January 17th, 2013
President Grover Norquist today defended his administration after the city of Jackson, Mississippi, was destroyed by a nuclear bomb. The 10 Kiloton device, probably secreted by terrorists in a truck, exploded yesterday in the center of the city. At least 100,000 people have been confirmed dead.
"The fact is that the Federal Government, for the past 4 years, has ceded its responsibility for national defense to the states. This has been covered by The Thirty-First amendment."
Norquist has blamed the state of Mississippi for the attack.
"They were responsible for their own security. It is not the fault of the Federal government that they were unable to keep up with their defense insurance bills."
Halliburton, America's largest national defense service provider, has also defended the lack of military resources that were present in the state at the time of the attack. Phillip Moore, the vice president of the company, who is also the Senator for North Dakota (R), was interviewed last night in relation to Halliburton's defense role.
"You have to understand that Mississippi had the lowest level of defense insurance cover of any State in the US" he said "In fact, at the time of the attack, they were behind in their monthly payments which, as a result, led to a severe downgrading of their cover."
Halliburton, like other national defense service providers, charge individuals in each state a monthly fee to cover such basic defense needs as recruitment, training, weapons and ammunition purchases, as well as research and development into new technologies. Mississippi, the poorest state in the US, had the lowest per capita defense insurance payments as well. The state has also suffered a year-long recession, pushing unemployment up from 7% to 12% in that time, thus making defense insurance payments harder for individuals to manage.
President Norquist placed the blame firmly upon the people of Mississippi for the attack.
"Was it the Federal Government's fault that the state of Mississippi was in recession last year? Was it the Federal Government's fault that the people of Mississippi were unable to look after themselves and forgo their defense insurance payments? Of course not! If Mississippians had simply got off the streets and got themselves a job, then they would have enough money to pay Halliburton the amount of money needed and have adequate defense cover"
Despite the tragedy, many American states are actively preventing charity contributions to the state. Richard Thomas, CEO of Laserdyne military technologies corporation, who is also the Governor of Ohio, has openly criticised these charities.
"I am not against charitable giving at all. But at some point we have to stop giving people charity when it is obvious that they won't get off the sidewalk and do something about their lives! Mississippi is fully at fault for not being able to pay the bills that other American citizens pay."
Some leaders, particularly from the left-wing of politics, have argued that the Thirty-First Amendment be repealed and that defense again become the responsibility of the Federal Government. President Norquist scoffed at this suggestion.
"In order to effectively repeal Amendment XXXI, we would also have to repeal Amendment XXX, which eliminated any right the Federal Government had to levy taxes upon American citizens and businesses. If national Defense is given back to the Federal Government, we would have to begin taxing Americans again. I'm sorry but this attack on Mississippi is not some God-given sign to re-shackle the American people in the chains of taxation."
"Taxation is evil. It is immoral. And the Federal Government has proved since 1776 that it was totally incapable of running itself without having to abuse its citizenry with the sin of taxation. America was freed when Amendment XXX passed 5 years ago. I'm not about to put America back into fiscal slavery just because some two-bit city in a skid-row state can't pay their bills."
Foreign nations, most notably the People's Democratic Republic of Vermont, have offered generous assistance to the people of Mississippi. Because of Federal rules prohibiting foreign charitable donations, Vermont has opened its borders to anyone from the state who wishes to migrate.
"Anyone from Mississippi can freely and willingly come and become a citizen of Vermont." said President Elizabeth Smith "They will receive universal health care, free school and college education for their children, a roof over their heads, food to eat, and an opportunity to forge a living in the People's State of Vermont"
John Hamilton, president of Americans for Local Defense, has argued strongly for the repeal of Amendment XXXI - but is also pursuing an amendment that would hand the responsibility to local counties.
"If we repealed Amendment XXI and gave it back to the Federal government, and if we didn't begin to re-tax again, then defense insurance cover would be paid for by everyone equally around America."
"I'm sorry, but I pay my insurance money to cover my home and my people. I don't want my money to defend skid-row states like Mississippi and Alabama and Nebraska - I want my money to defend me! This is a user-pays system! It also creates a monopoly since we can only pick one defense insurance provider to cover the whole country. if we did that then we'd be back in the bad old days of having a Defense Department and a National standing army. Do we really want to return to the stone age? We might as well become Communists!"
"National defense should be the responsibility of local counties, with insurance cover changing from county to county. Rich counties get top cover, poor counties get poor cover. That's the normal activity of the marketplace. It would also free up the market for national defense insurance providers, thus making the industry more efficient and better at protecting us."
President Norquist said that his cabinet was considering such an idea.
"Moving national defense into the hands of local counties is a very interesting idea that my cabinet will be considering over the next 6 months. I will also discuss this possibility at the next Halliburton board meeting - I think the CEO (former President George W. Bush) might back the idea."
From the Department of Attempted Humour
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
Frequenty Asked Questions about the Author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
According to Blogshares, my share price is B$89.48 (up from the B$29.53 I "purchased" earlier this month) and my p/e ratio is a whopping 103.91.
Only two sites link me - Paul Whiting and Phil Johnson. Somehow a guy called Aaron Kinney has made packets of fictional money by trading my shares.
In my efforts to be political and relevant over the past two months, I have neglected that other part of me which loves the greatest of all sport - Cricket.
For any Americans who have yet to stop reading, it might be good to look at some Wikipedia articles on the subject:
Major League Cricket (American Professional Competition)
Cricket
Test Cricket
Laws of Cricket
Why is it that Australians have so warmed to Andrew "Freddy" Flintoff and Kevin Pieterson? These guys are, after all, partly responsible for Australia's 2005 Ashes defeat. Moreover, they are English. What is going on?
The fact is that Australians always respect quality players. Regardless of whether they play for Australia or not, quality players are always given respect for their abilities. But respect does not always mean we like them. There are plenty of players that Australians respected, but also hated - take Geoff Boycott, Richard Hadlee and Javed Miandad for example.
The difference with players like Flintoff and Pieterson is not just the fact that we acknowledge their prodigious talent. An important element for Australians is that these two players seem to really enjoy playing and respond accordingly when success comes their way. Many Australians have played cricket for pure enjoyment, and know what it feels like when their efforts are rewarded with success. When they see players - Australian or English or whoever - who get excited when things are going well, they enjoy it.
Conversely, Australians are not that keen when players lose their heads when things are not going well. Temper tantrums, yelling at the umpire and responding to crowd abuse is not seen in a favourable light. So on the one hand, Australians enjoy it when players are happy, but do not respond well to players who get emotional when things aren't going their way.
There is another personality trait that Australians respond to - it's called the "Jerk factor". The Jerk factor is influenced by many things, but is usually the result of the player's attitudes both on and off the field. If we discover that a player has been smashing windows with his bat in the dressing room, or yelling abuse at autograph hunters or sleeping with prostitutes, we are not impressed.
Flintoff and Pieterson are talented players who have performed well against Australia. They look like they thoroughly enjoy every minute of their time in the game, and they appear to be nice guys when off the field. That's why we can handle Pieterson's dyed hair and Freddie's lack of it.
But of course, much of what I have said can be applied to Aussie cricketers as well. Shane Warne is an example of someone who is exceptionally talented when he performs on the cricket field. He also thoroughly enjoys his cricket. But there is no doubt that Warne's "Jerk factor" is fairly high, what with his infidelity and his penchant for text messages on mobile phones. Nevertheless, Aussies like Warne simply because they know that his performances are special and that he often wears his heart on his sleeve. Once Warne retires, I doubt that he will find much sympathy for any personal problems he goes through.
Stuart MacGill is an interesting case. Aussies feel sorry for MacGill because he is obviously the second-best spin bowler Australia has produced since Ritchie Benaud retired. His problem is, of course, that he just happened to be playing cricket when one of the best spin bowlers in the history of the game - Shane Warne - was also playing for Australia. We Aussies respect his talent, although he has under-performed a bit too often for our liking. His Jerk Factor is better than Warne's, although we do know that the guy likes drinking red wine, which obviously brings his masculinity into question. He's also known to "go off" in minor matches, although not in anything big like a Test match yet. But does MacGill enjoy his cricket? He probably does, but he certainly doesn't look like it. Spin bowlers have to deal with batsmen carting them to the boundary often, so it certainly pays to keep their emotions in check while some guy belts them around the field. MacGill's career figures show that he is often quite expensive. The upshot is that when he finally gets a wicket, he appears to explode in rage. He punches the air, grits his teeth and gives the evil eye to anyone and everyone around him. As happy team-mates celebrate around him, MacGill appears to be planning his next serial killing. Not that he doesn't present well in interviews. Yesterday when he look 5 wickets to defeat the World XI in Sydney, he was interviewed at the end of the game. When asked what his priorities were, he said "Playing for NSW so we can win the Pura Cup" as his first priority - these were the words of a man who knows what it is like to produce a match-winning bowling effort and be dropped for the next match because the side can't accomodate both him and Warne at the same time.
Which brings me back to my favourite pet-hates - the continued presence of Brett Lee in the Australian Test side. Brett Lee probably has the lowest Jerk Factor of anyone in the team - he thoroughly enjoys his cricket, he is nice to people (including fans), he bowls very, very fast and has blond hair. All these things are good. What I'm always concerned about is his bowling record since 2001. Anyone who has bowled as poorly as Lee has in the last 4 years would have been dropped from the team. Even Peter Roebuck, a writer I respect, seems to have been smitten by Lee. He acknowledges that Lee's record in the Ashes series was poor - 20 wickets at 41.10 - but that he is improving. I have to say that, for me, facts and figures are important in this case. Lee was one of the reasons why we lost the Ashes series. Even before the Ashes team was picked, I had dropped Lee from the side and included Nathan Bracken from NSW on the basis of his 2004/05 Sheffield Shield performance. And guess what - Bracken is now in the selectors sights, but Lee is yet to be dropped.
And I can't be bothered to write a conclusion...
From the One Salient Sportinglife Department
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Here are some blog postings that I have been noticing this past week...
Christian Blogs
Tim Challies writes his take on the Duggans, a Christian family in Arkansas with 16 children, thus prompting a discussion about whether Christians should use birth control.
Steve McCoy at Reformissionary has gone quiet.
Hugh Hewitt continues his battle against the godless hordes in the Republican party who won't endorse Harriet Miers.
Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk, is upgrading his blogging software and has lost his most recent posting aboat Calvinism in the SBC.
Paul Whiting at Shoot the Messenger does an in-depth analysis of Charles Finney and finds him wanting.
Pyromaniac Phil Johnson is still asleep, although he has been known to make comments at other people's websites - get back to sleep Phil!
British John H. at Confessing Evangelical bravely questions Gun ownership in America.
Founders ministry blog has changed its blog template, thus making it harder to read.
Fide-o has been making some good posts lately, the best being an article about the "Professional Weaker Brother".
James Spurgeon expresses his enthusiasm that the abuses of Longview Baptist Temple, his former church, may be exposed in court.
Scott at the Fat triplets discovers open source imaging software... and likes it!
Kristin, the 16 year-old Spunky Jr., reveals that she will be writing a "little something" in a Christian book that will be published next year (author Jane Bullivant). She's obviously excited - as anyone would be. Congratulations are naturally in order!
The Rebelution criticises Hollywood movies for promoting sin. Who would have thought??
Craig Schwartze, who bears a striking resemblance to John Cusack, lists his top ten heavy metal songs. Craig is also fearless in disagreeing with me and posting evidence to prove me wrong, which is actually quite useful.
Al Mohler, who has not studied English Literature at graduate level, disses Harold Pinter for his Nobel Prize in Literature.
Godless Liberal Blogs
Brad DeLong, apart from proving that left-wingers can know a LOT about economics, warns of the impending collapse of the US Dollar.
The Democratic Party Blog continues to post incredibly unreadable posts that have probably been written by a committee.
Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo reveals the Whitehouse plan to market Harriet Miers.
Holden at First Draft points to the possibility of an exhaustive investigation against those involved in Prisoner abuse, notably Donald Rumsfeld.
The Democratic Veteran reveals the possibility that New York's recent terrorism alert was leaked to New York's elite days before the actual alert was announced.
Angry Bear is every left-winger's dream - a fiscally responsible and economically sound liberal. I cannot recommend his site highly enough.
The Sideshow wonders how long the New York Times can survive after the current Judith Miller Scandal.
Jim Kunstler (he of the unfortunate surname), reveals a little bit more information about the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf oil infrastructure.
One Exceptionally Annoyed Veteran reveals that US Air Force personnel may be called upon to do "grunt duty" on the streets of Baghdad.
Cab Drollery is a website I have only recently been visiting. If you enjoy my op-ed articles on current events you will enjoy her take on things too.
James Dobson is a respected figure amongst American Evangelicals. For decades he has been involved in dispensing practical advice to Christian parents about how to bring up their children in a Christian way.
But Dobson is also politically active. His ministry has directed many evangelical votes to the Republican party over the years for their explicit support of laws that favour Christian belief.
Just recently, Dobson has supported the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. My opinion about this nomination has already been posted.
On the 3rd of October, 2005, George W. Bush made his official announcement that he was nominating Harriet Miers. On the 5th of October - 2 days later - James Dobson announced his support of Harriet Miers on his radio program. During this announcement he said that Karl Rove had given him information that he was not going to divulge that helped him support the nomination.
The fact that Dobson had proclaimed that he had been given "secret knowledge" was jumped upon my the media and also members of congress. Those who had the responsibility to approve Miers' nomination were incensed that Dobson had been given information that they did not have. There was a serious discussion about subpoenaing Dobson to testify before the official committee - which is still a possibility.
Last week, Dobson said the following:
I would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v. Wade... But even if Karl had known the answer to that--and I'm certain that he didn't because the president himself said he didn't know--Karl would not have told me that. That's the most incendiary information that's out there, and it was never part of our discussion.
However...
An article just published by OpinionJournal speaks of a conference call made between Dobson and a number of other Evangelical leaders that was made on the day of the nomination. I'll let the OpinionJournal article speak for itself:
On Oct. 3, the day the Miers nomination was announced, Mr. Dobson and other religious conservatives held a conference call to discuss the nomination. One of the people on the call took extensive notes, which I have obtained. According to the notes, two of Ms. Miers's close friends--both sitting judges--said during the call that she would vote to overturn Roe.
The call was moderated by the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. Participating were 13 members of the executive committee of the Arlington Group, an umbrella alliance of 60 religious conservative groups, including Gary Bauer of American Values, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and the Rev. Bill Owens, a black minister. Also on the call were Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court and Judge Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal trial judge.
[snip]
What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?"
"Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade.
"I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."
Shortly thereafter, according to the notes, Mr. Dobson apologized and said he had to leave the discussion: "That's all I need to know and I will get off and make some calls." (When asked about his comments in the notes I have, Mr. Dobson confirmed some of them and said it was "very possible" he made the others. He said he did not specifically recall the comments of the two judges on Roe v. Wade.)
If this report from OpinionJournal is true then James Dobson's comments last week that he did not know Miers' opinion on Roe v. Wade are false. In other words, there is a chance that Dobson publically lied.
All Christians who enter the political world will be tempted to lie. They must not, even if it hurts their career or does not further their political aims. 1 Peter 2.12 is important to consider here:
Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.
From the Theosalient Department
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Peter Moore, an Evangelical Christian who lives in Colorado Springs, has admitted that he does not like "Schindler's List".
"It's not that I'm not shocked at what happened in The Holocaust - it's just that all these people went to hell"
"It doesn't matter whether they were Jews or Gays or disabled people - if they hadn't accepted Jesus into their heart as Lord and Saviour, then they have gone to Hell"
"You think the ovens were bad? Imagine the torment of that poor Jew as he ended up burning forever in Hades."
Moore admits that he finds other films difficult to deal with.
"I saw Russell Crowe in Gladiator. What a stupid film. Both he and that sicko Roman Emperor die. You know that scene where he is having a vision of the afterlife? Well it was obviously just some neurological psychosis as he was dying because he would've gone straight to Hell with Commodus"
Moore complains that Hollywood does not see things from a Christian perspective.
"Do we ever see any Christian reality being depicted by Hollywood? Of course not!"
"I mean look at the whole Lord of the Rings trilogy. The fact is that Middle Earth doesn't actually exist. There are no Elves or Hobbits or Orcs. God doesn't talk about them in the Bible. The Bible doesn't talk about life on other worlds or other realities."
"That's why these films are evil"
Moore argues that films should depict only what is real.
"Fiction is essentially a lie. Every time you watch a film that is fictional, you are watching a lie."
Moore even extends his criticism to arthouse films.
"Look at Dead Man with Johnny Depp. I don't know about you, but I'm fairly certain that America was in colour in the 19th century. And look at all those people who die. Why would anyone care about Johnny Depp's character? At the end of the film you see him float off into the sea. We all know he dies! Why don't they show a scene of Depp's character - William Blake - being tormented in hell next to those three dead bounty hunters, his dead girlfriend and her dead former fiance, as well as his Indian friend Nobody?"
"And what's worse is that Nobody suddenly turns up on top of a roof in Ghost Dog! I mean the guy is dead and he has been dead for over 100 years. And now he turns up - in color mind you - with a whole bunch of pigeons."
"The Bible says nothing about reincarnation. It's all wrong!"
From the Department of Attempted Humour
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
I have just visited the Boars Head Tavern - an eclectic group of amusing misfits who are generally conservative and evangelical, but who grapple with some very deep theology while at the same time discussing more mundane things. There are around 35 or so contributors, and they basically sit there and blog at each other.
But I just noticed that one of them has begun to complain about Bush and the GOP. Chances are that most of these people are Conservative Republicans who have voted for Bush twice. They are not political in their blogging, so any insights they have about politics reflects more upon the Evangelical grassroots.
Here are the quotes:
Supreme Court
Kind of a funny contrast (and sad).
People supported Roberts because he was well qualified, and a Conservative.
People support Miers because she is a Christian.
The former assumes Roberts is not a Christian (ostensibly I assume because he is Catholic) and the latter assumes Miers is not qualified but being a Christian makes up for it. (it doesn't).
I think I'm officially against Miers. One, because I'm reluctantly coming to the conclusion that Bush is the worst president we've had in my living memory, and two, because Pat Robertson supports her.
I think I may regret the statement about Bush later. That's how I feel this second and I have a bit of a headache, so that may be it. Someone convince me that I'm not right, either by pointing out how good Bush is or how someone else was worse. - BM
--------------
As long as...
I'm disparaging my own political party, I think Tom Delay needs to be buried in a deep dark cell somewhere and quit dragging the party to undreamt of ethical and political lows. - BM
--------------
BM, I supported our current president with a vote, and relate to your despair. I do not however share your identification with the Republican party and I remember that MS had a lot to share in favor of the 'two party' system. But I have come to believe that the current system quenches creativity by instituting conformity over statesmanship. Loyalty is not to the nation, it is to the party and it's cronies. - KR
--------------
BTW, I love days like today when there's synchronicity in the tavern: (1) discussion of Radical Orthodoxy and (2) BM's declaration that he's reluctantly coming to the conclusion that "Bush is the worst president we've had in my living memory." Sweet. An Ale-8 for that man, barkeep. - JH
Tonight has been a bad night. For the third time in 2 months, I have had an article ruined by Blogger.
I had spent a couple of hours writing. Since I am aware that sometimes things go wrong, I often press the button "Save as Draft" to ensure that it is saved.
So I'm writing away. It's a passionate article. I am putting lots of emotion into what I am writing. I am even at the point of tears at one point.
Then my wife comes in. She wants me to scratch her itchy back for a while as she watches TV. I have come to the end of the emotional bit in my writing so I decide that I need a short break. I hit "Save as Draft" and go out to scratch the wife's back.
Ten minutes later I come back. Something is wrong. "The blog you were looking for was not found" says the blogger page, with a button that says "back to the dashboard".
I go cold. Surely not this article I scream inside. I go to the dashboard, I go to the edit page which shows the articles still in draft form. I hit the button for the one I'm working on...
It's the draft version I saved previously - not the latest one.
All the emotional stuff - about 150-200 words - is gone. Everything up to that point is still there, but the real gutsy stuff is gone. I hit the back button on my browser - but the work is still gone.
I am really angry at Blogger for this. It is just not good enough for bloggers to lose their work because of some crappy software glitch, or whatever it is. It shouldn't be bandwith because I have broadband.
I have, one or twice, used a text editor for writing an article. But the advantage of writing in the browser is that I can switch between tabs (I use Firefox) to go to references which I can then give links to as I write. I suppose I can always just copy and paste the text in the editing window into a text editor as I go - but it is still a royal pain.
The annoying thing is that the two other articles that got blown out of the water (due to the same phenomenon) ended up not being published anyway. The article that got ruined tonight was different in the emotions that I was experiencing - which will make the article just that much harder to rewrite.
Grrrrrrrrr!
As anyone who is attuned to American politics knows, the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has caused a major split in American Conservatives.
From what I can gather, a significant minority of Conservatives - mainly Evangelical Christians - support the Miers nomination. Nevertheless, a majority of conservatives are opposed to the nomination and "feel betrayed".
Indulging in as much schadenfreude as possible, the leftists are goggling on the sidelines, watching their political opponents weaken themselves at the very moment when polls show a serious decline in support for George W. Bush.
Lately I've been visiting the website of Hugh Hewitt, a conservative evangelical blogger. The guy is quite influential and has access to high-up members in the administration. This includes having phone calls from Karl Rove.
While I don't share in Hewitt's conservative ideology, I find his site to be informative and mercifully free from the "cheap shots" that can sometimes typify political blogs from both sides of the ideological fence. Besides, the guy is an Evangelical like me, so it's good to get to know the thoughts of someone who I will be in heaven with for the rest of eternity.
What is interesting in this split is the ease by which the two conservative camps have begun to attack and label one another. Hewitt has labeled the anti-Miers crowd as "Cornerites", after the right-wing website The Corner. I have yet to examine the other side of the conservative fence, but it is obvious that this split is quite serious.
So, given an external stressor (the nomination of Harriet Miers), conservative pundits have broken into two separate, opposing groups, and are using the same language and tactics they have used against their traditional leftist enemies upon one another.
Instead of trying to debate the issue peacefully, instead of trying to understand the other person's point of view, the split has simply led to enmity. It is as though the only solution to a problem is to fight against your enemy until you have secured victory.
This is a very sad state of affairs. I say this not because I have sympathy with the conservative side of politics, but because it reflects upon society generally, including leftists.
The language and tactics used by both sides of the ideological fence can, at times, be repugnant. I am not so blind as to believe that the leftist bloggers I read and enjoy are innocent of such activities. Take the recent photograph of George Bush writing a note about a bathroom break, or the "fanmail" that Harriet Miers and George Bush sent each other since they first met. To me these are irrelevant to the debate, but many leftists will use them as cheap shots against Bush. Not me - I don't care about them. They're not important. There are far more important things that I have against George W.
So what will happen if a hypothetical split occurred within the leftist punditry? Will both sides begin to label and attack each other with the same ease that the conservatives are doing at the moment? You'd have to be incredibly naive to believe that the left is somehow above such things.
So what should the left do? May I suggest that there needs to be a change in tactics against conservatives:
First of all, stop making cheap shots against your political enemies. It does more damage to you in the end, and no real damage to your enemies.
Secondly, occasionally speak in support of the good things that your enemies do. This may stick in your craw, but I have always believed that credit must be given where credit is due. Targeting moderate Republicans like John McCain for praise on a regular basis is a good idea.
Thirdly, stop referring to all Republicans/Conservatives as "the enemy". Some are worthy of criticism, but one person a whole party does not make.
Fourthly, give explicit kudos to conservatives who obviously take their beliefs seriously and who articulate them well - they may be diametrically opposed to you, but at least you can respect them for their stance. Conversely, savagely criticise any conservative who is not ideologically pure - they are obviously hypocrites who hold to conservative beliefs only for political purposes (Eg the very religious and ethical Tom DeLay).
Fifthly, stop saying "F*** Bush!!" on comments threads. It is incredibly boring and achieves absolutely nothing.
Sixthly, refer to George Bush in non-pejorative ways. Call him George, Dubya, the prez and so on. Calling him "The Chimp" and other epithets should be avoided. Name calling is juvenile.
But why do all this? Why should the left take a good hard look at itself and the way that it attacks their political opponents? Surely now is the time to stick the knife in good?
It may seem so - but remember, I am also concerned about the hypothetical split in the left that may occur in the future. If the left is restrained and intelligent in its criticisms of the conservatives, then any split that occurs is more likely to be dealt with in an objective and restrained manner. It will also show conservatives that the left is too proud to stoop to their levels.
From the One Salient Overlord Department
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
Frequently Asked Questions about the writer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
So I was watching a few scenes from The Matrix Revolutions last night. As I was watching the scene of the first assault on Zion, I couldn't help but think about the following problem:
Why didn't the machines put a 25 megaton nuclear bomb inside the first digging machine, primed to explode as it fell into Zion?
The bomb would have vapourized every single person in the dock area of Zion. It would also cause major damage, if not total destruction, to the rest of Zion.
When the US and USSR tested massive nuclear bombs in the 1960s (including the 57 megaton Tsar Bomba, tested in 1961), the height of the mushroom cloud reached as high as 64km above ground level. In one test, people 100km away from a massive blast suffered third-degree burns.
So I'm fairly certain that a bomb of such magnitude, hidden in the first digging machine, would have wiped out Zion in one foul swoop.
