I have successfully avoided blogging for just a few weeks shy of 4 months; it's a sad state of affairs, to be certain. However, I simply cannot avoid the lure of publishing my thoughts for the world (i.e., all my readers, i.e., one person) - they are bubbling up and begging to be written. (Hopefully this will go slightly better than the revival of The Four Horsemen, which lasted all of 2 days.) Regardless, I have a few topics I would like to write about, none of which I will be doing tonight.
However, I do think that I will start running a weekly feature of sorts - a set of columns and commentary that I find interesting, original, entertaining, and/or especially relevant. This week, we'll touch on immigration, liberal hypocrisy (which should be a fairly regular topic), and
From Joseph Perkins of the San Diego Union-Tribune, "Debate immigration issue, not each side's integrity." This column sounds off on the debate about what legal rights illegal immigrants should have. Personally, I completely agree with Perkins on this one; illegals should not be granted driver's licenses, they should be deported. Illegals should not be allowed to take advantage of free public schooling - they don't pay taxes, but they're getting tax-funded benefits at our schools. Now, this isn't to say that we should conduct a door-to-door search of heavily foreign neighborhoods, booting out everyone that doesn't have a green card. We do need to find a viable solution to illegal immigrants that are already living in the United States; neither blanket amnesty nor blanket deportion are realistic options. If you have a good idea, post here; if not, don't leave me an angry message calling me a racist and a bigot, because I'm not. I just don't think that you should get government benefits if you don't help support the government.
From Anne Coulter (no, don't say it, I know what you're going to say), some interesting thoughts as to liberal hypocrisy concerning homosexuals. You see, there was quite a big controversy a little while back as to this reporter who had a pass into a White House newsroom, and he gave the President a few friendly questions. However, the liberal "mainstream" media had an apoplectic attack when they found out that he might be gay, and attacked him for allegedly running a homosexual escort service some years ago. Suffice it to say that this is rather self-explanatory commentary on the "tolerant, compassionate Left." As usual, there are some rather pointed comments in the article, but overall, Coulter makes a very good assessment of the hypocrisy of the newsmedia in this case.
Finally for tonight, some extremely early viewpoints for 2008: Hillary's chameleon-esque charades, and why we should get Condi to run against Hillary. Having already had a lengthy discussion about Condi's viability as a candidate in 2008 as of this point in time, I don't care to opine at length. Suffice it to say that she is VERY highly qualified and hopefully will have built up enough domestic policy credentials in a few years to be a credible candidate in our next election. Of course, I am well aware of how premature all of this is - I just feel that with so much talk about Hillary running next time, we need to have a candidate that can appeal to as many voting blocks as Mrs. Clinton. While I hate the idea of having to pander to different groups of people, the sad fact is that modern politics (not to mention the hot air spewing from windbags like Ted Kennedy) demand a pragmatic approach to vote-getting. If it allows us to appeal to women, blacks, and Hispanics, I think that it is a very good idea to get Condoleezza to run for president.
Finally for tonight, some extremely early viewpoints for 2008: Hillary's chameleon-esque charades, and why we should get Condi to run against Hillary. Having already had a lengthy discussion about Condi's viability as a candidate in 2008 as of this point in time, I don't care to opine at length. Suffice it to say that she is VERY highly qualified and hopefully will have built up enough domestic policy credentials in a few years to be a credible candidate in our next election. Of course, I am well aware of how premature all of this is - I just feel that with so much talk about Hillary running next time, we need to have a candidate that can appeal to as many voting blocks as Mrs. Clinton. While I hate the idea of having to pander to different groups of people, the sad fact is that modern politics (not to mention the hot air spewing from windbags like Ted Kennedy) demand a pragmatic approach to vote-getting. If it allows us to appeal to women, blacks, and Hispanics, I think that it is a very good idea to get Condoleezza to run for president.
A few last notes: please don't expect all entries to be as long and verbose as this one. I happen to have an excess of time on my hands at the moment, and thus don't mind spending a good deal of it on an update. Also, I deleted an entry from the tagboard on the left, and if that person returns, I'm probably going to face accusations of censoring those who disagree with me. However, it is also important to note that the entry was extremely vulgar and profane. I have no problem debating with those of the opposite political pursuasion, I just ask that you do it in a mature manner. Anything that consists solely of hard profanity and slurs will just be deleted without comment.