Lifes Lessons

Amtrak

2005-04-25T09:46:00.000-04:00

At what point do we stop bailing this company out?

WASHINGTON - Several senators on Thursday criticized President Bush's proposal to give Amtrak no money next year, while the railroad submitted a request to Congress for $1.82 billion.

Amtrak is receiving $1.2 billion from Congress this year.

Chairman David Laney said that without a boost in money the railroad would have no cash by year's end in light of Acela Express brake problems that have sidelined the profitable high-speed fleet until this summer.

A majority of senators on the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee were critical of Bush's plan and sympathetic to Amtrak, favoring giving the railroad money next year. No specific amount was mentioned.

"How did the administration come up with such a ridiculous proposal?" asked Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., subcommittee chairman. "I was extremely stunned and disappointed that such a proposal was made."

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said the Bush administration's stance that zero funding of Amtrak is a "call to action" was baseless.

"Zero funding means you want to shut the place down," Dorgan said.

Did you happen to notice those numbers? In two years Amtrak wants us, you know, the tax payers, to give them 3 billion dollars. Let me do it this way so you understand better,

$3,000,000,000.

Sen. Dorgan says zero funding would shut them down. GOOD! How many years do we have to keep dumping money into this cash cow?

Amtrak it self has said:

its current business model is unsustainable and in need of serious reform.

And you want us to give you 3 BILLION dollars?!?!

It doesn't surprise me that a ompany wants to be bailed out. It SHOULDN'T surprise me the our representatives want to throw our money way, year after year. It does though. Don't ask me why.

AHHH, but there are PLANS!!

Lott said the subcommittee would study three proposals — from the Bush administration, Amtrak and the DOT's inspector general — and work to present a bipartisan bill regarding Amtrak's funds.

Kenneth Mead, the DOT's inspector general, said Amtrak needs at least $1.4 billion to maintain current operations. But Mead said $2 billion would put Amtrak in a better operating position in the long run.

And that's for 1 year. How much will they want the following year?

All the plans included proposals calling for states to chip in to keep Amtrak running. Bush's plan calls for a 50-50 federal state partnership, Amtrak is asking states for 20 percent of funds, and Mead's plan seeks between 15 to 30 percent from states.

Interesting thought. I have a better idea. How about we let this company stand or fall on it's own?

"States can't afford at this time to simply pick up the federal contribution to Amtrak," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (news, bio, voting record), D-N.J., who supports funding Amtrak and criticized Bush's 50-50 proposal. "Expecting them to do so would be yet another unfunded mandated, and it would sink state budgets in a sea of red ink."

Lautenberg brings up an interesting line of reasoning. States can't afford it. Hmmmm, I have an idea. Since some states, like Florida, only have long distance runs, Florida should get rid of Amtrak. Of the 15 long distance runs Amtrak has, not 1 has ever shown a profit. Get rid of them. Why is this so hard to understand?

I know that in the northeastern part of this country Amtrak actually does make money on it's intercity runs. Hmmm, leave those in place. If Amtrak still needs money, let those states that have intercity routes pay for it. WOW, that was just too hard to figure out.

The one thing that makes me laugh on this is, there are some democrats that whine about the moey spent on Iraq. These same people will not say a word about the money that has been thrown at Amtrak for I don't know how many years. I wonder why that is?

Born-Alive Infant Protection Act

2005-04-23T13:03:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Friday that it would enforce a nearly 3-year-old federal law that requires doctors to attempt to keep alive a fetus that survives an abortion.

In making the announcement, the Department of Health and Human Services Department said it was an attempt to educate the public about the little-known law. Officials said they didn't know how often a fetus survives an abortion and would not say whether there have been any complaints about a lack of enforcement.

"As a matter of law and policy, the (department) will investigate all circumstances where individuals and entities are reported to be withholding medical care from an infant born alive in potential violation of federal statutes for which we are responsible," HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said in a statement.

"We will also take proactive steps to educate state officials, health care providers, hospitals and child protection agencies about their obligation to born-alive infants under federal law," Leavitt said.

The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 amends the legal definitions of "person," "human being," "child" and "individual" to include any fetus that survives an abortion procedure.

Again, I'll probably get some flack for my stance on this. It is a good law. And it should be enforced. Yes, women should have the right to choose, I have no problem with that, except for late term abortions, I do have problms with those. But, if the fetus is alive after the abortion, it is no longer a fetus, it is a person and should be afforded all the rights of any other person in this country.

I don't care which side of the abortion issue you stand on, if the child is breathing, IT IS NOT a fetus.

Something else I'll catch flack about

2005-04-23T12:53:00.000-04:00

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - A 5-year-old girl was handcuffed by police after she tore papers off a bulletin board and punched an assistant principal in kindergarten class, according to a video released by a lawyer for the child's mother.

The 30-minute tape shows the child appearing to calm down before three officers pinned her arms behind her back and put on handcuffs as she screamed, "No!"

The camera was rolling March 14 as part of a classroom self-improvement exercise at Fairmount Park Elementary, attorney John Trevena said.

Trevena, who provided the tape to the media this week, said he got it from police.

"The image itself will be seared into people's minds when you have three police officers bending a child over a table and forcibly handcuffing her," said Trevena, who represents the girl's mother, Inga Akins.

Police spokesman Bill Proffitt said an investigation into the matter would be complete in about two weeks and the findings would be made public.

You know what? They should have handcuffed this child. While I do know that children throw temper tantrums, there comes a point where a child has to learn that there is consequences to their actions. I watched part of this tape on TV last night. This child was acting like a little monster. God forbid that school try and handle the situation, they'd get sued in 5 seconds flat. The school did the responsible thing, they called the police and let them handle it. Now, you can whine and moan that she is just a little girl. Yes, she is but, she is a now a little girl who knows that when she does something wrong, she will have to pay for it.

Go ahead, attack me, I can handle it.

Moussaoui to fight death penalty

2005-04-23T12:44:00.000-04:00

Keeping on the subject of the death penalty we come across this:

ALEXANDRIA, Va. - With the first U.S. conviction from a Sept. 11 case in hand, federal prosecutors face a new battle over whether Zacarias Moussaoui should receive the death penalty for plotting with al-Qaida against Americans.

Although he pleaded guilty as expected Friday, Moussaoui told U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, "I will fight every inch against the death penalty." Just last week, he had told her he would plead for execution.

That was among several surprises as the defendant voluntarily admitted his guilt on six counts of conspiring with al-Qaida leaders and the Sept. 11 hijackers to wreak havoc on Americans. Four counts carry a possible death penalty.

Moussaoui also declared for the first time in public that Osama bin Laden personally instructed him to fly an airliner into the White House. The target date was not clear.

Just curious, why doesn't Moussaoui want to die? Wouldn't he still get his virgins?

On the serious side. This man conspired to kill thousands of people. He had the go ahead, by his own admission, to crash a plane into the White House. So, if I have any liberal readers, why should this guy be allowed to live?

Jessica Lunsford

2005-04-22T11:32:00.000-04:00

Disclaimer: The following article is not pleasant.

INVERNESS - For weeks, rumors swirled that the man suspected of killing Jessica Lunsford kept her inside his home for a time, then buried her alive.

Documents released Wednesday suggest those grisly accounts are true.

Investigators found Jessica just as John Couey told them they would.

She was sitting upright in a 4-foot-deep grave, her wrists bound in front of her body with stereo wire. Two of her fingers had poked through the plastic trash bags stretched tight over her body. In her arms she clutched the stuffed purple dolphin that had been missing from her bedroom.

Her body bore no sign of injuries that would have caused death. Medical examiners ruled she died of asphyxiation, or a lack of oxygen.

That leaves open the likelihood that Jessica was alive in her grave as dirt and leaves were shoveled over her.

Now, my following statement may get some liberals upset but, I don't care.

This animal, I can't bring myself to call him human, raped a little girl then stuffed her in a gabage bag, ALIVE, and buried her. Some out there will say that he has a sickness. I say, he is a piece of garbage that should be wiped off the face of the earth. He does not deserve mercy, he deserves to die the most horrible death that can be thought up. I could go into details of what I would do but I'll just say this, it would involve a very rusty, dull knife and his genitals.

But, of course, we are "civilised". We can't do those things. So, this crap heap will, MAYBE, recieve life in prison, or even, POSSIBLY, the death penalty, where he will be stuck with a couple of needles and die a peaceful death.

For the longest time I have gone back and forth on the death penalty. Is it a detriment to crime? Is it really what a civilised country should do? Then comes a story like this and I realised, unfortunately, that there are purely evil people in this world who deserve no mercy, who deserve to have the things done to them that they have done to others.

If nothing else comes out of this story I want the parents out there to realise, this could happen to you. Our children are our most precious commotity. We should love them and protect them from the monsters of the world. Watch your children. Don't think because you have a good child and a smart child that this can't happen. It happens with all too much frequency. There are monsters out there who don't care what a wonderful child you have, they want to use your child and throw him/her away like they do their garbage. Be watchful, be smart, be a pain in the ass to your child and most of all, love them with all you have.

I'm back

2005-04-22T11:01:00.000-04:00

After a rather long hiatus, I'm back. Sorry to have been gone so long but, I had a lot of things on my plate. Hopefully I'll be up and running normaly in the next few days.

Joseph Biden speaks and tells it like it is

2005-01-19T09:54:00.000-05:00

Going along with my last post I founfd a nice little quote from Joe Biden speaking at the confirmaton hearings of Condileeza Rice.

I spent a little time in Europe recently, and I have one simple message: Get over it. Get over it. President Bush is our president for the next four years, so get over it and start to act in your interest, Europe.

I have no commentary to add to this, it speaks for itself.

What the world thinks

2005-01-19T09:38:00.000-05:00

PARIS (Reuters) - The rest of the world will be watching with anxiety when President Bush is inaugurated Thursday for a second time, fearing the most powerful man on the planet may do more harm than good.

Don't you just feel so bad for the rest of the world? I want to ask a serious question here. Why in hell should I care what the rest of the world thinks? George Bush is not their President so, they can shut up.

I'm not in a good mood today

Many world leaders, alienated by Bush's go-it-alone foreign policy and the U.S.-led war in Iraq, would have preferred him to lose the U.S. election last November. Since his victory, they have been urging him to listen and consult more.

Listen and consult? You mean like we did for 12 years with Iraq? You mean just talking without actually DOING something. God, what jokes these people are.

Oh, and this "go-it-alone" line of crap is getting rather boring. Let's look at just how "alone" we have been in Iraq.

United States, Great Britain, Italy, Poland,
Ukraine, Netherlands,
Australia, Romania, South Korea, Japan, Denmark,
Bulgaria, Thailand El
Salvadore, Hungary, Singapore, Norway, Azerbaijan,
Georgia, Mongolia,
Latvia, Portugal, Czech Republic, Lithuania,
Slovokia, Albania, New
Zealand, Tonga, Estonia, Kazakstan, Macedonia, and
Moldovia.

This is the list of countries that are members of the coalition in Iraq. Now, please explain to me just how we are "alone".

You can read the rest of the story here.

Not something you read everyday

2005-01-19T09:34:00.000-05:00

NORTHAMPTON, Mass. -- Two women, including a Smith College student, pleaded innocent to charges they raped and handcuffed another female student and slashed her with knives.

Rachel Ann Klobertanz, 22, and Augusta Claire Kendall, 22, were ordered held on $25,000 bail at their arraignment Tuesday in Northampton District Court. Both were charged with two counts of aggravated rape, three counts of assault and battery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and aggravated assault and battery.

Prosecutor Susan Loehn said the three women first met at a downtown Northampton bar. They then went back to Klobertanz and Kendall's apartment, where they drank several bottles of champagne and engaged in sex that began as consensual but ended as rape, Loehn said.

"There are some significant issues with respect to consent," said David Roundtree, who represents Kendall. He described Kendall as having a 3.0 grade-point average at Smith.

Thomas Estes, who represents Klobertanz, said both the women maintain the sex with the 20-year-old woman was consensual.

Loehn said it was not the first time women have been charged with rape in Northampton, but the case was unusual because of the level of violence involved.

Happy New Year

2005-01-02T13:02:00.000-05:00

Yes, I know I'm a day late but, I was busy yesterday, taking a nap. May all your hopes and dreams come true in this new year.

I would share with you my resolutions but, I don't make them. What is the sense in making a promise, a resolution is a promise, unless you're the U.N., that you have no intention on keeping past Junuary 4? I will say this though. I will TRY to be a better person, try to be more understanding of those around me. I will try and not be as sarcastic as I want to be, this will be really hard. I will try and be a better son, friend, lover and father. And, I will try and post more to my blog.

God bless you all and, again, Happy New Year.

Jamie

Baby Jesus homeless, Bush at fault

2004-12-27T19:48:00.000-05:00

Ah, Jesse Jackson, what would we do without his rantings?

"In the last [Bush] budget, we cut housing again, and that was Jesus' dilemma. In Bethlehem, his family ended up homeless," Jackson told MSNBC's Campbell Brown.

"Rome was a wealthy country that left Jesus and Mary and Joseph, in a sense, homeless," he complained. "He was born an at-risk baby."

What a joke this man is and he's supposed to be a "reverand"

First, Mary and Joseph were traveling back to Nazerath, they did not live in Bethlehem so, they wouldn't have a home there to begin with.

Secondly, what makes him think the Joseph was a poor man? I've heard for years that they were poor, what proof is there of this? Joseph was a carpenter. He lived in a Roman state. Romans were famous for building things. When things are built, carpenters kind of come in handy.

For a "man of the cloth" this guy should actually try and learn some facts before he opens his rather large mouth.

I'm not dead, really, I'm not

2004-12-27T19:43:00.000-05:00

It may seem that I have fallen off the face of the earth, how nice that would be but, I really haven't. I've been busy remodeling the house, had to put dad back in the hospital and have been having health problems of my own.

I've missed a lot of news over the last month or so but, I know you've kept up with it on your own. I'll be posting sporadically over the next week or so but, hopefully, will be back to posting regularly after the new year.

New toy

2004-11-19T15:29:00.000-05:00

Well, I finally broke down and got a new computer. It's an HP and I love it so far. I have to g used to all the new play things on it but, I'm having fun.

Something to think about

2004-11-16T19:57:00.000-05:00

I want to share with you part of a discussion that has been going on in a board I belong to. Though the subject is about judicial nominations, I think what your about to read goes far beyond that subject. Copied with permission from the author, Amber.

I think that the goal behind your argument is short-sighted.

Whatever chicanery that's gone on in the past is irrelevant, unless you are proposing that we continue to permit our legislators to run the government like a school yard feud rather than the very serious business of governing the nation.

We can’t just live in the *now*. While I understand the temptation to slide through every conservative agenda that’s been bogged down by the liberals in the past, conservatives would be doing themselves and their constituents a disservice. The purpose of the government is to represent the people. Our representatives fail in this very important job when they for _partisan_ reasoning do everything in their power to force their agenda.

Look at this election. 49% of the nation did not support Bush. Look at the individual Senate races, most particularly where Daschle was unseated. The race was unbelievably close. What does that tell us? That while the majority won the seat, that the “minority” is not much of a minority, considering the size. These people are still deserving of representation.

The importance of the ideal becomes even more crucial when we are talking about judicial appointments. These people are in their seats until they resign or die. A great disservice is done to the people when one side uses its majority power to nominate and especially install judges whose judgment is not remotely representative of the other 49% of the people. No matter what spin we put on it, no matter how many cases we resurrect of it being done in the past, it doesn’t make it right.

You said:

“…how do you think we got so many liberal judges in the 1960s? It was because Democrats controlled both the White House and Senate. That is how it is SUPPOSED to work. The culture of our country does swing like a pendulum. Why shouldn't it continue to do so in the same way it always has?”

I couldn’t have stated my case any better. The culture of our country shouldn’t swing like a pendulum, from one extreme to the other. Like some drunk tooling down the highway of politics. It should drive vigilantly forward, watching for obstructions. It should with care and consideration swerve gently to the left of the right, depending on the obstruction, then return to the lane of moderation and continue on its way, in a prudent forward progression.

You said:

“Note that if Democrats had a majority in the Senate, president Bush would HAVE to pick judges that they would approve of. Why should he also have to do the same thing when Democrats DON'T control the Senate?”

To reiterate, we are not talking about Democrat vs Republican. We are talking about elected officials representing their constituency. How do you effectively represent a 49% Democrat constituency by pushing only hard right ideals?

Again, look to the future. There will come a day in our lifetime that the Democrats will be back in power. Or perhaps another political body other than Republican or Democrat. Republicans have an opportunity to set the wheels in motion to alter the political climate. There will never be a better opportunity as we would be extending that gracious olive branch from a position of power.

Although I disagree with what Amber wrote about the judicial nominations, I think that the rest of this post is fantastic. Reading around right-wing blogs and reading right-wing groups, you would think that this past election was won by a super majority. Guess what folks? It wasn't. This country is basically split right down the middle. OUR representatives need to take that into consideration. This is a time when conservative can REALLY reach across the aisle. It's also a time when ALL of our representatives need to really look at the whole of the country. Most people aren't far right or far left, they fall right down the middle. Both sides of the aisle need to pay attention to that. This is not a time to reach out to those who are on the fringe, this is a time to look at those in the middle, in other words, most of the country.

Why the liberals lost and will continue to

2004-11-14T11:00:00.000-05:00

Have you all noticed the near frothing of the mouth of those on the left since the election? Boy, I have. I've been called everything but a child of God over the last week and a half. I've been looking for something that puts the liberals argument into one article, I've found it. Below you will find that argument(s) and my thoughts on each one. It was written by leftist comedian Adam Felber, sorry, no link.

Concession Speech

[Former candidate Felber, flanked by his family and supporters, steps
up to the podium in the bright autumn sunlight. Cheers and applause
are
heard.]

My fellow Americans, the people of this nation have spoken, and spoken
with a clear voice. So I am here to offer my concession. [Boos,
groans,
rending of garments]

I concede that I overestimated the intelligence of the American
people.
Though the people disagree with the President on almost every issue,
you saw fit to vote for him. I never saw that coming. That's really
special.

And I mean "special" in the sense that we use it to describe those
kids
who ride the short school bus and find ways to injure themselves while
eating pudding with rubber spoons. That kind of special.

And the left wonders why a good amount of people can't stand them. Not only does this guy insult the intelegence of half of the country, God forbid they have minds of their own and can think for themselves, he also insults handicapped children.

I concede that I misjudged the power of hate. That's pretty powerful
stuff, and I didn't see it. So let me take a moment to congratulate the
President's strategists: Putting the gay marriage amendments on the
ballot in various swing states like Ohio... well, that was just genius.
Genius. It got people, a certain kind of people, to the polls. The
unprecedented number of folks who showed up and cited "moral values"
as their biggest issue, those people changed history.

Ha! This is a big laugh. Seems that Felber forgets that over 70% of the country, including the Democratic candidate, are against gay marriage. Even California, not in the least a conservative state, has laws banning gay marriage, but, he, of course, forgets this.

The folks who consider same sex marriage a more important issue than war, or terrorism, or the economy... Who consider tolerance-of-diversity to
be "immoral" while their own crime and divorce and domestic violence rates - DOUBLE
those of Massachussetts - are somehow just peachy.

HA! Another good laugh. Take a look at this article. Go ahead, it will only take a minute. See some hings that stick out at you? Let me help.

When "moral values" was included in poll questions, it was named more often than any other issue. But when voters were just asked to name the issue most important in their vote for president — without being given a list of answers — moral values trailed the war in Iraq and the economy, according to the Pew survey.

"The advantage of the open-ended question is it tells you what's at the top of mind for voters — what they're thinking," said Cliff Zukin, a veteran pollster and professor of public policy at Rutgers University. "Much too much has been made of the moral values answer."

Intersting let's look at some of the research. When no choices were given, moral values only got 9%, Iraq got 27% and the economy got 14%. When choices were given 27% chose moral values and 22% said Iraq. So, depending on how the question was asked, the results changed.

The Pew poll found that voters' reasons for picking "moral values" varies. Just over four in 10 of those who picked "moral values" from the list mentioned social issues like gay marriage and abortion, but others talked about qualities like religion, helping the poor, and candidates' honesty and strength of leadership.

"We did not see any indication that social conservative issues like abortion, gay rights and stem cell research were anywhere near as important as the economy and Iraq," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "'Moral values' is a phrase that's very attractive to people."

Ah but, the meme lives on.

Next,

I concede that I put too much faith in America's youth. With 8 out of
10 of you opposing the President, with your friends and classmates
dying
daily in a war you disapprove of, with your future being mortgaged to
pay for rich old peoples' tax breaks, you somehow managed to sit on
your asses and watch the Cartoon Network while aging homophobic
hillbillies
carried the day. You voted with the exact same anemic percentage that
you did in 2000. You s*uck. Seriously, y'do. [Cheers, applause] Thank
you. Thank you very much.

Yes, everyone who voted for Bush are "aging homophobic hillbillies". 50 some odd million people have no clue. Yep, you keep telling yourself that. Oh, and keep insulting the young voters, there is already a trend with the youth showing they are more conservative than their parents so, go ahead, keep pushing them over to this side.

There are some who would say that I sound bitter, that now is the time
for healing, to bring the nation together. Let me tell you a little
story. Last night, I watched the returns come in with some friends
here in Los Angeles. As the night progressed, people began to talk
half-seriously about secession, a red state / blue state split. The
reasoning was this:

We in blue states produce the vast majority of the
wealth in this country and pay the most taxes, and you in the red
states receive the majority of the money from those taxes while
complaining about 'em. We in the blue states are the only ones who've been
attacked by foreign terrorists, yet you in the red states are gung ho to fight
a war in our name.

I will have to do some research into the first part but, aren't the people on the left the ones who think that tax money should go to those who "need" them. What's your bitch then? You are getting exactly what you have asked for over the last 50 years.

As for the last statement, yes, New York was the "only" place hit by terrorists. That is, if you only count what happened on September 11. This country has been attacked with impunity for well over 20 years. The terrorist finally figured out that to get our attention they had to hit our land mass. They did it in a spectacular way. But listen very closely, moron, you are NOT the only target, you were an easy target.I live in an area with military bases all around me. I have a base for the Atlantic Fleet, a Naval Air Station, a submarine base and the largest Air National Guard base in Florida within 30 miles of me. Grow a brain.

We in the blue states produce the entertainment that
you consume so greedily each day, while you in the red states show
open disdain for us and our values. Blue state civilians are the actual
victims and targets of the war on terror, while red state civilians
are the ones standing behind us and yelling "Oh, yeah!? Bring it on!"

Yes, be proud, your industry is based on lying for a living.

More than 40% of you Bush voters still believe that Saddam Hussein had
something to do with 9/11. I'm impressed by that, truly I am. Your
sons and daughters who might die in this war know it's not true, the people
in the urban centers where al Qaeda wants to attack know it's not
true, but those of you who are at practically no risk believe this easy lie
because you can. As part of my concession speech, let me say that I
really envy that luxury. I concede that.

So? People have a habit of not paying attention. That includes yourself. You seem to forget that this wasn't just about Al-Queda, this is about a global war on terror. It has been from the begining and you seem to forget that, because it fits into your long winded diatribe that is full of shit. Do you pay attention? Did you actually listen to the President after 9/11? Of course not. It doesn't fit YOUR preconcieved notions.

The next two paragraphs are repeats of the above and then, we come to this

So that's why I'm asking for your vote in 2008, America. I'm talking
to you, you ignorant, slack-jawed yokels, you bible-thumping, inbred
drones, you redneck, racist, chest-thumping, perennially duped
grade-school grads. Vote for me, because I know better, and I truly
believe that I can help your smug, sorry asses. Vote Felber in '08!
Thank you, and may God, if he does in fact exist, bless each and every
one of you.

This is EXACTLY why liberals will continue to lose. They have no true understanding of the "heartland" of America. You are all just stupid drones, unable to think for yourselves. The funny thing in all this is, they think they are right. THEY are the only people with any TRUE understanding of what is really going on. You are just a pile of meat that should do what they want.

The above article, as I said, was written by a comedian but, you can hear the same thing from your liberal friends, liberal columnists, Dan Rather, Kos and anyone else on the left side. They truly believe you should vote for candidates that feel the exact same way as they do. Ah, well, maybe one day they will learn. I somehow doubt it.

My first thought was, he lied in every word

2004-11-08T09:06:00.000-05:00

For those of you who are fans of Stephen King, the title of this post will look familiar. Of course, it is the first sentence in the first stanza of Robert Browning's "Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came" and the inspiration for the Dark Tower series of books that King has been writing over the last 30 years. Well, after 18 years of reading the series, I finished the last book last night, no I won't tell you what happened.

It's kind of funny but, as much as I have wanted King to finish these books, I feel sad that it's over. If you aren't a big reader you will never understand that. You really get into the characters in these books and then, it's over. Oh well, all things come to an end.

Blog Note

2004-11-08T09:02:00.000-05:00

Okay, Blogger is ticking me off lately. I haven't been able to get on to my account since last Wednesday. I did want to let you folks know that I MAY be a little hit and miss over the next month or so. I am remodeling my kitchen, dining room, living room and office, for right now, and it is taking a lot of my time and energy. For my regular readers, please keep checking back, for those who just come in for a look around, you keep coming back too.

America has spoken

2004-11-03T14:19:00.000-05:00

Well America, you spoke and you spoke loudly. John Kerry has just graciously conceded the election. I'm not going to go into the details of all that happened last night, you've probably been reading and listening to it all day.

Not only did Bush win but he won with a mandate. The Republicans also picked up seats in the House and the Senate.

As I said, America has spoken and I think what they said is loud and clear. They don't want a far left government, and whether Kerry voters like it or not, that is what they would have gotten with Kerry. There has been a SMALL shift to the right in this country and people think that Bush will do the better job. As I said in my endorsement, I voted for Bush because of taxes and the War on Terror. Hopefully, in this term, Bush will learn how the veto works and start cutting the size of the government. We will have to wait and see.

To the democrats among my readers, 2000 is over, the President has won, let's move on with the job of being Americans. I'm not saying there isn't room for descent, that is always a good thing. What I am saying is, Bush won, he won the Electoral College and the popular vote, by 3%. Let's just move on now.

To the Republicans, don't let this get to your head. Yes, you have won desisively but, it's time to cut the far right rhetoric and move on with proving to the world and, more importantly, to ourselves, that we can stand united as a country. Yes, we will disagree on some things but, we ARE Americans and it's is far past time started acting like it.

The election is over, thank GOD, let's put aside the insults and the rhetoric and act like the civilised nation that we are.

Now, I got that over with I do have to do a happy dance. Tom Daschle lost. HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Good work South Dakota.

Okay, back to being civilised.

Thank God

2004-11-01T16:12:00.000-05:00

15 hours until the polling places open on the east coast. I don't know about you but, I am so stinking tired of this election cycle, I'll need four years to get over it.

Prediction: Bush by 5%. Dems will send out lawyers in three states and lose every case.

I may take tomorrow off but, I don't want to say for sure. I have a feeling that my polling place will be interesting and if something happens, I'll let you know. See ya Wednesday.

DON'T FORGET TO VOTE.

The Electoral College

2004-11-01T09:09:00.000-05:00

Last night I gave my endorsement, it can be found here, and in the comment section Allan wrote this,

But this is the price we pay for an electoral college as opposed to a true democracy. The electoral college emboldens the two party system thereby making a third party at best non-viable. At worst, irrelevent.

First, I have to remind Allan that, we are not a democracy, we are a republic, a republic is

A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

a democracy is

The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule

Two different concepts.

Secondly, while there are some down sides to the Electoral College, mostly it was a good idea, let's look at exactly what the Electoral College does

Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).

The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote. Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in their State party conventions or through appointment by their State party leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate theirs.

Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties nominate their candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions traditionally held in the summer preceding the election. (Third parties and independent candidates follow different procedures according to the individual State laws). The names of the duly nominated candidates are then officially submitted to each State's chief election official so that they might appear on the general election ballot.

On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual Electors on each slate).

Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].

On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals and cast their electoral votes-one for president and one for vice president.

In order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their home State, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their State (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from different States).
The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each State to the President of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads them before both houses of the Congress.

The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.

In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.
At noon on January 20, the duly elected president and vice president are sworn into office.

So, contrary to popular belief, the electoral college votes for the popular vote in their respective state.

But, we hear, that the overall popular vote should be what counts. I'd like to ask the people who say that, why should two or three states make the choice for the rest of the country? New York and California do not represent the whole country. For our elections to be fair, the will of ALL of the people should be counted, not just the states with the most people in it. Without the EC, we would really have no choice in who our President is. Without it, we would get the choice of New York.

I consider the system we have to be far better than any other countries out there. Sure, we have problems but, as a whole, the system works and the will of ALL of he people is counted.

My endorsement

2004-10-31T19:57:00.000-05:00

I have been contemplating over the last few days on whether I should give an endorsement to either candidate. I finally decided, what the heck, why not.

My endorsement goes to George Bush. Why, you ask? Only 2 reasons. The War on Terror and tax cuts. After 4 years these two issues are the only two things I have REALLY agreed with Bush on.

The War on Terror. While I do have some problems with some of the things that have happened, I generally agree with what the President has done over the last 2 1/2 years. I do not think that John Kerry will prosecute the war in the way that I think needs to be done.

Taxes. The less of my money the government gets, the better. I earned my money and I should have the right to spend it how I see fit.

There are a lot of things that Bush has done that I totally disagree with, one is, not knowing what a veto is. But, because of the above two reasons, he will get my vote.

While there are some things that I agree on with Kerry, those above reasons are the most important to me and, I don't think he will do the job I want done.

There you have it, my endorsement.

Now, I don't care who you vote for, that is completely up to you. What I do ask is that you get off of your backsides on Tuesday and vote.

UPDATE: Allan made the comment "The electoral college emboldens the two party system thereby making a third party at best non-viable. At worst, irrelevent."

Harry Browne made a similar argument, although he didn't mention the Electoral College, that I commented on here. If I have time, I'll go into the electoral process tomorrow.

Bin Laden

2004-10-30T16:23:00.000-04:00

You may be wondering why I haven't commented on the OBL tape that was released yesterday. I have a very good reason for not commenting on it, I really don't care what the jackass has to say.

If you are interested, wretchard, at Belmont Club has an interesting insight into it.

I'm a little upset

2004-10-30T16:04:00.000-04:00

I just got through reading Jeff Harrell's blog, The Shape of Days. He has decided to take a hiatus because of some of the commenting that has been going on at his site. In one sense, I can't blame him. In another, it pisses me off because Jeff is a fantastic writer and I always enjoy reading his blog. He does a LOT of research into the things he writes, unlike me, and his writing style is the best I've read in all the blogs I do read. I want my readers to go and read his blog and tell him not to let the bastards get him down. It truly would be a loss to the blogosphere if he decides to quit.

Just a reminder

2004-10-30T15:41:00.000-04:00

Just wanted to remind you to set your clocks back tonight. It's that time of year again.

I got to thinking

2004-10-29T14:04:00.000-04:00

While I was driving I got to thinking about the story that our troops didn't have body armor when they went into Iraq, untrue by the way. What I got to thinking about was, the people doing the most screaming about this, Democrats, would be the first to scream bloody murder if the newer body armor was asked for in a time when we aren't at war. Hypocrycy anyone?

To overseas military personnel

2004-10-29T13:38:00.000-04:00

Very seldom do I listen to Rush Limbaugh. Today I switched over to him and he was talking about something useful. If you are on active duty overseas and have not yet recieved your absentee ballot from your state you can download a federal absentee ballot. Just go to http://fvap.gov/pubs/onlinefwab.html and you can see if you are eligible and download the form. You can also prin a postage paid stamp onto your mailing envelope so that there is no charge to you. You folks are on the front line and you deserve your chance to vote.

To other bloggers, if you read this, please either link to this post or write a post of your own on this subject.

Thank you.

Oh boy

2004-10-29T09:53:00.000-04:00

Well, it's happened. I have finally figured out that I pay WAY too much attention to politics, or I've lost my mind. Last night I had a dream. It wasn't a scary dream. It was actually a nice dream, no, you bunch of peverts, there wasn't sex involved. I had a dream that I was dating, are you ready?, Alexandra Pelosi daughter of House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi. I don't know why I had this dream, all I know is, MAKE IT STOP.

Thank you for your time.

Arafat

2004-10-28T10:07:00.000-04:00

RAMALLAH, West Bank — An ailing Yasser Arafat performed Muslim prayers before dawn Thursday and ate a light breakfast, but his condition remained serious and Israeli security officials said he would be moved from his headquarters to a nearby hospital.

However, Israeli security officials said the Palestinians have only requested, for now, to take Arafat to a local hospital.

On Wednesday evening, Arafat's persistent two-week illness took a sudden turn for the worse. He vomited after eating soup, then collapsed and was unconscious for about 10 minutes, a bodyguard said.

This may seem like a rather mean thing to say but, I hope he dies. Arafat is 90% of the problem between Israel and the Palestinians. Until he dies, nothing we or anyone else does will do any good.

The missing explosives

2004-10-28T09:43:00.000-04:00

I haven't said anything on this story for a couple of reasons, I had more important things going on and, I wanted to wait and see just what ould come up. Well, it seems that the Russians may have had a hand in moving those explosives BEFORE we even invaded.

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.

John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."

The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday.

A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA.

The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6.

First, let me just come out and say, John Kerry should never have open his mouth on this subject until more was learned. He spoke over the last few days of the Presidents incompetence in letting these explosives disappear. IF this story is true, than maybe Mr. Kerry should think about his own incompetence in jumping on a story BEFORE we know the WHOLE story.

Second, just what was the Russian government trying to hide? This is a rather interesting question. What was it they were destroying and why?

Lastly, IF this is true, and it seems to be, what else did they hide for Saddam? This is actually the most important of the questions that need answering. IF they took THESE explosives into Syria, could they have moved other, more dangerous weapons?

I think Putin has some answering to do. I don't think he will.

Go BoSox!!

2004-10-28T09:39:00.000-04:00

Congratulations to the Boston Red Sox. While I am not a fan of theirs, 86 years is a damn long time to go without a World Series victory. If you've been living in a void, the BOSox won it in a 3 game sweep last night. Congrats again.

A moment of introspection

2004-10-27T14:12:00.000-04:00

After the funeral this morning I decided to go and sit at the beach. As I sat there watching the waves, I realised how small we all really are. I began to think though. Even though we are all just small specks, we all can have an impact on the world. Some of us decided we wanted a life of service to our country. I know this isn't for everyone but there are ways each one of us can do something. We can try to right a wrong in our own neighborhood. We can do charitable work. Any number of things. Never think that you are just one person and can't make a difference. We ALL make a difference, if we try. We all want a better world but we sit and do nothing to make it better. It's far past time we got out of our little boxes and try and do a work to better the world. That could mean the world of your family, the world of our neighborhood, our city and on and on. Just TRY.

Sorry folks

2004-10-25T13:58:00.000-04:00

For the next couple of days I doubt I will be doing any posting. I found out Saturday morning that a friend that I went through basic with was killed in Iraq. His wife wants me to be a member of the Honor Guard at his funeral. I'll be back Wednesday evening and will try and get caught up with the happenings in the world.

Blog note

2004-10-21T19:20:00.000-04:00

If possible, tomorrow I will be attending a speech given by John Edwards and Saturday I will attend one given by Bush. I don't know yet if it will happen but, if it does, I will give you a general overview of the two speeches and possibly some atendees responses.

John Kerry is an idiot

2004-10-21T11:02:00.000-04:00

Once again John Kerry has rammed he foot deep down his throat.

The campaign complained that Treasury Secretary John Snow and Senate Majority leader Bill Frist also had jabs, despite Bush's advice that the young and healthy did not need to get an injection.

"Once again, the Bush administration proves that it is the 'do as we say, not as we do' White House," the campaign said in a statement issued in Pittsburgh where Kerry was campaigning.

"The very week that (health) secretary (Tommy) Thompson is telling Americans to keep calm, Dick Cheney, John Snow and Bill Frist are getting flu shots."

Let's look at a three of these people. Dick Cheney has had heart problems for over 20 years. Bill Frist is a physician who works in free clinics on the weekends. John Snow is 65.

These people clearly fall within the President's and the CDC's criteria for getting a flu shot. Shut up idiot.

Interesting

2004-10-21T09:50:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post ran a story on John Kerry that is rather interesting.

In Senate debates and media interviews over the years, John F. Kerry has repeatedly returned to three axioms on the use of military force: Win as much allied support as possible before going to war, listen to advice from the professionals, and, most significant, heed the many lessons of the Vietnam War.

Actually, I happen to agree with Senator Kerry on these points. We SHOULD try and win our allies supprt. We SHOULD listen to our professional soldiers and we SHOULD learn lessons from Vietnam. I don't think there is anything to disagee with here.

But, we come to a parting with this,

Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."

So, let me get this right, it's okay to die fighting for the U.N. and not okay to fight and die for ones country? Am I missing something or is that what he is saying? For all his talk about not giving up the sovereignty of this country, his past words and deeds sure do go a long way to doing just that.

A good point is brought up on the issue of coalitions in this article

Conservatives argue that Kerry's emphasis on multilateralism would result in weak coalitions unable to further U.S. interests.

"What it means, practically, is that you always go to the lowest common denominator," said Tom Donnelly, a defense expert at the American Enterprise Institute, "so whatever the least willing member of the coalition is willing to do, that defines the policy."

And Dale brings up another good point over at Q and O.

It’s no accident that his priority list starts with getting allied support in the number one spot. But the key priority in warfare isn’t to get allies, as helpful as they can be. The number one priority is to engage the enemy, to kill his forces, to disrupt his supply lines, and to destroy his ability to fight. If the attempt to gain more allies pre-empts that, then all the allies in the world won’t prevent your defeat.

I agree with Dale, to a point, he used the words " in warfare" and in those circumstances, I agree, when we are already at war, we go in to win. But BEFORE the war starts, we should go to our allies.

Let me make this perfectly clear, I am NOT saying we should ask permission, our security is our business and WE should make the decisions on what needs to be done. What I am saying is, we go to our allies, make it perfectly clear on what we intend to do, and ask if they would like to join us. IF they choose to join us, they go in knowing what we are going to do from start to finish. Then we don't have the problem that the article spoke of.

Early voting

2004-10-19T13:37:00.000-04:00

As you may know, some states have started early voting. While I think it goes against the Costitution to do so, it has become law in some states. And of course, the Democrats whined that it wasn't fair because the people who chose to do so had to vote in their polling precinct. Colorado and Florida had cases go to their respective Supreme Courts, I'll just deal with the Florida situation because it's where I live.

Judges in Florida and Colorado yesterday tightened access to polling places in their states, a blow to Democrats who had argued that legal restrictions there disenfranchised voters -- especially new ones, mostly Democratic-leaning minorities.
The decisions came as residents in both states began early voting. Early voting was instituted in Florida after the 2000 election in hopes of preventing the electoral mayhem of four years ago that held the presidency in abeyance for weeks after Election Day.
"If you vote early now," Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry told a crowd of Democrats here yesterday, "We don't have to stay up late Tuesday night."
In a unanimous ruling in Florida, the seven justices of the state Supreme Court said the votes of residents who cast ballots at the wrong precincts do not have to be counted, upholding a state law that labor unions argued unconstitutionally deprived residents of the right to vote if they did not know their polling place.

Good decision by the state Supremes. The labor unions argument is idiotic. If the people are registered voters, it shows, right on their voters ID card, where they are supposed to vote. If they have any questions, all they have to do is call their counties Supervisor of Elections office, give their address, and they will be told where they are supposed to go. I know this because, I tried it this morning to see how hard it would be to find out, it took me 2 minutes.

Under Florida law, if voters show up at a polling place but officials there have no record that they are registered, they are given provisional ballots. Those ballots are then held until officials determine whether the persons were entitled to vote at that precinct and had not already voted.
If they should have been allowed to vote at that precinct, the ballots count; if not, they are thrown out.

I honestly see nothing wrong with this. It is YOUR responsibility to know where to vote.

This is just another case of crying before the results are known. The law is simple. Your voters ID tells you where to vote, pick up a phone if you are unsure. Simple

Tommy Franks says Kerry is full of it

2004-10-19T13:14:00.000-04:00

Well, not really but, he comes close

President Bush and Senator John Kerry have very different views of the war on terrorism, and those differences ought to be debated in this presidential campaign. But the debate should focus on facts, not distortions of history.

Poor General, you really don't understand politics at all, do you? It's seldom about facts and mostly about distortions.

Now on with the important stuff.

On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we "outsourced" the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality.

First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that "we had him surrounded." We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.

So, we had differing intel on where he was. We were never quite sure where he was, and in all the Taliban and Al-queda fighters that were caught and killed, he was never within reach.

Second, we did not "outsource" military action. We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is where Afghan mujahedeen holed up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union. Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels.

Hmmmmmm, that makes sense, using resourses that actually know the area.

Third, the Afghans weren't left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help - as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

So, Kerry has it completely wrong. Big surprise there.

He goes on to explain that this is a global effort and not a regional one. Go read it, it's worth a few minutes of your time.

Poor Spain

2004-10-19T13:07:00.000-04:00

After the bombings of the trains in March, Spain got rid of the government that would have tried to protect them and put in a bunch of appeasers and this is what happens.

MADRID (Reuters) - Police arrested seven suspected Islamic militants in raids across Spain on Monday to foil a planned bomb attack on the High Court, judicial sources said.

The arrests came seven months after train bombs killed 191 people in Madrid.

The seven suspects, including four Algerians and one Moroccan, were arrested in the southern region of Andalusia, the Mediterranean city of Valencia and Madrid.

Further arrests could be made in the coming hours as part of the operation against a radical and violent Muslim network, the Interior Ministry said in a statement.

Crusading Judge Baltasar Garzon ordered the arrests as part of his inquiry into Islamic militant cells in Spain.

The suspects had been in contact with other individuals in Europe, the United States and Australia, the statement said.

This is what happens when you back down from the bully on the block.

An endorsement for Bush

2004-10-19T13:00:00.000-04:00

President Vladimir Putin on Monday made his strongest endorsement yet for his friend U.S. President George W. Bush, saying "international terrorism" will claim victory over the international antiterrorism coalition if Bush loses.

"I believe that the activities of terrorists in Iraq are not as much aimed at the coalition as at President Bush personally," Putin said. "The goal of international terrorism is to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term."

"If they achieve that goal, then they will of course celebrate it as a victory ... over America and, to a certain extent, over the forces of the international antiterrorism coalition," Putin told reporters in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe, after a regional cooperation conference.

Them some strong words. And I totally agree with them.

Sorry Senator Kerry

2004-10-18T19:16:00.000-04:00

Senator Kerry has been pushing the idea of opening up Canadian pharmacies to the U.S. market. Well, Canada has its answer to him.

More than 30 Canadian internet pharmacies have decided not to accept bulk orders of prescription drugs from US states and municipalities.

The move delivers a potentially serious setback to US politicians most notably Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry campaigning to give Americans easier access to cheap drugs from Canada.

Looks like the Senator needs to come up with a new idea.

Want crack?

2004-10-18T18:47:00.000-04:00

Go to Ohio.

The Defiance County Sheriff’s Office arrested Chad Staton, age 22, of Stratton Ave., Defiance, on a charge of False Registration, in Violation of Section 3599.11 of the Ohio Revised Code, a felony of the fifth degree.

The Sheriff’s Office alleges that Staton filled out over 100 voter registration forms that were fictitious. Staton was to be paid for each registration form that he could get citizens to fill out. However, Staton himself filled out the registrations and returned them to the woman who hired him from Toledo, Ohio. Deputies allege that Staton was paid crack cocaine for the falsified registrations.

Defiance Deputies along with Toledo Police Department detectives conducted a search warrant of a residence on Woodland in Toledo, believed to be the home of the woman who hired Staton to solicit voter registration. Officers confiscated drug paraphernalia along with voter registration forms from the home. The occupant of the home, Georgianne Pitts, age 41, advised law enforcement, along with Ohio B.C.I.&I., that she had been recruited by Thaddeus J. Jackson, II, of Cleveland, to obtain voter registrations. Pitts admitted to paying Staton crack cocaine for the registrations in lieu of money.

A business card provided by Pitts indicated that Jackson is the Assistant NVF Ohio Director of the NAACP National Voter Fund.

The initial complaint received by the Sheriff’s Office came from the Defiance County Board of Elections. The Board had received the 100 plus registration forms from the Cuyahoga Board of Elections that had been submitted to the Cuyahoga Board by the NAACP National Voter Fund.

I'm PISSED

2004-10-17T18:32:00.000-04:00

I'm sure all of you have heard about this. I've been sitting here for a couple of days debating on whether to say something on this or not. Well, I decided it was time I had my say.

The Democrat Party leader had this to say

This disgusting flyer is a dirty trick by Republicans to try and smear Craig Fitzhugh and the Democratic Party in Tennessee. We are shocked and appalled that they would stoop to this level to try and score political points. Craig Fitzhugh is one of the most honorable, upright men in the Tennessee Legislature, and everyone who knows him knows that he is a champion of children and those with disabilities.

I am calling on Republican Party Chairwoman Beth Harwell, Craig Fitzhugh’s colleague in the House of Representatives, to put an end to this. We may not agree on politics, but Beth and I can both agree to the character and principles of Craig Fitzhugh. This is the work of shady Republican operatives, and is remnicent of the Nixon-era Watergate burglaries. This is just the latest in a long history of dirty politics on the part of Republicans.

Craig Fitzhugh has called on the District Attorney to investigate the source of this disgusting flyer. We have every intention of getting to the bottom of this disturbing incident.

According to the Tennessean

It appears there will be no official investigation into the origins of an offensive leaflet that ridicules President Bush and people with disabilities, the Lauderdale County prosecutor said yesterday.

''We have not found anything to support a criminal charge on this brochure,'' said 25th Judicial District Attorney General Elizabeth Rice, whose district includes Ripley and Lauderdale County.

I don't really give a rats ass if thier is evidence to support criminal charges. I want to know who put this flier out. I don't care if it is the Republicans or the Democrats, I want to know. Anyone who would sink to such lows as to use the handicapped as a way of going against a candidate has no business running for office.

I've been a part of the Special Olympics for going on 15 years now. My best friends older brother is severely "retarded" and because of him, I have had the honor of working with this group of people. You will never be so humbled as when watching these people do something that others think they shouldn't be able to do. First or last doesn't matter to them, the oppurtunity and the fun they have is what they enjoy

So, I have this to say to the asshole who put this flier out. Why don't you shut up and go spend some time working with the Special Olympics, maybe you will learn something about what integrity is. I truly hope the truth comes out about this and I hope you get burnt. I hope the people of your state and the rest of the country see what a true slimeball is and that you will NEVER be able to show your face in public because of the scorn and ridicule, that you so richly deserve, that will be heaped upon you. Asshole.

To my readers, if the truth of this story comes out, I want you to flood the campaign office of the candidate responsible. I want this person to know what a true asshole, I'm sorry about the language but, it's the nicest word I can bring myself to say, he is. The links to their offices are below.

Craig Fitzhugh

Dave Dahl

An interesting study

2004-10-16T11:09:00.000-04:00

The Annenberg Public Policy Center released a study recently of how the way the military feel about the direction the country is going.

America’s military service men and women and their families are convinced that the country is going in the right direction, like George W. Bush much more than the civilian population does, support the war in Iraq more strongly and are more positive about the economy, the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey shows.

It also says

On particular traits, the military sample gave Bush an advantage on caring, leadership, sharing their values, knowledge, consistency and optimism. They did consider Bush more stubborn. When asked whom they would trust more to handle the responsibility of commander-in-chief, 69 percent of the military sample preferred Bush to 24 percent for Kerry. The civilian group also preferred Bush, but by only a 50 to 41 percent majority. When asked if the country was “going in the right direction” or was “seriously off on the wrong track,” 64 percent of the military sample said “right track” and 31 percent said “wrong direction.” In the general population a majority said “wrong track”; 55 percent took that view compared to
37 percent who said “right direction.” On all four of these measures, there were almost no differences between regular military
respondents and those who served in the guard and reserves. Family members were less
supportive of Bush than their active duty relatives. Families of guard and reserve members were the least supportive, but even in that last group narrow majorities took his side. There was little difference based on the rank of service members, although commissioned officers and NCOs and their families were slightly more supportive than junior enlisted members and their families.

3-1 support the President over Kerry. This should say something to people out there. These are the men and women putting on the line everyday. They are the ones who see what is going on, they see the truth of the situation and not just what we are told.

There was another interesting finding in this study

A partial explanation for the pro-Bush tilt of the military sample was that they were considerably more Republican than the general population. Forty-three percent called themselves Republican, 19 percent called themselves Democrats and 28 percent said they were independents. While the party identification of respondents in national polls moves around a bit from week to week, this was strikingly more Republican than the general population in the September 27-October 3 sample. There, 28 percent called themselves Republican, 34 percent Democratic and 27 percent
independent.
But this Republican partisanship explained only some but not all of the differences, because on many questions the Republican service members were more pro-Bush than their civilian fellow partisans. Independents in the military sample, when compared to civilians, were also more pro-Bush. For example, 94 percent of Republicans in the military sample approved of Bush’s handling of his job as president, compared to 88 percent of civilian Republicans. Among Democrats, 23 percent of those in the military sample approved, while 20 percent in the general population did.
Among independents, 59 percent of those in the military sample approved while just 48 percent of those in the general population did.
The military sample was split on whether Bush had a clear plan for a solution in Iraq, with 47 percent saying he had a plan and 48 percent saying he lacked a plan. But he rated better with them than with the general population, where 38 percent said he had a plan and 56 percent said he did not. While the military sample was more likely than the general public to credit Bush with having an Iraq plan, it was less likely than the public to believe Kerry had one. Eighteen percent of the
military sample said Kerry had a clear Iraq plan, while 72 percent said he did not have one. In the general public, 34 percent said Kerry had a plan and 54 percent said he did not.

While they still have questions about the hadling of the war, they still overwhelmingly supprt the President.

This is a very intersting study. If you are still undecided, take a look at what the people who are fighting for you have to say.

Table A

% Military Sample General Public 9/27-
10/3

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President?
Approve 67% 49%
Disapprove 29% 49%

Please tell me if your opinion of George W. Bush is favorable or unfavorable.
Favorable 69% 49%
Unfavorable 23% 41%

Please tell me if your opinion of John Kerry is favorable or unfavorable.
Favorable 29% 44%
Unfavorable 54% 37%

Do you feel things in this country are generally going in the right direction, or do you think things are seriously off on the wrong track?
Right direction 64% 37%
Wrong track 31% 55%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the nation’s economy?
Approve 60% 42%
Disapprove 36% 55%

Now I’d like to talk to you about the state of the economy. How would you rate economic conditions in this country today?
Excellent or good 45% 25%
Fair or poor 55% 75%

How would you rate your own personal economic situation today?
excellent or good 61% 48%
Fair or poor 39% 52%

All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not?
Yes, worth it 64% 45%
No, not worth it 32% 51%

Has the war in Iraq reduced the risk of terrorism against the United States or increased the risk of terrorism against the United States?
Reduced the risk of terrorism 47% 34%
Increased the risk of terrorism 42% 53%
Made no difference 9% 8%

Do you think George W. Bush has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don't you think so?
Has a clear plan 47% 38%
Does not have a clear plan 48% 56%

Do you think John Kerry has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don't you think so?
Has a clear plan 18% 34%
Does not have a clear plan 72% 54%

As a result of the George W. Bush presidency, in general, how well regarded is the United States by countries around the world?
Better than before he came into office 19% 16%
Worse than before he came into office 42% 52%
No different than before he came into office 35% 28%

Who do you trust more to handle the responsibilities of commander in chief of the military: George W.Bush or John Kerry?
George W. Bush 69% 50%
John Kerry 24% 41%

Think about this folks, these are some serious numbers in support of Bush. There has to be a reason why. Since these folks know what's going on in the world, I think it would be wise to take the time and read this entire study.

The draft

2004-10-16T10:44:00.000-04:00

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry has renewed charges that the Bush administration plans to reinstate the military draft, beginning what his campaign calls the "closing argument" in his case against re-electing President Bush.
"With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft," Mr. Kerry told reporters and editors of the Des Moines Register, which published his remarks yesterday.
Mr. Kerry told the Register that he can't imagine how the administration can continue "with the current overextension" of troops in Iraq without instituting the draft.

This is funny coming from a man who, when asked if he reinstitute the draft,during the second debate, he said

Now, I'm going to add 40,000 active duty forces to the military, and I'm going to make people feel good about being safe in our military, and not overextended, because I'm going to run a foreign policy that actually does what President Reagan did, President Eisenhower did, and others.

And these 40,000 people are just going to join because you are such a wonderful man? That's two divisions folks. And he says he won't reinstate the draft?

Let's look at something else. From his website.

John Kerry will make a new deal with hundreds of thousands of young people: If you will serve America for two years-working in a school, a health center, or strengthening America's security-we will make sure you can attend four years of college tuition-free.

Um, what is this? It sounds kind of like a draft. Of course, every soldier who serves already gets help when it comes to schooling, the G.I. Bill. So, tell me Senator, just what do you call this other than a draft?

Both candidates have said they don't support the draft, only one, has shown, in the above two examples, that they would actually use the draft.

Doctors office etiquette

2004-10-15T11:11:00.000-04:00

Yes, I know, it's the political season but, I'm taking the day off from it, unless something big happens. I was at the doctors office the other day and found that there are some REALLY rude people there so, I came up with some rules for when you go to the doctors office.

1. Do not tell me your life story and the THOUSANDS of things you think are wrong with you. I am not there to make friends. I am there because I have problems of my own. Light conversation,(weather, local news, gardening), are acceptable forms of conversation. The problems you are having with your hemroids aren't.

2. If you have a cold or the flu, for God's sake, bring a handkerchief. Sneezing into you hands, LOOKING at what you sneezed, and wiping your hands on your pants is not acceptable in polite society,

3. Trying to figure out what is wrong with the other people in the office just isn't done. I don't care what is wrong with them. Thier problems are their own.

4. Yelling because it is taking too long is stupid. You are in a DOCTORs office. Doctors have to actually examine their patients. They also have to sometimes give bad news, this takes time. All your whining does is piss everyone else off in the office, not at the doctor, AT YOU. Moron

5. If you have a bandage on, do NOT open it to look at it. Someone else will see it. They do NOT want to look at your nasty injury.

6. Men, calling the female office workers, nurses and so on, toots, hot stuff, sweetie and such names is a no-no. Also, commenting on their butts, breasts or other body parts, WHEN THEY CAN HEAR YOU, is kind of stupid. Remember, they are the ones who use the needles.

If you can think of any others put them in the comment section.

By the way, all of the above happened while I visited my doctor on Monday.

Debate # 3

2004-10-13T22:48:00.000-04:00

I was planning on live blogging but, changed my mind. I'll give you my notes to each question asked.

will our children and grandchildren ever live in a world as safe and secure as the world in which we grew up?

Okay, this is the most idiotic question asked at any of the debates. Does Schieffer not remember the constant threat of nuclear war over the last 60 years?

Kerry: Bush made it worse, cargo holds aren't x-rayed, container ships aren't inspected. I'll go kill all the terrorists.

Bush: Keep going after the terrorists. I signed Homeland security.

We are talking about protecting ourselves from the unexpected, but the flu season is suddenly upon us. Flu kills thousands of people every year.

Suddenly we find ourselves with a severe shortage of flu vaccine. How did that happen?

Bush: It's Englands fault. If you're young and healthy, don't get a flu shot

Kerry: It's all Bush's fault. It's insurance companies fault.

Why the hell was this even asked?

Senator Kerry, a new question. Let's talk about economic security. You pledged during the last debate that you would not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 a year. But the price of everything is going up, and we all know it. Health care costs, as you all talking about, is skyrocketing, the cost of the war.

My question is, how can you or any president, whoever is elected next time, keep that pledge without running this country deeper into debt and passing on more of the bills that we're running up to our children?

Kerry: Tax those rich bastards. They make too much money.

Bush: Rhetoric, Rhetoric. He's stupid and doesn't have a viable plan.

You know, there are all kind of statistics out there, but I want to bring it down to an individual.

Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?

Bush: We're working hard. It's hard work. Less taxes. Go to school.

Kerry: Surplus is gone. Everything costs more. Wages are down.

He has a plan though. Oh, he didn't share it.

You know, many experts say that a president really doesn't have much control over jobs. For example, if someone invents a machine that does the work of five people, that's progress. That's not the president's fault.

So I ask you, is it fair to blame the administration entirely for this loss of jobs?

Kerry: Job hiring credits, manufacturing credits, fair trade.

Bush: You have more money because of tax rductions. Government should stand side by side with citizens, not tell them what to do.

Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

Bush: I dunno. Everyone should be treated equal. Marriage should be protected.

Kerry: No it isn't a choice, ask Cheney's daughter. Everyone should be treated equal. Protect marriage.

The next question was about the Catholic church saying people shouldn't vote for Kerry because of his stance on abortion and stem cell research. Quite frankly, the Catholic church should stay out of politics.

Health insurance costs have risen over 36 percent over the last four years according to The Washington Post. We're paying more. We're getting less.

I would like to ask you: Who bears responsibility for this? Is it the government? Is it the insurance companies? Is it the lawyers? Is it the doctors? Is it the administration?

Bush:Consumers should be involved in decision making. I like Health saving accounts. Law suits are outta control. Better tech.

Kerry: It's Bush's fault. Get drugs from Canada.

You have, as you have proposed and as the president has commented on tonight, proposed a massive plan to extend health-care coverage to children. You're also talking about the government picking up a big part of the catastrophic bills that people get at the hospital.

And you have said that you can pay for this by rolling back the president's tax cut on the upper 2 percent.

You heard the president say earlier tonight that it's going to cost a whole lot more money than that.

I'd just ask you, where are you going to get the money?

Kerry: We dump a lot of money into medicaid and you don't have to use it if you don't wanna.

Bush: He's full of crap.

We all know that Social Security is running out of money, and it has to be fixed. You have proposed to fix it by letting people put some of the money collected to pay benefits into private savings accounts. But the critics are saying that's going to mean finding $1 trillion over the next 10 years to continue paying benefits as those accounts are being set up.

So where do you get the money? Are you going to have to increase the deficit by that much over 10 years?

Bush: Let people put maoney into private accounts

Kerry:You can't do that, SS will become undefunded.

I'm told that at least 8,000 people cross our borders illegally every day. Some people believe this is a security issue, as you know. Some believe it's an economic issue. Some see it as a human-rights issue.

How do you see it? And what we need to do about it?

Bush: All of the above. More border guards. Temporary work cards.

Kerry: Work cards. Crack down on hiring illegals. Earned legalisation for thos who've been her a long time.

That last one is cute. Yes, let's reward people for breaking the law for years.

There were a few questions that bored me so, I ain't telling you what they said.

Affirmative action: Do you see a need for affirmative action programs, or have we moved far enough along that we no longer need to use race and gender as a factor in school admissions and federal and state contracts and so on?

Are you frigging kidding me? Dumb ass question.

Another question about religion. Who cares?

Senator Kerry, after 9/11 -- and this is a new question for you -- it seemed to me that the country came together as I've never seen it come together since World War II. But some of that seems to have melted away. I think it's fair to say we've become pretty polarized, perhaps because of thet would be your attitude on that?

Kerry:It's all Bush's fault.

Bush: It's all the Democrats fault.

I mean, come on, how else are they going to answer?

Last question was about the women in the candidates lives. What are they going to say? Yeah, I'm married to a bitch.

The questions in this debate were, to be honest, stupid. They were all softballs and you got the standard, blah, blah, blah answers.

Score. Even

Transcript

More can be found here, here and here.

Some good things

2004-10-11T10:13:00.000-04:00

Followers of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr trickled in to police stations in Baghdad's Sadr City district to hand in weapons Monday under a deal with the government that is seen as a key step toward ending weeks of fighting with U.S. and Iraqi forces in the Shiite militant stronghold.

And then there is this

Syrian President Bashar Assad is offering to make peace with Israel and says he is ready to cooperate with the United States in stabilizing Iraq, a former senior State Department official said Wednesday.

These are both great news. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think the violence will stop but, both are moves in the right direction.

Although Sharon has "rebuffed" Syria's overtures thus far, and I can't blame him, at least Syria is making a move.

It does seem that something is working over there. I wonder what it is?

Amazing

2004-10-11T09:44:00.000-04:00

Go read this. I'll wait, it's very long but worth reading.

Done? Good. Did you happen to catch this part of the article, John Kerry said

We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance.

Huh? He can't be serious. Nuisance? Does he mean we should go back to the time when we were attacked with impunity and nothing was done? Does he mean that terrorism should be treated as a law enforcement problem? He is joking, right?

Well, I guess not

As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.

Tell that to the 3000 people who died on 9/11 Senator. Jeebus, are you for real? George Bush is right. Kerry does have a 9/10 mindset. He wants to put terrorism in the same box as illegal gambling. Dear God, I pray this man never becomes my President.

A sad loss

2004-10-11T09:37:00.000-04:00

"Superman" actor Christopher Reeve, who turned personal tragedy into a public crusade and from his wheelchair became the nation's most recognizable spokesman for spinal cord research, has died. He was 52.

Reeve went into cardiac arrest Saturday while at his Pound Ridge home, then fell into a coma and died Sunday at a hospital surrounded by his family, his publicist said. He was 52.

My thoughts and prayers go out to his family.

Demonstrations

2004-10-11T09:23:00.000-04:00

I'm sure you've heard of the demonstrations that happened last week. John Fund has an opinion piece out today that discusses them.

One of the most interesting things in the article was the response from AFL-CIO spokesperson Esmerelda Aguilar, she says,

Republicans are "trying to politicize [the Orlando incident] and exaggerate the event." She maintains that all of the demonstrations "were peaceful protests" designed to call attention to new Bush administration regulations on overtime pay.

"peaceful protests"? Old people being shoved about, a mans wrist being broken, windows being shot out and people breaking in and stealing computer hard drives. Does that sound peaceful to you?

These people are not helping their cause. If anything, they will scare off potential voters. Can anyone say disenfranchisement?

Holy Smoke

2004-10-09T19:38:00.000-04:00

Jonah Goldberg is just a touch upset. If you haven't read it go now.

Jonah nails every argument the liberals can come up with about Iraq.

Go. NOW.

John Howard wins

2004-10-09T10:39:00.000-04:00

SYDNEY, Australia - Prime Minister John Howard scored a convincing victory in Australia's federal election Saturday, winning a historic fourth term in a vote ensuring the staunch U.S. ally keeps its troops in Iraq

Good news for Australia and good news for the Bush administration. Not only is it a win for Howard but it is expected that his party will pick up seats in the Parliment.

With about 77 percent of votes counted, official figures showed Howard's coalition had 52.4 percent to Labor's 47.6 percent, giving the conservatives a clear lead in the race for a majority in parliament's 150-seat lower house, where government is formed.

While to those outside of Australia it seemed that this election hinged on the situation in Iraq, Australians seemed to vote for there wallet.

Australia's economy has grown during every year of Howard's administration has been in office. Unemployment is close to all-time lows and inflation is just 2 percent.

Nothing bad about that at all.

While the situation in Iraq is important and many in Australia disagree with Howard on going in with Bush and Blair, Australians see a booming economy, and a stable country. Good on them.

Debate #2

2004-10-08T23:26:00.000-04:00

Bush did much better. He seemed confident and in control. No verbal blunders that I can recall.

Kerry also did good.

Rating 55% to 45% Bush wins.

Again there really were no surprises. Both hit their talking points. Both attacked at the proper time. The only problem I saw was that Kerry wouldn't stay on topic. Bush get's points for hitting Kerry's Senate record. Kerry get's points for his abortion stance.

A question for each candidate

Senator Kerry, if you aren't going to reinstitute the draft, how do you plan on adding 40,000 new troops?

President Bush, you danced around the issue of you not vetoing one piece of legislation, will you EVER use the veto?

Paul at Wizbang has a unique view of the debate.

Something to think about

2004-10-08T13:57:00.000-04:00

Don't you find it amazing that John Kerry is still touting that he'd go to the U.N. with Iraq? Even when the Duelfer Report shows that 3 of the member countries of the Security Council were on the take with Saddam Hussien?

Why do you think that is?

Pretty simple really, without the U.N., Kerry has no Foriegn Policy.

Just a thought

Why the job numbers don't mean anything

2004-10-08T09:16:00.000-04:00

The job numbers for september are out and they don't look good

U.S. businesses added 96,000 jobs to payrolls in September, the government reported on Friday, a weaker-than-expected total that was expected to sharpen a presidential debate later in the day over the economy's direction.

The Labor Department report, showing the unemployment rate in September held steady at 5.4 percent, will provide fodder for the second debate between President Bush and Democratic Presidential contender Sen. John Kerry , the first one in which the candidates are expected to discuss economic policy

I know I'm going to get booed and hissed at but, there numbers mean nothing. Bare with me for a second. Do you know how these numbers are collected? The government calls companies and asks them how many people they hire and fire or layoff. Good way to go about it. The problem, they only call a certain few, it's a couple of hundred, I can't remember the exact number, very large corporations. I didn't know that until recently.

Now, if the above is true, and you can check the Labor Department website, then the numbers mean nothing. Why? Because most of the businesses in the country are small businesses, I think it's around 21 million, and most people work for small businesses, not large corparations. So, these numbers are meaningless.

Until the government starts asking the companies that acurate hire and fire most of the people in the country, we will never have an actual guage of how well the country is doing.

Saddam and the French

2004-10-07T10:19:00.000-04:00

SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war.

Oh, you mean it wasn't because they disagreed with the language the U.S. used? It wasn't because George Bush is an insufferable pratt? It's all about the oil.

But the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which returned its full report last night, said Saddam was telling the truth when he denied on the eve of war that he had any weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He had not built any since 1992.

The ISG, who confirmed last autumn that they had found no WMD, last night presented detailed findings from interviews with Iraqi officials and documents laying out his plans to bribe foreign businessmen and politicians.

Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible."

Maybe since he BRIBED French, German and Chinese officials, he thought he could get sanctions dropped?

Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.

To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.

No, no, that isn't true, the French are just more moral than we are. At least that's what they say.

Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counsellors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign.

They even assessed the chances for "supporting one of the candidates in an upcoming French presidential election." Chirac is not mentioned by name.

A memo sent to Saddam dated in May last year from his intelligence corps said they met with a "French parliamentarian" who "assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the UN Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq."

Hmmmmmmmm

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, last night said again that he was wrong to suggest Saddam had WMD - but asked the British public to accept that Iraq would probably have acquired such weapons if he had not acted.

However, the ISG uncovered millions of pages of documents and, after interviewing scores of captured Iraqis - including Mr Aziz - the report lays out what it says is were plans to end the United Nations sanctions then start to acquire weapons.

Saddam, it says, even fooled his own military chiefs into believing that he had WMD. This was designed to deter uprising from rebel Iraqis, on whom he deployed mustard gas in 1988, and aggressors in the Middle East.

So, he fooled his own military leaders but, the left thinks we should have known?

Speaking during his trip to Ethiopia last night, the Prime Minister referred to his speech last week where he admitted being "wrong" in the main part of his case for war but right to see a gathering threat in Iraq.

"Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren’t working," he said

Of course they weren't working. When you have three members of the Security Council working to make sure they fail for financial gains.

Asshats

Too much speed?

2004-10-07T09:45:00.000-04:00

Though I haven't talked about it much I have been paying attention to Congress's attempts to reform our intelligence community. I came across this piece in today's Opinion Journal, and have to say, I can't find anything to disagree with.

Our expectations for Congress are always low, and in the case of intelligence reform the Members are once again meeting them. On second thought, that's too generous. The solons are rushing to accomplish the most extensive reform of U.S. intelligence in 50 years in a few pre-election weeks, and they're doing it without a clue about the consequences.

Or, to be precise, without a clue about the substantive impact on intelligence collection and use. About the political consequences they are certain, since the driving force here is electoral self-preservation and media credit. The idea seems to be to pass something--anything--so no one can blame them if there's a terror attack before the election, and then clean up any bureaucratic mess later. It's bad enough that Congress does this to the tax code, but this is national security.

Perfect, isn't it? To protect THEIR backsides, Congress has put aside YOUR safety. Instead of taking the time to really study what the 9/11 report had to say and what, let's say, Henry Kissinger had to say, they want to rush the most important job they have to do, to show that they are doing SOMETHING.

On the topic of a intelligence csar,

Leave aside the wisdom of disrupting our war-fighting institutions in the middle of a not-so-cold terror war. As Henry Kissinger told the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 21, the danger of an all-powerful intelligence czar is that you will get more intelligence conformity, not less. One reason policy makers can get different intelligence perspectives now is because the services are divided into different bureaucracies. If everyone suddenly reports to one master, the bureaucratic incentives are for everyone to want to please him.

The "kiss ass" syndrome. It happens in business all the time. Instead of trying to do what is best for you're store, you do, what you think is best, for the stores in your region, to show the regional VP that you're a team player. The problem, in doing so, your store gets closed down because you aren't catering to the people in your neighborhood. Silly analogy but, it fits.

I've thought the idea of an intelligence csar was bad from the begining and Kissinger shows exactly why it is. Congress, in it's rush to make it SEEM like they are doing something, will, of course, do exactly the opposite of what the experts say. CYA baby.

Read the rest of the article, it's eye opening.

World Government

2004-10-06T14:13:00.000-04:00

I just came across this site.

A "Declaration of the Value of Global Governance"?

If you look through the site, you come across a summary of the Integral World Government.

Integral world government is defined as a global federation of nations united under a constitution of laws guided by the insights and principles of integral philosophy. An integral world government would be instituted to provide democratic oversight of the global economy, protect the world's environment, establish a universal bill of human rights, preserve cultural diversity, and bring an eventual end to war, disease, and poverty. And an integral world government would provide for a system of global justice which would reduce the incentives for terrorism.

These people are the most naive people I have ever seen. Do they at all understand the world that they live in? From reading the site, no, they don't.

Do they really think that the leaders of the world will jsut hand over the reigns of their country for the sake of the "Integral Consciousness"?

And then there is this,

But regardless of whether the evolution of human political organization results from coercion or cooperation, the real benefits of political consolidation result from the implementation of effective laws.

So, they'll use coercion to get you to do as they want? Hmmmm, maybe not as naive as I thought.

One bone to pick

2004-10-06T13:53:00.000-04:00

There is only one thing that was said last night that upset me. It was said by Senator Edwards in his closing statement.

Here's the truth: I have grown up in the bright light of America. But that light is flickering today.

No Senator, it isn't. It's people like you who continually talk about two Americas that will make that light flicker.

We live, and yes, this is the patriot in me speaking, the greatest country on earth. The oppurtunity has been and will always be there for people willing to try. That "bright light on a hill" is still there, you and your running mate may try to block that light with the rhetoric you speak but, you will not put it out.

You spoke of your father,

You know, when I was young and growing up, I remember coming down the steps into the kitchen, early in the morning, and I would see the glow of the television.

And I'd see my father sitting at a table. He wasn't paying bills, and he wasn't doing paperwork from work.

What he was doing was learning math on television.

Now, he didn't have a college education, but he was doing what he could do to get a better job in the mill where he worked. I was proud of him. I'm still proud of him.

You should be proud of him Senator, he worked to make his, and your, life better. The only problem Senator is, you don't tell the whole story. Your father got tired of working in a place where he couldn't advance. What did he do Senator? Did he sit back and live in drudgery? No, he didn't. What he did was go to some friends, raise the money and start his own mill.

THAT is the American story you seem to forget Senator. That is what MY America is all about. I don't know what America you live in Senator but maybe you should start remembering just what your father had to teach you.

Yawn fest

2004-10-05T22:47:00.000-04:00

That was the most uninteresting thing I have ever watched. If you don't know what I'm talking about, thank God you don't. Yes, I know debates aren't supposed to be exciting but, God, that was bad.

Best quote of the night.

Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.

Most telling comments

EDWARDS: Thank you.

The vice president suggests that we have the same number of countries involved now that we had in the first Gulf War. The first Gulf War cost the American people $5 billion.

Um, senator, in the Gulf War, we were only kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, this time it's just a tad different.

And regardless of what the vice president says, we're at $200 billion and counting. Not only that, 90 percent of the coalition casualties, Mr. Vice President, the coalition casualties, are American casualties. Ninety percent of the cost of this effort are being borne by American taxpayers. It is the direct result of the failures of this administration.

IFILL: Mr. Vice President?

CHENEY: Classic example. He won't count the sacrifice and the contribution of Iraqi allies. It's their country. They're in the fight. They're increasingly the ones out there putting their necks on the line to take back their country from the terrorists and the old regime elements that are still left. They're doing a superb job. And for you to demean their sacrifices strikes me as...

EDWARDS: Oh, I'm not...

CHENEY: ... as beyond...

EDWARDS: I'm not demeaning...

CHENEY: It is indeed. You suggested...

EDWARDS: No, sir, I did not...

CHENEY: ... somehow they shouldn't count, because you want to be able to say that the Americans are taking 90 percent of the sacrifice. You cannot succeed in this effort if you're not willing to recognize the enormous contribution the Iraqis are increasingly making to their own future.

I think this was the single most important thing said tonight. Kerry/Edwards does not want to count the Iraqi government as part of the coalition. Sorry for them but, they most certainly are. The Iraqi government, and more importantly, the Iraqi people are making more and more sacrifices. For them to discount, and that is what they were doing, is unbelievable.

The whole debate was nothing more than we've heard all along. I won't go into detail because, it just isn't worth it. If I had to call this one, I'd give it to the Vice President by a small margin.

The transcript can be found here.

UPDATE: More can be found here, here, here, here and here.

Clearly these folks thought more of this debate than I did.

Debate reflux

2004-10-01T09:44:00.000-04:00

Okay, it's morning and we've all had a chance to digest what we heard last night. I'd like to deal with some of the more, shall we say, fanciful, things we heard.

The first is rather funny.

The question was, how would Kerry improve Homland Security. One of the, fanciful, things he said was

That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there. We hadn't done the work that ought to be done.

Um, no, the subway never closed and as a matter of fact, during the RNC's convention, crime in the subway went up.

Subway crime soared in the outer boroughs during the Republican convention when scores of transit police were shifted to Manhattan, police statistics show.

Underground felonies in the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn increased by 37% during the week ending Sept. 5, compared with the same week last year.

At the same time, crime in heavily patrolled Manhattan trains and stations went down by almost the same amount - 35%.

In the same question Senator Kerry also said.

First of all, what kind of mixed message does it send when you have $500 million going over to Iraq to put police officers in the streets of Iraq, and the president is cutting the COPS program in America?

Well, actually Senator, you're wrong.

President Bush's FY 2005 budget request allocates $500 million for Assistance to Firefighter Grants â€“ a 400 percent increase over funding levels when he came into office. Indeed, President Bush has already awarded over $1.1 billion in firefighter grants in the last three years, providing 900 percent more firefighter grant funds than Clinton budgets did. (President's FY 2005 Budget Appendix, pg. 471; United States Fire Administration, Assistance to Firefighters Grant Awards FY 2001, at http://www.usfa.fema.gov/fire-service/grants/afgp/awards/2001awards/01awards.shtm)

Also, for the FY 2005 Bush has allocates $3.561 billion to first responders. That can be found on page 163 of the Presidents budget for 2005. Oh that's an increase of 680% over President Clintons last FY budget for them which was $456 million.

On the Iran issue, Kerry said something that I think blew eveyones mind.

I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing.

This man wants to be President? He would have put nuclear fuel in the hands of religious fanatics? Okay.

Another rather funny thing Kerry said was

Well, let me just say quickly that I've had an extraordinary experience of watching up close and personal that transition in Russia, because I was there right after the transformation. And I was probably one of the first senators, along with Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, a former senator, go down into the KGB underneath Treblinka Square and see reams of files with names in them.

The only thing wrong with that statement is the Treblinka Square was a Nazi Extermination Camp. That's kind of a bad misstep.

That's just a few things I found. I still say the debates were a draw and that if you were undecided before you probably still are. Hopefully the next debate will offer us some better material.

Debate #1

2004-09-30T22:37:00.000-04:00

Well, I'd have to say that it was a draw. Both made good points and both missed oppurtunities. Well, I'd give the President 55% to Kerrys 45%.

Kerry did well in showing some of the weak points of the Bush Administration and Bush did a good job in hitting on Kerry's inconsistancies.

Nothing new came out of this debate which, hurt Kerry more than Bush. He could have taken much more advantage of some of the questions and failed to. Kerry should have used this oppurtunity to push more of his platform, which is what a debate is for, but, he didn't. He used the same pat lines he's used for the last few months. He could have attacked more, which would have done him some good, he didn't.

Both men came off good but I have to give the advantage to Kerry on this, he seemed much more comfortable.

The one thing that really stood out in my mind was on the Kyoto Protocol. Kerry basically blamed Bush for not signing it. Um, Senator Kerry, did you forget that you voted against them yourself?

I have to say, if you were undecided before the debate, you probably still are.

The transcript of the debate can be found here.

Too little, too late

2004-09-30T13:31:00.000-04:00

George Will has an article out today that goes straight to the heart of this election.

If ever an administration, in a reelection season properly dominated by a single issue of the administration's choosing, has earned an electoral rebuke, it is this one. And if ever there has been a challenger who, together with his party, seemed perfectly designed to dissuade the electorate from administering such a rebuke, it is this one.

He nails it. Both these candidates have been inept at putting forth a coherent message to the detrement of themselves. Kerry should have been on the attack, when it comes to Iraq, since day 1. He wasted a perfect chance by only starting this 2 weeks ago.

Every successful candidate has a basic stump speech, the incessant reiteration of which drives the traveling media into insane lip-syncing of it. It is 15 minutes long -- five minutes on the problems, five on the candidate's solutions, five on the contrast with his opponent. It is 33 days before Election Day, and Kerry still has no such speech. So he must make the most of these parallel news conferences that we laughably call "debates."

As I mentioned here, how? How are you going to accomplish anything? I think it's too little too late for Kerry.

Kerry's problem is that he does not have either the ideas or the courage to take the debate where it needs to go: to an uncomfortable confrontation with some comfortable American attitudes. Bush believes, as most Americans always have, in natural rights: He believes a particular kind of civic order -- democracy, representation, the rule of law, a large sphere of privacy and individual autonomy -- is right for the fulfillment of human nature. But Bush also seems to believe -- at least the slapdash non-planning for the Iraq project suggests this belief -- that a natural right implies a natural (meaning a spontaneous and omnipresent) capacity.

Does Kerry differ from Bush concerning this consequential idea? Kerry's differences about Iraq are mostly retrospective (what he would have done differently) or his own kind of wishful thinking ("the world" riding to the rescue).

Exactly! There are many places that Kerry can attack Bush, will he have the courage to do it? I somehow doubt it. He offers us nothing and expects us to rise up and vote for him. Um, okay?

Kerry says he has a profoundly different opinion on how the War on Teror should go. He has yet to tell us, ya know, the people who vote, how he differs.

Tonight he gets that oppurtunity. Will it make a difference? I don't know but, I doubt it. Too little, too late.

Kerry to clarify position

2004-09-30T11:58:00.000-04:00

BAL HARBOUR, Fla. - Calling President Bush "a very clever debater," Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry says their first appearance together Thursday night will give him the opportunity to be clear with people about where he stands on issues.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, hasn't Kerry been campaigning for at least a year? Why does he need the debates to clarify where he stands?

Asked why polls show Bush gaining support among women voters, Kerry said: "George Bush is scaring America. He's talking terror every day, and people see terrible images of what's happening in the world, and they're real."

This is the problem in a nut shell. Kerry thinks Bush is scaring people what he doesn't seem to grasp is, the world is scaring people. I honestly don't think this man understands what is going on in the world.

Kerry went on to say

"I know how to fight a more effective war on terror, and by the end of this campaign America will make that decision and that's why I'm going to win."

I've asked this on numerous occasions, HOW? You say you can do this and that and I still see nowhere where you give me any detail.

I don't know, it seems a little too late to figure out where you stand. Maybe this will work for him but, I doubt it. We'll se tonight just what he has to say.

CBS does it again

2004-09-30T11:38:00.000-04:00

Bill at INDC Journal has interviewd a few CBS employees over the coverage of the draft issue. GO read it, it's very interesting. The thing that interested me most were Bill's conclusions,

1. The story was aired almost immediately following recent Kerry-Edwards talking points that were expressly designed to elicit unrealistic fear of a draft reinstatement for political purposes.

2. The story failed to disclose Ms. Cocco's political activism.

3. Even if the veracity of the e-mails wasn't central to the narrative of the segment, it was surely egregiously irresponsible to report their existence without disclosing their fundamental inaccuracy.

4. The use of inaccurate supporting material and the selective use of highly relevant facts mirrored many of the exact flaws that crippled the recent 60 Minutes story about George Bush's National Guard service.

It seems that the mindset of CBS is, the whole story doesn't matter, it's just the part we want on, that is.

Why is this?

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that CBS wants Bush gone. I'm sorry but, if you can give me a better explanation I'll gladly look it over and agree if it makes sense. I just don't see another explanation

African-Americans "afraid to vote

2004-09-30T11:15:00.000-04:00

An African-American civil rights spokeswoman said on Wednesday that the new computerized voting machines "terrify" her, and that blacks are "afraid of machines like that."

Joanne Bland, the director and co-founder of the National Voting Rights Museum and Institute in Selma, Ala., told CNSNews.com on Wednesday that the new computerized voting machines are going to intimidate black voters in Florida and elsewhere and surpress their vote in the November presidential election because many blacks are not "technologically savvy."

Tell me something please, why isn' the African-American community up in arms over a statement like this? Bland basically said the blacks are too stupid to learn how to use a machine.

"The computers really terrify me. The electronic voting -- the new machines -- I think it will turn off a segment in my community, particularly the elderly. We are not as technically savvy, and we are afraid of machines like that, and they (African-Americans) probably won't go [to the polls] and they probably won't ask for assistance, said Bland, who spent the last week in Florida.

"It is going to turn them off totally and I want that to stop," said Bland, who also serves as a spokeswoman for the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Public Accuracy, which predicts that "several million voters" may be "deprived of voting rights again" in 2004.

Ahhh, it starts already. Charges of disenfranchisement. Most communities using these new computer voting systems are having clinics for their community to learn how to use the machines. There are also poll workers who are more than willing to help ANY voter with the machines. Now tell me, how is it anyones but the person who decides not to vote faul,t that they don't vote?

Voting is a duty of every American so get off of your lazy ass and do it. Stop making excuses of why you can't. If YOU decide not to vote because a machine scares you, good, you're an idiot and don't deserve to vote and have no say so in American politics.

I am utterly tired of listening to people bitch about the state of this country when they won't take the time to be a part of the system to change it. If you stay at home on November 2, shut up, I don't want to listen to you. YOU decided it wasn't worth it, YOU decided a machine was too "scary", YOU decided it was easier to whine than to make a change. SHUT UP.

Your drivers license picture is online

2004-09-29T19:47:00.000-04:00

I was bored and was searching through the web and came across a website. You put your name city and state in and it brings up you dirvers license. Go here and check it out.

Gotcha!!!! Thought is was funny.

Uninformed Americans

2004-09-29T18:02:00.000-04:00

If matching presidential candidates to their positions on basic issues were like a "Jeopardy!" category, most Americans wouldn't earn a single dollar.

More than half of those polled by the National Annenberg Election Survey didn't know President Bush alone favors allowing private investments of some Social Security money. Nearly as many didn't know that only Democratic candidate John Kerry proposes getting rid of tax breaks for the overseas profits of U.S. companies.

Importing drugs from Canada? That's a Kerry issue, but nearly half either didn't know or thought Bush also supported changing federal law to allow for drug imports from Canada.

Making abortions more difficult to obtain? Nearly one-third of those surveyed didn't know Bush alone supports more restrictions on abortion.

Eliminating the tax on estates? Two-thirds didn't know that's a Bush proposal.

After two years of presidential campaigning and hundreds of millions of dollars in political ads, many voters remained clueless about those and other policies, according to the survey. Annenberg analyst Kate Kenski blamed the candidates for not stressing their points of view and the news media for focusing on character assessments and the race itself.

Excuse me but, bullshit. If people don't know where the candidates stand, it's because they are too lazy to get off their butts and find out. There is absolutely no reason for not knowing where a candidate stands, well, with Kerry, he stands all over but, you can still get a feeling on where he stands.

There are websites, libraries have free internet access, there are pamphlets both candidates have put out and on and on. If you can't figure something as easy as where a candidate stands, I hope to God you don't vote because you are an idiot.

One of my pet peeves

2004-09-29T11:45:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to hear a case on eminent domain. While I understand the need for cities to expand their tax base, I will never agree that using eminent domain is the way to go.

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to consider reining in the power of cities to seize private homes to make way for business development.

Cities and states, armed with constitutional power to take private property for "public use," traditionally have used it to build roads, schools and airports.

But in recent years, many cities began using their land-use authority to condemn older homes to clear the way for shopping malls, hotels, apartments and business complexes. Officials say these private developments bring public benefits, including jobs and more tax revenue.

So, cities are stealing the land of some, to give to others. They use the excuse that it will create more jobs. So, theft is okay as long as it helps everyone, except the person you are stealing from? I don't know about that.

The justices voted to hear an appeal brought on behalf of several families in a working-class neighborhood of New London, Conn. Taking homes for private developments, they argue, is not what the Constitution means by "public use."

The libertarian Institute for Justice, which represents the homeowners, is urging the Supreme Court to call a halt to what it sees as a dangerous trend.

"If jobs and taxes can be a justification for taking someone's home or business, then no property in America is safe," said Dana Berliner, a lawyer for the group. "Anyone's home can create more jobs if it is replaced by a business, and any small business can generate greater taxes if replaced by a bigger one."

Ask Wal-Mart. They have a habit of doing this to people. And I want you to really listen to what Berliner said, NO PROPERTY IS IN AMERICA IS SAFE.

You get a job, get married, have kids, and buy a home. All of a sudden the city NEEDS your property to open a new chain store. In what way does this benefit you? You say no, you don't want to sell, it's your home. They decide your home needs to go and, they seize it, BY FORCE, because it would benefit society. UM, aren't you a member of society?

The Constitution says people whose property is taken are entitled to "just compensation." But the New London homeowners say the government is not entitled to take private property in the first place unless it is needed for a "public use." The recent trend "raises the specter that eminent domain authority is now being used to favor purely private interests," their lawyers said.

In their response, city officials said New London had been economically depressed since the closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in 1996.

"New London was a city desperate for economic rejuvenation," they said. When Pfizer, a pharmaceutical company, opened a research center there in 1998, the city announced plans for a 90-acre economic development in the nearby Fort Trumbull section. It envisioned a waterfront hotel and conference center, a retail complex and a new office park.

So, they kick 12 families out of their homes to build stores and a hotel. How is this for public use? The city will turn around and sell this property to PRIVATE ENTERPRISES. That is not public use. It's a way for the city to line it's coffers and it is wrong.

Are you unsure?

2004-09-29T11:26:00.000-04:00

Are you unsure of who to vote for? Can't make up your mind where the candidates stand? John Kerry has the answer. Here is the site for you. Turn your volumn up.

The JOY of democracy

2004-09-28T11:05:00.000-04:00

SHIBERGHAN, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of people gathered in a northern Afghan town on Tuesday to hear General Abdul Rashid Dostum launch his bid for the presidency, as a slow election campaign began to gather pace.

Crammed into a sports stadium in Shiberghan, Dostum's bastion, the crowd was largely from the minority ethnic Uzbek clan to which the former Communist commander belongs.

"Afghanistan is going through one of its difficult stages," the burly, mustachioed candidate told the crowd, 12 days ahead of Afghanistan's first direct presidential vote.

"You need to know who you want to vote for," he added, as thousands of supporters clapped in bright morning sunshine.

I won't comment on the candidate but man, this is good news. To those who say democracy can't take root in that part of the world, tell it to these people. They want and hunger for it. Maybe if you actually took the time to LISTEN to what these folks are saying instead of running your mouths about what they can't do, it would make it easier.

Duct Tape?

2004-09-28T10:56:00.000-04:00

DUNLAP, Ind. - The father of a seventh-grader claims an assistant principal came up with a bizarre way to keep his son's pants from sagging in school: duct tape.

Scott Allison told the Concord School Board earlier this month that his 12-year-old son, Spencer, was ordered by a teacher to lift his shirt after she noticed the boy's underwear was showing above his pants, a violation of Concord Junior High School's dress code.

She sent him to Assistant Principal Patricia Walters, who told Spencer to pull up his pants and tuck in his shirt, Allison said.

"She then proceeded to duct tape his waist, three times around the waist," said Allison. "Then she sent him back to class, in front of his peers."

He said he worried his son would be mocked by his classmates at the school in the town about 20 miles east of South Bend.

"This outrages me and shocks me," Allison said.

Oh, cry me a frigging river. Maybe if you bought clothing that actually fit your child, this wouldn't have happened. No one wants to look at your kids ass. Buy him a belt and shut the hell up.

Voters rolls are up

2004-09-28T10:50:00.000-04:00

New voters are flooding local election offices with paperwork, registering in significantly higher numbers than four years ago as attention to the presidential election runs high and an array of activist groups recruit would-be voters who could prove critical come Nov. 2.

Cleveland has seen nearly twice as many new voters register so far as compared with 2000; Philadelphia is having its biggest boom in new voters in 20 years; and counties are bringing in temporary workers and employees from other agencies to help process all the new registration forms.

This is a great thing. The more people who vote, the better it is to know how the country stands as a whole.

Let's just hope there isn't too much of this going on.

Jimmy Carter

2004-09-28T10:00:00.000-04:00

In the Washington Post yesterday Jimmy Carter said,

It was obvious that in 2000 these basic standards were not met in Florida, and there are disturbing signs that once again, as we prepare for a presidential election, some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms.

Tell me Mr. Carter, how would you know this? I mean, you never bothered speaking to anyone in the Secretary of States office.

Alia Faraj, a spokesman for the Florida secretary of state, who oversees elections in the state, said Mr. Carter's column appeared to be based on out-of-date information about the state's progress in reforming its voting system.
"Former President Carter has been a statesman," Miss Faraj said, "but in this case, he did not reach out to the secretary of state to have a conversation with her and doesn't recognize all the reforms that we do have in place and have had in place since the 2000 election."

So, he didn't talk to the person or anyone in the department that runs elections in Florida and he ignored reforms that are already in place.

Let's see what else Mr.Carter said.

Four years ago, the top election official, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee. The same strong bias has become evident in her successor, Glenda Hood, who was a highly partisan elector for George W. Bush in 2000. Several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities in 2000, and a fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons.

Now that seems bad but, what do those who run the elections have to say?

Miss Faraj said the state began a process to purge felons from the voter rolls, but the process was flawed and eventually abandoned.

Ah, so, they came up with a process to purge felons from the voters roll found out it was flawed and stopped using that process. Did Mr. Carter mention this in his article? No, he didn't.

He also said

The top election official has also played a leading role in qualifying Ralph Nader as a candidate, knowing that two-thirds of his votes in the previous election came at the expense of Al Gore. She ordered Nader's name be included on absentee ballots even before the state Supreme Court ruled on the controversial issue.

Yep, he's right. But let's look at it like a smart person would. Glenda Hood has a job to do. Her job is to make sure elections go off. A third party wanted their candidate on the ballot. There were questions as to whether that party had any legal standing in the state of Florida. She, doing her job, put said candidate on the candidate roll until it was resolved by the Florida Supreme Court. What did they say, put him on. Now, if Mr. Carter really has a problem with Nader being on the ballots, why didn't he criticise the FSC? Oh, wait, maybe it's because the FSC is a bastion of Democrats.
HE then says

It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation.

He is absolutely right but this is the same man who was a monitor in Venezuela. Chavez was losing 58% to 41%. The exit polling showed the same percentage. What happens? Chavez wins with 58% of the vote. What did Carter have to say? He said that the polling data was "erroneous information" and that the election was conducted fairly. Hmmmmm, okay.

Now, let's have an overview. He doesn't speak to those in charge of the elections. He makes inaccurate assertions about those same people. And he turned his head while someone the people didn't want as their leader became their leader again, through fraudelent means.

Tell me, I should take what this man says serious, why?

Here we go again.

2004-09-25T11:34:00.000-04:00

We have yet another hurricane coming at us. I'm outta here. Be good and be safe.

Blog note

2004-09-24T04:56:00.000-04:00

I'm leaving in a few moments to take my father to have a couple of procedures done at the hospital. While not serious, anything with done to my father is life threatening. Please keep him in your thoughts this morning. I'll let you know how things went when I return later today. Thank you.

UPDATE: Everything went fine. Dad is good and at home. Two half hour procedures turned into 6 and a half hour procedures. Fun Fun.

Tax breaks will remain

2004-09-24T04:50:00.000-04:00

Legislation extending three popular middle-class tax cuts for the rest of the decade sailed through Congress by lopsided votes in both the House and Senate, giving President Bush a major legislative victory on his signature economic issue, tax relief.

Many Democrats complained during debate Thursday that the majority Republicans who control Congress should have offset the lost revenue to keep the nation's soaring deficits from getting worse.

But in the end large numbers of Democrats supported the package, something that Republican tax-cut proponents had counted on occurring with a congressional election only 40 days away.

The $145.9 billion tax cut package was approved in the House by a 339-65 vote, with 125 Democrats joining 213 Republicans and one independent in voting for the proposal. In the Senate, the measure passed by a 92-3 vote.

Good news!! I do, however, agree with the democrats on one issue. Savings by the government need to offset this. We can not depend on the President to say no to any proposal so, it is up to Congress to find ways to cut spending.

It's quite simple really. If you only make so much a year, if you are smart, you don't spend morre than you have so, you cut the fat out. Congress needs to do the same thing.

Terri Schiavo

2004-09-24T04:30:00.000-04:00

I'll probably catch some heat for my beliefs on this.

Dealing a defeat to Gov. Jeb Bush, the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a law that was rushed through the Legislature last fall to keep a severely brain-damaged woman hooked to a feeding tube.

The seven-member court unanimously said Bush and lawmakers improperly tried to pull an end run around the court system in the case of Terri Schiavo, who has been at the center of a long and bitter right-to-die dispute that pits her husband against his in-laws.

As early as 2000, lower courts had ruled that Michael Schiavo could have his wife's feeding tube removed. But last October, the Legislature passed "Terri's Law" to override the courts, and Bush quickly invoked it to order the tube reinserted, six days after it had been withdrawn.

It's not often I will agree with the Florida Supreme Court but, in this case, I do."Terri's law", while noble, was a bad idea. It can be used to override the wishes of the person it was meant to "protect". In this specific case, the husband, Michael, says it was his wifes wish not to be kept alive by extra human efforts. The parents say she never expressed thoise wishes to them.

While I understand the parents not wanting to lose their child, they lost her 14 years ago. They can not bring her back, no matter how much they may want to. They say she never expressed these wishes to them. I don't find this strange at all. She was married, married couples usually discuss things with each other that they wouldn't discuss with others, for the simple reason that, they are married. My parents do not know what my wishes are if something like this were to happen to me. Another person does and has written instructions from me on it. Why don't my parents know? Think about this a moment. What parent wants to listen to their child talk about their, basically, dying? That may sound too simple but, it is true. Try talking to your parents about your wishes if something like this were to happen to you. They will either try and change the subject, or say it will never happen. It is a parents nature.

While I truly do feel sorry for the parents, it's time to let this woman rest.

The U.N.

2004-09-23T13:08:00.000-04:00

Victor Davis Hanson has a good article on the U.N. I just want to touch on a small part of it. Why the silence at the Presidents speech?

First, the U.N. is not the idealistic postwar organization of our collective Unicef and Unesco nostalgia, the old perpetual force for good that we once associated with hunger relief and peacekeeping. Its membership is instead rife with tyrannies, theocracies and Stalinist regimes. Many of them, like Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Vietnam and Zimbabwe, have served on the U.N.'s 53-member Commission on Human Rights. The Libyan lunocracy--infamous for its dirty war with Chad and cash bounties to mass murderers--chaired the 2003 session. For Mr. Bush to talk to such folk about the need to spread liberty means removing from power, or indeed jailing, many of the oppressors sitting in his audience.

This goes right to the heart of the matter. How can you talk about liberty when a good amount of the people you are talking to, do not want it? More than half of the population of the world lives under tyranical regimes and yet, we let the leaders of those countries head the Commision on Human Rights and make votes about liberty in the U.N. Does this make any sense whatsoever?

Second, urging democratic reforms in Palestine, as Mr. Bush also outlined, is antithetical to the very stuff of the U.N., an embarrassing reminder that nearly half of its resolutions in the past half-century have been aimed at punishing tiny democratic Israel at the behest of its larger,more populous--and dictatorial--Arab neighbors. The contemporary U.N., then, has become not only hypocritical, but also a bully that hectors Israel about the West Bank while it gives a pass to a nuclear, billion-person China after swallowing Tibet; wants nothing to do with the two present dangers to world peace, a nuclear North Korea and soon to follow theocratic Iran; and idles while thousands die in the Sudan.

Embarrassing? To the U.N.? I'd have to say no to this. They think most of the woes in the Middle East are the fault of one tiny country. Here's a thought. Since Israel is the only democracy in the area and all the other countries around it are controlled by nut jobs, who want to destroy them, don't you think it's the other countries fault that the region is so unbalanced? We're talking about a country that is at it's widest point maybe 70 miles wide and 240 miles long. It's all their fault?

And, do we really need to take an orginisation serious when they will condemn Israel and ignore Rwanda and Sudan?

Third, the present secretary-general, Kofi Annan, is himself a symbol of all that is wrong with the U.N. A multibillion dollar oil-for-food fraud, replete with kickbacks (perhaps involving a company that his own son worked for), grew unchecked on his watch, as a sordid array of Baathist killers, international hustlers and even terrorists milked the national petroleum treasure of Iraq while its own people went hungry. In response, Mr. Annan stonewalls, counting on exemption from the New York press on grounds of his unimpeachable liberal credentials. Meanwhile, he prefers to denigrate the toppling of Saddam Hussein as "illegal," but neither advocates reinstitution of a "legal" Saddam nor offers any concrete help to Iraqis crafting consensual society. Like the U.N. membership itself, he enjoys the freedom, affluence and security of a New York, but never stops to ask why that is so or how it might be extended to others less fortunate.

Victor is all over it today, isn't he? What has the U.N. done in regards to Iraq? Well, for 12 years they ignored it. All they managed to do was make 17 resolutions, that they promply ignored. When someone finally decides to do something, it's called illegal, although if Mr. Annan took the time to read resolution 1441, he would know that the invasion of Iraq was not only legal, but that it was called for by Hussiens own actions.

We then find out that member states not only ignored those resolutions but were making money OFF THE BACKS OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE. What's done about that? Nothing, at first, Annan doesn't want his poor boy to be tried, now does he? Then, we get an investigation that can do nothing because it isn't given the proper tools to do anything.

You may think I'm going to call for the U.S. to leave the U.N. You'd be wrong. I think one of two things need to happen. Either the U.N. starts to take it's role seriously, by getting rid of member states who do not believe in freedom and actually doing what it says it will do. Or, just call itself a debate society, that's what it is now, and be done with it.

If, and only if, one those things aren't done, the U.S. should pull out of it and maybe broaden the scope of the NATO alliance or form a new style of the U.N. The old way is not working.

Oh, and I think the U.N. should go to Geneva.

Blog note

2004-09-22T11:04:00.000-04:00

it gets better and better. Yesterday, I didn't have electric for part of the day, the other part of the day I didn't have cable hence, no blogging. When I finally got both working at the same time, I couldn't sign in to blogger. Now, gotta take dad to the docs. More tonight.

Go, Read

2004-09-20T18:38:00.000-04:00

Now!
The names at the top of the article should be familiar to you, if not. Go here and here.
I'll even give you a teaser.

WHEN John Kerry "reported for duty" at the Democratic Na tional Convention and pres ented himself as qualified to lead by virtue of his service in Vietnam, he opened up for public scrutiny his actions in Vietnam and, later, as an antiwar activist. Kerry's critics, including the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, promptly responded with a critique of Kerry's record. The charges and counter-charges have left many confused, especially as some issues seem to turn on obscure, if not arcane, facts.

What follows is a primer on the main issues, the evidence and open questions.

That's all I'll give you, go read the rest.

Just to make you laugh

2004-09-20T13:33:00.000-04:00

A Spanish man tried to have his wife charged with domestic abuse because she refused to have sex with him on five consecutive days, Spanish newspaper El Sur reported on Friday.

The middle-aged man from Seville -- the city of Don Juan and Carmen -- said her refusals amounted to "degrading treatment" and domestic abuse, a term used more often to describe wife-battering.

The judge shelved the case, Andalusia-based El Sur reported.

I'll bet a lot of husbands will want to see the eventual verdict on this.

Dan Rather makes a statement

2004-09-20T13:13:00.000-04:00

Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a "60 Minutes Wednesday" story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question-and their source-vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

I don't buy it. They did not make a mistake in judgment, they jumped on a story without completely checking it out. And why did more extensive interviews need to be done? Shouldn't they have been done to begin with? Isn't that what jouranlism is all about? Talk about CYA. the last sentence made me laugh.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

Yeah, right, they are scared to death that their sponsors are going to jump ship. With the ratings they recieved last week, I can't blame them.

CBS went on to say

'60 Minutes Wednesday' had full confidence in the original report or it would not have aired. However, in the wake of serious and disturbing questions that came up after the broadcast, CBS News has done extensive additional reporting in an effort to confirm the documents’ authenticity.

Shouldn't that investigation have taken place BEFORE you went on air?

Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret. Nothing is more important to us than our credibility and keeping faith with the millions of people who count on us for fair, accurate, reliable, and independent reporting. We will continue to work tirelessly to be worthy of that trust.”

Well, you lost mine. It is things like this that make people believe that there is a bias in the media. You jumped on a story without vetting it and expect us to think there wasn't an agenda behind it? Come on, we aren't stupid here.

Bill Burkett, in a weekend interview with CBS News Anchor and Correspondent Dan Rather, has acknowledged that he provided the now-disputed documents used in the Sept. 8 "60 Minutes Wednesday" report on President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard.

Burkett, a retired National Guard lieutenant colonel, also admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents’ origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source.

Burkett originally said he obtained the documents from another former Guardsman. Now he says he got them from a different source whose connection to the documents and identity CBS News has been unable to verify to this point. Burkett’s interview will be featured in a full report on tonight’s CBS Evening News with Dan Rather

Don't buy this either. Yes, Burkett has things against Bush but, I think he called CBS and said, I got the goods, and CBS bought it. There was no misleading, there was a rush to put on a story that CBS knew would hurt Bush without checking it out. That's it, plain and simple.

CBS is playing the ultimate CYA and people will believe them. I don't. You may, it's your choice but, CBS has proven they are not trustworthy.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a slogan

2004-09-20T11:14:00.000-04:00

After months of struggling to find a theme to capture the essence of his candidacy, Sen. John F. Kerry has settled on one: The election, he says, boils down to a decision between four more years of "wrong choices" or a "new direction."

Seeing that Kerry changes direction every 20 minutes, which way is he going to go?

To some Democrats unnerved by President Bush's recent surge in the polls, Kerry's adoption of a clearly defined theme to draw contrasts with the Republican incumbent offers a measure of hope.

It only took him until Labor day to come up with a theme. how long do you think it will take before he actually defines his agenda?

The question for Kerry is whether this new approach to framing the election comes too late to matter.

"He's shifting the game plan in the fourth quarter here," said Joe Tuman, a San Francisco State University political communications professor. "It's coming very late, and that doesn't speak well for how they're managing their campaign."

It also doesn't speak well for how he will run the country.

One of the most visible results is the change in rhetoric. Earlier attempts by the Massachusetts senator at clarifying his message — among his slogans were "Let America Be America Again" and "Stronger at Home, Respected in the World" — had little effect, analysts say.

"You had a lot of mush," said Tim Hibbitts, an independent Oregon pollster.

With the election a little more than six weeks away and debates looming as the last predictable milestone of the race, he added, "they don't have a lot more time to try out new themes."

Actually, they're out of time.

We have a change in slogans, a change in theme, a change in operatives and a a change of mind, every 20 minutes. Kerry needs to get it together quickly and hope it isn't too late.

Kofi Annan

2004-09-20T11:08:00.000-04:00

This says it all. No need for commentary.

Last we checked, U.N. chief Kofi Annan was promising to help the U.S. rebuild Iraq. But pressed by a BBC interviewer last week, the Secretary-General stated flat out that the liberation of Iraq was "illegal" and a violation of the U.N. Charter. He had already opined that "there should have been a second resolution" authorizing the invasion, and that "I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time."

These thoughts could certainly stand a little parsing. Mr. Annan seems to be saying that the only way force can be used legitimately in the modern world is with the unanimous permission of the U.N. Security Council. So perhaps we should remind him of some recent history.

For example, there was that splendidly legitimate U.N. operation in Bosnia, where its blue-helmeted peacekeepers watched with indifference as Serbian soldiers rounded up for slaughter thousands of Muslim men in the so-called U.N. "safe haven" of Srebrenica. Or Rwanda in 1994, where Mr. Annan--then head of the U.N. peacekeeping office--shrugged off panicked warning calls from the U.N. commander on the ground, thereby allowing the slaughter of 800,000.

And if liberating Iraq was wrong, Mr. Annan must also believe it was wrong for NATO to have intervened in Kosovo, where Russia once again prevented Security Council unanimity. How about the recent French intervention in the Ivory Coast, which the Security Council got around to blessing only after it was a fait accompli? And notwithstanding the latest U.N. promises, what if Gallic and Chinese oil interests block international action in Sudan, allowing the continued attacks on Darfurians? It would appear, on this evidence, that Security Council unanimity isn't exactly the gold standard of legitimacy, much less of morality.

And what's this business about a "second" Iraq resolution? U.N. Resolution 1441 was the 17th resolution demanding that Saddam verifiably disarm, behave with some modicum of respect for the rights of his own citizens, and otherwise comply with conditions of the ceasefire following the end of the 1991 Gulf War. From firing at American planes patrolling the no-fly zones, to widespread sanctions busting, to a banned long-range missile program, the Iraqi dictator was in undeniable breach in March 2003 of the terms under which his regime was spared back in 1991. In other words, there was never any legal need for even Resolution 1441.

It only took them 2 weeks

2004-09-20T10:51:00.000-04:00

This falls in the category of, well, DUH.

After days of expressing confidence about the documents used in a "60 Minutes'' report that raised new questions about President Bush's National Guard service, CBS News officials have grave doubts about the authenticity of the material, network officials said last night.

The officials, who asked not to be identified, said CBS News would most likely make an announcement as early as today that it had been deceived about the documents' origins. CBS News has already begun intensive reporting on where they came from, and people at the network said it was now possible that officials would open an internal inquiry into how it moved forward with the report. Officials say they are now beginning to believe the report was too flawed to have gone on the air.

In other words, after 2 weeks of being brow beaten, made fun of, and proven wrong, over and over again, we think it's time to say what everyone knew already.

They say they now believe the documents were too flawed to go forward with. Where was the due diligence we expect from the news media? I'm not one who believes that there is a liberal bias in the media, I think everyone is biased, but, this really has me wondering about CBS.

UPDATE:
Take a look at this. It shows copies of the CBS memos and actual memos out of Killians Files. Very big difference.

Charter Schools are working

2004-09-20T10:45:00.000-04:00

Expect a big lash back from the teachers unions on this one.

The vast majority of children attending the nation's 1,146 charter schools with at least 10 students are more proficient in reading and math than their nearest regular public school with a similar racial composition, a Harvard University study found.
"In states where charter schools are well-established, charter school as students' advantage in proficiency tends to be greater," economics researcher Caroline M. Hoxby concluded.
The study, just completed, compared test scores of 46,000 charter school students in 20 states and the District — almost every student attending the special schools with fewer restrictions than traditional public schools.

Interesting. Read the rest here.

He listened to me

2004-09-20T10:14:00.000-04:00

It seems that John Kerry has taken some of my advice. He's now going to start directing more attention to Iraq. From Newsweek.

Sitting in his black-leather swivel chair, with his trusty world atlas beside him, John Kerry huddled with his aides in the executive-style cabin at the front of his campaign jet. Kerry was preparing to accuse the president of failing to tell the truth about "the mess in Iraq"—part of an aggressive fall strategy to challenge George W. Bush on the war. But before he spoke to the National Guard convention in Las Vegas, Kerry sought the advice of yet another sounding board on his plane: former four-star general Wes Clark. Kerry knew from Vietnam what it felt like to face the bullets without the support of the folks back home. So how, one of his senior staff wanted to know, would Kerry's attacks go down now with the troops in Iraq? "Look, the soldiers are debating it themselves on the ground," Clark reassured Kerry's inner circle. "They're coming back and they're incredibly critical. You have to call it like it is."

After many months of trying to find some topic to beat Bush on, he chooses Iraq. Not a bad move, as, there are some problems there. The worry for them is, how will the people react to attacks about Iraq with soldies on the ground.

Smart thinking, attacking at this point can actually do more bad than good for Kerry. A lot of people do not want to hear such attacks while we have people there. Clark has a point though, many of the soldiers coming back are questioning our being there. What he fails to take into consideration is, in every war, soldiers question whether we should be there or not. This isn't anything new.

After the summer's phony war over Vietnam medals and memos, the 2004 election has landed in the real-world battleground of Iraq. For Camp Kerry, it's a liberating feeling to engage in straight talk about Iraq, shaking off debate about the candidate's Senate votes.

Did you read that? Let me put that down again.

shaking off debate about the candidate's Senate votes.

Lord knows we don't want to talk about where a candidate has stood on issues over the last 20 years. They have to be kidding, right? If this is the attitude thay plan to take, they can pack their bags and go home, they will get destroyed.

"I'm thrilled," said one of Kerry's longtime loyalists, "because it's the John Kerry I know and love." Kerry's gambit: to revive his campaign—trailing by anywhere between one and 13 points in new polls—by questioning Bush's credibility on the conflict, his management of postwar Iraq and the no-bid contracts won by his veep's old firm, Halliburton. Kerry is betting that the hard truths of Iraq will undercut Bush's soft-focus picture of a liberated nation, and ultimately the president's image as a war leader.

While questioning some of the problems faced in Iraq may be a good thing, going after Bush as a war leader is going to back fire on them. People will look at that as an attack on the troops, even though it isn't meant as one.

The reaction from Camp Bush was gleeful. "Good," said one senior Bush aide. "We're glad he's talking about Iraq." It remains Exhibit A in the flip-flopping case against Kerry, built around his prewar nuances and his postwar votes. Moreover, the Bush campaign sees Kerry's attacks as a sign of weakness and as an attempt to shore up his base—a leftward tilt that could alienate "persuadables" in battleground states. Bush's advisers are confident that their candidate can win any contest of straight talk, pointing to a series of polls that give him a big lead on questions of honesty and consistency. And Bush is certainly bullish on the subject on the stump. "We'll help them get their elections, we'll get them on the path to stability and democracy as quickly as possible, and then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned," he told one rally in St. Cloud, Minn., last week. Yet back in Washington, Bush quietly receives considerably less glossy weekly national-security briefings on Iraq. In their candid moments, the president's aides concede they have struggled to convince voters about the mission in Iraq now that Saddam Hussein is sitting in jail. "Well, no, I don't think they know what it is," said one senior Bush strategist.

Can you blame the Bush campaign for being happy? We're what, 44 days out and the Keery camp has just figured this out? And, this really may be a loser for Kerry because his position has changed so many times. It will be interesting to watch.

The last sentence of that paragraph is the most important for Bush. They have not been good at explaining what our mission is in Iraq. Is it too late to start explaining now? No, this is one of the main issues Bush should consintrate on. Get your message out about Iraq, make it simple and help Americans understand where it is you're coming from.

Um, you fired the wrong person

2004-09-19T11:52:00.000-04:00

SEATTLE -- A radio talk-show host said Saturday he has been fired for criticizing CBS newsman Dan Rather's handling of challenges to the authenticity of memos about President Bush's National Guard service.

"On the talk show that I host, or hosted, I said I felt Rather should either retire or be forced out over this," said Brian Maloney, whose weekly "The Brian Maloney Show" aired for three years on KIRO-AM Radio, a CBS affiliate here.

Maloney says he made that statement on his Sept. 12 program. He was fired Friday, he said.

"What they have expressed is essentially that my show went in a direction they're not comfortable with," Maloney said.

KIRO Radio's general manager, Ken Berry, did not return a call seeking comment. A staff member at the station said Berry would not comment because it is a personnel matter.

He would not comment because they did something completely stupid and thought that no one would hear about it. SURPRISE!!!!!

Now we're starting to hear exactly how CBS works. First, they try to blame the White House for their screw up and now this.

As in my post about fat folks, this comes down to personal responsibility. Firing someone because they called you out, well, it seems like your trying to hide something. The problem, everyone knows you screwed up. Admit it.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin

Old site new design

2004-09-19T11:36:00.000-04:00

The new QandO is up and running. Go take a look at it and enjoy. Dale has worked hard to make it a more interactive site and, I think it's a good way for more people to voice their opinions.

Are you fat? Wwhy not sue?

2004-09-19T11:10:00.000-04:00

When does personal choice come into play?

BOSTON -- A single lawsuit against the food industry is not enough to reduce the number of overweight and obese Americans, according to panelists at a weekend health law conference.
It will take numerous suits, federal laws and government regulations sweeping across the food and several nonfood industries to make a significant impact.
That message was the underlying theme for the conference on legal approaches to obesity that commenced here yesterday, sponsored by the Public Health Advocacy Institute. The second annual conference, made up of trial lawyers, dietitians and public-health advocates, follows a year in which several obesity-related suits have been filed against food manufacturers and fast-food chains.

Of course, not stuffing your face full of food every chance you get may work too.

This is utterly ridiculous. Most overweight people are that way because they lack control. It is no ones fault but their own and to sue, because you can't control yourself, is wrong. It's lawsuits like this that make people see what a joke our judicial system is.

"We know that litigation ultimately wins," said George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf III, one of the leaders for the obesity lawsuits. But Mr. Banzhaf pushed the 90 or so participants at Sherman Hall at Northeastern University yesterday to think beyond suing the food industry.
Mr. Banzhaf said he plans to talk at today's panel about potential lawsuits such as suing doctors who do not warn and counsel obese patients at risk for triggering other chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, gallbladder disease and various cancers.

Yes, it's the doctors fault too. Let me tell you, every time I go to the doctors, she tells me 2 things, quit smoking and lose weight. EVERY doctor does the same thing. Really, how about skipping the fourth and fifth plates of food?

"What we see as a hallmark of addiction is loss of control and we see that in a lot of obese people who have lost control with eating," said William Jacobs, anesthesiology and assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Florida.
Mr. Jacobs, who works in the university's brain institute, said obese subjects in his studies often demonstrate addiction symptoms such as preoccupation, relapses, narrowness of interests, loss of control and continued detrimental behaviors despite knowing the harm associated with excessive weight gain.

So, the answer is to sue restaraunts? How about going to the root of the problem, the persons own mind? I mean, wouldn't that actually solve the problem?

Marshall Manson, spokesman for an Alexandria nonprofit advocacy group promoting individual freedoms, said the talk of more obesity-based lawsuits is troubling.
"We are worried that there has been some progress toward limiting choice and waving goodbye to personal responsibility," said Mr. Manson with the Center for Individual Freedom. "It seems as if this group is running the same play book the tobacco lawyers did, except they're dealing with a perfectly legal and healthy -- if consumed in moderate proportions -- product."

How completely unfeeling. How dare he place the blame on the person ingesting 5 tons of food. They can't help but to keep ordering and ordering. No, no, personal responsibility shouldn't come into play in this. It's all those big bad Big Macs fault.

I'm LAZY

2004-09-18T11:49:00.000-04:00

I don't feel like blogging. I may later tonight, check back.

Hmmmmmmm

2004-09-17T18:52:00.000-04:00

President Bush has surged to a 13-point lead over Sen. John Kerry among likely voters, a new Gallup Poll shows. The 55%-42% match-up is the first statistically significant edge either candidate has held this year

Article found here.

What does this imply? This early in the cycle, although it's getting later everyday, polls don't mean much. But, this is quite a significant lead and, Gallup has a reputation of accuracy. Although I don't think it really means much, it is a flash point in time and Kerry is taking them serious in that he has changed a goodly portion of his staff.

Kerry's main problem, in my opinion, is, he is even more wooden than Gore. He comes off as a rich, snobby white guy. While he is all of those, he needs to change the appearence that he is. His stump speeches are boring and do not grip the audience. While I do not intend on voting for him, there are some things that I agree with Kerry on but, he isn't giving me anything. He has yet to tell us how he plans to do any of the things he says he is going to do. On some things, he just says he'd do it better than Bush. His story changes from city to city. None of this inspires confidence.

So, I have some tips for John Kerry

1. Animate yourself. Monotone is fine but, it puts people to sleep.

2. While no one votes for someone because of their pick for VP. you need to use Edwards more. He is an engaging speaker, let's face it, it's how he made his money, he's charismatic, and he is, oh, so cute.

3. Talk about the economy. While we have the fastest growing economy in almost 30 years, people are to blind to see it. BTW, use actual facts and not the poo you've been saying, it's too easy to debunk

4. Talk about Iraq. Even though things are going much better than the MSM would have us believe, people still, for some reason, believe them. Use the word quagmire a lot, it makes people think of Vietnam.

5. On that topic, STOP, for God's sweet sake, STOP, talking about Vietnam, it is a loser for you.

6. Lastly, do not, under any circumstance, allow your wife to open her mouth. She comes off a a domineering rich bitch. 2 of you is far too many.

Poor CBS Part 2

2004-09-17T18:27:00.000-04:00

It seems that ABC News has done something CBS should have done from the begining, find Retired Col. Walter Staudt and ask him about Bush. So, what did the Colonel have to say?

Retired Col. Walter Staudt, who was brigadier general of Bush's unit in Texas, interviewed Bush for the Guard position and retired in March 1972. He was mentioned in one of the memos allegedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian as having pressured Killian to assist Bush, though Bush supposedly was not meeting Guard standards.

"I never pressured anybody about George Bush because I had no reason to," Staudt told ABC News in his first interview since the documents were made public.

The memo stated that "Staudt is pushing to sugar coat" a review of Bush's performance.

Staudt said he decided to come forward because he saw erroneous reports on television. CBS News first reported on the memos, which have come under scrutiny by document experts who question whether they are authentic. Killian, the purported author of the documents, died in 1984.

Staudt insisted Bush did not use connections to avoid being sent to Vietnam.

"He didn't use political influence to get into the Air National Guard," Staudt said, adding, "I don't know how they would know that, because I was the one who did it and I was the one who was there and I didn't talk to any of them."

Can you hear the moans from the CBS newsroom?

During his time in charge of the unit, Staudt decided whether to accept those who applied for pilot training. He recalled Bush as a standout candidate.

"He was highly qualified," he said. "He passed all the scrutiny and tests he was given."

Staudt said he never tried to influence Killian or other Guardsmen, and added that he never came under any pressure himself to accept Bush. "No one called me about taking George Bush into the Air National Guard," he said. "It was my decision. I swore him in. I never heard anything from anybody."

Well, now you know he's lying because Ben Barnes said he helped get Bush in. It doesn't matter that Staudt actually tested and qualified Bush, Ben Barnes said he helped and we know he would have no reason to lie.

As for Staudt putting pressure on Killian after he retired

"I didn't check in with anybody — I had no reason to," he said. "I was busy with my civilian endeavors, and they were busy with their military options. I had no reason to talk to them, and I didn't."

What a tangled web. Not only are the documents fake, but the contents are false. Doesn't your heart bleed for CBS?

Why are they so scared?

2004-09-17T11:50:00.000-04:00

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., urged the Florida Supreme Court to allow Ralph Nader on the state ballot after it hears an appeal Friday by the independent presidential candidate.

A state judge rejected Nader's efforts to be on the ballot as the candidate of the Reform Party, which the judge said is no longer a legitimate national party under state law. The state supreme court said it will issue a ruling shortly after hearing the appeal.

"I believe it would be a mistake to let a set of inequitable ballot rules keep a legitimate presidential candidate off the ballot," McCain said in a statement released Thursday night by The Reform Institute, a political and educational organization he chairs.

"These obstacles discourage public participation in elections by denying voters the right to vote for their preferred candidate. Keeping Nader off the ballot in the hope that his voters will be forced to support another candidate is patently unfair to those Floridians who, for whatever reason, have decided he's their man," McCain said.

Democrats have challenged efforts by Nader to be listed on the ballots in more than a dozen states. Many blame Nader for Democrat Al Gore's loss to Republican George W. Bush in the 2000 election, especially in Florida, where Bush won by just 537 votes. Nader drew more than 97,000 votes in the state.

But, but, if Kerry is THE MAN for right now, why are the Democrats running so scared when it comes to Nader? They don't want to draw off voters from their man. Aww, poor babies, scared of a little guy like Nader. Maybe they should have put up a better candidate. Ya think?

The White House makes a stand

2004-09-17T10:55:00.000-04:00

The White House has finally said something on the documents shown by CBS. I say finally, only because it's been more than a week, I did not and still do not feel that the President should defend himself against false documents.

Ending a weeklong reluctance to wade into the debate over whether Mr. Rather used forged documents to criticize Mr. Bush's service in the National Guard, White House press secretary Scott McClellan adopted a more aggressive stance yesterday.
"CBS has now acknowledged that the crux of their story may have been based of forged documents," he told reporters aboard Air Force One.
The spokesman also fired back at Mr. Rather for challenging the president to "answer the questions" raised in his widely discredited report, which aired Sept. 8 on "60 Minutes II." The anchorman told an interviewer on Tuesday that such presidential candor would help Bush win re-election.
"It's always best for journalists to stick to reporting the facts and not try to dispense campaign advice," Mr. McClellan said.

Facts, we don't need no stinking facts. We tell you what you should talk about and you damn well better like it.

I find it interesting that CBS or Dan Rather won't ask John Kerry these questions, but want Bush to answer questions based on false documents. Bias? Hmmmmmmmm.

He also commented on Mr. Rather's attempt to salvage the story by interviewing an 86-year-old Bush critic on Wednesday's edition of "60 Minutes II." The anchorman asked Marian Knox, a secretary for a National Guard unit more than 30 years ago, whether Mr. Bush received preferential treatment.
"I feel that he did," she replied.
To which Mr. McClellan answered, "So now some are looking at feelings and not the facts. We don't have to rely on the feelings of a nice woman who has firmly stated her opposition to the president."

Mclellan would be speaking of Mrs. knox's statements that Bush was "unfit for office" and that he was "selected, not elected". Do those sound familiar? They should, they've been Democratic talking points since the 2000 election. Hey, do you think that Mrs. Knox was coached by the DNC before the interviews? Just a thought.

Mr. McClellan said CBS has been slow to investigate its own story and did so only after other news outlets launched their own probes.
"They have determined that they will follow other news organizations and look into the serious questions that have been raised," he said. "A number of media organizations have been doing that. And now CBS has decided to do so, as well."

But of course, they want to "break" the story.

On this, le's get into the blogosphere's role in this. The blogosphere did what we did because we are a bunch of anal folks. We look to detail in everything and in a lot of cases, we seek the whole truth of a given topic. In most cases, only one side is given and we look, and this goes for blogs on both sides of the aisle, for, to quote a famous guy, "the rest of the story". It isn't, in most cases, to take the MSM down, it is to keep them honest. We are not the "new media", we are a bunch of folks who hate one sidedness and we have big ego's, let's be honest now, blogs are ego driven, and want to say, hey, you're full of it, this is the REAL story.

This is a pretty good discription of the blogosphere.

I think everyone misses the point of Blogs entirely.

The blogsphere is a giant B.S. filter of what is fed to us from the MSM. Instead of one reporter getting some information, then disseminating it to us through his biased mind, and then feeding it to us as he sees it, we have Blogs which consist of millions (?) of people that have more combined knowledge on the subjects the reporter is giving us and thoroughly disecting it to find out what the -REAL- truth is.

Hat tip to McQ on that quote.

For a far better discription of the blogospheres role in today's world, go here.

Back to the topic at hand. CBS is in some trouble. We, the consumer want answers, and ae getting a run around instead. I think Bernard Goldberg put it best.

He doesn't have to give us the guy's name and address, just tell us what motivated him to leak the documents to CBS News. It's a common journalistic practice, after all, to shed as much light on an unnamed source as possible. That's why we often read "a source close to the administration" or "a police source involved in the investigation" said such and such. No name. But enough info so the news consumer understands, as they say, where the source is coming from. In the case of the leaked memos, does the source have any connection to the Democrats? How about the Kerry campaign? If Dan told us that, he'd still be faithful to his source, but at least as importantly, he'd be showing good faith to his viewers by giving them a clue as to the source's motives, whatever they might be.

Instead, Dan and CBS News do what they'd never tolerate in a crooked politician: They circle the wagons. First we get a statement about how there's no internal investigation going on at CBS; then we get a bunch of stories by CBS News backing up the original "60 Minutes" piece that are so one-sided they'd get a junior-high journalism student an "F" for lack of balance; then on "60 Minutes" we did get a former secretary, "a credible voice" as Dan Rather put it, who told him that "she believes the documents we obtained are not authentic. But . . . she told us she believes what the documents actually say is exactly as we reported." Put plainly: The memos may be fake, but "We stand by our story."

We're the ones who have a right to be angry with CBS News, but it turns out that Dan Rather is the one who's really fuming. Not at the source who got him into all of this, but at those "partisans" who are fanning the flames. The Washington Post quotes him as saying: "I don't cave when the pressure gets too great from these partisan political forces." He's absolutely right that some of his critics are partisans. But how about Dan's source? Is he also a partisan?

Very telling.

It isn't a big deal

2004-09-16T19:33:00.000-04:00

NEW YORK - Teresa Heinz Kerry, encouraging volunteers as they busily packed supplies Wednesday for hurricane relief efforts in the Caribbean, said she was concerned the effort was too focused on sending clothes instead of essentials like water and electric generators.

"Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while, at least the kids," said Heinz Kerry, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites). "Water is necessary, and then generators, and then food, and then clothes."

Okay folks, get off of those high horses of yours. She may have said it in a bad way but, she is absolutely correct.

Clothes aren't the most important things these people need. Water, food and electric are far more important. Listen, I think this woman is kind of scary but, get over yourselves.

Proof

2004-09-16T19:23:00.000-04:00

Jeff at Shape of Days has an exclusive that I pretty much shows that the CBS documents could nit have been done on a IBM Executive. Good scoop Jeff. The post can be found here.

20 questions

2004-09-16T18:32:00.000-04:00

Well, actually it's 40. Peter Kirsanow has some questions he'd like John Kerry to ansewr. The first 10 are,

1. You've repeatedly demanded Donald Rumsfeld's resignation over Abu Ghraib prison abuse. In light of such demand, please respond to the following:

a. Given your confession that you committed atrocities in Vietnam, including burning villages and using 50-caliber machine guns on people, shouldn't you, then, withdraw from presidential consideration?

b. If your answer is "no," please explain why a secretary of Defense should be held to a higher standard than an aspiring president who personally committed atrocities objectively more horrific than the abuses for which you hold Rumsfeld accountable.

2. You now state that Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," yet just a few weeks ago you stated that knowing what you know now you'd still authorize the war. Why would you still vote for a war that is wrong?

a. If the war was wrong, do you maintain Saddam should still be in power? If not, how would you remove him?

b. Which of the following is your primary objection to the Iraq war:

(1) that it shouldn't have been fought?
(2) that it was in the wrong location?
(3) that the timing was bad?

c. If your answer's either (2) or (3) above, where should the war have been fought and when?

3. During your eight-year tenure on the Senate Intelligence Committee, you missed more than three-fourths of its public meetings. You refuse to release your attendance reports for the committee's closed classified briefings. Why shouldn't voters infer that disclosure of these attendance reports would reveal that you neglected to attend numerous classified briefings?

a. If you did miss any classified briefings, what duties were you tending to that were more important than attending the briefings?

4. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the president lied about the reasons for going into Iraq. Presumably, this means that the intelligence data didn't support the reasons given by the president. You had the same intelligence data on Iraq as the president, yet you voted to authorize the war. Why, then, did you knowingly vote for a lie?

a. By doing so, didn't you also lie to the American people?

b. If so, will you, therefore, urge your supporters to stop running ads declaring that "Bush Lied"?

c. If you maintain that you didn't lie, is it because you neglected to read the intelligence reports prior to the vote?

5. Assuming your definition of a lie is the same as Webster's, i.e., a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive, please specifically identify which of the following statements in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address are lies:

a. Saddam aids and protects terrorists;

b. Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction;

c. Saddam deceived weapons inspectors;

d. Saddam sought uranium from Africa;

e. Saddam has pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

6. What do you consider to be your most important accomplishment as lt. governor to Michael Dukakis?

7. You've criticized the president for acting "unilaterally." As president, would you have gone into Afghanistan without France's approval?

a. Would you have gone into Afghanistan without the approval of France, Germany, and Russia?

b. Please describe your criteria for going to war.

8. You've stated you would appoint only pro-choice judges to the federal bench. Would you agree that, even if it's not your intent, such a litmus test could disproportionately disqualify Catholic nominees?

a. What would you do to ensure that your abortion litmus test wouldn't have a disparate impact against Catholics?

9. Do you think there's waste in the federal government? If so, could you kindly identify ten wasteful government programs that you'd eliminate and why?

10. What do you consider to be your most important accomplishment during your nearly 20 years as a senator?

The remainder can be found here and here.

All good questions I think deserve an answer. How much would you like to bet they never get answered?

I missed this

2004-09-15T19:42:00.000-04:00

It seems CBS did put out a statement.

We established to our satisfaction that the memos were accurate or we would not have put them on television. There was a great deal of coroborating [sic] evidence from people in a position to know. Having said that, given all the questions about them, we believe we should redouble our efforts to answer those questions, so that's what we are doing

This from Andrew Heyward, President of CBS News.

"That's what we're doing"? Have I missed something? All I've heard from CBS over the last week is...... nothing. They been trying to cover their butts and all their "experts" are abandoning them. I also notice that they say the memos are "accurate" but they say nothing about the authenticity of them. Again I'll ask, how can something be accurate when it comes from a false source? Okay, maybe that's a silly question, let me change it. Why should I believe that the documents are accurate when they are forgeries? How can I trust your "source" when they offered you false papers?

One last question. If you are the President of a major news company, shouldn't you be able to spell, "corroborating"?