Separation of Football and State

Here's the latest one for you, boys and girls. People slay me sometimes. It seems that KY state Rep. Denver Butler (D - District 38, Jefferson) has introduced bill BR 1333 MANDATING that both the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville play each other as the first game of each football season. (Source) Are you kidding me?! I mean, I realize some sports fans take this quite seriously but we're talking about the flippin' state House of Representatives here! I mean honestly, does the government not have anything better to do than this?! We do have a Commonwealth to run here! Bozich, in the article linked above, even says, "I prefer government to concentrate on improving schools, roads and health care. Football doesn't crack my list of top 100 problems that keep me awake." I think Rick, the unofficial press secretary for Cardinal sports, just said something I, a UK fan to the core, can agree with. That's really serious.

I don't, however, agree with Bozo-ich's assertion that it still must be played first. Each home team has the say on when the game is played, in non-conference situations. If UK wants it played in early October at Commonwealth, that's their choice. If UL wants it played in late August in the Pizza Oven, that's their choice. He goes on and on about tradition in a series that was renewed in 1994 after a hiatus of what, 60 years? It's good for the state and for football around here but tradition? Hardly, Ricky. Quit using your journalistic "power" to try and slam Mitch Barnhart.

Alright, I give up. Now it seems the Dems won't filibuster. Certainly a good thing for the process but I guess the jury's still out regarding my opinion on His Honor. Maybe he'll be one of the ones who turns out to be a bit different once he's on the bench (see Soutor, David)

Grand Theft Auto A Grand Pain in the Butt
Okay. So we now know Hot Coffee wasn't the work of uber-talented Wunderhackers. Figures, the code segments were too usable and clean to be amateurs. Anyway, now the game has been slapped with an AO rating. Whoopty freaking doo. What exactly do they think that's gonna do? M games are not supposed to be sold to under 17 year olds and AO games, to under 18. And that one year makes what difference exactly? I'm sure what's in the game is gonna be nothing new to kids who would play it. And even if it is, I think a little pixelated nookie is hardly the problem in a game full of gang murders, prostitution, mass destruction, crime, and so on. And it's not like kids who want the game won't be able to get it. I bet you'll see a huge increase in obtaining the game via pirated warez R0xx0R \/\/00t!

unPATRIOTic ACT
This is another one of those things you can't get me started on. Oh boy. This little piece of legal cow-pie will be extended. We're talking about a law that was never struck down despite allowing illegal search and seizure among other abominable offenses. Silly me, I thought there was a supreme law of the land. And hey, if you click that last link, look for the sections marked "Amendment 4" and "Amendment 6". I'll tell you one thing, if Soon-To-Be-Justice Roberts can vote that this thing is unconstitutional, I'll certainly have learned to respect and admire him. Somehow, some way, this thing's gotta go.

Today I'll live up to my promise. The topic:

Conservative has lost its meaning
A political conservative, centuries ago, would mean someone who believed in little involvement of government, personal freedoms at all costs, what we today might call a Libertarian. But conservancy today no longer refers to this way of thinking.

One: Legislation. Conservatives have conservative values. That much seems to be a constant. I applaud this moral tenacity. But conservatives these days have to legislate morality. Though the cause behind the action is certainly noble, the end result is really quite liberal, by strictest definition. Conservative philosophy would not call for excess legislation and government involvement, but on issues such as abortion conservatives have pushed a myriad of laws that some would say infringe on personal rights. Conservatives would also believe in small government, especially states' rights in the case of the US. But such laws as this new REAL ID tend to infringe on the established rights of states.

Two: Economics. This one is simple: Spending by the federal government in the Bush Jr. administration has increased by the highest rate in decades, since the Ford administration. (Source) This is quite liberal in nature. Notice that the gap between the Bush administration's overall spending increase rate and defense spending increase rate is lower than others. Therefore, the administration has limited spending in non-defense areas but not defense. Defense spending has increased because of a war, specifically the war in Iraq which we started. I understand the importance of defense but no matter the justification, this is a non-conservative move. Not trying to judge right and wrong here, just conservancy versus liberality.

Well, that's my rant for today. Feel free to rebut and prove me wrong.

Update: The Gathering Storm

Well, I was wrong, partly. Seems the Dems are rallying to do everything in their power to block Roberts' nomination. (Source) This is gonna get ugly friends. But I still say that there's not enough Democratic presence in Congress to stop the guy. I just don't think that person who are too conservative or too liberal should get through this kind of system. And Roberts appears to be pretty darn conservative. Looks like the Dems will be forced to filibuster, and as we all know, that makes the baby Jesus cry. Oh wait, I guess there's no <sarcasm> tag, but I'm sure the meaning was clear anyway.

Three thoughts today:

First: Microsoft sues Google.
Apparently this executive signed a non-compete agreement with Microsoft for one year after his employment. (Source) Well, he left MS and went straight to Google for their new Chinese language search in almost the same position. A copy of the lawsuit is here. As a Computer Science major, I should be required to loathe MS, and I do, but in this case it seems that tha 'Soft is right. He broke the terms of his non-compete contract. Don't get used to this though. I won't always be on the same side as Billy and Ballmer.

Second: Bush nominates John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court.
Never underestimate the judiciary. The judicial branch has the power to shape law and legal trends and in many cases has the final say in these matters. Roberts' record is very conservative. No surprise here, we all expected that from a Bush nominee. And it makes sense for Bush to advance the agenda he sees as right for the nation. But Roberts will almost certainly be approved by a Bush-bootlicking GOP controlled Congress.

Ay, there's the rub. Because with conservatives controlling pretty much every area of government there's fewer limits to how far the party can go. And if approved, this nomination means Bush's legacy will live as long as Roberts does. In the good old days, when different parties generally controlled the executive and the legislature, they'd check each other out until they met at a sensible middle. I don't know if the problem is in the governmental method for choosing the judiciary or in the two-party system that seems to be listing to the right, but there's just too much power involved here and checks and balances should be working better than this. (Side note: I, myself, am something of an old-school conservative regarding government and economy, and kind of a liberal regarding social issues. I don't dislike the Republican party per se but I definitely dislike the Bush administration. Matter of fact, maybe I'll make that tomorrow's rant.)

Third: "RealID" to make drivers' licenses into universal federal identifications.
This is not a bad idea. It's really not. I've been saying for years that driver's licenses should be a proof of citizenship. I mean, it was always a pain to have to find my Social Security card or passport whenever I needed to show my citizenship. But the program is not fully funded by the federal government. A number of governors have gathered to oppose the movement, stating that it would cost the states as much or more money than they are funded. Also, they cite the problems required in training existing DMV personnel to handle Immigration duties. Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania said, "Trying to make this work, there will be hell to pay." (Source)

The other problem here is that only citizens would be allowed to drive. What about legal aliens working in the US? What about illegal aliens who are still contributing members of society and their local economy? The solution, to me, is to allow anyone to obtain a license but to mark the citizenship status of the bearer. However, I don't see this coming to pass. In general, I have no "Big Brother" qualms regarding this ID but for the federal government to hand down this edict from the mount and provide no way of making it work is bull. Besides, it's estimated that putting this into play would triple or quadruple the cost of driver's licenses. THAT is something I can definitely oppose!

Hey everybody. Welcome to my blog. The term "Daily Rant" is loose: I probably won't post every day and it may not necessarily be a rant. But this will be my thoughts on society and news and people and just general stuff, so enjoy and I welcome your feedback. Also, I'm gonna update the look and feel soon, I've started working on a new page design.