The Most Anti-democracy Event of the Year

You know, I'm usually a politics guy, and I really don't write about anything else, but there has been something going on over the past few years that just irks me: The Oscars. The problem? The movies that win are always stupid! It's not just me who thinks this. I'm actually in the majority. The movies that the Oscars nominate are always rejected by the general public. You see, the Oscars rely on a select few insiders to choose who wins. The people also vote. We vote with our money. Yet when the Oscars are presented, Hollywood seems like it goes out of its way to show their disagreement. For example, the five movies that were nominated for best picture this year were ranked 19, 41, 54, 55, and 81 respectively, in box office gross. Meanwhile, the movie that the people chose as the best movie, Spiderman-3, was totally rejected. There Will Be Blood, which was the favorite to win last time I checked, made less than a tenth of what Spiderman-3. Juno, the highest grossing of the Best Picture nominees, is being heralded as the "fan favorite," despite the fact that five movies made over twice what it made. The Oscars, once a great awards show, are quickly becoming irrelevant as they grow more and more out of step with the mainstream American movie-goer. Over the past few years, I haven't watched the Oscars and I don't plan to this year. Who wants to watch a bunch of elitists pat themselves on the back while wearing million-dollar clothes? Not me.

I'm Back

Hey, I haven't blogged much recently. In fact I haven't blogged in the last three months. I've been kind of busy, but I hope to begin blogging on a regular basis again. The primaries are all but over in both parties. McCain has had it all wrapped up since Super Tuesday. Huckabee hasn't conceded defeat yet, but it's only a matter of time. Obama's probably going to win the Democratic side. His lead isn't that large, but he has all of the momentum. Hillary needs to win Ohio or Texas just to stay in it, and both if she wants to pull even with him. I'm torn over who I'm rooting for in this little scrap. Clinton is the worst candidate in the field. If there was anyone that I'd be rooting against it would be her. However, part of me wants Hillary to win the nomination because she would be easier for McCain to beat in November. Obama, with his eloquence and cult-like following, looks like an unstoppable freight train right now. On that note let us turn to the general election. Despite my feeling on the matter, the election will be close in either direction. Based on recent polls, McCain is running slightly ahead of Hillary, and slightly behind Obama. However, he's only 4 points behind, and the Wilder Effect usually makes a 3-5 point difference. (In case you don't know what the Wilder Effect is, it is a hypothesis used to explain the statistical anomolies between polling data and actual vote totals. Many people say that they will vote for a black candidate because they don't want to sound racist, but then change their mind when they go into the voting booth. This effect gives a 3-5 point edge to a minority candidate in polls, that may not be there on election day.) I don't think that this election will be as close as 2000, but perhaps like the 2004 election. One candidate will probably win by a percentage point or two.

We're destroying the universe!

I have found an example of what happens when scientists are allowed to build a proverbial house of cards. They end up with amazing theories that, when taken to an extreme, produces stupidity. Now let me just begin by saying that I am not a scientist, and that while I am definitely of above average intelligence, I usually leave science to smarter people than me. But at this point, I must point out an error in logic that even a kindergartner could spot. According to recent findings from two respected scientists, we are destroying the universe simply by looking at it (here is a link to a page where you can download the PDF, but I must warn you that 99% of people will be completely confused by it). Well, not destroying it exactly, but shortening it lifespan. So let me get this straight, an insignificant species, on an insignificant planet, orbiting an insignificant star, is capable of destroying everything that has ever existed, and ever will exist, simply by looking at it. Huh? This is like global warming all over again. To put it bluntly, we're not that important. First, how can we possibly affect anything simply by staring at it? This idea doesn't even pass the laugh test. Secondly, even if we could destroy the universe by looking at it, wouldn't we have figured it out by now? After all, humans have been stargazing for millennia. Seriously, this "science" has gotten out of hand. Someone needs to stop these people before they start influencing government policies. Oops, too late, Al Gore already has.

Stem Cell Breakthrough

There has been a huge breakthrough in stem cell research. Before I go into detail however, I must first explain the backstory to those of you who haven't kept up on political issues. Stem Cells are cells found in human embryos, which are capable of developing into just about any type of cell. Over the last decade or so, people had been doing research to see if they could be used to regenerate limbs, organs, and other things for people with diseases. Shortly after President Bush took office, he tried to put a stop to it. He did this because, in order to do this research, the embryo must be destroyed. It was essentially the same as the abortion debate. Though the stem cell research was slightly different, while abortion destroys unborn babies, stem cell research must first create life for the sole purpose of destroying it. There was a lot of controversy, and argumements, but the president got the final say, and he tried to devise a compromise. While he didn't declare stem cell research to be illegal, as many conservatives wanted, he did cut off the government funding, and and instead put that money towards alternate ways of doing the research. This angered everyone and pleased no one.
That brings us to today's story. You see, all of that research has finallly paid off. A few days ago, researchers at the University of Wisconsin, were experimenting with skin cells as part of the president's program. They found that when you change the genetic code of the skin cells only slightly, they miraculously become stem cells. Thus giving them stem cells to experiment on WITHOUT KILLING ANYTHING! Not only is this new method more ethical, it is also cheaper and easier. While the old methods of research required huge labs and expensive equipment, this new method can be done at almost any university with a decent science lab. So, while a few years ago, President Bush was labeled as being anti-science, his programs have now created one of the most important scientific breakthroughs in the history of Biology.

Huckabee gaining

I know. I shouldn't be writing yet another blog on the same guy. However this post is important. New polling data shows that Huckabee is up to 22% in Iowa, only 2% behind Romney. Only two months ago, Huckabee was at 4%, that was a whopping 18% behind Romney. And guess what? He got this huge surge of momentum without a single television ad, as opposed to Romney who has spent $100,000 on TV ads. This just goes to show you that the American people are intelligent, and don't just vote for the guy that runs the most ads. America wants a real conservative, and the flip-flopper Mitt Romney is not that guy.

Consensus?

In Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," he claimed that he had an almost unanimous consesus of scientists that supporting his global warming claims. Well, today I found an article written by the founder of the weather channel (I'm guessing he knows more about weather than Al Gore), saying that global warming is a hoax. He says it better than anyone I've heard so far, so here is a link to his article.

The most important freedom

We always hear about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to vote, the right to privacy, and how important they are. While they are important, I'd argue that there is one freedom that is more important than all of the others. It is important because it encompasses all of them. Yet you won't find it written in the Constitution, any law, or any philosophical work. No, despite being so vital to freedom, this important right is by far the most under appreciated right.
I am speaking of course, of the right to be stupid. You see, every American has the freedom of self-determination, the right to control their own destiny, and with that right, comes the ability to ruin your life if you so desire. I believe that the government should never ever interfere with this fundamental right in any way.
The most common infringement on this right is socialism. For example, the government already mandates that drivers buy car insurance and, depending on who gets elected next year, they may do the same for health insurance. This is infringing on the freedom of stupidity, because the government would be forcing me to do something smart that I would rather not do. And when you think about it, it's my health and my car we're talking about, not the government's. It's not the government's job to ensure that I make the right decision.
When the government stops us from being stupid, it is the beginning of tyranny. After all, if the government can stop me from taking an action that it believes is dumb, what happens when my definitions of smart and stupid are different than the government's. Could the atheistic government stop me from going to church? After all, many atheists think that that action is stupid. Could a Democrat-controlled government stop me from voting for a Republican? Many Democrats would think that that would be stupid. So you see, when you infringe on he right to be stupid, you infringe on every right that Americans hold dear. It may seem like a joke, but the most important right that we as Americans have is the right to be stupid.

Dream Election: Huckabee vs. Edwards

As you know, I support Mike Huckabee for President. I do so because, as I said in an earlier post, he's the only Conservative.
On the Democratic side, I also have a favorite. I use the term "favorite," only because I can't think of a better term, in reality, I scream in terror at the thought of any of these liberals becoming President. But, my relative "favorite" is John Edwards. The reason for this is simple: I want America to have a real choice, a real conservative against a real liberal. John Edwards perfectly personifies everything that the liberals stand for, in the same way that Huckabee does for the conservatives. I want an election in which the differences are clear. I don't want an election where Hillary changes her position everyday, so you can't tell where she stands. I don't want Guliani who is some sort of odd Republican-Democrat hybrid. I want America to be able to see the candidates, listen to their ideas, and be able to make a decision about which way our country should go in the future. That's what Huckabee vs. Edwards would give us: two polar opposite candidates with no middle ground. The voters could make their decision once and for all. That's what the founding fathers intended, not politicians pandering to get votes, or competing to see who can raise the most money, but real people, with real ideas, that give people a real choice.

Huckabee's surge in Iowa

Mike Huckabee is surging again. His most recent gain brings him up to second in Iowa. He's still a big distance behind Romney, but he can make it up fast with how quickly he's gaining support. In national polls, he's running between third and fifth, depending on the poll. That doesn't sound like much, but it's a big deal for someone who no one had ever even heard of a few months ago, and as I've said before, once you win Iowa, anything can happen.

Make up your mind!

For those of you who missed it, there was a Democratic presidential debate last week. As usual this consisted of the candidates competing to see who can insult President Bush the most times. The funniest moment of the night was Hillary Clinton's non-answer to a question about the New York Governor's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens. This video illustrates the point quite nicely. In the two minutes and fifteen second video, she goes from yes to maybe to no to yes and then maybe again.
First Tim Russert asks her a question about a statement that she had made a few weeks ago, saying that the plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens "makes a lot of sense." She then wavers, saying that it isn't really good, but necessary because of President Bush's failures. Later, after being challenged by Chris Dodd (which is cut out of the video), she claims that she never even said that it was a good idea. Then she changes her mind again, reiterating that the plan "makes a lot of sense," and explains that she agrees with the governor's extremely bureaucratic plan to have three different types of licenses. She then realizes that she has made a mistake, and tries to cover it up by blaming the whole immigration problem on President Bush, and then says that the plan is good for New York but not for all of the other states. At this point John Edwards says the only correct thing he's ever said in his life, as he criticizes her for the flip-flop. Just to remind you, this sequence takes place in the span of two minutes and fifteen seconds! Not even John Kerry flip-flopped that fast!
Now whether you agree with Governor Spitzer's plan or not (I personally don't for a variety of reasons), I don't see how you can justify voting for someone who won't take a side. I mean, if she would actually make a decision, at least then I could clearly see whether I agree with her or not. Right now, I still don't know what her position is. Hillary Clinton hurt herself at the debate. She conveyed the image of being a very conflicted person, and that is not what America wants in a President.