, though honestly I don't agree with his policies as he's a bit on the socialist side. He's predicted to be our next president, I guess I like him as a person, he's got excellent charisma, but he's quite young. I think there are a lot of people who are excited about the thought of finally electing a viable minority which is one of the reasons why it seems like Obama and Clinton are the heavy hitters on the democratic side, but that's about as a good a reason to vote for somebody like the fact that Mitt Romney happens to be a Mormon is the soul reason NOT to vote for him.
I guess for me religion might play a piece in things, but I'm not going to vote for Romney because he shares my faith, I want to vote for him because I agree with his policies and think he will make a good president, but it looks like I'll be voting for the Republican anyway, whoever that may be, rather then the Democrat. Of course, Blue State Washington, it probably won't make much of a difference. We aren't exactly a swing state.
Glenn Beck came out with a book this week that I so happened to buy. And actually read And I can whole heartily recommend as it is an amusing read that makes sense from a guy who just tries to make sense of what's going on in this country. And how to solve the problems the country is facing. Most of them being really basic answers that are politically incorrect, to include Political Correctness.
Of course, most of them the typical progressive minded thinker would probably not like, but the conservative thinker could only agree and thank Glenn for putting it into words that the average American can understand.
Of course, there's the chapter on Global Warming (an obvious jab at Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth) and what we can or can't do about it, and perhaps why some people are over reacting on the part of the end of the world thing, as well as Radical Islam and why perhaps there is a reason why we SHOULD be continuing the War on Terror, the problem with Media Bias, a chapter on parenting, and even one as so mundane as finding a movie to rent with your loved one (and the difference between a Laser Movie and a Bonnet Movie). I pretty much enjoyed it all the way through.
You may or may not agree with what Glenn Beck has to say, but its always good to have an open point of view and see what other people and their take on things are. Which is one of the reasons why I watched an Inconvenient Truth with an open mind.
And then I got Glenn's opposing viewpoint.
I have to say that by and large, I agree with Beck. Maybe that's one of the reasons why I like him so much.
Ok, in the Blame Bush category, everybody harps on how Bush is this major war hawk and how he went into Iraq under false pretenses and is over stretching the army and all of this mumbo jumbo and then they claim that they need to inact the draft starting with the Bush twins, as if Bush is so eager to go to War, he should send his daughters there first.
Ok, this logic is kind of twisted in several ways. For one, it is somewhat impractical for Jenna or Barbara to enlist. Furthermore, you know how many women enlist in the army in the first place? Not very many. In a country of 300 million people, there is something like 1.5 million people serving in our armed forces at any given time(that number may or may not be correct, but there abouts, bare with me). I think the demographic of women to men is that 15% of the military is female (again, an estimate, bare with me). If they inact the draft, they aren't going to draft women right away because women are barred from the combat arms and that's what they are primarily going to be drafting for most likely if they need a draft. Yes, they will need to fill other positions in the service support branches, but the first target is males.
Regardless, back to the original statement, a very small percentage of women in the US are even in the military. True, there are many who have served at some point and have gotten out but even with those into consideration, so giving a very liberal estimation, we'll say that 5% of American women have served in the US Military at some point in their lives. My point? So what if Jenna and Barbara Bush haven't joined the military to serve their country? There are a lot of people who haven't. It doesn't make them any more or less American. Everybody who gives me the BS statement that if you support the war, why aren't you or your kids serving in the military and fighting it? Well, there are a lot of Americans in this country, some support the war and some don't. But going back to the small percentage of Americans who are actually in the military, it stands to reason that some people who support the war have a family member serving and others do not.
Guess what? The Army is not for everybody. There are plenty of people out there that have no business being in the military because their personality or issues they may or may not have are incompatible with it. Maybe they are just scared of being shot at. Joining the Army is not a small matter, it takes a special kind of person to gather that much courage to think about enlisting, and yes, there are people out there who join the army because they don't know what else to do. It doesn't make them any less of a person and they can become better for it.
And besides, if Jenna and Barbara Bush did join the army, can you think of the secret service mess that would cause? Would it even be logical for them to join? Specifically enlist? I mean, seriously, how many children of Presidents enlisted in times of war? I could see them possibly becoming officers if the desire struck them to do that instead, but really. . .
Using this argument against Bush is actually kind of dumb. I wish people would stop muttering about how hypocritical he was for sending our men and women of the armed forces to war when he doesn't have his own daughters serving.
I can just imagine the nightmare that would be for the Drill Sergeants who would have to train them if they did decide to do such a thing.
Case in point, shut up about it already. Its not a big deal that the Bush Twins have never served in the military. Members of the Bush family have served in the past and I bet their might be a cousin or another relative serving now.
*yes, a rant, saw some special on one of the cable news networks interviewing Jenna on why she hadn't enlisted yet and I thought it was ridiculous.*
Some people take my blog way to seriously, or don't realize that I don't take myself seriously at all.
My blog has a lot of stuff on it, and some of it is old as dirt. I don't get around to reading a lot of blog replies until after the fact, so a lot of things I miss.
But I do love trolls. They scream obscenities at me and call me stupid for whatever reason because apparently they can't think straight otherwise.
So anyway, I get a lot of people posting things still because they look at me for whatever reason and call me ugly or whatever they damn well want too. I never remove Trolls. They amuse me.
So I get ripped on for my spelling mistakes and grammar, oh, and by the way, I plead the fifth, I'm usually pretty decent with my spelling and grammar, well, better then a lot of people anyway, I tend to type really fast and spelling and grammar get caught up by the wayside. You should hear me talk, I mispronounce things all the time. Bush has Bushisms right? Well I have Kamisms. My family will never let me forget how I pronounce Lattice as lah-TEESE and called Shingles Shindles. Recently I made a little video where I pronounced Nova Scotia as Nova SCO-TEE-AH. Her her, oh, whoops?
Another thing I plead the fifth on is the lack of a combat patch. I will admit that this topic does leave me a bit glum, because now that I'm training to be a drill sergeant, I'll be one of the few without that patch which leads to extra credentials as a Drill. I was supposed to deploy a half dozen times to a combat zone and my orders got revoked by the army and not because I made an effort to get out of deploying. The army told me you're not going. And I've tried to volunteer to deploy to combat zones, and told I couldn't go. It was my crummy MOS. My crummy MOS that I don't feel I'm very good at and have no business deploying to a combat zone under has led to another catch 22. I was up for Reenlistment, I had to find a job I liked in a unit I liked, if I went active duty, they would have activated me under my MOS because it's understrength and retraining to a job that I feel I would be good at was not an option. But I found a job where I don't have to reclassify my MOS that I love and that's Drill Sergeant. Unfortunately, mobilizing to a combat zone as a drill sergeant doesn't happen very often, unless i find myself able to volunteer as a grunt for a mission. I still may. But don't tell my parents that.
Yeah, I deployed. I got to go to Kosovo with an ate up sergeant.
As for the whole Bush is a loser thing and why in the hell did I vote for him, well, to tell you the honest truth, even in 2000, I was not impressed with Bush. But there are some things I like about the man and when I assessed the two candidates side by side, John Kerry and George W Bush (because, let's face it, they were the only two options) I decided that Bush was the better man for the job. So I voted for him. End of story.
If you disagree with my decision to vote for Bush, ok. And your point? You can claim that Kerry was a better alternative but until you discover an alternative reality that exists where Kerry won the election in 2004 and we can see how the country is doing under his leadership then we will never know for sure, will we? Besides, I don't think Bush is doing as bad a job as the left lament he is. Sure, he could be doing a BETTER job, I don't agree with everything he's done and by all means he is probably not the best man for the position, but that's what we had, wasn't it?
So, a certain 'documentary' film maker released a new movie today, a movie that I will refuse to pay for to watch.
I'm sure he makes some good points in it, he does make a point or two in his previous forays. The thing about it is as far as I'm concerned, he has no credibility as a documentary film maker because he skews facts to mislead his viewers into seeing things the way he sees it. The fiasco with his latest film, in which he took rescue workers from 9/11 to Cuba to get medical treatment, backfired. What I find amusing was how he seemed to try to shift the blame of him doing somethign illegal to the fact that it was the government trying to shut his film up.
Well, apparently in Cuba's superior health care system, if you are a regular citizen, you have to provide your own soap and bedsheets. Hmm, sign me up now!
I also find the fact that this man decided that he needed to put a copy of his film in a safety deposit box outside of the country in his fear that the government would try to confiscate it was equally amusing. This shows the paranoia he faces, or rather, I think he stated it to get attention, and it obviously worked. Hey, even I heard about it, which gives the movie publicity, even though it is highly unlikely that anybody in the government would actualy confiscate the thing. Of course, with such a vocal figure, the government would be stupid to confiscate his movie, but I doubt that would stop him from making up a story that the government tried to.
All the guy does is lie to meet his means.
This is a fascinating article. I highly recommend reading it.
Ok, I don't know a whole lot about Ron Paul to tell you the honest truth. He seemed to be a minor candidate in the overpowering field of Republicans (and Democrats for that matter)
I think I need to do a little more research on him and see exactly where he stands, but based on this video, I really like him. He seems to be a true conservative and I agree with most of his view points. Before seeing this video, to tell you the truth, I wasn't really impressed with much of anyone running for President.
I did a rundown on my personal knowledge of the Democratic Candidates about a month or so ago. I need to do one on the Republicans.
I mean, we're only in April of 2007 and we're already talking about who's going to be POTUS! Why do we do this to ourselves? Do we purposely like to drive ourselves bat wild? I don't know, but I guess because 2008 is completely wide open, we just got to suck it up and get on with our lives.
So, I decided I would look at each candidate for a moment and see what they have to offer and if they even have a shot. Or basically, my own rambling on them.
John Kerry John Kerry, the Democratic nominee of 2004, has suffered a series of set backs to include making bad jokes at our trooops expense (and how was that supposed to be a jab toward a Yale Graduate now???) that he's, well, he's not a contender for 2008. However, I'd keep him on the radar for 2012 or 2016. This guy really wants to claim that oval office, he's just wisely decided to back out of the race for now.
Hillary Clinton Wait, wasn't she President for 8 years already? Isn't there a law against this?
Furthermore, do we really want to start a trend here with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton every four to eight years? Jeb for President in 2016! Chelsea in 2024! Barbara and Jenna can run on a joint ticket in 2032! It's madness I tell you! Madness! This will lead to a path of chaos that will end in our country blowing itself up in the anarchy!
Besides, do we really want another polarizing President in the office? You can't get more polarized then Bushes and Clintons in the office. A third of the country can't stand them, another third loves them, and the remaining third don't give a damn/don't follow politics enough to know the difference. I'm telling you, we really don't want another 8 years of Clinton.
Besides, I don't trust her. Everyone knew she was eyeballing the presidency for the future in 2004, she wouldn't admit it.
Barack Obama This young charismatic candidate from Illinois has exactly two years of Senatorial experience and he's got the entire country buzzing. The question is, well, is he ready for the Presidency? What has he done and what does his experience say about him? Truthfully, I think he'd be a stronger candidate if he waited for 2012 or 2016, because I don't exactly know where he stands on things except to know that he's an eloquant speaker and therefore he knows how to play politics.
Still, I'm thinking I'll take eight years of Obama over eight years of Clinton. I'd say look at this guy on the ticket as a vice presidential candidate, which if the democrats win, sets him up for the presidency in 2016.
John Edwards Yep, he's back, fresh off the Vice Presidential ticket in 2004 and ready to try for the oval office again for 2008. And he doesn't have the negative stigma of bad jokes that Kerry somehow managed to find. He's got experience in the senate as well. And his wife will help win the sympathy vote.
Except he's a trial lawyer, and he's got a record as a trial lawyer of big massive lawsuits against evil doctors and malpractice. I do have a problem with some of these malpractice suits, some of them are deserved, yes, but people win the lottery on them and it puts Doctors out of business as they can't afford their practice.
Still, as a guy, Edwards seems likeable and poses a chance. If he can find a way out from under Clinton's and Obama's shadow.
Dennis Kucinich Is this guy for real? Seriously.
I mean, does this guy even have a sporting chance? Not likely. He was trailing the pack in 2004. What does he have to offer in 2008 that makes him a viable candidate?
Al Gore Gore hasn't declared his candicay, yet, but hot off an Oscar win and with a passion for Environmental Protection that has Hollywood worshipping him, this guy has to think about the possibility of a run for president. Every major website listing contendors for 2008 has him on it as undeclared. And right now, in the liberal circles, he's very popular despite his fallout in lack of personal hygiene after he lost the electoral vote in 2000 to a bunch of Floridians who didn't know how to read a butterfly ballot. He's a contender, its just a matter of if he wants to give it another go or not.
Joe Biden Ok, I'll admit, I don't know much about this guy, though 30 years of senatorial experience does give him an edge over some of the leading candidates. And to tell you the truth, that might actually help him with the moderate voters who are looking for a fresh face in the mix. But still, under the shadow of heavy weights like Clinton and Obama, he's got to find a way to make his name known to get the nomination.
Chris Dodd Like Biden, I don't know really a whole lot about this guy. He's got a lot of years in public service, plus he's got a military record to help with the military vote and some of the moderates (but look what that did for Kerry!), so he's got a history to back him up.
Mike Gravel I have absolutely no idea who this guy is, but he's taking a shot at the presidency and declared his candidacy nearly a year ago. He's got a diverse background in the Military, Business, and Public Service and has even written a couple of books and appears to be a worthy candidate by all appearances if he could find a way to get his name out there.
Bill Richardson The Governor of New Mexico is making a bid for the Presidency.
Other then serving in Clinton's cabinet, I don't know anything about this guy. Hmm. . .
Summary - In my humble and far from expert rambling opinion, I would say for the Democrats, Hillary is the person to beat. But after a far from successful second term for Bush, do the Democrats really want to nominate a person that is just going to polarize the nation that much more? There are people that just don't like Hillary, and no matter what she does to try to improve her image, they are still not going to like her. It looks like Barack Obama may give her a run for her money however.
If the Democrats are smart, I think they should find a decent candidate who can appeal to the moderate vote. Avoid the double speak of 2004 because seriously, if Kerry had run with a plan and a purpose instead of just fumbling with the issues and not having any clear agenda, he would have won easily. This is a wide open election, its anybody's game really.
I'm just hoping the Democrats nominate somebody OTHER then Hillary.
While still 2 years from the next presidential election, granted things could change, but honestly I think John Kerry is out of the running. Really, he didn't do all that well in 2004 against Bush, who himself wasn't exactly the strongest Presidential candidate around. There is a reason why Kerry wasn't elected. In fact, there were several.
He had no issues to stand on, other then he served in Vietnam. He had a plan, but nobody knows what that plan was. He was for the war, and then against the war, before he was for and against the war again. Swift Boat Vets swiftly did him in. His platform was basically 'not Bush'. I really could go on. . .
To tell you the honest truth, if Kerry had campaigned his entire campaign like he did October 2004, he would have won the Presidency very easily, but the damage was to great. Now he has to face a slew of fellow Democratic possibilities such as Barack Obama, who is very popular among Democrats (though probably to early in the political playing field to consider a run for President), along with scores of other hopefuls. I mean, seriously, 2008 is open season. Bush is out, and his VP has no interest in running so its going to be a Slaughter house! And 2004 has given the Republicans plenty of ammo against Kerry.
With strong and popular republicans like Rudi Giuliani and John McCain in the running for their party's nomination, do you think the Democrats are even going to take a chance with that horse when they lost with Kerry already? I think they are going to look at some fresh blood.
I just hope that we can make some progress in this country before 2008 gets here, and honestly, with 2006 almost over and the nominations getting dirty come Fall before an election year, we only have a year left before we find ourselves full force in the mix of what will undoubtedly be a mess.
I just hope John Kerry is out of the running.
On second thought, go ahead and nominate him. It will be interesting to watch him get creamed by the 'Not Bush' Republican candidate.
You know what truly speaks volumes about this past election? From all appearances, conservatives have been going 'eh', instead of proclaiming the end of the world and complaining about how stupid people who vote democrat are.
This means one of two things.
1) Conservatives are more mature then liberals.
2) The Republican party needs to get its act together.
Actually, I think both are true. The older you get, traditionally the more conservative you get. But that's not always the case.
And lately, the Republicans are pandering more to the NeoCon far right wing and not paying attention to the real issues.
I just got this month's copy of Fusion Magazine in the mail (did I mention I'm a Glenn Beck fan?) He made it completely unbiased so no matter what, whatever party wins it will speak volumes about why the other lost. And you know what? I read it cover to cover and thought to myself 'Wow, do I really agree with what this guy has to say!'
Of course, who am I kidding? I assume most of my readers (well, whatever ones that are left that is) probably listen to him anyway.
I don't have cable. I almost got it mostly so I could have the History Channel, Discovery Channel, TLC, and Glenn Beck on Headline Prime. I'm waiting for Comcast to have another one of those specials so I can get it without having to pay the instillation fees, but until then, I'm game to wait it out as I work at a video store again and can get all of the movies I want on discount. And there's always the internet.
Meanwhile, is there any possibility of a third party coming out of the debris and actually making a difference in today's political field?
For those of you who don't know, Georges Sada is a retired Iraqi General that served under Saddam Hussein. Through World Compassion Ministries, I was able to hear him speak on the status of Iraq, and being a religious venue, more specifically the religious freedom of Iraq. Interestingly enough, Georges Sada is a Christian. At times the lecture got a bit too evangelical for my tastes, but the information was very interesting and I came home with his book (Signed!)
This brings into question the reason why we are in Iraq, and why we went there in the first place. Granted, I wish things were going a little smoother now, but I find it odd how many people seem to want to trust Saddam Hussein over George W Bush. Especially as the war came closer and we went in to invade.
Well, according to Gen Georges Sada, Saddam did have WMD and they were transported into Syria before we invaded. Granted, he did not personally see the weapons get transported, and because we cannot verify whether his statements are true or not unless we actually go to Syria, a lot of the book has to be taken on his word.
I found him to be a very personable and friendly person, and his stories are very interesting, especially in regards to how he survived for so long under Saddam Hussein. Interview with Jon Stewert.
I'll have to read the book and let you all know what I think. . .
So, Democrats gained the house and may have the senate, depending on one race in Virginia.
I was hoping Maria Cantwell would get kicked out of office but who am I kidding? I live in Washington and apparently it's very progressive to have two female senators and a female governor, look at us!
Well, my congressman is a woman too, but I actually voted for her.
I'm interested in seeing where exactly the country goes over the course of the next two years, if the Democrats can actually make it any better (I doubt it) or if the Republicans can take a look at this and think 'well, gosh, maybe we should actually listen to our base if we want to stay in office'.
To tell you the honest truth, I think both parties are pretty screwed up and I've coem to think that I probably can't trust a word that comes out of either party's mouth. In a perfect world, I would probably vote libertarian more then anything else, because I'm not a fan of big government, and it used to be that the Republicans were the ones who fought against big government.
So now I expect that these next two years nothing will get accomplished except for a lot of bickering and name calling in the upper government. Bush probably won't be able to accomplish much because the Senate and Congress will likely fillibuster and block anything that he tries to pass, in effect, largely making him a 'lame duck'.
I just hope my stocks hold up.
Here's looking to 2008. I just hope that Gore, Kerry, or Clinton Female is not in the running for the Dems. I wouldn't mind Lieberman, but he's probably to conservative and pro warm for the Democrats to stomach, that and they already wrote him off (still glad to see him make a comeback as an independent) I'm not sure who I would like to see as the Republican candidate.
Well, another election year, and now hopefully we'll see a disappearance of those annoying political signs.
I voted yesterday (mail in) which is how everyone in our county is voting this year. There were some issues that I chose not to vote on due to the fact that I didn't know as much about the issues as I felt I needed to know to give a good strong opinion on how my vote should go, so I refrained.
Meanwhile, Republicans lost control of the house but still have the Senate. In some ways, this is actually probably a good thing, and in the same way a bad thing. A good thing because it adds a little more to the checks and balances of the government, but bad because Nancy Pelosi is now Speaker of the House and I don't think anything will ever get done as the most that will likely happen is a bunch of bickering and backstabbing.
One reason why I have decided to refrain from entering politics myself. No thanks.
I still consider myself conservative, and I generally vote along party lines unless I am stirred enough by the opposing candidate that I feel like I agree with them more then the republican. Republicans haven't been doing to hot these days in my opinion. So maybe losing the house will help them pull their heads out of their asses.
Question: Am I now sorry for voting for Bush? Hell no, and I won't regret it even if I decide after his presidency that he is the worst president in history. Mostly because at the time I went by the knowledge I had and I have no proof supporting whether Kerry would have made a better president or not. And you know what? We'll never know, will we? So Nope! Still not sorry!
But in closing, I do have this to say. Lieberman got reelected as an Independent, after the Democrats turned on him. And that to me is fantastic news.
I heard on a commercial break for 60 Minutes that the Dixie Chicks are trying for a comeback.
Interestingly enough how the dixie chicks have become old news and everything, I'm curious as to how much of a comeback they are going to be able to make. Looking back now, they might think that because the President is suffering record low popularity that maybe people will forgive them or what not and listen to their music again.
I'll admit that I like the Dixie Chick's music. Hey, if they make a successful comeback, all the more power to them.
One thing that people should understand that you will always have the freedom of speech in this country, however you have to realize that you are not free of consequences suffered because of your speech. Celebrities should take note to hold true to this if they want to keep their careers, unless they wish to sacrifice their popularity for a chance to be heard.
Strange, there are plenty of conservative celibrities, but I don't remember them bashing Clinton. And for that matter, I didn't hear a lot of Gore or Kerry bashing either, unless you count Saturday Night Live, to which no politician is exempt. Correct me if I'm wrong. In fact, the conservative celibrities I know about tend to keep their opinions to themselves or just merely show support for their candidate. I don't mind celebrities backing one man, whoever that may be.
There is something I have learned in my experience with the world. Politicians, by and large, are crooks with dirt. Mostly because they are human and they make mistakes, and there is always something to dig up on them. A truly honest person, the kind that most people invision as the perfect president, is a person that will never run for office.
I'm not a huge Bush fan, I haven't really agreed with his policies inacted while in office, especially of late, and I've also grown greatly disappointed with the Republican Party (one of the reasons why I say I'm conservative and not a Republican), but I still respect the office he holds and the fact that he is President. I still don't regret voting for the man, and maintain that indeed, I am not sorry.
Interestingly enough, when you show support of something or somebody, it tends to go over better then to be against something or somebody.
Hence, why when all of these celebrities appear to come out against something (namely, our President), their careers start to take a nose dive. Case in point, Alec Baldwin, Bruce Springsteen (anybody hear much about him lately?), Jane Fonda, anybody spoofed in Team America: World Police, and the Dixie Chicks. Seems with the lack of block busters as of late, it seems like Hollywood in general has taken a hit.
I know I haven't seen many movies in the theaters late. Somebody should take note.
So, I've mentioned a few times that I've been out of the loop on current events, don't really know what's going on back in the states half the time, and really am not feeling the effects of cost of living or what not back home, as I don't pay insurance or gas or any other living expenses while in Kosovo.
However, I do find myself subject to the news and every so often you hear something about an opinion poll on politics or what not, and I hear things about how much the government hates black people on account of Katrina, and in fact when I was in Europe, I ran into some New Orleans refugees who were telling me that it wasn't as bad as the news made it out to be. In fact, their neighborhoods had survived just fine.
So when i'm getting substandard reports and hearing all of these statistics about approval ratings or what not, I just sigh and shake my head. I guess I'll feel the brunt of the force when I get back home.
But what's really funny about it all is how it all seems to come back to Bush. Everything is Bush's fault, as if the government is responsible for every aspect of our lives and can control the weather. I laugh at this.
So, with Bush's approval ratings at an all time low, do I have any regrets at giving him my vote? Of course not. For one, though perhaps Bush will not be remembered as one of our greatest presidents and has in fact made some mistakes in his presidency, I will never know if the alternative would have done better in the same circumstances, he very well could have done even worse. Could he have done better? Perhaps, but the thing is we will never know.
Though I wish Bush would have responded sooner to the Cindy Sheehan crowd with something along the lines of this. I was getting a bit dissapointed in him for not standing up and taking the heat sooner.
Because frankly I was getting sick of the 'Bush Lied' mantra myself, with all the high power libs jumping on the bandwagon and pointing fingers at everyone else other then themselves and not taking responsibility for the fact that they did in fact vote to go to war. That was their decision. If they are looking at it as being 'misled', suggesting that they didn't wouldn't have made the vote if they had known, then they have no business being under public office, as we're paying them the big bucks to make those tough choices. If they are just going to go under the policy of Hindsight, then I can't trust them to make an honest judgement if they have no foresight.
Besides, if you want somebody to blame, you'll have to blame the American people for electing these officials. And if you think you have to blame somebody about voting for Bush, you can blame me, as I still have no regrets over my choice. I don't believe Kerry would have done a better job.
Ok, History used to be one of those subjects in High School that I loathed. I wasn't much of a history buff, I didn't really care much about what happened in the past, mostly because I was very much a dreamer and mostly spent my time in the here and now. Or rather, some daydream that couldn't possibly exist.
Sometimes I'm still very much like that.
Anyway, that changed my Sophomore year of highschool, when I took American History and for some reason, how the teacher taught it, I thoroughly enjoyed it and learned muchly. Mostly because I actually absorbed what I was learning. Funny how not a lot of people liked this teacher because of his method of teaching wasn't very popular, but it clicked with me.
Still, I won't claim to be much of a history buff, because most of what you learn about history is either not entirely accurate or the basis of the historian who wrote the book you're reading's agenda. So sometimes crucial facts to be regarded are conveniantly left out.
Therefore, I haven't always been a huge fan of history and still am not. True, I like to learn about things from the past in small doses, but I've learned you can't entirely trust your source 100% of the time.
Well, anyway, I still have an interest in history and while ordering Lileks' latest book "Mommy Knows Worst" (Hilarious! Buy it!) on Amazon, I wanted to get something so I wouldn't have to pay for shipping with it. So I ordered the Politically Incorrect Guide to American History to get my 25 bucks and hence free shipping.
When I get both books in, my NCOIC (who's a major history buff, and yet a Democrat) asked to borrow the Guide while waiting for me to finish Lileks. He had it for a couple of days but found some misconceptions in it himself, as he said that there was an obvious conservative agenda with the book. I told him that I agreed that there probably was, but that's when you use history books to balance each other out. Such as this one. Besides, I've always taken history books with a grain of salt, especially if you find an error within it.
I still wanted to give the book the benefit of the doubt, as maybe there is some spin on it, it should at least give me some facts or maybe just trivia in general that I can use.
Well, I started reading it, thought it was interesting myself, until I came to the chapter about Clinton. In one of the headings under this chapter it goes into detail about Clinton's escapade while in office. Sure, I don't deny any of this happened, except when I got to page 243 in regards to the dillema of the Balkans, where he points out how Yugoslavia seperated peacefully at first with Slovenia, and then violently with the seperation of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzogovina, and 'the city of Kosovo'.
???
Having lived here for the last ten months, I know first hand that Kosovo is not a city. Its a province, like a state. There is no city or town that I know of within Kosovo that is itself named Kosovo (like New York, New York). Hmm, this strikes me as similar as the City of California, or Texas. Or even the city of Massachussetts.
True, maybe its just a small typo, and not even that big of a deal, but Damn! If you find something like that right away that you can debunk from first hand knowledge, you wonder what else is wrong with the book! Grr, that's frustrating. Maybe I shouldn't look into it. I guess I can still read it to get an idea of history from a different point of view then the usual history book, but still. It's frustrating.
You find one thing you can contradict, and it throws the entire thing out of whack. That's the true problem with History books.
Oh well, so far it has still proven to be interesting. I wouldn't condemn it just yet, but to rather use it as a balancing point with other history books to get the whole story, not just part.
Apparantly Protest Warrior is getting in on the action with the "You Don't Speak For Me, Cindy" tour, as a counter protest to Cindy Sheehan, leaving from San Francisco today and caravaning to Crawford Texas.
Dang, right now I wish I were in the states. I would so get in on that. This whole story has made the news here in Kosovo and I've wanted to comment on it yet have refrained due to my active duty military status. Being a member of Protest Warrior, I only got the opportunity to go on one excercise with them within my chapter. But ever since I heard about this, I wanted to do something with it. Unfortunately, I'm not in a state to do anything. Maybe when I get back to the states I can if a similar issue arrises.
I'm at a state where I would volunteer to go to Iraq just to know what its like to be there, for the experience and also being able to back up my viewpoint. You know, the "Been there, done that, got the T-shirt" business? But I know it wouldn't make mom to happy if I did that. Moms are moms, and I guess from that angle I can sympathisize with Cindy Sheehan. But Kosovo, well, Kosovo just isn't the same.
If I hadn't volunteered to come on this deployment to Kosovo, there is a good chance I'd be in Iraq this summer, though that doesn't mean anything because there was a good chance I would go to Iraq three or four times over the last couple of years before I finally got sick of it and volunteered for the first assignment that would take me out of limbo, which happened to be Kosovo. I had even volunteered to go to Afghanistan in December of 2001 but that fell through within a week.
I guess maybe somebody above is watching out for me, but I support the mission we are trying to accomplish in Iraq, and it pains me to see that there are so many people in the states who want the insurgents to win, as if America is the bad guys for wanting to put a little calm and reason within an area of the globe that hasn't seen it for so long. And their rationale doesn't always make a whole lot of sense. Besides, these insurgents are at a point where they are doing more harm to their own people then to the US soldiers who are trying to stabalize the region.
Anyway, I guess one way to show support for my fellow soldiers and their mission would be in a sense to counter protest those that think we should pull out. And showing my support for the war in Iraq wouldn't be considered political, considering I am a member of the military, is it?
But not in the sense that I normally post, because I don't want to tread on toes, considering I am now a member of the Active Military and should not be getting to political.
Damn, those Iraqis really seem to be hating us Americans, aren't they?
In other news, which I'm sure is making its rounds around the Blogosphere just as the above is (though I retrieved it from other sources, my blog rounds haven't been the same since I deployed *deep sigh*), the status of Germany and its Unemployment laws really make you wonder. I can see that there was good intentions behind this, but it has certainly paved a road to hell. There has to be some moral high ground that should take presidence. I shouldn't be forced to take a job that goes against my religious beliefs for instance. Fortunately, nothing like this is going on in the US (right now) and I am comfortably employed.
I guess that means I shouldn't be moving to Germany any time soon and go through unemployment.
Ah yes, every once in a while I have a concession to make.
My concession this time around? The Washington Goobernatural Election (Butchered on purpose). Rossi should concede.
The facts, I voted for Rossi, Rossi won the election and two recounts (or maybe just one, I may be a little off on those numbers and I've heard several accounts). Gregoire challenged and drug it on, demanded a hand recount, and won the final recount and with it the title of governor of Washington state.
I'm pissed at Gregoire, and if the tables were turned I would be pissed at Rossi (though not as much because I am obviously biased) However, as close as this election is, I believe that Rossi should concede (though at first I wanted him to fight) the election just to one up Gregoire and show people that Republicans aren't the whiney bastards that Democrats are. I hope that Gregoire can fix the problems of Washington State but I doubt it, and her record as Lietuenant Governor was far from steller. Unfortunately, this was in her hands from the start and I said it before. For the good of Washington, she should have conceded after the first recount instead of forking the bill on us. I don't think she'll have an easy term, especially at first considering the election was so close in a highly Blue state and a lot of people will feel like she stole it, kind of like I still do, as I don't believe that you should be allowed to hold recounts until you get your votes.
And I wouldn't be surprised if there was some dirty tricks played during this election, on both sides of the table. (my personal policy on politicians is you don't trust them)
Besides, now the Democratic Party gets refunded their money and your's truly, as a Washingtonian Tax Payer, get's to foot the bill of this last bloody recount that was insisted upon by Chris Gregoire to insure her victory.
I didn't really mind her before, she pissed the hell out of me during the recount, but I hope she really can help Washington because if she screws it up any more, it only screws me and the rest of Washington State.
And if she doesn't help things, maybe Washington can remember the mess she made of this last election that caused them to foot the bill and maybe they will vote her out of office.
John Kerry 
Hillary Clinton 
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Dennis Kucinich
Al Gore
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Mike Gravel
Bill Richardson 
So, I've mentioned a few times that I've been out of the loop on current events, don't really know what's going on back in the states half the time, and really am not feeling the effects of cost of living or what not back home, as I don't pay insurance or gas or any other living expenses while in Kosovo.