Interestingly enough the AP is running a story regarding the Constitutional solution to our new era of presidential neglections. . . I mean, "elections". The prospect of having the Congress decide the election is much more interesting and appealling--not to mention Constitutional. The challenge comes from the legal proceedings already initiated in Florida, Colorado and elsewhere.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Early News Summary
Palestinian Led Sinai Blasts, Egypt Says
Conveniently, for Egypt, I might add. Blaming a disgruntled Palestinian still doesn't account for the simultaneous blasts and the logistical support that are al-Qaeda trademarks. I'm curious to know what other evidence turns up.
Oh, and did anyone see that public health officials say that most people can skip the flu shot. That's been this New Republican's point for sometime now. Short of the very ill or those with weak immune systems, this flu shot shortage is not a big deal. It's almost embarrassing to see the Presidential race revolving around stupidity like this.
On the weapons that were lost in Iraq, CNN is reporting that NBC's embedded crew saw that the weapons were gone by the time US forces found the weapons' bunker.
Do you remember the plane that went down in Queens a few months after 9/11? CNN ran a report today on Headline News that a captured al-Qaeda operative said that a shoe-bomber was aboard the plane (shoe fetishists?). I can't find the link and I'm running late. Send it if you find it.
Conveniently, for Egypt, I might add. Blaming a disgruntled Palestinian still doesn't account for the simultaneous blasts and the logistical support that are al-Qaeda trademarks. I'm curious to know what other evidence turns up.
Oh, and did anyone see that public health officials say that most people can skip the flu shot. That's been this New Republican's point for sometime now. Short of the very ill or those with weak immune systems, this flu shot shortage is not a big deal. It's almost embarrassing to see the Presidential race revolving around stupidity like this.
On the weapons that were lost in Iraq, CNN is reporting that NBC's embedded crew saw that the weapons were gone by the time US forces found the weapons' bunker.
Do you remember the plane that went down in Queens a few months after 9/11? CNN ran a report today on Headline News that a captured al-Qaeda operative said that a shoe-bomber was aboard the plane (shoe fetishists?). I can't find the link and I'm running late. Send it if you find it.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Europe launches shock tobacco ads
Can I show what a cheeseburger causes? or the clap?
Is this really the best means of maintaining public health?
Is this really the best means of maintaining public health?
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Electoral-Vote.com (Thu. 10/21): Kerry-271; Bush-257
www.electoral-vote.com October 21, 2004
If you really look at this from day to day you'll start to see some really interesting trends in favor of the President's victory. Remember, it's the electoral vote, not the popular vote that decides the next four years!
Specifically, the President is much more "strong" than Kerry in the states that are polarized in either camp: Bush has 147 strong votes and Kerry only 109. Kerry is also nearly twice as weak in his weak states: Kerry's weak votes are 87 vs. Bush's 47 weak votes. The "barely" category also favors Bush: the President has 63 "barely" electoral votes vs. Kerry's 79 "barely" votes. And now, the most intense battleground state (to use a tired phrase) is not Florida but Minnesota. Granted the "barely" states have increased, but as you notice from the 20 e-votes that Kerry lost from yesterday's map (Electoral-vote.com Oct. 20th Map) , the trend is in the President's favor.
I think that this map is absolutely fascinating as we approach November 2nd. You know the saying, an electoral-map speaks a thousand-words. . . .
Bellum
What would Kerry do in the event of conflicting intelligence about Iran's intentions vis-a-vis its nuclear bomb ambitions and cooperation (however slight) with al-Qaeda?
Would he have the courage to order a massive strike, possibly including an outright invasion, to protect Americans from a rumored nuclear attack?
If the answer is yes, then the Iraq war looks relatively justifiable. If no, then what is his position? If he is waiting until we are attacked, then one can easily counter that we were attacked on 9/11. If the argument is to wait until undeniable evidence exists of cooperation between terrorists and governments in agreement with their aim of weaking and eventually destroying America, then at point do we cross that threshold?
In many conversations with lefties of all shades, I have found that this point holds much of the answer to differing interpretations of not only Iraq, but much of Bush's foreign policy. To the extent that one believes that it is the President's role to stop any impending threats to the US using whatever means necessary, then to that extent is one for or against Bush and all that he (purportedly) stands for.
So, if the original question is what would Kerry do, given the conditions above, then how far along this security-first continuum would Kerry fall? It's not clear to me -- in spite of many, many reassurances about a plan or plans in his head -- that Kerry's gut instinct is to fight first. Like many wholly goodhearted people on the left, he seems to find the world to be a place of primarily good hearted people. Few lefties seem to believe in a Hobbsian world, or even a world in which even close allies are not really to be trusted on security matters.
Undercover political machinations occur regularly. Looking overseas for a moment, how many New Republicans' readers believe that principle takes the place of interest when nations act in the international world? Take the case of the Iraqi elections. In this country, Nancy Pelosi closed the entire CIA to any attempt to support a friendly regime, while every other nation in the world could get back to doing exactly that -- but without any competition from the CIA. In what way did her action make America safer? No doubt many ethics professors and goodhearted lefties felt righteous indignation at the CIA's plans. How does Kerry feel -- no, what does he think about Pelosi's crippling action there?
The world outside the US is not only nice beaches, fine wines and smaller cars. It is also filled with people and governments who can and will use our own weaknesses against us. What will Kerry do about that? How will he make the decisions that save American lives in the long-term, but increase hostility in the short term?
On this issue alone, I take my stand and endorse Bush. I don't like many of Bush's decisions on most social issues, but survival is the most primal instinct.
Would he have the courage to order a massive strike, possibly including an outright invasion, to protect Americans from a rumored nuclear attack?
If the answer is yes, then the Iraq war looks relatively justifiable. If no, then what is his position? If he is waiting until we are attacked, then one can easily counter that we were attacked on 9/11. If the argument is to wait until undeniable evidence exists of cooperation between terrorists and governments in agreement with their aim of weaking and eventually destroying America, then at point do we cross that threshold?
In many conversations with lefties of all shades, I have found that this point holds much of the answer to differing interpretations of not only Iraq, but much of Bush's foreign policy. To the extent that one believes that it is the President's role to stop any impending threats to the US using whatever means necessary, then to that extent is one for or against Bush and all that he (purportedly) stands for.
So, if the original question is what would Kerry do, given the conditions above, then how far along this security-first continuum would Kerry fall? It's not clear to me -- in spite of many, many reassurances about a plan or plans in his head -- that Kerry's gut instinct is to fight first. Like many wholly goodhearted people on the left, he seems to find the world to be a place of primarily good hearted people. Few lefties seem to believe in a Hobbsian world, or even a world in which even close allies are not really to be trusted on security matters.
Undercover political machinations occur regularly. Looking overseas for a moment, how many New Republicans' readers believe that principle takes the place of interest when nations act in the international world? Take the case of the Iraqi elections. In this country, Nancy Pelosi closed the entire CIA to any attempt to support a friendly regime, while every other nation in the world could get back to doing exactly that -- but without any competition from the CIA. In what way did her action make America safer? No doubt many ethics professors and goodhearted lefties felt righteous indignation at the CIA's plans. How does Kerry feel -- no, what does he think about Pelosi's crippling action there?
The world outside the US is not only nice beaches, fine wines and smaller cars. It is also filled with people and governments who can and will use our own weaknesses against us. What will Kerry do about that? How will he make the decisions that save American lives in the long-term, but increase hostility in the short term?
On this issue alone, I take my stand and endorse Bush. I don't like many of Bush's decisions on most social issues, but survival is the most primal instinct.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Monday, October 18, 2004
How Hashemite King Sought to Sell Weapons to Saddam
Interesting Story. Read it and think about how many deals like this must occur regularly around the world. Makes me wonder...
The mind is a horrible thing to waste, says the NAACP
as they distribute crack for votes...
There may have been a time when the NAACP was a good, noble group of people who really and truly wanted to help right wrongs and overcome social barriers. I say that this day has come and gone, and they are now no better than most of the people they accuse of racism. Bill Cosby brought this to the mainstream attention recently, but the above story could well destroy them completely, if picked up by the mainstream media.
Crack for falsification of votes? Advancement of Colored People? Hmmm. Not seeing the link there. Other than trying to get the same democrats in office that keep breaking their promises and perpetuate the cycle of welfare, SSI benefits, so forth and so on.
A plague upon Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, says me.
There may have been a time when the NAACP was a good, noble group of people who really and truly wanted to help right wrongs and overcome social barriers. I say that this day has come and gone, and they are now no better than most of the people they accuse of racism. Bill Cosby brought this to the mainstream attention recently, but the above story could well destroy them completely, if picked up by the mainstream media.
Crack for falsification of votes? Advancement of Colored People? Hmmm. Not seeing the link there. Other than trying to get the same democrats in office that keep breaking their promises and perpetuate the cycle of welfare, SSI benefits, so forth and so on.
A plague upon Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, says me.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Sweetness and Light in Zimbabwe
Mugabe rival urges reconciliation after the court acquits him of conspiracy to murder Mugabe.
I hope that Tsvangirai is just playing nice for the cameras because Mugabe is one guy with whom I wouldn't play nice. Beatings, public intimidation, the destruction of the economy, his open racism, the virtual elimination of all political opposition to the ZANU-PF -- each one is enough reason to oppose being nice to Mugabe.
National reconciliation means having a responsible government, not Afirca's version of Stalin. Keep fighting, Tsvangirai. Mugabe is old.
I hope that Tsvangirai is just playing nice for the cameras because Mugabe is one guy with whom I wouldn't play nice. Beatings, public intimidation, the destruction of the economy, his open racism, the virtual elimination of all political opposition to the ZANU-PF -- each one is enough reason to oppose being nice to Mugabe.
National reconciliation means having a responsible government, not Afirca's version of Stalin. Keep fighting, Tsvangirai. Mugabe is old.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Last speeches
Mom, not Theresa? Ok, I guess.
K: Idear. What's an idear? Like Bush's Amurica?
A little MLK: I believe...
Passionate about fighting or not fighting?
---------------------------
Bush: blah, blah, blah. Nothing new here.
At least his style here is good, only minor stumbles.
Confident tone. Next post is the wrapup.
K: Idear. What's an idear? Like Bush's Amurica?
A little MLK: I believe...
Passionate about fighting or not fighting?
---------------------------
Bush: blah, blah, blah. Nothing new here.
At least his style here is good, only minor stumbles.
Confident tone. Next post is the wrapup.
Compliment
Bush's eyes are so, well, ....oh, sorry, did I say that out loud? [thoughts in Kerry's head]
Kerry just said that he didn't want to have special interest groups influencing the White House?
[Windrem notes about McCain: NO! He's my friend! He's going to Disney World with me! Na-Na-Na-Na-Na!]
Bush: (laughter) Listen to the women around him. [Windrem: I like it when she chokes me]
WAIT!!!! DID HE JUST SAY THAT!?!?!?!?!!?
"At least people understand her (Laura) when she speaks english." HA!!!!!!
Married up? Hit that nail on the head. HA!
Kerry just said that he didn't want to have special interest groups influencing the White House?
[Windrem notes about McCain: NO! He's my friend! He's going to Disney World with me! Na-Na-Na-Na-Na!]
Bush: (laughter) Listen to the women around him. [Windrem: I like it when she chokes me]
WAIT!!!! DID HE JUST SAY THAT!?!?!?!?!!?
"At least people understand her (Laura) when she speaks english." HA!!!!!!
Married up? Hit that nail on the head. HA!
Excuse me, Mr President, What did your daddy say?
Can't believe he said dad, not father.
Bush on religion: it calms me. Midgets are good people. We should educate them. I've increased funding on education for midgets [more comments from the peanut gallery here about Bush's misunderstanding of this question].
Native American religion is co-equal with major monotheistic faiths? I'm borderline atheist and I find that argument funny.
[Another side comment from this group: Kerry is helping Bush to explain himself.]
Bush on religion: it calms me. Midgets are good people. We should educate them. I've increased funding on education for midgets [more comments from the peanut gallery here about Bush's misunderstanding of this question].
Native American religion is co-equal with major monotheistic faiths? I'm borderline atheist and I find that argument funny.
[Another side comment from this group: Kerry is helping Bush to explain himself.]
Gun Shows
"I don't think we need to pass a law to keep shady-looking Arabs out of gunshows. Ever been to a gun show? The rednecks there are pretty rough." [comment from a viewer watching this debate]
Racism: The Congressional Black Caucus is not a measure of inclusivity. Are there any righties in that group? Did Kerry meet any conservative black groups? Can I define him as not inclusive because of that? Silly argument.
Racism: The Congressional Black Caucus is not a measure of inclusivity. Are there any righties in that group? Did Kerry meet any conservative black groups? Can I define him as not inclusive because of that? Silly argument.
Double the number of Special Forces?
Guess they're hanging around drinking beer, huh? Maybe we can lower our standards and get more Special Forces, but I don't think that we magically double numbers overnight.
"Last resort" again. I wish Bush would eliminate this silly argument. 12 years is a helluva long time to wait. The UN has no end. We made the end when our patience ran out -- PEOPLE, he (K) just called us people. Guess I'm dumb.
Bush won a zinger on Kerry's opposition to the first Gulf War: "Guess he can't pass any test."
Kerry is arguing about automatic weapons. What about the damn AK he took home from Vietnam?
"Last resort" again. I wish Bush would eliminate this silly argument. 12 years is a helluva long time to wait. The UN has no end. We made the end when our patience ran out -- PEOPLE, he (K) just called us people. Guess I'm dumb.
Bush won a zinger on Kerry's opposition to the first Gulf War: "Guess he can't pass any test."
Kerry is arguing about automatic weapons. What about the damn AK he took home from Vietnam?
Litmus Test
Good: No litmus test for judges. K: I believe that abortion is a constitutional right. Is it? Roe v Wade is contested on various grounds, even by supporters of abortion. Assuming he's right, the point sounded false.
50% of NYC blacks are unemployed? I saw that NYT article and thought it seemed waaaay too high. How did they get that number?
50% of NYC blacks are unemployed? I saw that NYT article and thought it seemed waaaay too high. How did they get that number?
Unfinished Answers
I'll fix social security. I'll make the borders safer. I'll pay for health care.
How? How? How?
Some details would be better than none.
People playing by the rules, getting screwed? Raise women's pay? Must have been visiting Afghanistan under the Taliban. I need to ask my wife if she is getting the woman's wage.
Kerry has so far been unimpressive. His voice is well-trained...wait, Bush just said that reading is the new civil right. What?
How? How? How?
Some details would be better than none.
People playing by the rules, getting screwed? Raise women's pay? Must have been visiting Afghanistan under the Taliban. I need to ask my wife if she is getting the woman's wage.
Kerry has so far been unimpressive. His voice is well-trained...wait, Bush just said that reading is the new civil right. What?
Boojwah's Take
When Kerry says invest, think spend. Investments create revenue. Government does not create revenue -- unless you count DC's meter maids.
So far, Bush is much better than the first debate -- not perfect, but better. The New Republicans are not above a good chuckle every now and then at the expense of our near and dear ones.
Bush's immigration ideas are economically sound. Economic theory (macro here) shows that illegal labour reduces the overall...wait Kerry says that the middle class as a share of income is the lowest since 1929? I just saw numbers that are exactly the opposite. Now Kerry says that our borders are MORE POROUS than before 9/11?! Are you KIDDING me?
So far, Bush is much better than the first debate -- not perfect, but better. The New Republicans are not above a good chuckle every now and then at the expense of our near and dear ones.
Bush's immigration ideas are economically sound. Economic theory (macro here) shows that illegal labour reduces the overall...wait Kerry says that the middle class as a share of income is the lowest since 1929? I just saw numbers that are exactly the opposite. Now Kerry says that our borders are MORE POROUS than before 9/11?! Are you KIDDING me?
Where we left off: Bush said "Nevermind"
I can hear Karl Rove now: "Dammit"!
Bush is telling seniors that they will get checks whether or not we reform welfare. Gore was definitely wrong on that on in 2000.
Bush is spot on with Social Security.
Kerry is way off on Social Security. It's like he doesn't understand economics. How do you fix this growing trillion dollar hole? Kerry didn't give an answer.
Ok, I have more faith in the moderator. If you don't do anything to Social Security, how's it going to fix. If it ain't broke,... oh wait.
Bush is telling seniors that they will get checks whether or not we reform welfare. Gore was definitely wrong on that on in 2000.
Bush is spot on with Social Security.
Kerry is way off on Social Security. It's like he doesn't understand economics. How do you fix this growing trillion dollar hole? Kerry didn't give an answer.
Ok, I have more faith in the moderator. If you don't do anything to Social Security, how's it going to fix. If it ain't broke,... oh wait.
... and the spin goes on
Bush sounds good on the health care issue, and he is largely correct. He shouldn't mention horse and buggies. C'mon Mr. President, think before you speak.
Kerry is ranting about the 131 billion dollar winfalls for the drug companies, because of Bush's policy. I'd like to see those figures.
By the way, "rolling back the tax cuts" really means "raising taxes".
Kerry's talking about children now. Always a popular topic in politics. Health care for all children. Yipee.
How does Kerry plan to pay for all of this? By forcing people to get checked for diabetes early? Good luck.
Mr. President, do not start to say something and then say "nevermind."
Kerry is ranting about the 131 billion dollar winfalls for the drug companies, because of Bush's policy. I'd like to see those figures.
By the way, "rolling back the tax cuts" really means "raising taxes".
Kerry's talking about children now. Always a popular topic in politics. Health care for all children. Yipee.
How does Kerry plan to pay for all of this? By forcing people to get checked for diabetes early? Good luck.
Mr. President, do not start to say something and then say "nevermind."
Continuing coverage of the 2004 Presidential Debate
This moderator is helping Kerry. Bush nailed Kerry on his voting record on tax cuts.
Are people gay by choice? Good answer for the President: "I don't know"
What is this discrimination tangent that Kerry is on? The President never mentioned discrimination. They both agree on the marriage issue.
Kerry is definitely reaching out to the religous crowd: "We are all God's children" "I am a Catholic" "I was an alter boy"
Ok, he just quoted the bible.
Are people gay by choice? Good answer for the President: "I don't know"
What is this discrimination tangent that Kerry is on? The President never mentioned discrimination. They both agree on the marriage issue.
Kerry is definitely reaching out to the religous crowd: "We are all God's children" "I am a Catholic" "I was an alter boy"
Ok, he just quoted the bible.
New Republicans Live Coverage: Bush vs. Kerry
The question regarding the flu shot shortage assumes that the President is an omnipotent, all-seeing entity. No President can control every variable, all the time. However, Bush was forced to explain this flu shot shortage while Kerry was free to attack Bush's health care policy.
Stay tuned for realtime commentary.
Stay tuned for realtime commentary.
Welcome Back, Baathists
Allawi Presses Effort to Bring Back Baathists. Fair enough. Some of the purged Baathists were not pro-Saddam, but just in it for the perks. Is it safer, though, to trust that we (or Allawi, himself a former Baathist with a purportedly murderous past) can find the bad apples -- those aiding the insurgents -- while allowing the good guys back into government? I'm skeptical. For every ex-Baathist SOB to whom we give power, we should consider a direct, positive correlation with our reduced abilities to act clandestinely in that individual's government office. Tribal ties run deeply -- and we are part of no-one's tribe.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Talk about the pot calling the kettle...
Germany deports Turkey militant, but his attorney tried to argue that he would face "torture" were he to return to Turkey. What is the exact definition of torture, oh Servant of Allah who wishes to overthrow the Turkish Republic and replace it with an avowedly Islamic State ruled by Shariah? Cutting off hands in public squares without the benefit of anesthetic? Beating women who refuse the veil?
In Imperial Hubris Scheuer describes how well the Muslim world's radicals know and exploit our weaknesses and fears. I'm glad that the German judge gave this Caliph of Cologne no benefit of doubt.
In Imperial Hubris Scheuer describes how well the Muslim world's radicals know and exploit our weaknesses and fears. I'm glad that the German judge gave this Caliph of Cologne no benefit of doubt.
This isn't good...
Should we believe this: Iraq says nuclear sites 'secure'?
I think not. Anytime large portions of nuclear development facilities disappear, I will err on the side of caution and worry, not blase indifference.
I think not. Anytime large portions of nuclear development facilities disappear, I will err on the side of caution and worry, not blase indifference.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Come out, come out, whereever you are!
No Taliban attacks: that's the news. Zawahiri's psy-ops tape about infidels cowering in bunkers looks even more ridiculous now, with 10 million Afghanis having participated in the election without any of the expected violence. These elections were clearly not perfect (witness the indelible ink flap), but without any Taliban attacks, the biggest threat to Afghanistan's election didn't come to pass. The lack of attacks, however, doesn't mean that the Taliban aren't biding their time to attack whoever is President until the Americans leave.
This election should make even Kerry supporters wonder if Bush isn't more correct than they assume about how to change terrorist havens.
This election should make even Kerry supporters wonder if Bush isn't more correct than they assume about how to change terrorist havens.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Hotel Bombing
The Resorts Were Used by Vacationing Israelis, so the jihadis tried to kill them.
..the compassionate, the merciful, right?
..the compassionate, the merciful, right?
Saddam the Compasionate, the Merciful
The WP today has a story on Saddam that almost humanizes him. Almost. The last lines are particularly galling:
Duelfer reveals that between 1994 and 1998, Duelfer as well as Rolf Ekeus, a former chief U.N. weapons inspector, were "approached multiple times by senior Iraqis with the message that Baghdad wanted a dialogue with the United States and that Iraq was in a position to be Washington's 'best friend in the region bar none.' "
"Baghdad offered flexibility on many issues, including offers to assist in the Israel-Palestine conflict," Duelfer recalls. "Moreover, in informal discussions, senior officials allowed that, if Iraq had a security relationship with the United States, it might be inclined to dispense with WMD programs and/or ambitions."
Anyone want to take bets on the political leanings of the story's author? I normally don't fall into the pack of those who criticise the media as excessively leftist, but this particular piece seemed a bit too one-sided for me.
Duelfer reveals that between 1994 and 1998, Duelfer as well as Rolf Ekeus, a former chief U.N. weapons inspector, were "approached multiple times by senior Iraqis with the message that Baghdad wanted a dialogue with the United States and that Iraq was in a position to be Washington's 'best friend in the region bar none.' "
"Baghdad offered flexibility on many issues, including offers to assist in the Israel-Palestine conflict," Duelfer recalls. "Moreover, in informal discussions, senior officials allowed that, if Iraq had a security relationship with the United States, it might be inclined to dispense with WMD programs and/or ambitions."
Anyone want to take bets on the political leanings of the story's author? I normally don't fall into the pack of those who criticise the media as excessively leftist, but this particular piece seemed a bit too one-sided for me.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Teresa, when will you learn to keep your mouth shut?
Teresa is actually encouraging election/voting fraud. Click here to read about it. I was pretty sure this was a felony, but as we saw with John Kerry's illegal fully automatic weapon the rules don't apply to billionaires/senators.
The fact that this sort of thing doesn't get mainstream press blows me away. God help the republican that said something so foolish.
The fact that this sort of thing doesn't get mainstream press blows me away. God help the republican that said something so foolish.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Cheney vs. Edwards: A Better Debate
The Vice-Presidential debate was, in terms of pure politics, far more fulfilling and substanative than the Presidential debate last week. Spirited at moments, including Edward's attempt to bring the Vice President's gay daughter to bear on the Federal Marriage issue, both candidates remained composed and solidly on message.
The Vice President displayed expertise on the Administration's policies, his opponents record in the Senate, and his formidable experience through three decades of American politics. His monotone, albeit refined, manner was a refreshing contrast to the President's performance last week. Losing to the Senator on any aesthetic scale, the elder candidate came across as mature, eloquent, and stable.
Sitting across from the graying Cheney, Senator Edwards appeared slightly boyish. Where Cheney took the upper hand in this debate was his reaction to Edwards' attacks--especially on Iraq. Showing little emotion, he calmly waited for his turn and then responded to the charge of taking America into the wrong war with informed confidence. Envisioning Iraq in the context of the greater war on terrorism, e.g. rogue states are likely avenues for terrorists to obtain WMDs, he illustrated what Republicans had hoped to hear last week.
Edwards' mention of Cheney's gay daughter undoubtedly struck a chord with the Vice President because of statements Cheney had made in the past that suggest he may support gay marriage. Cheney answered by explaining that the President makes policy and that he supports his President. When Edwards attempted to back him into a corner, he simply thanked the Senator for the kind words about his family.
I hope to write more tomorrow.
The New York Times > Breaking News, World News & Multimedia
The Vice President displayed expertise on the Administration's policies, his opponents record in the Senate, and his formidable experience through three decades of American politics. His monotone, albeit refined, manner was a refreshing contrast to the President's performance last week. Losing to the Senator on any aesthetic scale, the elder candidate came across as mature, eloquent, and stable.
Sitting across from the graying Cheney, Senator Edwards appeared slightly boyish. Where Cheney took the upper hand in this debate was his reaction to Edwards' attacks--especially on Iraq. Showing little emotion, he calmly waited for his turn and then responded to the charge of taking America into the wrong war with informed confidence. Envisioning Iraq in the context of the greater war on terrorism, e.g. rogue states are likely avenues for terrorists to obtain WMDs, he illustrated what Republicans had hoped to hear last week.
Edwards' mention of Cheney's gay daughter undoubtedly struck a chord with the Vice President because of statements Cheney had made in the past that suggest he may support gay marriage. Cheney answered by explaining that the President makes policy and that he supports his President. When Edwards attempted to back him into a corner, he simply thanked the Senator for the kind words about his family.
I hope to write more tomorrow.
The New York Times > Breaking News, World News & Multimedia
Fear Mongering - Round 592
No, I'm not talking about the real fear that we should be addressing, the fear that confronts us every day faced with a terrorist threat that has no moral qualms with assaulting civilian populations (read: children, babies, women, yeah even men, innocents all). Democrats would have us believe that the President and the entire Administration are fear mongering with regard to the terror threats. One only has to look to a small hamlet in Russia (Beslan) or a major European capital to see these fears are justified and that we should be ready for another attack.
No, this fear mongering is from the left, the MTV left, the left that would dig up the grave of every Vietnam Vet and "cry havoc" because of the possibility of a draft. According to an AP story the rumor of a post-election, post-Bush-victory draft has the House of Representatives, that whimsically august body, rushing to put down tracks on the legislative record. Someone is rumor mongering to the MTV "Rock the Vote" crowd that a Bush victory means a draft after election.
First, this is just plain silly. The fact that the House of Representatives would react in such knee-jerk fashion is disturbing. This is the point of that body: whim. Whims of the people finding their way to the floor of the lower house of our Federal Congress. Thankfully the upper house isn't react so quickly.
Second, the real source of this fear is a 22-month old proposal by a Democratic Representative, Rangel of NY, that calls for a mandatory draft. He argues that this would be more fair to the men and women of our Nation, instead of the poor and the disadvantaged fighting our wars for us, in Rangel's terms "class warfare" (or was that Marx? or Mao?). On that note, the assertion is not entirely true or accurate. As a volunteer to the US Army myself (don't ask), I take issue with this argument, and I know others would as well. There is merit to the debate, if we indeed are capable of a healthy, measured debate, about the values of mandatory conscription. My libertarian friends would say, "To hell with you." But there is something to be said for a draft--merits (and detractions) I will not fully explore here and now. But this proposal by Rep. Rangel is long-standing and comes from the Democratic Party.
Third, President Bush is the one reducing US troop commitments in Europe & Asia in the interest of slimming down our forces in areas where we really don't fit strategically anymore (Germany for one, not as much so for South Korea). So why would a President who is reducing the size of the military in other, non-Iraq, non-Afghan installations overseas, who is working to alter the rotations of troops in other creative ways, need to consider the draft an option?
Fourth, the Congress is the one that has to legislate a draft. If it happens, it will be the Congress's fault. To all of you Rock the Voters out there, this means that 535 men and women (no dummies I might add) would have to agree in a majority vote (a minimum of 218 in the House and 51 in the Senate) that such an idea is a good idea. It's not likely to happen in my lifetime unless Iran or North Korea decide to take a fight to one of our Allies (or to our Western coast, in the case of North Korea). So hold them responsible. Watch them: especially Rep. Rangel of NYC.
Fifth, this whole morass makes even less sense when you consider Rangel's telling everyone to vote against his own proposal now and is accusing the Administration of hypocrisy.
Fear "mongering" is fine with me, if fear mongering means being honest with ourselves, with the American public, about the real dangers that potentially confront us every day: in our trains, on our bridges, in our office buildings, on our planes, in our schools. If fear mongering means being irrational and irresponsible with the truth then I have a serious problem. The American people, yes, even us Gen-Xers and Gen-Wires, deserve better.
No, this fear mongering is from the left, the MTV left, the left that would dig up the grave of every Vietnam Vet and "cry havoc" because of the possibility of a draft. According to an AP story the rumor of a post-election, post-Bush-victory draft has the House of Representatives, that whimsically august body, rushing to put down tracks on the legislative record. Someone is rumor mongering to the MTV "Rock the Vote" crowd that a Bush victory means a draft after election.
First, this is just plain silly. The fact that the House of Representatives would react in such knee-jerk fashion is disturbing. This is the point of that body: whim. Whims of the people finding their way to the floor of the lower house of our Federal Congress. Thankfully the upper house isn't react so quickly.
Second, the real source of this fear is a 22-month old proposal by a Democratic Representative, Rangel of NY, that calls for a mandatory draft. He argues that this would be more fair to the men and women of our Nation, instead of the poor and the disadvantaged fighting our wars for us, in Rangel's terms "class warfare" (or was that Marx? or Mao?). On that note, the assertion is not entirely true or accurate. As a volunteer to the US Army myself (don't ask), I take issue with this argument, and I know others would as well. There is merit to the debate, if we indeed are capable of a healthy, measured debate, about the values of mandatory conscription. My libertarian friends would say, "To hell with you." But there is something to be said for a draft--merits (and detractions) I will not fully explore here and now. But this proposal by Rep. Rangel is long-standing and comes from the Democratic Party.
Third, President Bush is the one reducing US troop commitments in Europe & Asia in the interest of slimming down our forces in areas where we really don't fit strategically anymore (Germany for one, not as much so for South Korea). So why would a President who is reducing the size of the military in other, non-Iraq, non-Afghan installations overseas, who is working to alter the rotations of troops in other creative ways, need to consider the draft an option?
Fourth, the Congress is the one that has to legislate a draft. If it happens, it will be the Congress's fault. To all of you Rock the Voters out there, this means that 535 men and women (no dummies I might add) would have to agree in a majority vote (a minimum of 218 in the House and 51 in the Senate) that such an idea is a good idea. It's not likely to happen in my lifetime unless Iran or North Korea decide to take a fight to one of our Allies (or to our Western coast, in the case of North Korea). So hold them responsible. Watch them: especially Rep. Rangel of NYC.
Fifth, this whole morass makes even less sense when you consider Rangel's telling everyone to vote against his own proposal now and is accusing the Administration of hypocrisy.
Fear "mongering" is fine with me, if fear mongering means being honest with ourselves, with the American public, about the real dangers that potentially confront us every day: in our trains, on our bridges, in our office buildings, on our planes, in our schools. If fear mongering means being irrational and irresponsible with the truth then I have a serious problem. The American people, yes, even us Gen-Xers and Gen-Wires, deserve better.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Republican Youth Majority
This evening, I met with officers and members of the Republican Youth Majority at a popular Capitol Hill bar. RYM is a group of students and young professionals who believe that the majority of Republicans are more centrist than the Party leadership would have people believe--and they have the statistics to support them. Their stance is broadly pro-choice, pro-environment, and pro-fiscal responsibility, issues that reflect the pure Republican ideal of hands-off type government. We, at NR, have been worried about the future of the GOP as we watch hordes of our generation run into the waiting arms of the "socially tolerant" Democratic Party. We believe that this phenomenon is rooted in the GOP's insistance on taking a stance on hot button moral issues, while de-emphasizing the core values. Many young "liberals" today seem confused into believing that the anti-government party is the Democratic Party. The GOP has created polarization where it need not be, losing its origninal promise of small federal government, and becoming associated with the all-seeing, all-encompassing behemoth we see today.
The RYM website is worth a visit:
Republican Youth Majority
The RYM website is worth a visit:
Republican Youth Majority
Saturday, October 02, 2004
The Clarion Call -- Our Lighter Side
Check out our sister site where we post non-political links to things that strike us as odd, interesting or just plain funny.
The Clarion Call
The Clarion Call
Points to ponder
Jeff Cooper is regarded in the professional firearms community as the Father of the modern philosophy of arms. He is also an exceptional and especially gifted author, although most liberals types can't concieve of a well educated, well read and aristocratic gentleman who made firearms the focus of his life.
Here are 17 points to ponder he compiled for all of life, not just firearms - all quotes, poems or references that I believe any thinking person can agree with.
CLICK HERE
Here are 17 points to ponder he compiled for all of life, not just firearms - all quotes, poems or references that I believe any thinking person can agree with.
CLICK HERE
Friday, October 01, 2004
I wish we did it by land mass instead of electoral votes...
Neat site. I don't know if they are up to the minute accurate but I sure hope they are!
Electoral College Interactive Map
Electoral College Interactive Map
The "eminent domain" case... or, "Reasons to get a bulldozer and go to City Hall"
I literally can't believe this is going to the Supreme Court (another take on it here).
The STATE is talking about taking privately owned property - owned by its tax paying citizens - and handing it over to another private owner who can generate more tax revenue. As a friend of mine used to say, "Sweet Jesus in the Morning!” She kind of said it in away that led you to believe she was asking what the hell you were thinking.
I see two factors at play here that bother me tremendously -
A) Government destroying the principles of this country - remember, pursuit of happiness was originally the pursuit of property. In a disgusting fit of self protection, a poorly managed system is trying to justify continuing its existence by taking what it has no right to take and giving what it has not right to give in the name of tax revenue.
What are taxes SUPPOSED to do? Oh, that’s right BENEFIT CITIZENS. So let’s destroy some century old homes and families so we can collect more taxes and, um, help more of our local people. Or something like that.
B) I'll give anyone who can find multi-hundred thousand dollar homes that have been impacted by eminent domain. We may be created equal but you sure as hell can't tell by the way government treats people in $50,000 homes versus $500,000 homes. That’s all there is to it. They get the shaft because they don't have as much money. No interstate, no road, cuts through a rich neighborhood. They curve around them. Poor folks, better get outta the house because you don't pay enough in property taxes for us to respect your homestead. Bulldozer coming, pardons...
I'm no champion of the poor re: handouts, welfare, SS, or any other program where it would be cheaper to literally back up a dump truck full of $20's into the projects than run the infrastructure the programs demand. I do get upset when working class people who happen to be poor get crapped on by government doing a condor impression.
This is digusting. If the Supreme Court were to let this go through I'd literally mark it as the day property rights in the US died - or were at least available to the highest bidder.
I spit in the eye of every developer, judge and city council member tearing down our nation for a buck.
*Disclaimer - This article is a compilation of thoughts I stole from other people. Don't be mad at me, everything you write is as well.
The STATE is talking about taking privately owned property - owned by its tax paying citizens - and handing it over to another private owner who can generate more tax revenue. As a friend of mine used to say, "Sweet Jesus in the Morning!” She kind of said it in away that led you to believe she was asking what the hell you were thinking.
I see two factors at play here that bother me tremendously -
A) Government destroying the principles of this country - remember, pursuit of happiness was originally the pursuit of property. In a disgusting fit of self protection, a poorly managed system is trying to justify continuing its existence by taking what it has no right to take and giving what it has not right to give in the name of tax revenue.
What are taxes SUPPOSED to do? Oh, that’s right BENEFIT CITIZENS. So let’s destroy some century old homes and families so we can collect more taxes and, um, help more of our local people. Or something like that.
B) I'll give anyone who can find multi-hundred thousand dollar homes that have been impacted by eminent domain. We may be created equal but you sure as hell can't tell by the way government treats people in $50,000 homes versus $500,000 homes. That’s all there is to it. They get the shaft because they don't have as much money. No interstate, no road, cuts through a rich neighborhood. They curve around them. Poor folks, better get outta the house because you don't pay enough in property taxes for us to respect your homestead. Bulldozer coming, pardons...
I'm no champion of the poor re: handouts, welfare, SS, or any other program where it would be cheaper to literally back up a dump truck full of $20's into the projects than run the infrastructure the programs demand. I do get upset when working class people who happen to be poor get crapped on by government doing a condor impression.
This is digusting. If the Supreme Court were to let this go through I'd literally mark it as the day property rights in the US died - or were at least available to the highest bidder.
I spit in the eye of every developer, judge and city council member tearing down our nation for a buck.
*Disclaimer - This article is a compilation of thoughts I stole from other people. Don't be mad at me, everything you write is as well.
Has enough time passed to rationally discuss the "Assault Weapons" Ban?
The Assault Weapons Ban (or AWB) of 1994 was a historic piece of legislation for many reasons. First, the authors named it beautifully and turned a term that had been very loosely thrown around by Right to Keep and Bear Arms types (RKBA) for years. Up until 1994, there were “assault” weapons on the cover of every gun magazine in the US. And the WORD “ASSAULT” in a 144 pt font, usually bright orange. They weren’t actual assault weapons, but they did look like them, and it bit the RKBA folks in the bum.
Second, it was a real defeat for the Second Amendment and NRA.
Third, it astounded the authors. While it made it through a bunch of hoops in the Congress, and Clinton was all too happy to sign it, it cost them the control of the Congress, and the House for the first time in 40 years – and unseated the speaker. Even Clinton said so – the AWB cost them 20 seats. Now in the house EVERYBODY is pro gun – witness the DC Personal Protection Act HR 3193 that passed 250-118.
So what exactly did the AWB do? Nothing. I mean literally nothing from a practical and realistic standpoint. Status Quo except for some minor (and occasionally major) price increases. See, while it “banned” 19 guns, it is important to understand the following –
A) None of them were fully automatic. Full auto weapons are regulated by 1930’s legislation, the NFA. All full auto guns are “class three” and so regulated that it they are basically verboten. AK-47s, M-16s, and Uzis have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BAN. They are mentioned by shrill and inflammatory people, but those weapons are regulated by 1930s legislation, period, end of subject.
B) Many LOOKED like military weapons, but weren’t. From a functionality standpoint, it was a beauty contest – mean looking guns were “banned” while guns that looked like regular rifles or pistols were left untouched EVEN IF THEY DID EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
C) I’m going to slap the next person that says Cop Killer pistol/gun/bullet/AK-47. This is the cry of the woefully ignorant and uninformed. The vast majority of bullets that can defeat body armor pre-date its existence. Think about that for a second.
Quick lesson –
As a general rule, semi-automatic pistols can’t defeat body armor. Hollow points are especially useless against body armor. Handguns that can penetrate body armor are so big and hard to fire - and expensive and rare - that they are not a consideration.
As a rule, 99% of rifles can. Any rifle. The “assault” weapons tend to fire relatively low powered rifle rounds compared to hunting rifles. The most deadly guns will never be banned in the U.S. as they are hunting rifles. I’m more scared of a guy who knows what he’s doing and has a 4 shot bolt action rifle than an idiot with a Tec-9 and a 30 round magazine.
Anyone who doesn't understand and wants a lesson in ballistics and physics can e-mail me.
After the AWB went into effect, cosmetic changes were made and nothing missed a beat. An AR-15 lost the non-functional bayonet lug, the accuracy decreasing flash suppressor, and the collapsible stock. It was still a 20-100 shot .223 semi-automatic rifle. It was still the same price. It was just as available. This applies to just about every weapon out there. They dropped a couple things that weren’t functional anyway and went about their business.
So how the heck did “crime with these types of weapons go down 70%” like Dianne Feinstein felt obligated to crow? I have no idea, as it couldn’t have, since the BAN DIDN’T BAN GUNS – IT BANNED BAYONET LUGS AND FLASH SUPPRESSORS. I have personally never had a problem with a bayoneting in my neighborhood but then I live in a relatively safe area.
Those statistics were full of it and they knew it. The only reason crime went down at all was that now more than 35 states allow concealed carry – mainly in response to the 94 AWB. People got serious about their rights. Despite predictions of gloom and doom, NOT A SINGLE STATE HAD A INCREASE IN HANDGUN VIOLENCE OR CRIME RELATED TO FIREARMS AFTER PASSING A CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT LAW. Not one. Funny – more guns, less crime. Just doesn’t comprehend does it? Except to think that just maybe – MAYBE – criminals worry about getting shot by law abiding citizens if they don’t know whether or not they are packing heat. Funny thing happened in Louisiana a while back. We passed a “shoot the carjacker” law that says, well, if you get carjacked you can plug the guy. Carjackings aren’t a problem any more due to former carjackers sense of self preservation.
I also submit that the places you CAN NOT get a permit – Washington DC, NYC, LA, Detroit – crime is the worst and handguns are on the streets. CRIMINALS DON’T FOLLOW THE LAW. They carry regardless.
And finally – the most senseless and least thought out comment that is repeated over, and over, and over –
“Why do you need an Uzi*, you don’t hunt deer with AK-47s*”", and every other argument talking about what I need.
Regulating NEED? Really? We want government regulating NEED? Holy crap.
First, the Constitution (you knew it was coming) isn’t about needs or hunting. It is about wants, freedom, and defending yourself against bad guys, and those guys didn’t trust the government, either.
Let us regulate some needs - You don’t NEED your car. You certainly don’t NEED an SUV, Porsche, 3,000 square foot home using precious energy to heat and cool its extravagance, TWO homes, chocolate, MP3s, television, football, high heeled shoes – would you like me to go on?
I want to be able to protect myself and my family as effectively and efficiently as possible. POLICE DO NOT PROTECT US. Until I have an officer personally assigned to me, and one to my wife – and they are with me 24/7 and are trained and competent to my standards – I’m carrying a gun. Bad things happen whether or not cops are around. Cops show up after the fact and find the bad people who did it and stop them from doing it again. That is their job. They CAN NOT PROTECT US FROM UNFORESEEN EVENTS IN THE FUTURE.
In closing, I’d like to challenge everyone who disagrees with me that every citizen should have the right to carry a handgun and own a semi-automatic rifle to do the following.
A) Print up a sign and put it in your window. It should say –
“There are no firearms in this home. I do not believe in using firearms to defend myself or my loved ones. Anyone entering this home will face unarmed opposition. YOU WILL NOT BE SHOT IF YOU ENTER THIS HOME!”
B) Wear a button ALL THE TIME that says – “I am not carrying a firearm for self defense. I will defend my life and loved ones with my bare hands.” I’m serious – wear it all the time. Especially in bad neighborhoods and at night.
Good luck with those strategies in the world of today.
*Disclaimer - This article is a compilation of thoughts I stole from other people. Don't be mad at me, everything you write is as well.
Second, it was a real defeat for the Second Amendment and NRA.
Third, it astounded the authors. While it made it through a bunch of hoops in the Congress, and Clinton was all too happy to sign it, it cost them the control of the Congress, and the House for the first time in 40 years – and unseated the speaker. Even Clinton said so – the AWB cost them 20 seats. Now in the house EVERYBODY is pro gun – witness the DC Personal Protection Act HR 3193 that passed 250-118.
So what exactly did the AWB do? Nothing. I mean literally nothing from a practical and realistic standpoint. Status Quo except for some minor (and occasionally major) price increases. See, while it “banned” 19 guns, it is important to understand the following –
A) None of them were fully automatic. Full auto weapons are regulated by 1930’s legislation, the NFA. All full auto guns are “class three” and so regulated that it they are basically verboten. AK-47s, M-16s, and Uzis have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BAN. They are mentioned by shrill and inflammatory people, but those weapons are regulated by 1930s legislation, period, end of subject.
B) Many LOOKED like military weapons, but weren’t. From a functionality standpoint, it was a beauty contest – mean looking guns were “banned” while guns that looked like regular rifles or pistols were left untouched EVEN IF THEY DID EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
C) I’m going to slap the next person that says Cop Killer pistol/gun/bullet/AK-47. This is the cry of the woefully ignorant and uninformed. The vast majority of bullets that can defeat body armor pre-date its existence. Think about that for a second.
Quick lesson –
As a general rule, semi-automatic pistols can’t defeat body armor. Hollow points are especially useless against body armor. Handguns that can penetrate body armor are so big and hard to fire - and expensive and rare - that they are not a consideration.
As a rule, 99% of rifles can. Any rifle. The “assault” weapons tend to fire relatively low powered rifle rounds compared to hunting rifles. The most deadly guns will never be banned in the U.S. as they are hunting rifles. I’m more scared of a guy who knows what he’s doing and has a 4 shot bolt action rifle than an idiot with a Tec-9 and a 30 round magazine.
Anyone who doesn't understand and wants a lesson in ballistics and physics can e-mail me.
After the AWB went into effect, cosmetic changes were made and nothing missed a beat. An AR-15 lost the non-functional bayonet lug, the accuracy decreasing flash suppressor, and the collapsible stock. It was still a 20-100 shot .223 semi-automatic rifle. It was still the same price. It was just as available. This applies to just about every weapon out there. They dropped a couple things that weren’t functional anyway and went about their business.
So how the heck did “crime with these types of weapons go down 70%” like Dianne Feinstein felt obligated to crow? I have no idea, as it couldn’t have, since the BAN DIDN’T BAN GUNS – IT BANNED BAYONET LUGS AND FLASH SUPPRESSORS. I have personally never had a problem with a bayoneting in my neighborhood but then I live in a relatively safe area.
Those statistics were full of it and they knew it. The only reason crime went down at all was that now more than 35 states allow concealed carry – mainly in response to the 94 AWB. People got serious about their rights. Despite predictions of gloom and doom, NOT A SINGLE STATE HAD A INCREASE IN HANDGUN VIOLENCE OR CRIME RELATED TO FIREARMS AFTER PASSING A CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT LAW. Not one. Funny – more guns, less crime. Just doesn’t comprehend does it? Except to think that just maybe – MAYBE – criminals worry about getting shot by law abiding citizens if they don’t know whether or not they are packing heat. Funny thing happened in Louisiana a while back. We passed a “shoot the carjacker” law that says, well, if you get carjacked you can plug the guy. Carjackings aren’t a problem any more due to former carjackers sense of self preservation.
I also submit that the places you CAN NOT get a permit – Washington DC, NYC, LA, Detroit – crime is the worst and handguns are on the streets. CRIMINALS DON’T FOLLOW THE LAW. They carry regardless.
And finally – the most senseless and least thought out comment that is repeated over, and over, and over –
“Why do you need an Uzi*, you don’t hunt deer with AK-47s*”", and every other argument talking about what I need.
Regulating NEED? Really? We want government regulating NEED? Holy crap.
First, the Constitution (you knew it was coming) isn’t about needs or hunting. It is about wants, freedom, and defending yourself against bad guys, and those guys didn’t trust the government, either.
Let us regulate some needs - You don’t NEED your car. You certainly don’t NEED an SUV, Porsche, 3,000 square foot home using precious energy to heat and cool its extravagance, TWO homes, chocolate, MP3s, television, football, high heeled shoes – would you like me to go on?
I want to be able to protect myself and my family as effectively and efficiently as possible. POLICE DO NOT PROTECT US. Until I have an officer personally assigned to me, and one to my wife – and they are with me 24/7 and are trained and competent to my standards – I’m carrying a gun. Bad things happen whether or not cops are around. Cops show up after the fact and find the bad people who did it and stop them from doing it again. That is their job. They CAN NOT PROTECT US FROM UNFORESEEN EVENTS IN THE FUTURE.
In closing, I’d like to challenge everyone who disagrees with me that every citizen should have the right to carry a handgun and own a semi-automatic rifle to do the following.
A) Print up a sign and put it in your window. It should say –
“There are no firearms in this home. I do not believe in using firearms to defend myself or my loved ones. Anyone entering this home will face unarmed opposition. YOU WILL NOT BE SHOT IF YOU ENTER THIS HOME!”
B) Wear a button ALL THE TIME that says – “I am not carrying a firearm for self defense. I will defend my life and loved ones with my bare hands.” I’m serious – wear it all the time. Especially in bad neighborhoods and at night.
Good luck with those strategies in the world of today.
*Disclaimer - This article is a compilation of thoughts I stole from other people. Don't be mad at me, everything you write is as well.
A commentary on the responsibilites of the President - any President.
I am always somewhat annoyed or amused (quite situational) when the President - any President - is blamed for a problem or given credit for a good thing.
When that one man is expected to be America's All Knowing & Ever Present leader, I wonder if the critics of the President - any President - or the media actually thinks the public is so small minded as to say...
"Yeah! The President IS to blame for traffic! He should have come to my hometown and talked with the city council about the problem, then dropped gold bricks out of Air Force One on his way out of town to pay for the project!"
The kicker is I think most of the public DOES think that, to a degree. Perhaps not quite to that extent - but I know they are out there as I have met them. They typically vote down a party line regardless of the individual. Hint – bad idea. I wish I could vote for Zell and I’m a libertarian.
The irony is that by all accounts the President has little to no control over the information given to him. His appointees appoint people who are trusted to filter info, feed it to said appointee, who then filter it again for their brief interaction with the President. After all, the laws of time and space still apply - he has 24 hours in a day.
To saddle the President - any President - with ALL of OUR problems is so silly as to deserve a good hard slap. I know it is a lot much to ask, but how about this -
A) Judge EVERY person, including the President, by the things they choose to focus on and then how effective they are at those things.
B) Recognize that there are 24 hours in a day and a billion or so problems the country faces.
C) Grasp the concepts of delegation, an individual states responsibilities, and that we SHOULD'T WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TRY TO FIX EVERYTHING. Or the state government. Or the local government…
Because they can't. Historically everything government does gets big and expensive. They should do as little as possible but since everyone in the world - literally - has their hand out and they tend to throw money at problems.
So I suggest the following - when selecting your President look for the following traits...
Someone who will say what they mean and then do what they say.
Someone who puts America's needs before any other countries. Sorry if this offends you but I don't pay my tax dollars to support foreign nations. I do it to defend us, educate children, and build roads.
Someone who DOESN'T MAKE PROMISES THEY CAN'T BACK UP. Which is really any promise to make stuff happen from that office. There are all these annoying checks and balances - just ask Putin - that make it so the Congress has to do stuff, then the courts have to say that stuff is OK. Silly but it works better than anything else we have.
I don't think it really matters who you vote for President in that they can't do much without a willing congress. And that is a great thing. I LIKE a government in gridlock - they spend a hell of a lot less money. So if Bush wins, great, especially with a balanced or Democratic senate and Republican House. If Kerry wins, God help us, a Republican House AND Senate could possibly save us.
But stop kidding yourself about how many things the President did right, or wrong. He is only one man. Suck it up and do something for yourself and your community, and inspire others to do the same. The results might surprise you - and you might have less time to worry about what the President SHOULD have done.
*Disclaimer - This article is a compilation of thoughts I stole from other people. Don't be mad at me, everything you write is as well.
When that one man is expected to be America's All Knowing & Ever Present leader, I wonder if the critics of the President - any President - or the media actually thinks the public is so small minded as to say...
"Yeah! The President IS to blame for traffic! He should have come to my hometown and talked with the city council about the problem, then dropped gold bricks out of Air Force One on his way out of town to pay for the project!"
The kicker is I think most of the public DOES think that, to a degree. Perhaps not quite to that extent - but I know they are out there as I have met them. They typically vote down a party line regardless of the individual. Hint – bad idea. I wish I could vote for Zell and I’m a libertarian.
The irony is that by all accounts the President has little to no control over the information given to him. His appointees appoint people who are trusted to filter info, feed it to said appointee, who then filter it again for their brief interaction with the President. After all, the laws of time and space still apply - he has 24 hours in a day.
To saddle the President - any President - with ALL of OUR problems is so silly as to deserve a good hard slap. I know it is a lot much to ask, but how about this -
A) Judge EVERY person, including the President, by the things they choose to focus on and then how effective they are at those things.
B) Recognize that there are 24 hours in a day and a billion or so problems the country faces.
C) Grasp the concepts of delegation, an individual states responsibilities, and that we SHOULD'T WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TRY TO FIX EVERYTHING. Or the state government. Or the local government…
Because they can't. Historically everything government does gets big and expensive. They should do as little as possible but since everyone in the world - literally - has their hand out and they tend to throw money at problems.
So I suggest the following - when selecting your President look for the following traits...
Someone who will say what they mean and then do what they say.
Someone who puts America's needs before any other countries. Sorry if this offends you but I don't pay my tax dollars to support foreign nations. I do it to defend us, educate children, and build roads.
Someone who DOESN'T MAKE PROMISES THEY CAN'T BACK UP. Which is really any promise to make stuff happen from that office. There are all these annoying checks and balances - just ask Putin - that make it so the Congress has to do stuff, then the courts have to say that stuff is OK. Silly but it works better than anything else we have.
I don't think it really matters who you vote for President in that they can't do much without a willing congress. And that is a great thing. I LIKE a government in gridlock - they spend a hell of a lot less money. So if Bush wins, great, especially with a balanced or Democratic senate and Republican House. If Kerry wins, God help us, a Republican House AND Senate could possibly save us.
But stop kidding yourself about how many things the President did right, or wrong. He is only one man. Suck it up and do something for yourself and your community, and inspire others to do the same. The results might surprise you - and you might have less time to worry about what the President SHOULD have done.
*Disclaimer - This article is a compilation of thoughts I stole from other people. Don't be mad at me, everything you write is as well.
Fearing Death?
Maybe bin Laden or al-Zawihiri are beginning to feel military pressure on their hiding place. Or maybe they are planning a suicide mission themselves (odd how the loudest advocates for suicide are rarely the ones to do it). How else do you explain the new tape that has Zawihiri urging the young and impressionable to continue to fight even if the leaders are killed?
Republican: A Christian Fundamentalists Definition
[Another one from Preston]
A commentary on Illinois Republican Senatorial candidate Alan Keyes' website (www.keyes2004.com) demonstrates how the Christian Right does not understand the concept of a political party. According to Conservative columnist, Scott Thomas, the reason some Republicans are voting against Alan Keyes is because they are embarrassed by his blunt style. Says Thomas:
"Being embarrassed by headlines, like the one that connects selfish hedonist homosexuality to the Vice President's daughter, appears to allow you to justify, in your mind, voting for Barack Obama who has promised to work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act."
Thomas is referencing a Chicago Tribune voters' poll that says 35 percent of Republicans will be voting for Democrat Barack Obama. Says Thomas:
"I can only conclude that these 35% are, in fact, embarrassed by Alan Keyes' honesty and bold style. Sadly, it would appear that embarrassment has more political influence than does a candidate's stance on issues."
Thomas, apparently, believes that all Republicans are Fundamentalist Christians or at least social conservatives. This insight into the mind of the Christian Right demonstrates their skewed definition of Republican. It is a definition devoid of the philosophical diversity that exists within the Republican Party in 2004. Groups such as the Log Cabin Republicans, Republicans for Choice, and the United Republican Network are gaining members and shining light on a silent majority of moderate Republicans. These Republicans believe in the core ideals of Republicanism: individual choice, personal responsibility, free enterprise, and small government.
Why does the Christian Right insist on dividing the party of Lincoln? Probably because they have replaced the core ideals of Republicanism with an imposed code of morality based on their interpretation of the Christian Bible. Why not rename the party the Christian Party? If only Max Weber were still alive! Of course, the early Christian church was an operation based more in communism than capitalism, so some modification may be in order. (Remember what happened to Ananias and his wife when they lied about giving all their money, having liquidated their assets, to the community.-Acts 5).
Republicans were once the great defenders of individual liberty in the face of big government, conservative Democrats. The reason 35% of Republicans are voting against Dr. Keyes has less to do with embarrassment and more to do with disagreement. Not all Republicans believe that Cheney's daughter is a "selfish hedonist" because she is a lesbian. Not all Republicans are Christians-some are Jewish and some are even Atheists. When the party remembers its roots, we will be successful. When the party loses faith in the judgment of the individual and expands the government, we will lose.
[A Nickels Worth: It's not a good idea to mess with Dick Cheney or his family, Dr. Keyes. The guy used to run Halliburton and he's still the Vice President, you know...]
A commentary on Illinois Republican Senatorial candidate Alan Keyes' website (www.keyes2004.com) demonstrates how the Christian Right does not understand the concept of a political party. According to Conservative columnist, Scott Thomas, the reason some Republicans are voting against Alan Keyes is because they are embarrassed by his blunt style. Says Thomas:
"Being embarrassed by headlines, like the one that connects selfish hedonist homosexuality to the Vice President's daughter, appears to allow you to justify, in your mind, voting for Barack Obama who has promised to work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act."
Thomas is referencing a Chicago Tribune voters' poll that says 35 percent of Republicans will be voting for Democrat Barack Obama. Says Thomas:
"I can only conclude that these 35% are, in fact, embarrassed by Alan Keyes' honesty and bold style. Sadly, it would appear that embarrassment has more political influence than does a candidate's stance on issues."
Thomas, apparently, believes that all Republicans are Fundamentalist Christians or at least social conservatives. This insight into the mind of the Christian Right demonstrates their skewed definition of Republican. It is a definition devoid of the philosophical diversity that exists within the Republican Party in 2004. Groups such as the Log Cabin Republicans, Republicans for Choice, and the United Republican Network are gaining members and shining light on a silent majority of moderate Republicans. These Republicans believe in the core ideals of Republicanism: individual choice, personal responsibility, free enterprise, and small government.
Why does the Christian Right insist on dividing the party of Lincoln? Probably because they have replaced the core ideals of Republicanism with an imposed code of morality based on their interpretation of the Christian Bible. Why not rename the party the Christian Party? If only Max Weber were still alive! Of course, the early Christian church was an operation based more in communism than capitalism, so some modification may be in order. (Remember what happened to Ananias and his wife when they lied about giving all their money, having liquidated their assets, to the community.-Acts 5).
Republicans were once the great defenders of individual liberty in the face of big government, conservative Democrats. The reason 35% of Republicans are voting against Dr. Keyes has less to do with embarrassment and more to do with disagreement. Not all Republicans believe that Cheney's daughter is a "selfish hedonist" because she is a lesbian. Not all Republicans are Christians-some are Jewish and some are even Atheists. When the party remembers its roots, we will be successful. When the party loses faith in the judgment of the individual and expands the government, we will lose.
[A Nickels Worth: It's not a good idea to mess with Dick Cheney or his family, Dr. Keyes. The guy used to run Halliburton and he's still the Vice President, you know...]
Windrem's Take on the Debate
I saw nothing last night that I did not expect to see. Senator Kerry lamented the loss of our alliances while President Bush extolled the virtues of freedom in Iraq. Kerry took this opportunity to let the American people know that he would "hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are." Bush explained that his opponent had the same intelligence on Iraq and voted for the war and reminded the national audience that "now there's 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops."
Very predictable. I agree with Joe Lockhart's alleged analysis that this debate was a draw: The Democrat sharpening his proverbial talons on defense issues and the Republican celebrating a grand coalition of international friendship. Kerry had to gain legitimacy as a Commander-in-Chief by making it clear that he is not afraid to bomb stuff and does not need a permission slip from France. Bush, on the other hand, had less to establish. Most people by now are fairly confident in his ability to use force. People are also used to his style of speech--at once scaring the crap out of the Dems and making Republicans cringe.
However, Bush could have inflicted more damage on Kerry both substantively and stylistically. Stylistically, he needed more serious, right-at-the-camera monologues and he needed to be more dismissive of the Senator's attacks. For example, after Kerry said:
"Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better."
If Bush had looked right at the camera, straight in the eye of America, and said:
Look, it wouldn't have mattered if it was one country... or none at all. Our intelligence said Iraq was a grave threat to the United States of America. I saw it. My opponent saw it. I do not now, nor will I ever, wait for international permission before I act to defend America. National security is not a popularity contest.
If he had said something like this, with solemnity and conviction, it would have had a powerful effect. Kerry would have been fumbling with rebuttals about his also not needing France's permission, but the implication would already be out there. On the whole, Bush did talk about his resolve, but he also downplayed his semi-unilateral decision by citing the current 30 nation coalition. This seems to be heading toward Kerry's established territory, a campaign fau paux.
Although, the President's delivery fell short of the kind of power needed in a Presidential debate, he was able to keep up with the former debate champion. Fortunately for the President, the Senator is, if more polished in his speech, irreparably short on charm.
Very predictable. I agree with Joe Lockhart's alleged analysis that this debate was a draw: The Democrat sharpening his proverbial talons on defense issues and the Republican celebrating a grand coalition of international friendship. Kerry had to gain legitimacy as a Commander-in-Chief by making it clear that he is not afraid to bomb stuff and does not need a permission slip from France. Bush, on the other hand, had less to establish. Most people by now are fairly confident in his ability to use force. People are also used to his style of speech--at once scaring the crap out of the Dems and making Republicans cringe.
However, Bush could have inflicted more damage on Kerry both substantively and stylistically. Stylistically, he needed more serious, right-at-the-camera monologues and he needed to be more dismissive of the Senator's attacks. For example, after Kerry said:
"Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better."
If Bush had looked right at the camera, straight in the eye of America, and said:
Look, it wouldn't have mattered if it was one country... or none at all. Our intelligence said Iraq was a grave threat to the United States of America. I saw it. My opponent saw it. I do not now, nor will I ever, wait for international permission before I act to defend America. National security is not a popularity contest.
If he had said something like this, with solemnity and conviction, it would have had a powerful effect. Kerry would have been fumbling with rebuttals about his also not needing France's permission, but the implication would already be out there. On the whole, Bush did talk about his resolve, but he also downplayed his semi-unilateral decision by citing the current 30 nation coalition. This seems to be heading toward Kerry's established territory, a campaign fau paux.
Although, the President's delivery fell short of the kind of power needed in a Presidential debate, he was able to keep up with the former debate champion. Fortunately for the President, the Senator is, if more polished in his speech, irreparably short on charm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
