Archive for June, 2004

Living Wage Update

Wednesday, June 30th, 2004

I’m currently sitting in Starbucks listening to a UT employee yammer on about the criminal record of one of her co-workers, about another worker refusing to pay child support, and whine about the cops in Anderson County being unfriendly. My support for the living wage is growing by the minute.

Labor Unions and People Who Dress Like Chickens

Wednesday, June 30th, 2004

So I’m surfing the ‘net bored today, and, on a lark, I type in “Living Wage Chicken.” For those who don’t know, the Living Wage Chicken is an apparently disturbed individual who runs around in a chicken costume. You can generally see him/her/it at Progressive Student Alliance and United Campus Workers rallies (are they communists? The speculation continues.)

Anyways, I found this. Turns out the giant bird (obviously a Big Bird rip-off) has a name (”Loretta”), and “will be sure to act wherever there is injustice.” Right now, I’m thinking that it’s an injustice that the UT community has to be subjected to such stupidity… The UT workers (or at least their big labor leaders) must have a lot of time on their hands to come up with this crap.

All I can say is I’m now craving KFC…

Something is a Little Fishy…

Tuesday, June 29th, 2004

When I wrote my column defending conservatism two weeks ago, I knew I would get some interesting responses. I wasn’t disappointed. I received a number of e-mails, mostly positive, but a few negative. My most ardent critic, however, would have to be my fellow Daily Beacon columnist Jon Fish, whose editorial last week entitled “Columnist postulates true nature of conservatism,” was in direct response to my column.

I have met Mr. Fish once, and he seems like a nice, intelligent fellow. I am a bit perplexed by his column, however. First, he accuses me of “demonizing social scientists.” I have no clue what he means. While it is true that I have been critical of certain social scientists in the past, I have never demonized them in general. Social scientists are a very diverse group, and with most groups, there are some that I like, others I do not.

Fish then descends into Marxism, arguing that Republicans are a wealthy, bourgeoisie class that oppresses the lower classes (how original). But I am not one of these Republicans. Instead, according to Fish, I’m a middle class dupe who unwittingly does the bidding of the super elite. I have no idea how Mr. Fish knows this. As I stated above, we’ve only met once. Somehow, though, Mr. Fish knows me well, or so he thinks. “The others, like Mr. Brown, have never been without, so they don’t know what it’s really like, cannot see the exorbitant wealth and power behind true republicans and so they don’t understand the fleecing of the lower castes to which they themselves belong,” he says. How he knows I’ve “never been without,” I have no idea. Maybe he hired a private investigator. If so, he should demand a refund.

Next, we hear the typical liberal talking points concerning the Abu Gharaib prison abuse. He uses some quotes from Rush Limbaugh to prove conservatives are not moral folk. Maybe he missed my column where I denounced what happened at Abu Gharaib. I’d also like to point out that the famous Limbaugh quotes were only a few sentences taken from several hours of discussing the subject. They have been taken totally out of context.

Fish also challenges me to justify Republican stances on abortion, stem cell research and gay rights. Okay. Pro-lifers (like myself) believe that life begins at conception. Therefore, abortion cannot be anything but murder. Perhaps we are wrong, but if so, no one has been able to prove it. Until that day comes, isn’t it better to err on the side of life?

As for gay rights, it all depends on what you mean by “gay rights.” If you mean that homosexuals should have the same legal rights as everyone else, I agree completely (as do most conservatives). The problem is that the phrase “gay rights” has become buzzwords for special privileges, like the “right” to marry. Dictionary.com defines marriage as “The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.” If Mr. Fish advocates gay marriage, his disagreement is not with me, or with conservatives, but with the very meaning of the word “marriage.”

One of the problems in today’s world is that people simply do not acknowledge the existence of good and evil. Instead, many have embraced moral relativism. Mr. Fish appears to be one of these people. “Evil is in the eye of the beholder,” he informs us. I’m sorry, but I cannot see killing thousands with hijacked airplanes as anything but evil. I cannot see strapping a bomb to your chest and blowing up babies as anything but evil. I cannot see the crimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or Osama bin Laden as anything but evil. Considering these actions and individuals as evil is a character flaw on my part, I know.

Finally, Fish takes issue with my assertion that conservatives are more patriotic than liberals. I knew this would be my most controversial statement, but I fully stand behind it. Since I’m fast running out of space, I will simply say patriotism means love for country. Nothing more, nothing less. I don’t know Mr. Fish well enough to know how patriotic he is. Criticism does not mean lack of patriotism, but it has been my experience that liberals are far more likely to burn flags than conservatives. They are less likely to support the military, and more likely to support corrupt institutions like the UN. Therefore, I can only conclude that conservatives are generally more patriotic than liberals.

Something is a Little Fishy… 

Tuesday, June 29th, 2004

When I wrote my column defending conservatism two weeks ago, I knew I would get some interesting responses. I wasn’t disappointed. I received a number of e-mails, mostly positive, but a few negative. My most ardent critic, however, would have to be my fellow Daily Beacon columnist Jon Fish, whose editorial last week entitled “Columnist postulates true nature of conservatism,” was in direct response to my column.

I have met Mr. Fish once, and he seems like a nice, intelligent fellow. I am a bit perplexed by his column, however. First, he accuses me of “demonizing social scientists.” I have no clue what he means. While it is true that I have been critical of certain social scientists in the past, I have never demonized them in general. Social scientists are a very diverse group, and with most groups, there are some that I like, others I do not.

Fish then descends into Marxism, arguing that Republicans are a wealthy, bourgeoisie class that oppresses the lower classes (how original). But I am not one of these Republicans. Instead, according to Fish, I’m a middle class dupe who unwittingly does the bidding of the super elite. I have no idea how Mr. Fish knows this. As I stated above, we’ve only met once. Somehow, though, Mr. Fish knows me well, or so he thinks. “The others, like Mr. Brown, have never been without, so they don’t know what it’s really like, cannot see the exorbitant wealth and power behind true republicans and so they don’t understand the fleecing of the lower castes to which they themselves belong,” he says. How he knows I’ve “never been without,” I have no idea. Maybe he hired a private investigator. If so, he should demand a refund.

Next, we hear the typical liberal talking points concerning the Abu Gharaib prison abuse. He uses some quotes from Rush Limbaugh to prove conservatives are not moral folk. Maybe he missed my column where I denounced what happened at Abu Gharaib. I’d also like to point out that the famous Limbaugh quotes were only a few sentences taken from several hours of discussing the subject. They have been taken totally out of context.

Fish also challenges me to justify Republican stances on abortion, stem cell research and gay rights. Okay. Pro-lifers (like myself) believe that life begins at conception. Therefore, abortion cannot be anything but murder. Perhaps we are wrong, but if so, no one has been able to prove it. Until that day comes, isn’t it better to err on the side of life?

As for gay rights, it all depends on what you mean by “gay rights.” If you mean that homosexuals should have the same legal rights as everyone else, I agree completely (as do most conservatives). The problem is that the phrase “gay rights” has become buzzwords for special privileges, like the “right” to marry. Dictionary.com defines marriage as “The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.” If Mr. Fish advocates gay marriage, his disagreement is not with me, or with conservatives, but with the very meaning of the word “marriage.”

One of the problems in today’s world is that people simply do not acknowledge the existence of good and evil. Instead, many have embraced moral relativism. Mr. Fish appears to be one of these people. “Evil is in the eye of the beholder,” he informs us. I’m sorry, but I cannot see killing thousands with hijacked airplanes as anything but evil. I cannot see strapping a bomb to your chest and blowing up babies as anything but evil. I cannot see the crimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or Osama bin Laden as anything but evil. Considering these actions and individuals as evil is a character flaw on my part, I know.

Finally, Fish takes issue with my assertion that conservatives are more patriotic than liberals. I knew this would be my most controversial statement, but I fully stand behind it. Since I’m fast running out of space, I will simply say patriotism means love for country. Nothing more, nothing less. I don’t know Mr. Fish well enough to know how patriotic he is. Criticism does not mean lack of patriotism, but it has been my experience that liberals are far more likely to burn flags than conservatives. They are less likely to support the military, and more likely to support corrupt institutions like the UN. Therefore, I can only conclude that conservatives are generally more patriotic than liberals.

Moore Good News From Iraq

Monday, June 28th, 2004

The transfer of power in Iraq happened today, two days early. Some may say this only happened on paper, but it’s an important gesture. Iraq still has a long ways to go, but Prime Minister Allawi has a great deal of credibility with the Iraqi people (he has 73% approval rating). The future looks bright for Iraq.

In related news, Michael Moore’s fictional documentary Fairenheit 911 came out this past weekend. Christopher Hitchens says all that needs to be said about Moore.

More Laws Passed

Sunday, June 20th, 2004

There’s a neat article in today’s Sentinel about bills passed in the Tennessee General Assembly. Over 1,100 were passed by the 103rd GA. Of course, laws are, by nature, restrictions on freedom, so this is way to many to be passed (granted, some of them do such things as recognize outstanding high school football teams).

I think H.E. Bittle has a good idea, “I don’t think it would be a bad idea to require that, for every two or three bills you introduced, you should have to repeal one law now on the books.”

I look for someone to propose this bill in the 104th GA. Yeah right.

E-Mail Controversy

Saturday, June 19th, 2004

Dr. Jason T. Piho explains and offers insight on another e-mail controversy involving the state senate race. Interesting (and true) stuff!

E-Mail Controversy

Thursday, June 17th, 2004

It seems there’s some e-mail controversy between Mike Ragsdale, Jamie Hagood, and Billy Stokes, as Georgiana Vines points out. I have some personal theories as to what’s going on here, but it would probably be best if I kept them to myself.

Given some recent events, the timing on this is very creepy..

Right-wing Attack Machine

Tuesday, June 15th, 2004

I’d like to welcome a new website, the Right-Wing Attack Machine, to the World Wide Web. It’s a totally awesome site, and I highly recommend you check it out. It’s also going to carry my weekly column, which I’m honored by.

I Have Returned!

Tuesday, June 15th, 2004

Well, somehow my computer died and had to essentially be rebuilt, which explains my absense as of late. But now I’m back, and I’m sure you guys and gals are are thrilled!