The Democratic Party would like you to believe that Katrina could have been prevented only if greedy America just dropped the oil habit.

Logically, that doesn’t make any sense, but with proper air time and spin, nonsense is bliss.

The Democrats will use Katrina as an exploit for gaining the poor vote. They will pose themselves as the only individuals capable of bringing light to the end of your long, lonely tunnel. You will be the poor guy and they will be the Robin Hoods. If you listen to what they say, you will learn that you need help and it’s good thing they are there, trying to take down big brother to help you out!

The Democrats will likely convince you that government is the only way to be a successful American. It is the government that made America great and you’ll be a great American by giving to your imperial democratic America through taxes and personal rights.

It all sounds pretty foolish, doesn’t it?

Katrina, the most devastating hurricane to hit the region in decades left New Orleans disbanded and destroyed. The hesitation to call for help from New Orleans Mayor, Ray Nagin and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco cost lives.

Did you think that FEMA simply showed up at the first sign of disaster?

The rights of any state in the union declare that the state must first ask for help from the federal government before action can be taken. This help must be called on in advance, as there is simply not a “national warehouse” for emergency supplies. Time is needed to organize any effort and with Katrina, FEMA needed a lot of time!

The national guard eventually showed up, with ships off the coast and helicopters in the air. Good citizens tried to help one another amidst the damage and the delinquent gun fire. Through hell and high water, it became clear that survival was only awarded to those that helped themselves. A hard lesson to be learned while under fire…

But, why do we have such laws in place for the state? Simply put, to prevent the federal government from impeding on the state. We learned this lesson from the Civil War. The state has a responsibility to its citizens and to abstract further, the city has a responsibility to it’s people. Why are so few asking about the hesitation from the Mayor to discuss matters with the Governor? Further, why the hesitation from the Governor to ask for help from the President?

While Bush takes all the blame for Katrina, even down to the hysterical claims that he caused the hurricane, others such as Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards use Katrina as the back drop for announcing his run for the White House, making it crystal clear that he doesn’t cause hurricanes and will end them forever.

Also, putting a stop to racism in this country doesn’t seem to be priority for the re-elected Mayor of New Orleans, declaring that his city be a “chocolate city” and at the end of the day, New Orleans will be “chocolate”. As the good Mayor of New Orleans is liberal, I am confused with his policy of diversity in his city. I thought it was the nature of all liberals to be diverse in anything. It would seem that I would not be a welcome resident of New Orleans, since my skin is closer to white chocolate.

While Bush’s numbers continue to fall and more and more people await the end of Bush’s days, this country continues to fall into a downward spiral of hysteria. From global warming to the war on terror, the attitude in Congress and the Senate is nothing can be won and we are getting what we deserve. By that, we deserve death and destruction for raping the lands of the Native Americans and dooming this planet with deadly carbon dioxide.

It will be made to seem that we are at fault for causing terrorism as we know it and it’s all Bush’s fault for not doing anything about it. Even more, it will be made to seem that it is his fault for making it worse…

All this from Katrina…

Happy New [Political] Year everyone!

I’m here to tell you today, you got what you voted for.

Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house, is accepting the gavel on “behalf of the children”.

Let’s all applaud her drivel as well as tax hikes and a raise in minimum wage that will send a spike in inflation.

Say goodbye to your hard earned money folks!

~Steve

Peace out, mother f****r!

News on Saddam’s hanging:

• Saddam Hussein Executed by Hanging in Iraq (Fox News)
• Saddam Hussein Executed (MSNBC)
• Hussein executed with ‘fear in his face’ (CNN)
• Iraqi TV Says Saddam Hussein Executed (AP Wire/Newsvine)

Recently, the Department of Justice subpoenaed AMD and NVidia for an antitrust investigation. Antitrust is a term described as prohibiting competition. In the case of AMD and NVidia, both companies are being investigated for using business tactics prohibiting competition; but, I have to ask, why hasn’t Intel been subpoenaed too? Intel has a bigger percentage of the video market than both AMD and NVidia. Additionally, they integrate video on a majority of their motherboards. How come the DoJ isn’t interested in that?
Aside from my question and aside from this recent antitrust investigation, the other angle of anti-capitalism comes by way of Iowa and their class action lawsuit against Microsoft.

Iowa is suing Microsoft for $450 million dollars, claiming that they are price fixing their Windows product line. If you ask me, paying $200.00 for an operating system to run all the latest hardware and the oldest hardware on the planet is worth the price. By the way, isn’t it Microsoft’s right to sell their product at a price they see as competitive? If you don’t like the price, buy a Mac or use Linux. Don’t like those two options, go start your own company and make the market more competitive, instead of bitching about “how bad you got it” and “how expensive everything is”. Microsoft’s making an honest dollar off an operating system that RUNS THE WORLD. 9 out of every 10 computers runs Windows. Supporting that large of an audience is expensive and at a $200.00 price point, it seems reasonable.

This is exactly why capitalism will die in this country. It is government prohibiting business from making money. That is what a business is and what it is meant to do; make money. Microsoft isn’t out there to make your life easier or to help you in everyday tasks. They SELL a product that makes your life easier and they SELL you a product to help you in everyday tasks and YOU make the decision whether or not to PAY $200.00 for THEIR PRODUCT!

But, Iowa sees it differently. They think that Microsoft over charged for their product and screwed everyone in the process. What do you think?

I stopped reading Digg a few months ago, because the news being aggregated was that of extreme liberal bias. Where’s the news in “Bush is a fucking liar, impeach him?”

There isn’t…

I hopped online today, pulled up a story and read the comments until my blood began to boil. There are a few brave conservative commenter’s on Digg and when I find one, I make sure to offer my support.

I give you the following response to the posted story, “Why your vote doesn’t matter as much”…

LoneRanger85: I seem to remember votes mattering in 1994. I guess votes don’t matter only when Democrats lose.

Allometry: Well said!

It seems now Diebold is the reasons for dems. losing, not swiss-cheese policies…

n00854180t: No, moron, votes don’t matter when you have blatantly insecure voting machines manufactured by corporations owned by friends of the incumbent. Votes don’t matter when you have politicians that are willing to deny voting rights to those in racial minorities, and use their familiar connections to “lose” votes for other candidates. Grow a brain and start living in reality, you brain dead ass tard.

gojeda: @ n00854180t

Thank for showing us what the protypical, left-wing, bomb-throwing whacko is all about.

Oh – and when mommy has finished changing your underwear, I would like for to take a look at this:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/localnews/ci_2958901

Hyprocrites – the lot of you.

RedState: What is your problem with voting machines? Dems to stupid to use a computer?

Oh now wait, I get it. Only Republicans built the voting machines and the evil GOP put a code in there that actaully messes up only the Democrats vote!
Riiiiiight. And the government blew up the Twin Towers just as the Tooth Fairy gave me a dollar and about the same time that Santa’s Elvis were finishing up all those toys for ChristmaHanaKwanzAmadan.

I get it.

Allometry: n00854180t is a conspiracy theorist.

See kids, conspiracy theorists like n00854180t have tissue-paper-thin feelings that lead them to be hurt by “facts” and “reality”. They often respond with personal attacks and more theories.

We kindly ignore these type of people, because they bring absolutely nothing to the conversation…

… about 10 minutes later …

Pintomp3: well, why do you think they refuse to have paper receipts for votes? “bush blew up the towers” is a conspiracy. diebold being a republican backed company and refusing to have a paper trail for votes is a fact.

Allometry: You have ZERO proof that Diebold has altered their machines in an effort to secure the Republican vote. All you can bring to this argument is that Diebold is pro-Republican and that doesn’t secure the facts needed to convince America that Diebold is altering votes!

Oh the majority of Diggers like n00854180t are a bunch of silly conspiracy theorists… What a sad, sad state to be in.

Update:

The loony comments keep coming in. Oh, this is fun!

Here’s some more…

tastycheese:
“In three years in California, Diebold voting devices have awarded thousands of votes to the wrong candidates and broken down in two large counties during a presidential primary.”
“Last month, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson cited poor performance in state testing, with paper jams and software crashes in 28 percent of machines used in a mock election.”

Now honestly, that’s just pathetic. How hard is it to design a counting machine? Counting is the primary function of a computer. Who wants to turn over our democratic process to a company that can’t design a machine which does nothing but add numbers?

n00854180t:
Hey Redstate, for one thing, I’m neither a democrat, nor a “left wing” as you and your idiot buddies want to claim. Also, considering I’m a computer scientist and full time software developer, I think I know how to use a computer quite a bit better than you, and can also provide a less moronic view of voting machines. Just because YOU don’t know how to operate electronics, and are willing to hang on to your blind faith that Diebold, ES&S and the Bush administration would never attempt to rig elections, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, does NOT mean I have not done MY homework on this issue. In point of fact, I have been studying the blatantly flawed Diebold and ES&S machines independently since the 2004 elections. As with the Princeton (what, you’re going to claim Princeton are LEFTO PINKO COMMIE LIBERALS now? Since those are the only words in your poorly spelled vocabulary, I wouldn’t be the least bit suprised) study, and numerous other studies, I have found the machines to be ridiculously vulnerable to attacks. More so than the common machines that both Diebold and ES&S manufacture for all sorts of things that are not NEARLY as important as are the votes of the American people. So, unless you grow a brain and learn what the fuck you’re talking about, just shut up now so that the rest of us can be spared your idiocy.

Allometry:
Tastycheese, the state of NM used Diebold voting machines without error and managed to perform as a streamline solution. The problems in California seems odd, however success has been proven by use in my state. Thanks for responding with intelligence!

Unfortunately, that cannot be said for n00854180t. I don’t believe for one second that your are not a liberal and that you are a computer scientist. I am currently working toward my degree in that arena and my peers are anything but what you have shown yourself to be. How about arguing using facts instead of tossing around swear words to “beef” up your point.

The fact of the matter is that n00854180t doesn’t know the technical side of the Diebold voting machine, just like the rest of us. Again, with his crazy theories, he pushes technical jargon in an effort to convince lesser minds that he is right… Well, he isn’t.

The fact is that states have had success with the Diebold voting machines, while others, such as the argued state of CA hasn’t. I tend to believe what Tastycheese has said and if it true, Diebold is likely working hard to alleviate such issues.

You, however n00854180t, keep piling on the crap in the most incoherent fashion consistent with that of a 12-year old girl with a MySpace account. No body is going to buy your argument, because your presentation and content are deplorable. You still have ZERO proof!

My International Relations class was discussing terrorism last week, and in our book it says that the action of terrorism is an expression of weakness.

This wasn’t intended as a judgement, simply a statement regarding power. Actors who use terrorism as a form of leverage in international conflict resolution do so because there are no other forms of leverage available to them. They generally aren’t states, and have weak or no standing army, little economic strength, few close allies, and oftentimes, few or no political rights within their state.

But what if we look at this statement from a different perspective? Terrorism is, inherently, a sign of weakness. Why do we allow it to affect us so profoundly, then? If we are in a position of strength, and the only tactic our ‘opponents’ can use to get their point across and influence the outcome is terrorism, then do we really have that much to fear from them?

3000 people died during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. According to The US Census Bureau, our population gains one person every eleven seconds. This takes into account births, deaths, and international immigrants. Leaving out the immigrants, the figure becomes one person every fourteen seconds, or a little less time than that. That means that on September 11, 2001, our population increased by 5,760.

Is 3000 people really such a big deal? Yes, it’s a lot of people. Yes, the situation was shocking and startling. Yes, we didn’t expect any attacks to occur on our home soil.

But don’t you think, rather than banning fingernail clippers, pocket knives, box cutters, and water bottles from our airplanes, we could better spend our vast intelligence resources doing something worthwhile, like ensuring that non-state actors never get ahold of a nuclear device?

Creating instability in an already unstable part of the world isn’t going to decrease terrorism. Removing civil liberties from our own populace isn’t going to decrease terrorism.

And even if they were, are the terrorists really anything to be afraid of, or are they just the bogeyman of the child that is America?

Maybe it’s time we grew up?

Greetings fellow readers!

What you have just read is a post on MySpace about terrorism. While you might be with the movement that nothing can be done about terrorism, I’m here to say that this post is down right wrong.

First off, I agree that terrorism is an expression of weakness. However, the definition of terrorism given in the second paragraph is ignorant to the times we are living. Example: “They generally aren’t states…” and “little economic strength”. This is where the argument given above starts to become flawed. While terrorism claims no state, they are supported by states such as Iran. In addition to the statement of “little economic strength”, Iran has been known to fund Hezbollah. Terrorism in today’s world is currently being backed by nations.

The author of this passage goes on to state, “Terrorism is, inherently, a sign of weakness”, then ask, “Why do we allow it to affect us so profoundly”. Terrorist groups, compared to standing nations are weak, however they are not without spirit, which is what makes them so dangerous. We are adversely affected by terrorism simply because they have declared war on us. Any enemy should be taken seriously and that is why we take terrorism and the war on terror seriously. The author continues to downplay terrorism throughout the paragraph…

Citing 9/11, the author states for us that while 3000 died on 9/11, there are enough people being born “every eleven seconds”. What the author does here is remove the humanity behind 9/11 and simply makes it an attack on an American landmark. The author tries to convince us from feeling revenge for our fallen Americans to seeing that the population really didn’t decrease that much on 9/11, however it increased by an arbitrary rate. This is flat out wrong!

Removing the humanity behind 9/11 removes exactly what 9/11 is and what terrorism in the world wishes to accomplish. Terrorists do not wish to negotiate your beliefs and if you are against their ideology, even in the slightest, you are the enemy and subject to execution. Remind anyone of Hitler?

Aside from pointing out history repeating itself, the author’s focus continues on to further remove humanity from the attack on the WTC. “Is 3000 people really such a big deal?” Yes!

Continuing on, the author bickers about security implications at the airports. While most of us may whine, bitch and moan about having to get rid of a $1.50 nail clipper, it’s ultimately for the safety of all of us. The author outlines whether or not we could have spent our “vast intelligence resources doing something worthwhile”, to which I can only reply that the author is vastly uneducated. Our government and our labs are doing more than the author knows to keep us safe. Further more, our armed forces and intelligence agencies have continued to prevent attacks on American soil.

The typical liberal argument against the war on terror is that we are adding further instability to the region. This is usually followed up by the statement, “we can’t win”. Well, I’m here to tell you that the defeatist attitude of the liberals should be kept to themselves. I say this because it is a dishonor to our country men serving in these trying times. The facts are that while the war is bloody, Iraq is steadily working toward a stable government. They understand what the Americans are doing and they are grateful.

Terrorism is a serious threat and it isn’t the “bogeyman” to the elder America. America is still this world’s leader and is still called upon when a job needs to get done here at home or across the pond. Aside from our generous citizens, this government jumps at the opportunity to help nations in crisis, however you never get to see the call, because the media here is biased.

America is all grown up and it shows. Period.

Now, I don’t care if you’re liberal or conservative, but doesn’t this just bug you? We have this asshole, coming to America to visit the UN and INSULT an AMERICAN PRESIDENT on OUR SOIL!

This man has some balls. I wish Bush would have been there so this man, Chavez, could shake and cower in the face of the most powerful man in the world while reciting some of the most insulting words that the UN council has ever heard.

The world’s comedian is Hugo Chavez… He’s just a big, fat, JOKE!

I said I’m discouraged, because there are Americans applauding Chavez’s remarks…

Hugo Chavez at the UN…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214709,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-un-assembly-chavez.html?_r=1&oref=slogin�

Who Hugo Chavez is…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146472,00.html
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050531a.aspx
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1925236.stm
I’m simply floord by Chavez… I can’t even rant and rave, I’m just too pissed off!

“When the nation records the legacy of George W. Bush, 43rd president and self-described compassionate conservative, two competing images will help tell the tale. President Bush’s public persona remains that of a wartime president flying by as desperate and vulnerable Americans suffered.”

I saw this post today on Digg and it’s an example for a point I’ve been trying to make; the content is one sided and is often times from liberal institutions such as NYTimes. I think for a truly balanced post, Digg should have a politically balanced system, in which political posts MUST have news from both sides covering the same story. Without such a system, the media wars continue on and it is not safe to say that the news you’re getting is truly balanced.

Back to the post, after reading many comments, I was shocked at the ignorance. In recognition of such, I posted the following…

Wow, what a compelling, balanced article! Coming from the New York Times, I believe every word of it!

C’mon folks, look at the big picture! The big picture states, in part, that you can either like or dislike Bush, however you must have reasoning behind why you fancy our Commander in Chief, else you are fanatic or extremist.

Let’s look at the huge events that happened during Bush’s time in office and remember America as it stood:

9/11: The country was attacked and all were banded together in the name of patriotism, showing that no matter whom attacked, we stood tall, proud and strong. At the time, the nations push wasn’t to negotiate, it was to trace down who ever did this. In the process, we discovered a much larger terrorist network embedded all across the globe… This is a good thing folks, now we know what to expect. Unfortunately for our bleeding hearts, what you don’t know CAN and will, in fact, hurt you… Personally, I think it’s very important to stay informed and prepare for the absolute worst. If that scenario ever were to present itself, that knowledge will have kept my survival assured. If you think preparing for the worst is a bad idea, I wish you the best of luck if it ever happens…

Katrina: An absolutely terrible disaster that could not have been averted. Hurricanes happen, however you MUST take personal responsibility and secure your own safety instead of relying on others — remember, there are many more than you and thus are just a number UNLESS you take action for yourself! That said, there is without a doubt that our government agencies such as FEMA buckled under the pressure, however you can not expect Katrina-like-funding for an institution without providing proof that a hurricane such as Katrina would, without a doubt, hit a populous the size of New Orleans. In addition, the systems that kept New Orleans dry were not tested for such conditions and could not realistically be expected to work — again, no one had proof that those pumps should have been tested for such a cataclysmic storm!

The New York Times is really good at spinning words to lay all the blame of the world on President Bush. I’m sorry folks, the Middle East region, specifically Israel and opposition have been going at it for longer than we have been alive. Bush most definitely isn’t to blame for IT. More importantly, America stands by it’s allies and no matter how you think or feel about it, our doing so is most nobel and shows character of the United States!

This comment is in defense of America, because I’ve had it pretty good here. President Bush isn’t our nations greatest leader, but I’m still alive and I think it’s because of his initiative and the people that believe in that initiative. If we had no one in that seat of command, willing to take what many of us would refer to as “desperate measures”, there’s no telling how our futures would have gone. I expect that it would not have been a pleasant one.

I agree that what has been going on in Iraq could have gone a lot smoother, however you must remember that all nations are fighting a different type of enemy; one that does not “play by the rules”. We’re learning and we’re winning and if that weren’t true, why would the Iraqi forces, specifically the Police force, still be growing in numbers? They lose many in the name of their country, however they stand by their goal and as long as our administration is around, they will too!

read more | digg story

To start, I feel that I should update you all on where I stand politically.

1. While I like French people, I despise the French government. They are traitors and backstabbers to America and should be remembered as such.
2. Religion… Practice what you want, however, I have my beliefs and use them to argue other “religions”. You may remember my Scientology post a while back…
3. Politically, I try to remain in the middle to keep well informed, however I am on the right side.

With that being said, I turn over to a new collaborative project I am doing with a good friend of mine, “Don’t Elect Jim Baca“. I have posted about Mr. Baca before and those posts have not been in good light. In my world, you have realistic leftists and rightists, but then you also have extremists on both ends… Jim Baca is on the left extremest side.

Again, that being said, I direct you over to the Don’t Elect Jim Baca web log. If you don’t live in New Mexico, little of this may interest you, however as you are a faithful Allometry reader, I would never guide you in the wrong direction.

Please leave your comments here or abroad and I’ll see you with a fresh post in a week.

“The costs of running a campaign are truly enormous these days. I remember my first run for land commissioner in 1982 when I expended about $25,000 in the primary election and another $50,000 in the general election. Think of it, a statewide campaign for 75K. That money bought a lot in those days…”

As prices continue to fall on items such as computers ads and printed materials, the costs of television advertising are going up. As Albuquerque continues to grow in size, so do the local networks in costs.

“Television commercials, if the stations will allow you to buy airtime, are $1500 for a spot in the news…..and it goes up from there…”

But what is the solution for campaign costs?

“…Public financing might be the only answer…”

The socialist moniker is that of the land commissioners democratic candidate. The solution is that of taxing citizens for election running costs for candidates that citizens may not wish to vote for. If the democratic party’s representation Jim Baca believes that taxing citizens for his high running costs is the solution, then your tax dollars may be used in ways you do not agree.

The capitalistic society in which we live is under attack from ideas such as this. Public financing is not the only solution Mr. Baca, yet, meeting your constituency and earning the vote instead of buying it is best in the publics eye.

Is it now the practice of flashy lights and advertising [which often leads to mud slinging] that gets the public to vote for you?

Politicians, specifically, democratic politicians are seeking the easy way out on this. Fighting for the private donation is hard, but decent, charismatic and honest politicians should not need to fall back on the public dole. Seek out the people or businesses that support your views and work for the private donation.

EARN THAT VOTE!

The hard working Americans that take valuable time off of work to vote should be enough for politicians. Time away from work is dinner off the table for many who care and that should be recognized. Taxing the public for campaign funds is a bandage on the true problem and that is of politicians trying to buy the publics vote instead of earning it.