Debate Results

Kerry didn't bomb, which helped save his run. Bush didn't bomb either, so he isn't dead as well. I think that all in all Kerry came out ahead in this. At least, in the short term. The interesting thing will be to see how the GOP compares Kerry's comments in the debate to what came before and perhaps what he says later. I predict that Kerry will make up a point or two in the polls, and the Media will try and bring back the "comeback Kerry" aura. Whether it will work or not is up to debate.

Update:

Lucas Sayre has some good points about the debate.

The Future...

... is to be found in our progeny. Congratulations to Jay and Deb of Accidental Verbosity for the successful birth of their daughter Sadie Rose Ellis. Such an event is momentous in and of itself, but there may be something more momentous in this at first glance. Sadie, before even her birth, has a blog. She may be the first of the Blogger Generation. The notion of a world where everyone, regardless of age, has a blog, has stimulated my imagination like few things ever have. The future's potential is limitless. Indeed, such are the possibilities that I am reminded of the famous line uttered during the first ever telegraph message:

What hath God wrought?

Debate Fever...

...is hitting me today. Although I know in my heart that little new or interesting will come from them. I am going to start on a new post concerning the Gore and the Gap in Iraq, which should be done today or tomorrow.

Why a Bush Victory might save the Democratic Party

Or, Why A Kerry Loss Might Save the Democratic Party

It seems too crazy to be true, but there is certainly evidence to support such claim. Although it does fly in the face of what Michael Totten wrote in Hawks and the Presidency, where he said:

If the Democrats take back the White House they will have to confront these problems head-on. They won't be on the sidelines. First they'll be doused with a bucket of ice cold realism. Then they'll be shot at. For the first time since September 11, 2001, they will have to think long and hard about what it actually means to govern when fanatics mass-murder innocents while much of the world shrugs.

In essence, the Democrats will have to throw away their pretences and start acting responsibly. I think that this view is both naive and dangerous. The Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party of FDR or JFK. Or even that of Jimmy "Dhimmi" Carter. For years, nay, generations, Labor was the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Money, Time, People, Labor was the primary driving force of the party. That is no longer the case. Now the Democratic Party is controlled by liberal social activists. Their money, their time, and their people help give the Democratic Party life these days. They ultimately have the final say about what their party will do or not do. They are the reason a Pro-Life candidate can never win the Democratic nomination for presidency. And they are the reason why the party may very well split apart under pressure if Kerry were to win.

The Liberal Activists hate Bush with such a passion that when in power they would seek to become the "Anti-Bush." They would reverse pretty much everything Bush did, and put into action everything Bush didn't do. This would include removing protections designed to fight terrorism. The inevitable result of this, of course, would be almost certainly another major terror attack in the USA. This is where things get interesting. In such an event the Democratic Leadership (almost invariably less extreme than the party core) would seek to bring back many of those protections. And the party core/liberal activists would fight this tooth and nail. After all, if it was something Bush supported, then it must be wrong. Here is where the Dem Leadership would run into problems. You see, they need a strong and supportive base to win re-election. However, pushing those policy initiatives will alienate core voters, voters whose money and support are essential for re-election. However, failing to enact such protections will alienate moderates who will fear for their safety. The Kerry administration will find itself in a Catch-22 position, either alienate core voters who are needed for re-election, or alienate moderate voters needed for re-election.

Clinton faced some similar woes back in the 90's. Many of his policies, especially fiscal ones, were not well liked by the party core. However, his personal charisma and charm were great enough that he was able to placate his core while still carrying out the policies he desired. Kerry is not so fortunate. His personal charm is essentially non-existent, and he lacks anything resembling charisma. In short, he will be unable to convince his base to go along with necessary security policy. And here we see the Democratic Party split along the seams. If Kerry decides to push new (as in old) security reforms his base will start to leave the party. Ralph Nader, or whoever replaces him as the spokesman of the Left, will gain a sizeable increase in support. He will start to threaten the Democrats in a number of states, with the Republicans benefiting immensely. We will see the rise of a real, powerful third party in the strengthened Green Party, and the Democrats will remain the minority party for a long time. At least in this situation the party lives, in a sort of undead zombie like existence. On the other hand, if the Kerry administration refuses to enact new security measures, then moderates in the party will leave. The Hawks will immediately take off, and not a few will become liberal Republicans. Labor will also take off, and become independent as well. After all, terrorist attacks threaten their job safety even more than out-sourcing. In short, the party will implode. While it may have a core, that core is relatively small, and insufficient to win any elections for any measurable period of time. With a strong leader the Democratic Party might be able to stem this loss, and render it a temporary one until the activists can be brought to heel. Kerry is no such leader. Essentially, the Democratic Party is faced with electoral insignificance if John Kerry is elected President. His poor leadership skills, coupled with even poorer Charisma, will not be able to keep the party united for the troubles it faces in the near future.

A Bush victory, on the other hand, will force the Democratic Party as a whole, to re-examine why it lost. While some, many in fact, will resort to wild eyed conspiracy theories, the leadership of the party will realize what went wrong, and resolve to fix the problem. Since Kerry won't be the leader of the party (he lost, after all, and losers aren't leaders), new leadership can rise to take his place. Perhaps Edwards (who will likely escape punishment on account of Kerry's incompetence) , or someone else. Perhaps even Hillary Clinton. Both are smart enough to realize why the party lost, and both are smart enough to realize what must be done to win in '08. They will work on bringing the rest of the party up to speed, and will have the time necessary to make the changes needed. Also, Bush won't be running in '08, so the "Anybody but Bush" crowd will have lost much of its steam. All of this will help give the moderate Democratic leadership the influence they need to modernize the party and help prepare it for the 21st century.

So, in essence, a Bush win just might save the Democratic Party from itself.

New Post Coming...

...and should be done by tomorrow. It will discuss the future of the Democratic Party.

Update:

Working on it now

2nd Update:

Its up

Some Pre-Election Predictions...

Anyone want to make some pre-election predictions? Voter turnout, percentage points going to Bush or Kerry?

Based on available data (as of 9/22/04) I am guessing that Bush will win the Electoral College by a safe 30 to 50 points ahead of the required 279. The Popular Vote will be with Bush between 3% and 6% higher than Kerry. I figure that Nader will poll a little under 2%. Turnout is impossible to predict to any degree of accuracy, but my guess is about 56-60%.

Your guesses?

P.S. I intend to ask this about every week or so until the election, with the last week being daily guesses.

Only By Fire...

...is Fascism Finished.

Tipping Point

Wretchard of The Belmont Club believes that the “Left” is on its last gasps. He thinks that its self-delusions have lead it to a path which commit it to self-destruction. While I don’t disagree with this, I do disagree with Wretchard’s belief that the Left is no longer “scary”, no longer dangerous or to be worried about. I feel that this is entirely too pre-mature a statement. I believe that the Left is extremely dangerous at this point in time, because a resurgence of power by the Left, if unchecked, could destroy Western Civilization, and perhaps the rest of the world.

At all steps the Left has hindered the defense of Western Civilization from the Islamist Supremacists who threaten it. Be it opposition to military involvement Afghanistan or Iraq, opposition to security measures at home, or support of the UN over American Sovereignty, the Left has hindered the task of a Freer and Safer world. How many more would be alive today if such hindrance had not existed? How many more would be dead if that opposition was greater? While impossible to answer quantitatively, it is possible to guess at the general effect.

Ok, I will cut to the chase: At what point does the Left threaten the life of our nation, or our world (The two are really inseparable, you know)? When can the actions of the Left no longer be 'tolerated,' for want of a better word? When do they do too much damage? When does it become treason? This is a question we should probably answer, though I doubt that we will have to worry about it. I think that Wretchard is right in that the Left is going down, and hard. But I think that we have to prepare for the eventuality. Better to prepare for something we will never have to worry about then to be caught flat-footed.

This is all theoretical at this point. But during the Iraq war protestors stopped traffic in some cities. Worse could be done. At what point do they ‘cross the line’ from protest into treason, and then, what do we do about it?

Update:

A couple of points need to be made. First off, when I say "The Left", I refer to the political movement of the "far left", composed of Leftists, as compared to the political movement of the "left-of-center", composed of Liberals. While they appear similar in their beliefs, they in fact have some major view point differences. Leftists see the US as the source of all troubles in the world, they detest capitalism in all forms, dislike Christianity and Judaism in all but the most liberal forms (and even then they still disapprove) , and embrace a form of post-Communist, neo-marxism as their underlying philosophical belief. Liberals, on the other hand, see the US has a key to fixing the worlds problems, many of which they believe to be the fault of the US. But they believe the US can fix them, while generally Leftists don't. Liberals believe that capitalism has flaws, but not that it should be discareded. Liberals tend to be much more tolerant of Orthodox religious beliefs, though they have inherited an unhealthy dose of bigotry from the far left. And their philosophical basis tends to be inhereited from the old Progressive movement rather than the neo-marxist beliefs of the Leftists.

Liberals want the US to win the War on Terror. Leftists, as a general rule, don't, though there are some exceptions (who escape me at the moment). "The Left", which as a movement has a philisophical core more extreme that the average beliefs of its members (not everyone is willing to go "all the way") believes that the United States is a greater threat to world peace than Bin Laden and his ilk. They may be few in number, but never discount a determined few. How many die-hard Nazis were there in the beginning? How many die hard Bolsheviks? Even a small amount of people can do a lot of damage.

Hopefully this election will serve as a wakeup call to the Liberal movement, and serve to give it impetus to sever its relation with the Leftist movement. Its possible a Bush victory, especially a landslide could do it. Although a Kerry victory might do it as well.

Russia almost ready?

Debka, always a source to be taken with a grain of salt, has this to say:

Russia closes border with Georgia to road traffic from Wednesday and its skies to Georgian air traffic from Oct 1 claiming unpaid debts. However, similar curbs imposed Tuesday also on Russian border with Azerbaijan. DEBKAfile: Russian preparing for major counter-terror military operation in N. Caucasus

Russia may be getting ready to make its move, whatever that is. What that move is, and its effects on the War on Terror as whole, are yet to be determined.

I may have been wrong about Putin

This worries me, Putin may in fact be on the way to becoming a tyrant. The destruction of Federalism is the first step on that journey, and I worry that I may have been wrong about Putin being a patriot more than a despot. Russia will need to be watched much more closely than it has been of late.

Weird Links

It is always kind of disturbing to get hits from sites you normally wouldn't get traffic from. Recently I got a hit from a left-of-center site called Musings and Migraines. I can't figure out how, but I guess that is the Net for you.

Anyways, I hope to get another big post done by either today or tomorrow, depending on what my schedule allows.

Rumors

It seems that the rumors of a North Korean nuclear test were just that, rumors. That doesn't really mean much, of course, as North Korea may have over a dozen weapons by now, according to some accounts I have heard. I suspect that the NorKors won't try and destablize things too much, all they want is to blackmail the civilized world into supplying their regime with the things they need to maintain power. The real issue of importance right now is Iran's nuclear program, and how advanced it is. We can only hope that the Mad Mullahs are not allowed to aquire nukes. Their sanity I do not trust.

Bounded Fate

While I hesitate to do so, for several reasons, I would have to say that the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001, would constitute a historical inevitability. It had to happen. Not necessarily in the United States, and not at the same point in time, but it had to happen. Only an event of such a grand scale(not grand in the scheme of things, but grand for its time) would be able to shake up the world, such an event is called a World Historical. It had to happen in order to wake most people up about the threat posed by Islamic Terrorists. Alas, Political Correctness interceded, something which I also believe was a historical inevitability, and the true nature of the foe was never fully explained to the American people, and the people of other nations as well. This all leads me to believe that a grand struggle is approaching, another historical inevitability, and this struggle will either result in the destruction of the social behaviour of Political Correctness, or it will result in the destruction of Western Civilization. Either one must die, or the other. They preclude each other in these times. PC prevents the West from saving itself from the Islamist threat, and until PC is dealt with, the West will never be safe. I have done much thinking into this subject, and was quickly scared by some of the lines of history that opened themselves to me.

I have come to the conclusion that a grand struggle that will dwarf the current war in Iraq is looming. This struggle will take place within the West, and mostly within the United States. I will clarify it in a later post.

Rise to Stardom

Powerline could easily become the most well known blog in the world before the CBS Forgery scandal is over. CBS has decided to fight this issue tooth and nail, and they are doomed to lose. It is pretty obvious that those documents are fake, and I suspect that CBS knows it. Yet to admit they were wrong will permanently damage their credibilty. So they hope to create confusion and "grey" the issue, thereby making people unsure whether or not those documents were truly fake. I think that they will fail. The more they fight, the larger the issue becomes. The issue now isn't over whether or not Bush got preferential treatment, but rather over whether those documents are real or not. This means that even if somehow those documents are real (which I don't believe is the case) that the issue will have lost its significance by the time they are shown to be real. Hence, it isn't a lose situation for the Bush administration. However, the same can't be said for the Kerry Campaign. If Democrats are connected in any way with an attempt to pass forgeries off, then they are in serious trouble. Keep tuned in folks.

Interesting Times...

...not only because this is my 100th post, but because there is a big battle looming over those "memos" talking about President Bush's National Guard Service. Numerous Sources have exposed that the memos are almost certainly fake. CBS appears to be heading for a heap of trouble, as more and more bloggers post on the subject. Drudge has already picked it up, and it should hit the major networks in time for Good Morning America tormorrow. That is, of course, if they don't choose to ignore it. I consider that highly possible, and thus we might have to wait a few days until the story can be ignored no longer. I will blog more on this later, I have the time.

Are you Scared?

Wretchard at The Belmont Club has an excellent post up discussing the nature of the Left, and how it seems that there is nothing they can not rationalize. It is an excellent post, and should be read at once, along with the comments, where are excellent as well. I do take exception with Wretchard at one point:

The Left, having declared itself above the pettiness of all moral belief now finds its emptiness filled by the ugliest and darkest blood-cult on the planet. It was a proud Tower, but its windows are now dark and its rooms filled with old and withered things. Laugh at it. There is nothing left to fear.

I am most definitely afraid of the Left. The recent massacre in Beslan, Russia, has demonstrated to me that there is nothing that the Left can't rationalize. This includes Genocide. I wouldn't be surprised at all to start hearing soon from some segments of the Left support for the forcible removal of all the Jews in Israel and the territories, even if that means their death. Its only a matter of time now. Belmont Club reader Monty had it right:

Postmodernism and multi-culturalist relativism are the twin poisons that are rotting the Left from the inside out. It has come to a point that many on the left honestly cannot make moral judgments any more (I suspect that most Leftists would deny that "morality", as such, even exists).

It's not so much that they believe in nothing. It's that they have made nothingness their polestar. They are only ever against or in opposition to, never in favor of. For this would denote judgement of a kind, and the Left has a horror of judgement.

The Left is in its death throes, and I fear that in its passing it may very well take this world and everyone on it with it to the Abyss.

Russia's Plans...

included military action. Oh sure, its what they call a last resort... but by merely mentioning it they have established that they do, in fact, intend it. The real question now is where, and how? Will it be a series of air strikes? Special Ops action? Or a much larger general pushing involving main army units? Things could get interesting in the Caucuses very soon...

Hero... for whom?

I have recently seen the movie Hero. Upon seeing it, a post immediately came to my mind, but rather than write it right away, I decided to sit on it a little and think it through. Warning, spoilers abound.

Hero, as a movie, is both beautiful and terrifying. The directorship and cinematography are without peer in my mind. I have gone through every movie I have seen in my lifetime, and few come even close to the level of perfection displayed in this film. Sights, sounds, colors all blend together to create a stunning experience. The acting was well done, and there were no "weak" characters, everyone gave a convincing performance. Some was lost to sub-titles, no doubt, but surprising little. Hero is without a doubt a masterpiece of cinema. Hero has etched itself into my mind, and I doubt I shall forget the experience.

Hero has also replaced Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl as the greatest propaganda film of all time. Triumph is easily seen as a propaganda film nowadays, the same can not be said for Hero. I seriously doubt even a tenth of the audience with me understood the true nature of the film. It is in the same vein as Triumph, for it is a piece of propaganda that is designed to stoke the fires of nationalism in the hearts of the Chinese people. The whole point of the film is to serve as a justification for the integration of China by any means possible. The King of Qin is merely a metaphor of the mainland to use, a metaphor for the Chinese Communist Party. Nameless, does not kill the King because he recognizes the importance of a unified China, even though the King has greatly wronged him, and it is his right to seek Justice against Qin. In this case Nameless represents those who have been wronged by the state, and seek Justice. They are reminded that a unified, and thus peaceful, China comes before anything else. It is a rancid form of nationalism that would be denounced if voiced in the West, but the beauty of this work, and the foolishness of the West, prevents it from being revealed for what it truly is. It is horrifying. The last ten minutes of this film, nay, ever since the words "Our Land" were uttered, I knew full well what this film was about. Everything became clear. Yet I found myself unable to not cry, the power of this movie was so great I could't throw off its effect. This film is statist and nationalist to the extreme. It scares me. Hero argues that violence now, however brutal and terrible, is worth the goal of a unified China. This is quite obviously a pre-justification event for the hostile takeover of Taiwan, or any part of what was China.

“Our Land” could be exchanged with “ The Fatherland”, and nothing would be lost.

Everything in this movie serves a purpose. The King, Nameless, Sky, The Lovers, Moon, The Elders.

The King represented the leadership of China. He is charged with doing terrible things for a grand purpose. His methods might be detestable, but who are we to argue with his goals? Is not the good of the many greater than the good of the one?

The Lovers are a careful attempt to demonstrate that even love must submit itself to the needs of the state. Broken Sword understood this, he knew that his passions must be put in check, the dream of an unified China was worth this. He is the rebel who eventually realizes he is fighting for the wrong cause. His lover didn't realize this, and he had to pay for her foolishness. This is both an attack upon love, which interferes with our duty to the dream of "Our Land", and an attack upon women, who are considered foolish and unable to grasp the greater concepts of life. Sexism lives on...

The Elders represent not the leaders of the country, but their advisors. They are seen as imperfect, but trying none the less. Indeed, they way their role is set up in the film, it seems to me that the Chinese leadership wants to have them blamed for all wrongs, as compared to the leadership itself. Middle Management, which they essentially represent, is the group truly responsible for any wrongs, and they should be blamed, not the King(leadership). This is essentially a borrowing of some principles of Machiavelli which still make sense today.

The most purpose to be found in the movie is found in the one without a name. Nameless he is called, for more reasons than just adding another touch to the movie. He is without a name because a name implies identity. A name indicates we have an identity, and that in turn implies we have at least some individuality. Individuality always detracts from the power of the state, to whom we are to give everything, because it is the state which advances the ideal of a unified China. So individuality must be destroyed. And to do this we must have no name, no identity of our own. Nameless is not important because of who he is, he is important because of what he does. That is his purpose. He reminds us that the state must always come first, and that we must check our individuality in order to serve the needs of the state. His death in the end, while perhaps Unjust, was necessary for Order, which is necessary to preserve the state. Everything he does is done in order to preserve the state. For this he is considered a hero. If we all do the same in our lives as he, up to the ideal of giving our lives for the state, we are heroes as well. We are heroes if we allow ourselves to become nothing more than a tool for the state, submitting ourselves to it, giving it our body, our mind, and our soul. Love, honor, justice, they are nothing as compared to the Order than can be brought about by the state. And herein we find the lie. Nameless, does in fact have a name, though it is never given in the entirety of the movie. His name is THX-1138.

Russia's Options

LJ at the Urban Empire has a good post up about the Russian Situation.

The Convention Speech

I don't know how much of a difference this will make, I suspect it won't be much. I hypothesized after the DNC that neither Kerry nor Bush would get any kind of election boost, because far more people than normal have already made up their minds. I guess in a few days we will see if I was right. In the interimn we will get to see if Bush can use this opportunity to deliver a good speech, or just a mediocre one.

UPDATE:

Looks like I was wrong.