KellanStec

Horrible plays on words aside, this is obscene. You know “scooter” Libby? That guy that was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice? Yeah, he doesn’t have to serve the thirty month sentence that was ordered by a federal judge. Bush rescued him.

Who in the world do the administrators think they are? He was convicted. Literally found guilty of his crimes, and he does not have to serve the punishment for the crimes he committed because Bush takes care of his own, and is apparently above the law. Does he think that just because he is president, that makes it okay to disregard the law? I guess so. Libby still has to pay the $250,000 fine and the conviction still stands–he just doesn’t have to serve time. The fine should be no problem. Hell, Bush and Cheney will probably cut him a check.

Absolutely ludicrous. When anyone else commits a crime, they do their time if they are convicted. Not Bush or his friends. I’m really hoping this motivates the senate to impeach after Bush also ignored the subpoenas that were issued to him over certain White House documents. Deliberations have begun. I saw we throw Bush’s ass in prison for lying to an entire nation, needlessly killing innocent Iraqi civilians and American soldiers, and being a giant douche.

Bush claims to be a good Christian–doing God’s work. He surrounds himself with people who are Christians like himself. What does the Bible say about the administration’s actions? Prepare yourself for hypocrisy:

Proverbs 6:16-19
16 There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil,
19 A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.

Holy shit! What happened to following God’s word? The Lord hates George Bush (or at least his actions) and everyone involved in their criminal activities. I wonder if Bush has even bothered to read anything that’s written in the Bible.

So, where was I? Oh, yeah. Impeach Bush and throw Libby’s ass in prison where it belongs. That is all.

UPDATE 07/03/07: The White House has issued a press release for Bush’s executive clemency action. It appears to be written by Bush, but I don’t see any made-up words, spelling, punctuation, or grammatical errors. It’s probably written by one of his goons. Needless to say, the explanation is empty and unsatisfying. I’m moving to Canada.

Thanks to Hemant for the story.

On March 26th’s countdown with Keith Olbermann, Tom DeLay once again passes under the idiot spotlight when in his new book, he compares his investigation of election manipulation and money laundering to Hitler’s great lie. He is convinced that those damn liberals are out to get him. “Liberals have finally joined the ranks of scoundrels like Hitler,” says DeLay. The guy just won’t stop running his mouth. It’s not going to keep him from going to jail, where he belongs. Here is the entire quote, in context:

I believe it was Adolf Hitler who first acknowledged that the big lie is more effective than the little lie, because the big lie is so audacious, such an astonishing immorality, that people have a hard time believing anyone would say it if it wasn’t true.

You know, the big lie — like the Holocaust never happened or dark-skinned people are less intelligent than light-skinned people. Well, by charging this big lie about money laundering, liberals have finally joined the ranks of scoundrels like Hitler.

Woah, maybe he should find a source before he tells you what he “believes” was said by whom.

Whether he likes it or not, he broke the law. “I have done nothing wrong, I have violated no law, no regulation, no rule of the House,” he sulks. Well, I’m sorry to say, but it really looks like he did break the law. There is immense evidence that confirms the indictment that he accepted an illegal political contribution and laundered money. Hence, breaking the law. The Jews did nothing aside from being Jewish. How he can compare his “persecution” to the annihilation of an entire race/religion of people is beyond my intellectual capacity.

He talks about criminalizing politics and big lies, but he is forgetting that this is the basic facet of the current administration. Bush lied about the level of certainty that we had about the WMDs in Iraq. God told him to invade Iraq, but apparently had forgotten to mention that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

DeLay needs to bend over, grab his ankles, and take it like a man. Okay, bad analogy. Seriously though, he got himself into this mess and playing the blame game isn’t going to get himself out of it. No matter how hard he points his finger and how many reductio ad hitlerums he uses. Those “liberal scoundrels” of congress are doing their jobs.

Would it be right to compare a police officer arresting you for stealing to Hitler? Of course not. Laws are in place for a reason. Some make more sense than others, but the particular ones he broke prevent people from cheating in the political system. DeLay needs to stop acting like a victim and accept the fact that when you break a law, there will be ramifications.

The bulk of yesterday was spent by me hating April Fools ‘ Day. I could hardly read the news on digg without suspecting every story to be a joke. I’m happy to say that I didn’t have any pranks pulled on me, and I didn’t pull any on anyone else. It continued like this until I turned on the television to watch Adult Swim, like I do every Sunday.

A few weeks ago, Adult Swim began running television advertisements for the television premiere of their new movie (!), Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters. Why? “Because we’re fucking crazy,” they say. The internet schedule verified this; a two-hour block was reserved for the premiere.

Well, the date was April 1st. I knew this had to be a prank. But, they did it. I turned on the TV and there it was: the entire movie was playing. It was in the bottom left corner of the screen and the size of a postage stamp. It has no sound over the normal programming.

I start giggling. Then an enormous advertisement slides in to inform me that I am watching the new movie. It covers nearly half the screen. By this point I’ve lost it. Adult Swim made April Fools ‘ Day worth it.

Last year, Adult Swim aired anime with engrish subtitles and inserted fart noises randomly. But nothing tops this prank. They advertised for it, and they actually did it. It’s way too damn small to see, but they really did air the movie. Absolutely hilarious.

After they did that, I was hoping the awful Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job episode that aired on the Fix last Friday was a prank. It wasn’t. That was the worst episode ever. Maybe that was the joke.

Today in my Intro to Sociology class, we were discussing an article written by Gwynne Dyer and entitled Anybody’s Son Will Do. The article discussed the re-socialization of potential military men, and how the system was organized to change the role they play in society. In the midst of dialogue, a student interjected with the “fact” that Fred Rogers was once a U.S. Marine sniper during the Vietnam War. Another student chimed in to mention that he has tattoos covering his arms, which was the reason why he so often wore long sleeved shirts on television. Now, I had a vague reminiscence that these stories were bunk, but I held my tongue because I wasn’t one hundred percent sure. Could it be possible that everyone’s favorite neighbor was a Vietnam killing machine? I probably should have said something, because I ended up being correct.

Being the skeptical myth-debunking machine that I am, I immediately did a little bit of research on the topic using highly venerated websites dealing with urban legends such as these. Snopes.com counters this story thoroughly. This is taken directly from their website:

This same rumor has often been applied to boyish country singer-songwriter John Denver (among others), and it’s just as false when told of Fred Rogers. Not only did Fred Rogers never serve in the military, there are no gaps in his career when he could conceivably have served in the military — he went straight into college after high school, he moved directly into TV work after graduating college, and his breaks from television work were devoted to attending the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (he was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in 1963) and the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Child Development. Moreover, Fred Rogers was born in 1928 and was therefore too old to have enlisted in the armed services by the time of America’s military involvement in Vietnam.

So, not only is the story false, it isn’t even remotely plausible. It makes me wonder who starts these stories. It would have been much more believable had Rogers ever served military time, but he simply didn’t. I do know how they spread though. A person like me fails to point out the utter ludicrousity of such things, and now a large majority of those present will probably go on to relay the myth to others, and so on. It is an interesting story, and it’s popular because it’s a shocker! The internet makes this much easier to do. It’s a shame to see such things circulating around a great man.

This is going to be a longer post than usual. This is the first presidential election that I have paid any mind to, and I think it is important after spending the past six years wondering when we were going to get rid of Bush. It is my firm belief that we need a strong leader to get us out of the Middle East, restore our civil liberties, and reform government spending. There are a number of candidates that I am interested in, and I am going to take the time to summarize their political views and why I do or do not like them. I am taking two democrats (Clinton and Obama), two republicans (Paul and Giuliani), and one libertarian (Kubby). I’d like to do the greens and independents, but I don’t particularly care for either party. Libertarian is my party of choice, so that’s the only reason I am including a third party at all.

Democratic candidates

Hillary Rodham Clinton: Hillary is a strong democrat, and currently the only woman who ever had a good shot at being president. I like her support for some personal liberties, such as same-sex marriage and abortion as well as her support of net neutrality. However, had it not been for the democrat’s continual insistence that personal safety be regulated whether or not it breaches personal liberties such as the right to bear arms, I would probably be liberal. I would probably never vote for Hillary. I really don’t have a problem with a woman president. The idea of a woman president scares me a little, but I think that’s just because I am afraid of change. I am sure there are plenty of competent women out there that could run this country better than our current and many past presidents. I just don’t think that she is the right person for the job. Overall, the most I can say for Hillary is that she is okay. It’s probably true that I don’t like her because she’s a woman, but I think some of my views are motivated by her potential or lack thereof as a president.

Barack Hussein Obama: Barack is a great guy, and probably someone I would want in the White House. His only problem is getting by Hillary in the primaries. Anyone who has read The Audacity of Hope knows how intelligent he is. The name might damage him a little–having the middle name Hussein and a last name that sounds like Osama might deter potential voters. Some people may look at his race as well. It’s a shame, but I think that if he can beat Hillary in the primaries, he could give any republican opponent a run for his money. He supports many of the same policies that Clinton does, and supports mild gun control. Obama’s gun control system makes more sense to me, and he didn’t vote against the 2006 Vitter Amendment, which prohibits the confiscation of lawfully-acquired firearms during a disaster. This is an obvious breech on the second amendment, and Hillary supported it. I support Obama over Hillary mostly because his book was brilliant, and he doesn’t smear the opponents in his own party like Hillary does. It seems like Obama “gets” that politics should not be a game or competition, especially when it comes to the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world. If you don’t currently support Obama, read his books and you will most likely be assuaged.

Republican candidates

Rudy Giuliani: Giuliani was the mayor of NYC during and following the September 11, 2001 attacks. His political views don’t make him a true republican–he is a moderate, if anything. I really like the way he feels about global warming (that the debate is irrelevant–we should be dealing with pollution anyway), but this isn’t exactly within the realm of presidential duties. On the topic of abortion, his views are pretty much in line with mine, “I hate [abortion]…However, I believe in a woman’s right to choose.” Hell, this guy is a quoting machine, “I’ve supported four or five hundred candidates in my time, but I’ve not yet found one with whom I can agree completely. In fact, I don’t even agree with myself on everything. There’s not a candidate with a clean skirt out there. Hell, I’ve been married myself three times.” I think I am starting to like this guy. My only problem with him is his failure to support same-sex marriages and his views on prayer in school. Other than that, he looks like a pretty solid candidate.

Ron Paul: Ron Paul is a libertarian disguised as a republican. Although many of his views aren’t in line with true libertarians, he could probably run as one without a hitch (and did–as a libertarian nominee in 1988). He supports the use of Marijuana for medical use and the abolition of the federal income tax. Ron Paul does have some admiral qualities, and I think this country could use a good libertarian president. I’m just not sure he could give either Hillary or Obama good opposition. Congressman Paul has been quoted on record in supporting the primary facets of libertarianism. He believes that the lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government’s. Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges. However, there are many sections of the electorate that do wish to regulate private affairs, including religious groups and people with dollar signs in their eyes. These are the people who would probably not give their vote to Paul.

Libertarian Candidate

Steve Kubby: Steve Kubby is a true libertarian. He wants to enforce complete personal and economic liberty for all citizens. He is probably the most colorful potential presidential candidate. He has said that he has cheated death by using medical marijuana to treat a type of cancer. In 1968 he was given five years to live, but has lived 25 since. His past criminal record (relating to the marijuana he uses) will probably be a turn-off to voters. This is probably the man that I want in office, and there’s a strong chance that I would vote for him.

All in all, there are quite a few good candidates and it will be interesting to see who wins primaries. The way it looks to me, Obama will probably be my first choice, followed by Paul and Kubby. I would like to see Paul and Obama running against each other, mostly because I would like to see either of them in office. I would vote for Kubby in this case to give the Libertarians a boost in the popular vote. The way presidential elections are set up wouldn’t allow my vote to count for Kubby anyway except on popular vote.

Who would you like to see run for president, and who would you vote for?

You can take a very simple quiz to determine where your views fall on the two-dimensional political spectrum. I’m a solid libertarian.