So, today was the first day of my fall semester, and my first class was an economics class. The professor gave all of the students a test to take, not for points, but to get an idea of where everyone in the class was as far as their knowledge of the subject. I had never taken an economics class before, so my knowledge was based primarly on reading Walter_Williams. Anyway, when I got home, and was sitting around watching my new_Futurama_DVD, I got a phone call from my professor. He said that my test showed that I had a comprehensive knowledge of most of what we would be going over in the class, and told me he was going to give me an 'A' for the course, and I wouldn't have to attend class at all anymore (though I could, if I wanted to). I can not believe I actually got an 'A' for an entire course in just one day's class. Thank you Prof. Williams, for providing me with the sound economic knowledge I needed to achieve the quickest and easiest 'A' I have ever seen in my life. God, I love being a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy(TM).

Well, my last attempt at entertainment news went horribly wrong, but I'm gonna give it another shot.

First off, the Futurama_season_4_DVD came out on Tuesday, and I finally finished watching it today. If you haven't bought it yet, why not? This is the final season of Futurama, before it met it's untimely demise at the hands of the idiots at the FOX network who cancel everything good.

Speaking of great shows that FOX cancelled before their time, I highly recommend the Firefly_DVD. I never watched the show while it was on TV, but I'd heard so much good stuff about it that I picked up the DVD without ever having watched an entire episode. Let me tell you, it was well worth it. The DVD contains all 14 episodes of the series, including 3 that never aired (although, I felt the un-aired episodes were not as good as the rest of the DVD). The show takes place 500 years in the future, after a war between the Alliance (which is a sort of galactic government) and the Independents (a resistance movement against unification of the galaxy, and losers of the big war). The show combines science fiction with Westerns, since a lot of the outer rim planets lack technology, and are pretty much living in the frontier days. The show centers around the crew of a spaceship called Serenity. The Captain, as well as the show's main character, is Mal. He's a kind of Han Solo-type spaceship captain, who fought for the Independents during the war, along with his second in command, Zoë. Zoë's husband, Wash, is the goofball pilot of Serenity, his personality contrasts greatly with his wife's cold, callous demeanor. Jayne, probably the most entertaining character aboard Serenity, is basically a crude, brutish bastard, who isn't above selling out his crewmates. Serenity's mechanic is a cute, innocent, young girl named Kaylee. They also rent out one of the ship's shuttles to a strikingly beautiful "registered companion" (basically a prestigious hooker) named Inara. There's also three other characters who join the crew in the pilot episode, a preacher, called Shepherd Book (the show hints that Book may have a shady and rather violent past), a doctor named Simon, who became a fugitive from the Alliance after rescuing the ninth member of the crew, River, his sister, who is supposedly brilliant but insane from government experimentation on her. Whether intentional or not, the show's message is very freedom oriented. Serenity's crew are basically a group of guerilla capitalists, out in space trying to make a living, free of the Alliance's meddling, taking any jobs they find. And they have guns. A lot of guns. Plus, they all cuss in Chinese. The show's Alliance vs. Independents story line has apparently led some to accuse the show of metaphorically sympathizing with the South in the Civil War (at one point, Mal even says "We shall rise again!" of the Independents), which is understandable, even though the show is definitely anti-slavery. It's a great show, with some terrific dialogue. I'll leave you guys with a few copied & pasted quotes, to maybe spark your interest,

Simon: The captain is a good fighter, he probably knows how to use a sword, right?
Zoë: I think he knows which end to hold.

Inara: What did I tell you about barging in here?
Mal: That it was manly and impulsive?
Inara: Precisely. But the exact word I used was, "Don't."

Zoë: Sir, I think you have a problem with your brain being missing.

Mal: Can't get paid if you're dead.
Jayne: Can't get paid if you crawl away like a bitty little bug neither. I got a share of this job. Ten percent of nothin' is, let me do the math here...nothin' and a nothin', carry the nothin'...

Jayne: [flipping through Simon's journal] "Dear diary, Today I was pompous and my sister was crazy. ... Today we were kidnapped by hill folk, never to be seen again. It was the best day ever."

Mal: "If anyone gets nosy, just...you know... shoot 'em. "
Zoe: "Shoot 'em?"
Mal: "Politely."

Zoe: "Captain will come up with a plan."
Kaylee: "That's good. Right?"
Zoe: "Possibly you're not recalling some of his previous plans."

Wash: "You know, it's all very sweet, stealing from the rich, selling to the poor..."

Mal: "Ah, the pitter patter of tiny feet in huge combat boots."

Wash: "Little River just gets more colorful by the moment. What'll she do next?"
Zoe: "Either blow us all up or rub soup in our hair. It's a toss-up."
Wash: "I hope she does the soup thing. It's always a hoot, and we don't all die from it."

Inara: It sounds like something this crew can handle. I can't guarantee they'll handle it particularly well.
Nandi: If they've got guns and brains at all...
Inara: They've got guns.

Zoe: I know something ain't right.
Wash: Sweetie, we're crooks. If everything were right, we'd be in jail.

Mal: It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of son of a bitch or another.

Plenty of good stuff, and well worth checking out. I'll add more quotes as I come across them. Though the show was cancelled, it had enough of a following that they're working on a movie, Serenity, to be released in 2005.

So long as I'm still whoring for the entertainment industry, I'd like to plug the excellent, but somewhat obscure comedy, Napoleon_Dynamite. It's basically just a movie about a bizarre, geeky kid, who pretty much does whatever he wants, and doesn't realize or care what other people think of him. It's a lot slower paced, and less "in your face" than a lot of the comedies we're used to nowadays, but I loved it, and I can't stop quoting lines from it.

Hopefully I'll come up with something important and worthwhile to post sometime soon, but Fectin seems to be handling the important topics quite well, on his own. Oh well, so long as you all know I'm still alive.

The last two pieces here are interesting. One is about Israel, the other on Antisemitism in France.
If the Israel one is true, what does it mean? I'll have to think more about it before I say anything.

Not a Fish (provincially speaking)

Denzel_a_Republican? I've always thought he was a terrific actor, but I'd never have dreamed in a million years that the star of such Hollywood leftist propaganda pieces as John_Q and The_Manchurian_Candidate could ever be a Republican (granted, two other apparently Republican actors starred in John Q as well). I suppose if they could get a bunch of Hollywood leftists (1,2,3) to play Tom Clancy's conservative Jack Ryan character, then they can put Republicans in John Q and the Manchurian Candidate.

Anyway, it gets better. Apparently Denzel outted himself on the Today show, when he and Manchurian Candidate co-star Meryl Streep were being interviewed by pretty, Aryan twit, Katie Couric. He was asked if he'd seen Michael Moore's Fahreinheit 9/11, and responded "No, and I have no intentions on seeing it." Apparently this kicked off an argument with the two leftist harpies, who went off on their anti-Bush spews, but Denzel held his ground. Eventually, the oh-so-tactful-and-astute Ms. Couric let slip this delightful little comment, "you see, that's the problem I have with "you people." Of course, Mr. Washington responded, saying "YOU PEOPLE! YOU PEOPLE! Just what do you mean you people! Do you mean "You People" as in me as a Christian, or do you mean "You People" as in me as a REPUBLICAN?" (Had I been in Denzel's shoes, I'd have suggested that Katie's "you people" had some racial connotations. Unfortunately, Denzel is not a malicious asshole who takes delight in race-baiting libruls, like I am.) Denzel later went on to refer to Fahrenheit 9/11 as nothing more than propaganda and lies.

Damn, I wish I could've seen that. This man just kicks so much ass.

UPDATE: Whoops, maybe I spoke too soon. This account is apparently from an e-mail that's been circulating, which (according to Snopes) exaggerates quite a bit. It does sound like Denzel mildly refutes some of Streeps leftist crap, but he apparently doesn't say anything about being a Republican, or about F911 being propaganda. I guess in my excitement I neglected to double-check other sources. I was irresponsible in posting it, and I hope y'all can forgive me.

This may seem an odd position for someone who claims to be conservative to hold, and in many ways it is. I don't have anything against Mr. Bush personally, quite the opposite. He seems a little slow, but he surrounds himself with intelligent aides. He takes stances on the moral high ground. He says what he means and does what he says (although his speech is more garbled than most).The only quiblings I've had with him over the war have been minor: whether he believed it or not, he forced a connection between Al Quaida and Iraq and he insisted there were WMAs there when it would have been better to confess that we had not yet found any (despite the gassing of the Kurds). However, these are quibbles over style and not substance. I would have supported war on Iraq with far less evidence. Saddam Hussein has been a clear and present danger for well over a decade. Removing him was not, to my mind, something that needed further justification. I disagree with his views on banning gay marriage; I don't believe that's something that a government should dictate, whatever anyone's personal views are. However, he did choose the proper actor (Constitutional Ammendment) and failed, so I don't hold it against him. I've not been presented with a good arguement against Alaskan drilling, so I have nothing against it. Biodiversity was one of those arguements on the ragged fringe of credibility back when I debated; it hasn't become any more credible to me since. Unilateralism? Bah. we "lateraled" everyone except France and Germany. Has he had any other controversies? Well, yes, but I'll get to that later.
All in all, I would say (with tongue firmly in cheek) that President Bush is the best Republican president we've had in the past ten years. Consider also his scandal list: all I can come up with is Halliburton and choking on a pretzel. Compared to Slick Willy, this is nothing. Compared to many SAINTS this is nothing. I’m not honestly sure what went on with Halliburton, and frankly, I don’t give a damn. Most of what it’s done, as far as I’m concerned, is to cast Cheney in a better light. We need more people saying that those who play party politics can ‘go f--- themselves,’ (I've decided to try to confine myself to the Queen’s English). Oh, and frequent rumblings about oil. I haven't heard a coherent argument of what that's actually about, so I have difficulty evaluating it, let alone responding.
So why, if I think so highly of him, wouldn't I want him in office for another term?
If you refresh this page often enough, eventually this quote will turn up in the random quote generator:

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
- Daniel Webster

President Bush allowed the Patriot act to pass, and US citizens to be unconstitutionally detained as part of his "war on terror" It was done with the very best of intentions, USAPATRIOT was passed with the approval of the majority of the population (including mine, I have no great moral high ground). Whatever the motive, whether good or just asleep at the switch, these actions run very much contrary to the Bill of Rights. Now, I don't worship the constitution, and I also acknowledge that it's not perfect. It's worked out quite well so far though, so I see no reason to castrate it with these grotesque circumventions of such hard and fast rules.By way of comparison, consider if someone were Hare Krishna-ing and claiming to be a Muslim; it violates the most basic principles of the philosophy that they claim to espouse. Specifically, I'd point to ammendments 4-7 as being violated.
As Mr. Webster so aptly put it, "The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions." I realize that Mr Bush had good intentions, and that he thought he was doing good. I am still afraid that he may have done an irreparable harm to the United States. Whether this is true, only time will tell.
In the meantime, I will not support George W. Bush for another term. I bear him no animosity, in fact I have a great deal of respect for him for all that he's done right, I would even hope he wins. He'll do it without my support though.


Next up, Why not Kerry either?

First off, I must say, being invited aboard by the Mad Alchemist was one of the nicer compliments I've recieved. I'll try to repay it by putting something fresh up every week (hopefully an essay in most cases), but school is starting tommorow, so that may not last. I do have at least three essays on the election this year bouncing around in my head, so I can probably go for a little while at least. For the moment though, I suppose I should say something about myself.
My screenname (fectin) has a story behind it, but it's a short story. Around 6(7?) years ago, I was at a fencing camp taught by Ron Miller, and he mentioned that the german verb "to fence" was "fechten." Being the bright child that I was, I went home and spelled it incorrectly. I started out using it on yahoo, and no-one else seems to have taken it anywhere else, so I carry it with me whenever I need an account.
As MA mentioned, we met on a mutual friend's board, and, since we were the two token conservatives in a colony of (polite and intelligent) liberals, we often found ourselves supporting eachothers arguements. It'll be interesting now to see how well our politics match up when we're not holding off the heathen hordes. I'd try to describe mine, but I suspect they'll be apparant quickly enough anyway. Mostly, I'm against all regulations, especially against new regulations, at high levels of government. To give an example, while it's nice for a neighborhood to require you to clean up after your dog, and it's acceptable for a city to require you to clean up after your dog, it's incorrect for a state to require you to clean up after your dog, and if the federal governmet tries, it's an outrage and a direct assault on our freedoms. I exagerate, but that's pretty much my politics. My morals are entirely differant, but I am against legislating morality.
Anyway, it's suddenly quite late and I do need sleep. I know that I haven't really said a whole lot, but I hope that you will forgive me anyway, especially if I post something else soon.
It'll be about why I won't vote for Bush.

It sounds like Alchemy For Dummies may soon be a team blog. I offered a fellow libertarian/conservative, who I met on a friend's message board, a position blogging for AFD, and it sounds like he's accepted. I'll let him introduce himself once he has opened an account with Blogger. I imagine he will bring a great deal to this blog, and hopefully will compensate for my lazy, infrequent posting. I hope y'all will give him a nice, warm welcome when he gets here.

Just when I was starting to not hate Bill Clinton anymore, he has to go and give his speech at the Democrat National Convention, and step back into the public eye. Here's a portion of the transcript

For the first time ever when America was on a war footing, there were two huge tax cuts, nearly half of which went to the top one percent. I'm in that group now for the first time in my life.When I was in office, the Republicans were pretty mean to me. When I left and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. At first I thought I should send them a thank you note -- until I realized they were sending you the bill.They protected my tax cuts while:-- Withholding promised funding for the Leave No Child Behind Act, leavingover 2 million children behind-- Cutting 140,000 unemployed workers out of job training-- 100,000 working families out of child care assistance-- 300,000 poor children out of after school programs-- Raising out of pocket healthcare costs to veterans-- Weakening or reversing important environmental advances for clean airand the preservation of our forests.Everyone had to sacrifice except the wealthiest Americans, who wanted to do their part but were asked only to expend the energy necessary to open the envelopes containing our tax cuts. If you agree with these choices, you should vote to return them to the White House and Congress. If not, take a look at John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats.

Wow, all those rich people in the top one percent living off of taxpayer money?! Too bad you're not still president so that you can fucking pardon them!!! Seriously, Mr. Clinton, do you not realize you and anyone who supports you has no credibility whatsoever on the issue of tax cuts for the wealthy, since you pardoned your millionaire buddy Mark Rich for evading taxes? I guess tax cuts -- hell, tax exemption -- for the wealthy are fine and dandy, so long as it's for a personal friend of yours, huh?

Then, of course, der Schlickmeister intentionally perpetrates the myth that the money being returned in tax cuts doesn't belong to the person who it is being returned to. No, they're "sending the bill to you"!! Funny, I seem to remember getting a tax rebate too, and I'm working only about 20 hours a week right now, for $7 an hour. Democrats love to play up the myth that a tax cut means stealing money from them, the government. They see your money as theirs. Of course, Clinton was slick enough to state that that money belongs to you, the proletariat, it's just them who's going to, uh, keep it and, um, spend it. Tax cuts, by definition, are money that you have already paid into the system. You are simply paying less of your own money to the government, and since the rich pay far more in taxes than you or I, then it stands to reason that their tax cuts would be bigger. The Democrats will use this bullshit "most of the tax cuts go to the rich" every single time the issue of tax cuts comes up. And if they get away with it every time, then the lower and middle classes will end up never seeing one red cent they pay in taxes returned to them in money that they can spend as they choose. Letting people choose how to spend the money that they themselves worked to earn? What a fucking concept! I have a Wizard of Id comic strip taped to my computer desk, in which the king of Id announces, "I had planned to announce a huge tax refund, but it occurred to me that the rich would get the most. So, to teach them a lesson, there will be no refund at all!" Then his audience cheers like a bunch of idiots, and the king walks away smugly, after getting to keep their tax money to himself. Let's face it, when the government is free to dispose of the fruits of your labor as they see fit, they own you.

The founding fathers created this country as a republic, because they knew one of the pitfalls of democracy was that the majority could turn on -- and abuse the rights of -- a villainized minority. You can not defend freedom without at times defending the rights of groups you find distasteful. The wealthy are one of these minorities who make for a valuable bogeyman for the government to turn the powers of the state on, since public sympathy is usually against them. It is tempting for people to believe, "Well, they already have things better than everybody else, why shouldn't they be picked on from time to time?" The problem is, whatever the government has the power to do to the rich, they have the power to do to you and I. It's easy to understand frustration towards people sitting on big ass piles of money while you can barely make ends meet, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same constitutional protections from government coercion that the rest of us have. The rich pay the majority of taxes, and are pretty much the ones footing the bill for these social programs the left loves so much. To the left "the rich" are the goose that lays the golden eggs, and they're going to milk that, uh, goose for all they can get out of it.

Back to Billy Boy's feigned moral indignation. If he's so upset about getting his tax cut at our expense, then why doesn't he mail his check back to the government. Here's how actor/Kerry-whore Ben Affleck answered that one (found via Right_Side_of_the_Rainbow),

We asked Mr. Affleck if he had considered sending the $1 million back to Washington. "No," he said. "I'm not Jesus Christ of the tax code. I can't completely martyr myself."

Wow! Just, wow! Paul at RSotR answered him perfectly,

You don't need a messiah complex, Mr. Affleck, to write a check -- especially when, as in your case, you believe you came by the money in error.
Either act on your values, sir, or shut it. We can all do without the mindless pontifications of a hypocrite.

Exactly! If you or I came across someone else's wallet, we would try to find out who it belongs to and return it. We'd do the same if we came across someone else's tax cut. How can the oh-so-compassionate "liberals", if they feel they are holding on to someone else's money, keep that check in good conscience? I've suspected for a while now that much of the appeal of the left is that they allow people to feel like they are compassionate and charitable without them having to make any personal sacrifices. All you have to do is notice that something is wrong, complain about it, and you get credit for your compassion. Clinton has stated repeatedly that he doesn't need his tax cut. But, of course, he isn't going to give it back of his own volition. This should be all the proof that anybody needs that, for the left, when they harp on these issues, their rhetoric is of compassion but their intent is increased power. Have you ever heard any prominent Democrat recommend a solution to any problem that didn't involve an increase in their political power? There is no altruism in anything these people say anymore.

(Thank you Jesus and Blogspot!! Holy shit, I tried to post this rant after typing up the whole goddamn thing, and it was rejected. I tried refreshing the page, and the whole thing was gone. I cussed up a storm and kicked a wall really hard. I started to type the whole thing up again, but couldn't because I was too full of rage to concentrate and I was already forgetting what it was I wrote. Thankfully, it occured to me to check my drafts on Blogspot, and it had saved as a draft, even though I never clicked the "Save as Draft" button. Thank Gawd!)

Jason Kallini has an excellent_post up, about the current rift between the right and left. If you're not reading Kallini.com regularly you should. It's probably my favorite blog on the internet.