Wednesday, January 21, 2004
State of the Union
Wow, it only took Bush 360 words before he brought up September 11th. That man has less shame than Ozzy.
The Candidates
Well, let's see, the Republican candidate is of course the incumbant President and he's a lying sack of shit who I wouldn't piss on if he were on fire. He wants to bring us back to the way he thinks America was before FDR and the New Deal. He's bankrupting the country so that there isn't any money for social services or internal improvements. Your children will be paying off his debt. He has destroyed what little good faith there was left in the world towards America with his cowboy foreign policy and total disregard for treaties, international law and alliances built up and worked on over the last 60 years (though he's not the first!). His administration has used a national tragedy to create a culture of fear through which they can maintain control. This perpetual War on Terror, like the perpetual War on Drugs, is a folly and a farce. The real disgusting aspect is that people are and will continue to die for this farce. Perception magnagement is more important than policy or substance. Don't even get me started on his bullshit Mars plan.
The Democratic candidates are all very similar in that they all supported the President in his illegal wars and destruction of our civil liberties, will say what they have to to have a chance at the White House, and are more interested in attacking each other's character instead of standing together to attack the President, his policies, and his character. Kucinich and Sharpton were the only ones that stood out as being radically different, but of course they don't have a chance in hell.
The Democrats are spineless worms, with no message and no direction. They bow to big business just as much as the Republicans. Money is what rules this country. It's what local and national politics is all about, who controls the money, who decides what to do with that money. It's what American society is built on. We are a materialistic culture. Money, money, money.
Dean is very angry and all that but he's a centrist like Clinton was, not a left wing loony. One of his only saving graces is that he was not in the federal legislature when the Patriot Act and the Presidents war powers were voted for, so he can claim he was always against those things. He's also fiscally responsible in that as Governor of Vermont he balanced the budget. Though his critics will cry "at what cost?!?". Of course, you can't help but cut certain expenditures when you're trying to have a balanced budget so that's not a real criticism. That's nitpicking.
The Democratic candidates are all very similar in that they all supported the President in his illegal wars and destruction of our civil liberties, will say what they have to to have a chance at the White House, and are more interested in attacking each other's character instead of standing together to attack the President, his policies, and his character. Kucinich and Sharpton were the only ones that stood out as being radically different, but of course they don't have a chance in hell.
The Democrats are spineless worms, with no message and no direction. They bow to big business just as much as the Republicans. Money is what rules this country. It's what local and national politics is all about, who controls the money, who decides what to do with that money. It's what American society is built on. We are a materialistic culture. Money, money, money.
Dean is very angry and all that but he's a centrist like Clinton was, not a left wing loony. One of his only saving graces is that he was not in the federal legislature when the Patriot Act and the Presidents war powers were voted for, so he can claim he was always against those things. He's also fiscally responsible in that as Governor of Vermont he balanced the budget. Though his critics will cry "at what cost?!?". Of course, you can't help but cut certain expenditures when you're trying to have a balanced budget so that's not a real criticism. That's nitpicking.
Sunday, January 18, 2004
Hubble
Current propulsion for even getting to other parts of the solar system are very limited. A trip to Mars for example would be between 4-9 months depending on the time of launch. The outer planets would take years to reach.
Telescopes like that offer us glimpses into regions of space that humans may never reach. When looking that far out into the cosmos, we are looking backwards in time, or so goes the current theory. Soon we should be able to see far back enough to the big bang.
The Hubble was troubled from the start.
Telescopes like that offer us glimpses into regions of space that humans may never reach. When looking that far out into the cosmos, we are looking backwards in time, or so goes the current theory. Soon we should be able to see far back enough to the big bang.
The Hubble was troubled from the start.
