Long on rant

Much to my surprise, someone besides Taylor actually read my blog. Since it is late and I don't have anything else to "rant" about, I figured I would respond to a comment left in response to my post regarding ending African poverty. The quote is as follows, "long on rant, short on specifics. prove that republicans work as hard for the non-rich as democrats. i bet you can't."

#1 This is my blog. Its purpose is to provide me with an outlet to publicly "rant" about everything I see wrong with the world. I'm not trying to "prove" anything, especially not to people who have an obvious political agenda dictated by partisan politics.

#2 If you actually carefully read my comments, you would know that I have never stated that the Republican party works harder for the "non-rich" (how you define this term, I have absolutely no idea). My underlying point is that many leading politicians are guided completely by partisan politics and personal expediency. To generalize, I don't believe Republicans do as much as they can for the poor. However, casual observation of Democratic leaders leads me to the conclusion that Democrats spend much more time criticizing Republicans for not helping the poor than they actually spend helping the poor. Collectively, I truly don't think either group gives a flying crap unless it helps to increase their political power. I am now going to transition my comments from POLITICAL PARTIES to INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE. It is not possible to prove whether liberals or conservatives do more as individuals to help the poor. I am simply tired of the mainstream news media happily propagating the assumption that because one is conservative he or she doesn't care about the welfare of the world. It is simply not fair or accurate. I am quite conservative, and I care deeply about those who are less fortunate. I give over 10% of my income to a charitable religious organization that uses the money directly for humanitarian aid. There are many conservatives who give far more than me. Do conservatives give more than liberals? Who knows, who cares. The point is that the assumed liberal monopoly on humanitarianism covertly and overtly presented by the media is a load of partisan political crap that does nothing but create division among individuals who could actually make a difference in the world just stop arguing and work together to solve problems.

#3 Just as a side note. Here is a link to an interesting article about GW Bush and poverty in Africa. I will readily agree with many criticisms of Bush, but apathy towards extreme poverty in Africa is not one of them.

Liberal Assumptions

Time for another assumption: Conservatives are the whores of big business and corporate money while Liberals are champions of the rights of the common man. This assumption immediately came to mind today when I saw a commercial paid for by www.moveonpac.org. This well-endowed, powerful political organization is essentially beginning the inevitable protest of President Bush's nomination of a Supreme Court Justice before he has even made it. According to this organization, American life and liberty hinges on the selection of a "qualified" (ie Liberal) Justice. More diarrhea to the load of liberal crap that we are fed by the media every day.

Let's evaluate our initial assumption in light of the recent Supreme Court Case Kelo v. New London. In this case, the court held that the government may take ANY private property for ANY use EVEN for private commercial use. This loose interpretation of the constitution holds that eminent domain can be claimed in order to allow private development that benefits public welfare simply by an increase in tax revenue. Thomas Jefferson would role over in his grave. Former Supreme Court Justice O'Connor described this power as a reverse Robin Hood - take from the poor, give to the rich. Essentially, because the government can argue increased tax revenue from ANY private development, NO private property is safe. However, the poor will obviously be the main target of government and corporate greed.

Given our initial assumption, this decision must have come from the conservative Judges right?? Absolutely WRONG!!! It was the CONSERVATIVE justices who dissented from the LIBERAL justices in this decision. Did you hear this from he mainstream media? You've got to be flipping kidding me.

The assumption that Democrats care more about the little guy than Republicans must be debunked. It seems to me that leading Democrats couldn't give a flying crap about anything unless it is politically expedient for them to do so. This is not to say that Republicans deserve a proverbial pat on the back for their infinite acts of selflessness. Both groups are guilty, and We, the People, must prevent ourselves from being separated into two herds of mindless cattle by the prod of the media.

Hi Taylor.

State of the World

Today the US news media is delighting in the tragedy of the London terrorist attacks. Nothing like death and destruction topped with a subtle "I-told-you-so" to boost ratings. Today the world should be discussing the G-8 Summit with its goal to eliminate extreme poverty in Africa and southeastern Asia. Instead, we are again forced to endure images of horror, compliments of a cowardly band of criminals who claim to have some religious point to prove. News flash to Islamic terrorists and those who sympathize with them - if there is a Hell you have no need to call ahead for reservations. Bastards. If anything good comes from this latest attack, it is that the Western AND Eastern World's resolve to fight terrorism will solidify. Today, radical Islamic terrorists demonstrated their values - murder, chaos, hatred. In response to this, the civilized nations of the world MUST demonstrate their values of hope, charity, and love by not deviating from the agenda of the G8 Summit.

P.S. - To all of you radical Islamic terrorist supporters who read my Blog -- SCREW YOU, you spineless pieces of worthless garbage.

Hi Taylor.