October 30, 2004
Thanks to NRO's The Corner, I found this article on the Weekly Standard regarding Kerry's reaction to the most recent Osama bin Laden tape.
The Corner post emphasized the article's main point: that in Kerry's unscripted reaction, and through his surrogates, Kerry attempted to score political points. Personally, I find the argument weak. I didn't think Kerry's statement ("I am prepared to wage a more effective war on terror than George Bush.") was unexpected, out of line, or convincing in the least. And surrogates, well, that's what surrogates do: they make more outrageous statements the candidate himself can't make in order to persuade voters. So what?
But to me, they ignored the juiciest statement by Holbrooke. It's also a point the Bush campaign should jump on and hammer right up until all the polls close:
"Now, [Osama bin Laden] is able to send out this vicious threat through al Jazeera and everyone else in the world."
Oooh. I'm scared. He sent out a threat. Oh, pardon me: a vicious threat. I'm trembling. Maybe if President Bush gets re-elected, Osama bin Laden will taunt us, or even attempt to intimidate us.
See, under Bill Clinton, bin Laden was unpursued, and free to do more than sending out threats, he was sending out terrorists, funding, and training to blow up the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, two African Embassies, and even establish a team of hijackers to fly planes into the World Trade Center Towers (although the attack was actually carried out after Bill Clinton left office, the bulk of the planning and training was done long before President Bush took office*). Under Bill Clinton, al-Qaida were considered mere criminals, and pursuit was half-hearted. This is the model Kerry wants to re-establish and follow. It is only because of President Bush and his clearly-stated vision that Islamic Extremist terrorists (not just al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden) have declared war on the United States and we will not rest until their will to destroy us has been eradicated. Kerry apparently would only continue until they captured Osama bin Laden, a mere symbol of the war. Then they would declare victory and quit fighting terrorism, adopting the attitude that terrorism is only a "nuisance" because the "Main Man" of terror has been "brought to justice"**.
We cannot afford to have John Kerry as a President, a man who focuses on Tora Bora and claims it was a failure of "outsourcing", even though the reason we had done so well to that point with a low loss of US life was because we "outsourced" nearly the whole war in Afghanistan, using the Northern Alliance as the main ground troops to defeat the Taliban, with US ground (Special?) forces only providing leadership, guidance, and expertise; and the USAF providing precision air strikes for Close Air Support. Brief Conclusion: Despite being in the Navy more than 30 years ago, Kerry really doesn't understand our current military at all. He is unserious about defeating terrorists, and will say anything he can to get elected without the political or personal will to back it up.
Which is pretty much the diametric opposite of George W. Bush.
So if you prefer to be threatened, taunted, intimidated, and insulted, vote for George W. Bush. If you prefer to have terrorist attacks on US soil killing thousands of civilians, vote for John Kerry.
Read More "Your Choice" »Show Comments »
» The LLama Butchers links with: Taunted by the French Knight
October 29, 2004
Seriously, is there anything in this article that sounds like reasonable pronouncements from a well man?
Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin says John Kerry has been gaining in the polls every day since Oct. 21, and George Bush has been going down every day. "That's how God wants it to be," Harkin told a group of about 25 people at the Benton County Headquarters in Vinton on Thursday afternoon.
Harkin said that in Iowa, 50,000 new voters registered as Democrats recently, but only 20,000 registered as Independents and even fewer - 9,400 - registered as Republicans.
Harkin didn't remember the name of Pettengill's opponent, but told the group, "he has to go."
Show Comments »
BUSH EVENT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: Event workers had been told to fire off confetti pods when Bush said, 'God Bless'... his normal closing line. But 5 minutes before the end of his speech, Bush offered a "God Bless" to Arlene Howard, mother of George Howard a Port Authority of New York/New Jersey Police Officer killed in the World Trade Center... BLAM!!!!! Everyone first ducked -- hard -- then looked up to see confetti falling. Bush looked momentarily stunned, then plain unhappy, then just went on with his speech as the confetti rained to the floor of the Verizon Wireless Arena... Developing...
From Drudge Report.
Show Comments »
'Which Kevin?' you ask? Good question, since I think a higher percentage of 'Kevins' are blogging than any other given name, although I think Michelle/Michele comes close if you combine the spelling.
In this case, however, I'm speaking of the inestimable Kevin McGehee, who explains that President Bush is not only going to win, he's going to win bigger than most people expect.
ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN would be well advised to stock up on antacid.
Indeed.
Show Comments »
October 28, 2004
Brain Fertilizer is #1 on a Google search for Nilou Motamed.
Show Comments »
Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms
Show Comments »
Bush got just about half the votes in the last election.
Now, four years later, what's going on?
Q and O has this, saying Bush is picking up all sorts of votes among white females, blacks, Jews, first-time voters, and veterans*.
The Kerry Spot says has Zogby saying Bush has mobilized his base more effectively than last time.
Despite the Old Media not being able to find any, the Democrats For Bush phenomena is, by most accounts, stronger than the Republicans for Kerry movement.***
Now, unless you assume that Bush is only picking up the extra votes from people who didn't vote last time around**, shouldn't that translate to a landslide victory for President Bush? The percentages truly seem to indicate President Bush getting something close to 60% of the vote, which seems ridiculous on the face of it.
And here's some more evidence that Bush is going to easily defeat Kerry: Up by 5 points in heavily-Democrat Michigan?!??!
...and yet, Mickey Kaus keeps going over implausible scenarios of ties, and if you scroll down over the last week, keeps talking as if the "undecideds break against the incumbent" historical trend will deliver the victory to Kerry. And Rasmussen has the candidates well within the margin of error.****
That just doesn't seem possible.
I know there is some dispute on polling practices, i.e., Democrats tend to answer the phone more often during typical polling time periods, so to eliminate that influence the pollster has to "weight" the results in line with traditional Democrat/Republican percentages, but even the extent or direction of the weighting is in dispute.
The editor of Newsweek said the media is worth 10-15 percentage points of votes for Democrats, because of liberal bias. And an even more strong historical trend than the "Undecideds Break Against the Incumbent" one is that people tend to not vote if they think their candidate is going to lose. Combine those two ideas, and it becomes more clear why the Old Media is insisting Kerry is still in the race.
I'm still thinking the final results are going to be very surprising...an unwelcome surprise for Democrats, indeed.
Read More "WTF Is Going to Happen Next Tuesday?" »Show Comments »
» The LLama Butchers links with: I really needed this right now!
White-liberal racism — or racialism — is one of the most ignored, and maddening, phenomena of our time.
Show Comments »
October 27, 2004
Congratulations to KC Chief Brian Waters for his award this week.
It was unprecedented. Never before has an OL player won the award.
When you set an NFL record by rushing for eight touchdowns in a single game, you know that someone is going to be recognized. But the surprise at One Arrowhead Drive Tuesday was that left guard Brian Waters was chosen the AFC's offensive player of the week.It marked the first time since the inception of the award in 1984 that an offensive lineman received the AFC offensive player of the week. Waters, who attended North Texas, was an appropriate candidate because he's having the best season of his five-year NFL career and because the Chiefs did a lot of their damage against the Falcons on Sunday by running behind Waters and left tackle Willie Roaf.
“I think Brian Waters is playing guard as well as any guard in football if not better right now,” Chiefs coach Dick Vermeil said. “It's nice that they recognized one of our offensive linemen.”
And you know what? He was converted to O-Line after playing Tight End in college. So he was the first lineman ever selected to be the AFC Offensive Player O' The Week, and it wasn't his original position. Wow.
Show Comments »
October 26, 2004
The phone just rang, and I answered it, expecting the usual telemarketer.
It was, sort of. The guy asked for me by name and identified himself as being from the "Evergreen Political Something-Or-Other". He asked if I had some time to answer three questions.
I thought, "My first political poll to answer! Okay, listen for bias/leading in the questions or tone of voice!"
He said, "Okay, first question: have you already voted by mail-in ballot?"
I said, "Yes." (Because I have, you know. Not quite a straight ticket, but more on that only if you nosy buggers beg me to tell you)
He started saying something, and in retrospect it seemed like he was just filling up space while he was reaching for the lever to hang up the phone, because a second later I heard the double-clicks followed by the dial tone. I waited, just in case he was accidentally cut off and would call back, but he never did.
So. What was this, exactly? Was it an attempt at voting fraud? Was it truly inadvertant? If the next two questions were obviated by the first, couldn't he at least have told me that before politely ending the conversation? My hackles are rather risen at this point, I'll tell ya.
Show Comments »
...not for me, maybe. But I could see South Park Republicans being down with this:
(Low taxes, security, and fiscal responsibility) + (Choice, civil liberties, and legalizing fun) = Libertarians with a more moderate brand.
See, I'm one who thinks that happiness is best found by making good choices...but looking around the current US society, I'm just about the only one. Luckily, a few of the others who feel the same way have found this site and visit/comment often.
Via Q and O Blog.
Show Comments »
Then again, maybe not.
Show Comments »
October 25, 2004
I really don't know what to think about the Chiefs right now.
I had written off their season after the loss to the Jaguars. I was all set to write a piece titled, "Kansas City just isn't that good this year." I was going to go from there and talk about how despite all the criticism for KC not improving their defense, it was the offense that was losing games for KC, that despite the doubts and naysayers, the addition of Gunther Cunningham and the development of players from within was enough, because the defense was doing fine and improving every week.
The Ravens game seemed to bring it all together. The offense stopped trying to be so cute and really started to kick butt. We still missed Kris Wilson and Mark Boerigter on offense, but Jason Dunn and Chris Horn looked like they could do nearly the same thing. I was waiting for a win against the Jaguars before giving in to hope and thinking maybe the Chiefs could make the playoffs. It didn't happen, and the way it happened was both bad and good for the Chiefs. Good, because Leftwich is probably going to be one of the greats, showing John Elway levels of ability, strength of character, and comeback talent, so, no shame, right? Bad, because the offense could have iced the game with a first down, but they didn't. Losing like that isn't good for a team that started the season with Superbowl aspirations and now must scramble to make the playoffs.
But now, arguably the two best offensive performances of the season were both turned in by Kansas City, and one of the best defensive performances was also given by the Chiefs this last week. It took some time, but this was the defense we expected KC to have with Gunther in charge. Can mediocre-to-bad players absolutely shut down Michael Vick?!? Of course not. This is a good defense with good players.
But have they arrived?
Has the offense arrived?
I thought so after they dominated the Ravens defense, but they didn't show it against the Jaguars.
So what to think?
I guess I think Kansas City let too many games get away from them. They could have won any of the four games they lost this year. They led and were in control at some point in the second half of each of the games, but let them all slip away. There's reason for each, perhaps.
Denver: It was in the Mile-High Zone, and the refs refused to call a Defensive Pass Interference call on any of the muggings. But I hang the loss on Vermeil for not keeping Chris Horn on the roster for the opener. We were simply undermanned at the WR position. One extra WR and we might still have pulled it out.
Carolina: The turning point was clearly when Delhomme flung up a prayer while being thrown to the turf, a toss that usually gets intercepted, a toss that usually only Denver QBs get lucky enough to complete...and it went for a touchdown. But I still don't think there's much shame to lose to a team that contended in the Superbowl only a few games before.
Texas: David Carr is going to be one of the greats, also, just like Byron Leftwich. Kansas City should have been able to put it away, and didn't. We could have taken it out of Texas' (and Jacksonville's) hands, but didn't. But you have to hand it to those QBs, they are good.
As such, those four losses could be 4 of the 5 toughest games KC plays in all year. Looking at the schedule, the only teams that look to match up so well against KC are the Patriots and the Colts, and we should be able to win at least one of those...at the very least, if we have any hope of winning a playoff game, we'll have to prove it by winning one or both.
And if the true Kansas City Chiefs team is the one we saw this week against Atlanta, well, then they have an outside chance of sweeping the rest of the season. And that would be what it would take to have a chance for home-field advantage, or to convince me we could be the favorite to make/win the Superbowl.
At this point, however, I'd be satisfied with a strong 9- or 10-win season, I'd be happy with a blow-out win over Denver at the end of the season, and I'd be ecstatic if we overtook the Broncos and won the Division. Going deep into the playoffs would just be icing.
So. Will they reach any of those hopes? We'll have to see, and the first test will be to see how they react to such a dominant win. If they become overconfident and lose another close game, that says something. If they get it done, that says something else. I really hope KC has learned to win the close battles, but at this point I have no such confidence. We'll see.
Show Comments »
» The LLama Butchers links with: Feelilng a bit groggy but more human
» evolution links with: chiefs report: commentary
From SAAM, on voting techniques.
From Jeff G., on the New York Times' latest non-news attempt to get John Kerry elected.
And the important one, a kicker from Protein Wisdom on the potential Death of a Nation:
I’m feeling queasy. The fact that I can no longer trust the mainstream media to give me any straight news—to the point where it is next to impossible to gauge the outcome of this election beforehand—is frightening enough. But that their abuses may actually lead to a John Kerry presidency -- the wrong man at the wrong place at the wrong time—well, that is giving me the cold sweats....
The fact remains that we are a week away from the biggest presidential election of our generation, and the majority of American people know next to nothing of John Kerry’s record of dovishness and foreign policy “realism,” thanks in large part to an ideological media that has become the single most important wing of the Democratic party. And that’s an outrage.
Show Comments »
It seems a day doesn't go by without seeing some misplaced or incorrect word appearing in someone's writing. I don't worry about blogs, because we don't have editors. Heck, most of us don't have funding, much less a staff that should include copy-editors.
So while it bothers me, I don't usually make a big deal out of "tow the line" and such.
But check out this paragraph:
Why did the electoral college survive electing a president who failed to win a majority of the popular vote? Quite simply, we learned from 2000 that no matter what the drawbacks of the current system, it is imminently better than the alternative.
See anything funny? To wit, how could something be imminently better? Try: eminently and it makes sense. Sure, they sound almost the same, but the former is clearly totally inappropriate for the meaning intended.
It's enough to make me fear for the future of American literacy, I tell ya.*
Read More "Spell-Check vs. Proof-Reading" »Show Comments »
Four Killed in Teacher's Meat Cleaver Attack.
Two Killed in Beijing Kindergarten.
This is worthy of comment on several different issues.
First, why the spate of attacks? There doesn't seem to be much in common in the attacks, including the motivation, the location, the background/occupation of the perpetrator, or even the weapon of choice. The only thing in common seems to be that people are suddenly trying to kill school-children in China.
Second, it highlights the ridiculousness of gun control attempts. Knives alone accounted for as many deaths and woundings as a gun could in a situation like this. In fact, if any of the teachers had been packing heat (a silly thought itself, sure, but humor me), the death toll in each case probably would not have exceeded one: the dead goblin. The problem is not the weapon of choice, but the hate/violence in the heart. If someone wants to kill, they will find a tool to do it, and guns aren't even the most efficient tool for the task. Cars and explosives are far better for killing people, and bare hands are pretty good, too.
Third, when I mentioned this to my friend in China, she said she hadn't heard anything about it. It's possible she just doesn't pay attention to domestic news, but...
I recognize that the authoritarian/totalitarian government in charge of China does suppress news. However, I cannot imagine why this news would be suppressed, especially since it appeared on the English-language site supported by the Chinese govt. WTF, over? The best part of that discussion is we got to have an interesting discussion over news not covered by the news media, and why: here we have a news media, of which a significant portion is dedicated to removing President Bush from office and enacting socialist dogma/ideology/programs. It makes for an interesting look at what news gets suppressed in each system, doesn't it?
Show Comments »
Well, as much as I can from an incomplete transcript excerpted on Drudge.
Rosie said the Bush Administration's actions go "against the foundation of what our country was built on," giving example of Administration telling the "United Nations we would ignore their doctrine and their resolutions."
Uh, yeah. Um, Rosie? The nation was in existence for about 170 years before the UN was even formed. We'd been in existence 140 years before the League of Nations was even proposed. Since the nation was formed on the foundation of looking out for our citizens, I don't see how ignoring their doctrine and resolutions violates anything essentially American. Heck, ignoring UN resolutions is a UN hobby, so why should we blame Bush for that?
Rosie continued: "Every single thing this White House has done goes against the foundation of what our country was built on. For us to tell the United Nations we would ignore their doctrine and their resolutions, for us to say that we will not adhere to the Geneva Convention during this war. We are America, we are better than that. We were built on the foundation of freedom and truth and equality for all people.Every single thing?!?! $15 billion for AIDS prevention in Africa goes against our foundations? The Patriot Act goes against our foundations? Freeing people in Iraq from a dicatator goes against our foundations? Establishing a free nation and burgeoning democracy in Afghanistan goes against our foundations? Prosecuting a war to protect our citizens goes against our foundations? Encouraging people to be involved in the process of determining rights through the Amendment process goes against our foundations? Rosie must have taken some Ecstasy or something before she started speaking, because she got some of it right, i.e., "freedom, truth, and equality", but her conclusions don't follow that. It seems to me she obviously doesn't care a rip about "freedom, truth, and equality" for Iraq or Afghanistan, at least, not if it might distract from her convincing activist judges to impose the right of SSM on a largely unwilling populace...
And the rich, corporate, horrible, horrible people who have been destructing and ruining everything this country was made on has been really unbelievably damaging to all of us spiritually, emotionally, monetarily."The Rich, Corporate people being George Soros and the recipients of the Heinz ketchup fortune, right? Or were you referring to Ted Turner?
"Just remember this, don't believe the media in these last nine days. Tell yourself every day when you wake up and every morning when you have a worry or a doubt or whether you believe FOXNEWS: Kerry by a landslide. Because America knows the difference between genuine and junk."Don't believe the media, as in CBS' forged memos? Good advice. But I wonder if she can handle the ramifications of her last assertion if George Bush does win the election...?
That's pretty incomplete, just hitting the main highlights of the excerpts of her speech. If anyone can get me the whole transcript, I'll see if I can respond to every point, one-by-one.
Show Comments »
John Kerry will raise your taxes. If you vote for him, you are voting for higher taxes. Read this. These are John Kerry's friends. They want big government -- government that dictates and coerces, government that subsidizes bad choices and immunizes people from the consequences of their own folly. Note the disingenuous rhetoric. The Times doesn't call for a tax increase. It calls for a rollback of the tax cuts. Nifty, eh? By making the pre-tax-cut situation the baseline, the Times is able to avoid saying that it wants higher taxes on middle-class and working-class Americans. Don't fall for it. Perhaps if liberals such as George Soros would distribute their wealth directly to the needy, there would be no need for big-government programs. It's really very simple. If you want to eliminate or alleviate poverty, work harder and share your wealth. Stop trying to coerce others into promoting your values.Read More "Word." »
Show Comments »
I will be moving to the island of Oahu in the Hawaiian Island chain this coming Spring.
That's the main island, the one with 80% of the population. It has Pearl Harbor, Diamond Head, Waikiki, and Honolulu.
I'm planning on staying 2-3 years, and will get my Master's in Chinese while I'm there. I might end up staying more like 5-6 years, but that depends on many things beyond my control. In any case, I do not plan on settling down there for the rest of my life or anything. Too small and too expensive and too isolated. Nice in the winter, tho.
Read More "I've Got Two Tickets to Paradise" »Show Comments »
October 22, 2004
I get about 200 hits on my blog every day.
I want every one of you to go read this right now.
I mean it. Freakin'-A, I was getting choked up reading it. This is the real stuff, and I want him to get freakin' 'lanched with every bit of traffic we can. Give him your support. Give him your time. Give him what you can, because he gave everything he could, and gave it for someone who nearly had to give even more.
And they did it for you. And for to help keep and preserve the United States.
Show Comments »
Vote on November 2nd. Democrats get to vote as often as they like, so we should all vote at least once.
By Ann Coulter on Right Wing News.
Read More "Quote of the Day" »Show Comments »
Show Comments »
Today's date is also the nomenclature for a pretty dang good semi-auto plinking rifle?
Show Comments »
Has anyone else noticed all the headlines and lead stories on cable calling attention to the fact that there's only been one combat-related death in Iraq for seven days?*
Yeah, I haven't, either.
Read More "FYI" »Show Comments »
Yeah, Best and Worst at the same time.
Show Comments »
I’ve learned a few things over the years…
One of the things I’ve come to realize is that there are a hundred things* that a guy does that are fine and perfectly okay…until he moves in with a woman. Objectively, there really is nothing wrong with leaving your clothes on the floor for a week, or sorting underwear by scent…but it is wrong in her eyes. The reverse is just as true: there’s nothing wrong with re-decorating or throwing out old things…unless your redecoration is the equivalent of a dog urinating on a hydrant, i.e., to leave a mark of your presence to establish territory and cover up any previous marks.
Sure, those are both stereotypical examples…meaning, there’s probably some basis for truth, but nothing you’d want to hang your hat on.
The point is, the definition of “right” and “wrong” changes when you enter a relationship, and changes even more if you live together (not to mention if you marry…although I usually hope the initiating of co-habitation and marriage occur simultaneously, I’m also not so naïve to expect it…). When you tell someone you love them, you accept a certain responsibility toward meeting their expectations and attempting to please them. You tacitly accept that you may well have to alter some of your customs and practices in order to make the deepening of your relationship go smoothly.
As such, many of the things that you do that aren’t wrong when you are single do become wrong when you are part of a couple. If you want the relationship to continue and thrive, you should probably take some time to actually discuss likes, dislikes, and pet peeves and see what problems you can easily avoid with a word to the wise.
As such, I’ve learned some of the things that contribute to a deep and lasting love. I think, first and foremost, you really should be friends, and your characters should be in harmony. The best way to make sure infatuation isn’t fooling you about those two aspects is simply: time. Yeah, you
Take the preceding for what it’s worth to you.
Show Comments »
Would it still be wrong to steal election signs on Nov. 3rd or 4th?
I'm thinking it might be okay. If the owners are too lazy to clean up after themselves, why not help 'em out?
Because, despite appearances, I'm not actually suggesting you do something that doesn't benefit you directly. My thought is, wouldn't a whole bunch of campaign yard signs be just perfect to take out to some govt land and work on your marksmanship with? They are already all set to put into the ground at whatever range you need to work on. The bullet holes should show up well on a variety of colors...heck, you can aim for the "e" in Kerry, then try to split the uprights on the "y"....
...or rather than stealing, maybe you could contact owners or campaign HQ for their leftovers?
Show Comments »
October 21, 2004
...what do you say now when you really are planning to drop off actual chlidren off at an actual swimming pool?
Show Comments »
 | You preferred Bush's statements 100% of the time Voting purely on the issues you should vote Bush Who would you vote for if you voted on the issues? Find out now! |
Via Jay.
Read More "Naturally!" »Show Comments »
October 20, 2004
Ace asks How many new registrations are real?
He then goes on to note:
It could be that Republicans -- who, let's face it, do a lot less of this outright criminal crap; this is a product of the old Democratic machine politics -- are doing a lot better in terms of registrations that will actually produce votes than we believe.
Well, isn't that already reflected in the generally-accepted premise that Republicans usually do better in pollings of "likely voters" than "registered voters"?
Show Comments »
Is a shortage of flu vaccine really that important?
Do people really even understand what the flu vaccine is all about? Meaning: the powers that be predict what they think will be the 6-7 most-spread (most virulent?) strains of flu will be this year, and then construct a vaccine. It does nothing to stop the other 100 (1000? 10,000?) strains that are merely not in the top level, so you'll still probably get the flu.
Moreover, very few people die of the flu these days. Sure, we had an epidemic waaaaayyy back at the turn of the last century, but it is nothing more than a nuisance to 99.9% of the population these days. Is it worth getting that upset and spending that much money over just a nuisance?
Sometimes I think people are losing all perspective in life. As such, we are getting bad enough to almost deserve another pandering Democrat government.
Show Comments »
I'm Not Very Happy Today.
That is all. Go about your lives, citizens.
Show Comments »
October 19, 2004
Have you seen the John Edwards Hairstyling Video yet?
I think that Michelle Malkin has it essentially correct, in that this doesn't reflect badly on Edwards and is rather unfair to promulgate as being substantive in any way. I disagree with her only in the sense that I don't find it icky at all...but then, I was very involved in Drama in high school and college, and so perhaps I am less sensitive about seeing a man primp before an on-camera performance, which this is.
Show Comments »
A few points.
First, I made chicken strips last night (picture coming up soon) again, but this time I followed an impulse and included oatmeal in the flour. It was SO-O-O good! I highly recommend you try that with your own homemade chicken strips.
Second, the 50,000th visitor was apparently someone who found my site by looking for "fertilizer". Now, maybe it was someone trying to find "brain fertilizer" and seeing what they could find, but I doubt it. Farmer Jones, if you want to claim the prize, go ahead and identify yourself. But the 50,001st visitor was a referrel from Michelle Malkin, so is much more likely to be a blogger who might be interested in a prize I might be talked into offering. So how do I figure out who it actually is to contact them? If you think it is you, contact me and we'll start trying to actually verify your identity and discussing what you'd like for a prize. Um, not a Thunderbird, nor even a bottle of Thunderbird "wine".
Third, I've got at least 3 projects on the back burner: 1) the Cabal of Cunning Linguists, 2) "What they're saying about me", and 3) picture of me in the sidebar. I do have a problem with procrastination, but it's more than that. I'm going through a great deal of turmoil in my private life (I guess I should have put out a prayer request earlier, but better late than never!), as well as some turmoil professionally, as well as an increased workload at work separate from the workplace turmoil. So while I can't actually say "light blogging" because I'll post when I have time, you may have to be patient with me for actually completing some of these projects. Hopefully before Thanksgiving...
Show Comments »
October 18, 2004
At the historically-established rates, I should pass 50,000 Sitemeter hits sometime tomorrow morning.
I have no plans to reward anyone, mainly because I'm really not sure how to use Sitemeter to identify who it was.
What would be really cool is if ya'll could help make sure it happens today, instead...that would definitely be worth some sort of prize.
Show Comments »
» The LLama Butchers links with: The Brain is giving away a free T-Bird
» The LLama Butchers links with: The Brain is giving away a free T-Bird
"The M-16: The best friend our enemies ever had."
Show Comments »
...and I thought this was a no-brainer.
Show Comments »
October 16, 2004
Below the fold:
Read More "Images of Fall From My Neighborhood" »
Show Comments »
My first attempt at 'em. They turned out quite good, I must say.
Show Comments »
October 15, 2004
...but by the Air Force.
I just found out that I cannot volunteer to do any work whatsoever in any way, shape, or form for the Republican Party.
The Air Force's regulations are more restrictive than the Army's, which is more restrictive than the Dept of Defense.
My original understanding is that the guiding thought is: the military must remain non-partisan. Thus, you can do anything political that does not damage that impartiality. You may never do engage in political activities while in uniform, you may not identify yourself as a military servicemember, you may not run for office, and you may not hold any significant position in any campaign.
Fair enough. That all makes sense.
You can even have a political sticker on your car, which I still feel is uncomfortably close to lending the weight of military association to a partisan expression.
But I fail to see how volunteering to drop off literature at houses, in civilian clothes, without ever making contact with a single human being could ever harm the military's impartiality. And yet the Air Force Regulations specifically prohibit that activity. This seems so at odds with the spirit of the guiding principles that I don't even know what to think. If anonymously dropping off literature (but not actually soliciting votes) is wrong because there might be too much association with a specific party, isn't actually voting just as bad?
Reading the rules, you cannot have anything at all to do with any party beyond attending a meeting or convention in civilian clothes, voting, or putting a sticker on your car.
I understand that I am in the military 24/7, whether I am wearing the uniform or not. I understand that being in the military means making sacrifices. I realize many of the rights you civilians take for granted were surrendered the day I signed up (like getting to choose where you live, or being able to quit, or to be able to criticize your boss). But I didn't think I had to absolutely separate myself almost entirely from the political process.
If our only allowed political expression is to vote, how can we be a part of the process if we are disenfranchised at the voting booth, like when the Democrat Party actively attempted to discard military votes in Florida in 2000?
I'm a little unhappy today.
Show Comments »
October 14, 2004
Well, no, not really.
But something I've been railing against for a good portion of the last two years (and getting nowhere, I might add) was just summed up beautifully and wonderfully and precisely by Stephen Green of Vodkapundit.
Excerpt:
Too many Democrats, especially at the national level, just don't care that our system, our nation is far more important than any single election.I could mention the Lautenberg Trick in New Jersey. Or Gore's ballot shenanigans in Florida. Or the voter-registration fraud currently going on in Colorado, Nevada, and elsewhere. Or the Democrats' successful call to bring election observers into this country. Bring them in from where, Venezuela? Hey, no big deal sullying the reputation of the world's oldest continuously-functioning democracy, just so long as we can make the Republicans look bad, right?
The rules don't matter. The reputation of the country doesn't matter. The political health of the nation doesn't matter. Power matters.
There's more. There's a lot more there. Go read it. The conclusion is particularly strong and apt.
Show Comments »
One other thing that Kerry said in the last 5 minutes of the debate that struck me as worthy of comment:
When asked about the strong woman he married, he almost immediately launched into an anecdote about his mother. The most interesting aspect of that was that he mentioned her passing away two years ago, just before he was deciding to run. And let's not forget that Al Gore and Howard Dean started running before Kerry did. These people have been campaigning for nearly three years!
Yeah, I knew that, and noticed and noted it at the time, but we could all use a reminder. There are some important ramifications of that when you consider campaign platforms/promises that I will leave up to you do consider.
The other interesting part is that the anecdote seemed too crafted to be "off the cuff." Particularly since it culminated in his "Integrity. Integrity. Integrity." mantra. So you tell me: did he have this "Integrity" anecdote prepared and was just waiting for a half-way appropriate question to trot it out? ...or did he have advanced warning of what the questions might be?* You be the judge.
Read More "Curious Anecdote By Kerry" »Show Comments »
The fact that John F. Kerry feels the need to insist, over and over, again and again, that he will not give any other country a veto regarding our national security, well, it just kinda cements that idea in my mind, y'know? "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" and all that.
Show Comments »
I wish I could say something useful, but I only saw the last five minutes.
So, my take? Kerry can't tell a self-deprecating joke to save his life.
Should we elect a President on the basis of his ability to tell a joke? No. But there are a host of other reasons to elect George W. Bush, and to not elect John F. Kerry, but I'm not going to go into that now.
Oh, and when John F. Kerry says, "God Bless America," he sounds like he doesn't believe it. The way he delivers the line, I can just about hear his internal thought process saying, "Okay, now toss off some pseudo-religious crap for the yokels in flyover country." That's probably unfair, but that's how he comes across to me.
Yeah, I noticed these two things, as well:
Twice in his closing statement, Kerry pronounces "idea" with an "er" at the end. Where the hell did that come from? He has never talked Massachusetts before, that I've noticed.
In his closing statement, Bush says, "I'm asking for your vote." Very important. That is the O'Neill rule. Remember when Tip would talk about that? After an early election, which he lost, O'Neill met an old teacher of his on the street. They lamented the loss, and then Tip said, "Well, at least you voted for me." And the teacher said, "I didn't, Tom." He said, "Why?" She answered, "Because you never asked me." So O'Neill formed this rule: Always ask 'em for your vote.
I didn't like the "idear" much, and I did like that President Bush asked for our vote. Good move.
Show Comments »
October 13, 2004
Competing for customers, "Upscale" hospitals in China are finding creative ways to attract business.
And idiots in the US want to impose singe-payer, govt-financed/run/provided health care.
Remember Godwin's Law? Well, Brain Fertilizer's Corollary states: "Anyone who insists China is still a communist/socialist nation automatically loses all credibility on the issue of capitalism and/or socialism."*
UPDATE: I should probably explain. There are people who hate the People's Republic of China because it is an oppressive, evil, Communist police state. It certainly used to be. It is no longer Communist. It is no longer even socialist, for the most part. In fact, as I have pointed out, the United States is moving ever closer toward socialism while China is moving ever closer toward pure capitalism. They have no universal health care, no HMOs, little taxation, few social programs; they have dismantled all of the State-run corporations. People are largely allowed to seek their own path to wealth, to seek their own way in life.
The biggest problem there is the lack of a developed Rule of Law. There isn't always a channel for legal redress, especially against the government. That's bad, and it makes it difficult for western corporations to do business there. I think market pressures will do far more to fix that problem than anything diplomacy can accomplish.
It is still a police state, in that it is very easy for the government to imprison a person on minor charges...or even no charges. It happens so rarely, however, that the average individual in China lives in far less fear of his government or his neighbor than we do. IRS audit, anyone? Or would you prefer to walk through a 'bad neighborhood' at night wearing a Rolex? You can just about do the "virgin with a bag of gold at midnight" thing in most parts of Beijing, a city of 16 million people. Compare that to our capital city...
People often cite the Tiananmen Massacre of 1989 as proof that China is an evil nation and must be opposed to defend Taiwan, at least. I usually counter with our Kent State Massacre, and get derided for using "moral equivalence". Well, I think "moral equivalence" is when you use a lesser crime to excuse a greater crime...and that's not what I'm doing. I don't excuse what China's government did at Tiananmen. But I also don't excuse what our government did at Kent State. Or in Chicago in 1968. Or in Selma. Or what "Our friends in Democracy", the KuoMinTang did in Taiwan in 1947 (the little-known 2-28 incident), in which the Chinese Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek murdered at least 10,000 Taiwanese people (some say as high as 30k...Taiwan still hasn't declassified the documents to allow anyone to know for sure) in order to solidify their rule there...and then didn't let them vote or participate in governmental processes until 1996. My point is that it is entirely possible to hate the governmental system without hating the people, or even without hating the nation. As Americans, we have supported many heinous and/or evil governments. That doesn't mean you have to accept China's, but you should address why this specific government is so much more worthy of your hate than other governments that have committed equally bad or worse atrocities, or else you face justifiable charges of hypocrisy.
This is not to excuse China's government for their crimes, or the people for not overthrowing their government yet. One of the biggest faults of the Chinese, in my opinion, is that they are so focused on becoming wealthy that they are mollified by a corrupt government that buys them off with opportunities to get rich. That's how they got into Communism in the first place, you know, by believing that Communism could make your family rich, rather than any altruistic notion of ensuring that no one starved. On the other hand, however, in reaction to the demands of the people, China is allowing free markets and allowing the market itself to determine how business and life are conducted. As a result, they are experiencing unprecedented growth and enrichment. It's amazing to see the differences there just over the last 6 years.
They have a tragic past, but they are clearly heading in the right direction. I wish I could say the same for the United States, but as long as we have a significant percentage of our population that actually wants us to be like Europe, or have a gun control laws like Great Britain, or a health care system like Canada, I have to say I fear for our future.**
Show Comments »
» Simon World links with: Asia by Blog
» The White Peril links with: Old sins cast long shadows
» The White Peril ç™½ç¦ links with: Old sins cast long shadows
Got meetings and stuff all day. I probably won't post again until this evening.
Show Comments »
Interestingly, today's installment comes from (centrist?) Democrat Mickey Kaus. (scroll down to the 1:16am entry----does this guy have cool working hours, or what?)
Mickey quotes this article* written by Robert Samuelson that asserts "the increase in poverty in recent decades stems mainly from immigration." :
Compared with 1990, there were actually 700,000 fewer non-Hispanic whites in poverty last year. Among blacks, the drop since 1990 is between 700,000 and 1 million, and the poverty rate—though still appallingly high—has declined from 32 percent to 24 percent. ... Meanwhile, the number of poor Hispanics is up by 3 million since 1990.
So let me get this straight: Democrats encourage Hispanic immigration, as well as encouraging illegal immigration and even voting by illegal immigrants (via the "Motor Voter" laws and attempting to make it easier for illegal immigrants to get identification ("Matricula Consular") and driver's licences) because Hispanic immigrants tend to repay such largess with votes for Democrats. They need the votes to be able to gather power to aid the poverty-stricken. They point to the rise in poverty as evidence that America needs the Democrats in power to deal with the rise in poverty...except the rise in poverty is apparently solely due to the enacting of Democrat immigration principles.
To be fair, Republicans aren't much better. I don't really like Karl Rove and George W. Bush's pandering to Hispanics to increase their support, although I can understand it, with such high Hispanic populations in both Texas and Florida, where the Bush brothers were/are governors. At least the Republican Party has one sub-group that strongly opposes the tacit and overt encouragement of illegal immigration, even if this group (led by Michelle Malkin, et al) doesn't have enough power to influence the Republican Party as a whole.
Something needs to be done. The short-term political jockeying is certainly adversely affecting the long-term welfare of current U.S. citizens.
Read More "Liberal Democrats are on the Losing Side of History, Exhibit G" »Show Comments »
October 12, 2004
From today's electronic issue of the NRO:
Speed indeed: When Iraqi SWAT commandos hit a target, they hit it hard. Racing forward in white pick-up trucks emblazoned with the unit's emblem — a black scorpion and dagger (an emblem designed by the Iraqis) — the raiders leap from the vehicles and rush toward their objective almost before the enemy has time to panic. The attackers — primarily in their early to mid-twenties — are armed with a variety of personal weapons including AK-47s and SIG Sauer assault rifles, shotguns, pistols, and grenades. They all wear khaki-colored assault suits (similar to zip-up flight suits) with an Iraqi-flag patch stitched on the shoulder. Khaki or black balaclavas cover their heads, concealing their faces. "The Iraqis like wearing balaclavas," says Douglas. "It makes them look fearless, and terrifies the enemy."
And:
The success of the new unit has instilled "great confidence" in both SWAT-team members and regular Iraqi soldiers, says Col. Salaam Abdul al Kathom, the commander of the Iraqi SWAT team. It has also increased pride and a greater sense of security for the Iraqi people.
I'll repeat again: This is exactly what needs to happen for Iraq to become a stable, free nation. The Iraqis themselves must be able to defeat the insurgents and maintain the peace. And like a train pulling away from the station, or an aircraft carrier accelerating from a dead stop, the motion is imperceptible at first as the mass overcomes inertia. In Iraq, they are overcoming the inertia of decades of "keeping their heads down" in the hostile threat environment of Saddam al-Hussein's tyranny. The speed and progress is nearly unmistakeable now, what with stories like this and the Shia insurgents turning in weapons in Sadr City. Things will pick up speed as they move toward the election, as well, I think.
Expect us to be able to withdraw from a stable, independent, free, democratically-run Iraq by January of 2006, less than 18 months from now. It will be a beautiful day.
Show Comments »
I have now been blogging for 2 years and 2 days. WOOT!
Show Comments »
Well, Winds of Change has a nice little round-up of articles you should read. And these are only recent examples.
Show Comments »
Only a few days after I stopped by the local GOP campaign headquarters, it was burglarized and/or vandalized.
Workers arriving this morning found a hole smashed through the wall from an adjacent, vacant office. Bush campaign officials say a small amount of petty cash is missing and a computer and television had been moved and left near the hole."They must have gotten spooked because they ultimately left the computer and TV," said Bill Hyslop, the campaign's chairman for the Fifth Congressional District.
The computer and the TV had recently arrived in Spokane and the computer was loaded with information from the Republican get-out-the vote program.
This seems less politically motivated than many of the other events around the country. It probably was just someone trying to steal things they could pawn. It still contributes to the aura of intimidation that Democrats are attempting to force onto Republicans through this "plausible deniability" campaign of violence.
Am I descending into hyperbole? Perhaps. But ask yourself: if this campaign of violence and destruction had been waged against Democrat bastions, do you think Democrats would be mollified by claims that it was being perpetrated by "punks and fringe"? Of course not. Remember when Democrats claimed that a vote for Bush was a vote to burn down black churches? Remember when the NCAA blamed President Bush for the dragging death of James Byrd? Sure, no one has died yet. Yet. But lets not forget the Democrat history of trying to prevent blacks from voting in the South.*
Read More "Hitting A Little Close To Home" »Show Comments »
October 10, 2004
Also, check out Dana's new look.
Show Comments »
Excerpt:
Your search - “Afghan voters killed in blast� - did not match any documents.
Your search - Afghan “polling station blast� - did not match any documents.
Your search - Afghan “polling station violence� - did not match any documents.
Show Comments »
» The LLama Butchers links with: The dog that didn't bark
One of the things that came up from the Great Inland Northwest Blogjam was that Dana insisted you should put a picture of yourself up at your blog, because it really helps people to have a visual of who is writing the blog...it helps readers feel like they know who you are.
Okay, with that in mind, which picture do you think should go up in my sidebar? Keep in mind, cropping is not only possible, it is probably necessary...
Read More "Which Picture Do You Like?" »
Show Comments »
October 09, 2004
Friday morning I and my wife went to register to vote. It is the first time I have registered since 1988. Yeah, I missed the election 1992, 1996, and 2000. Even more importantly, it is my naturalized-citizen's wife first opportunity to vote in a Presidential election. She said if I hadn't made a point of taking her along, she probably wouldn't have registered.
Friday night we had the first Inland Northwest Blogjam*. A great time was had by all, I think. Pictures will be posted later, but I was talking more than snapping, and there are only 3 pics, and I think none with me in them.
Saturday morning I went and picked up packages of literature to drop off at the homes of people who requested them. It's my first time ever to do volunteer work of any kind for a campaign....my parents weren't that political, y'see.
Read More "Significant Events" »Show Comments »
October 08, 2004
Because Democrats get away with what would be career-killers for Republicans.
Show Comments »
In the comments over here. Go see and judge for yourself.
If nothing else, I'm probably an asshat for distracting from an excellent topic of discussion in and of itself: Partner Notification for Those Diagnosed with STDs.
Go leave a comment more on target than mine and ignore my asshattedry, if you will/wish/can.
Show Comments »
How can anyone even consider a notion like this without breaking out in gales of laughter???
The link at Drudge Report doesn't link to the LA Times column. Look around the blogosphere, I'm sure other people will be less lazy than me and go find the actual thing.
But stop and consider....as I've asked many times, what did Bill Clinton actually do in two terms of office? Just about nothing. President Bush has already achieved successes that make the nation better and stronger in just three years. But that's just the most obvious recent example.
What about Jimmy Carter? Is there anyone who doesn't consider that Presidency an unmitigated disaster? His incompetent handling of nearly every issue set the nation back a decade or more. There are still things that haven't recovered from his mistakes.
What about Nixon and his lies? What about Herbert Hoover and the Depression? What about, Buchannon? I don't know much about him, but I hear he wasn't that great.
Um, let's see... U.S. Grant was generally considered to have the most corrupt administration ever. Anything you might dislike about President Bush for trumping up weak reasons to conduct a pre-emptive, hegemonic war (which I don't think Bush did) is doubly true for Theodore Roosevelt. Anything you might hate about President Bush for "allowing" 9/11 is true of FDR for "allowing" Pearl Harbor.
By what possible standard is President Bush the worst President ever? Facial expressions? Stymiing (how do you spell that, anyway? Is it even a word) every Democrats fondest socialist Utopian wish? What?
Dislike him, okay. Disapprove of his handling of specific situations, okay. Worst ever? Anyone saying that is probably insane.
Show Comments »
I probably won't be around much today. I'm out with a scoped .22 semi-auto, striking terror into any paper that has the audacity to have black rings printed on it!
I should have them defeated and on the run in plenty of time to be at John Michael's at 7pm. I hear paper targets are good eatin', so I'll see if the chef can roll a few in flour and deep-fat fry 'em for our dining pleasure. If not, I'm sure they have good appetizers.
In any case, ya'll have a good day at work whilst I revel in the leisurely, carefree life of a public servant who has the day off.
Cheers.
Show Comments »
October 07, 2004
I can't guarantee I'll remember this tomorrow, and my Blog-Birthday happens to fall on a Sunday Saturday in which very few people will be blogging, so I call your attention down to the little Sitemeter tag that points out I've been doing this for (as of the beep) three days short of two years.
Wish me a happy Blog-Birthday and Tell All Your Friends.
Show Comments »
Something that got missed in all the "blue dress", "impeachment", "Florida 2000", and "9/11" distractions:
Humans have a strange compulsion to tell the truth. That means one way to catch people in lies is to pay attention to the words they use, the phrasing, mannerism tics, etc. In other words, anything that shows the inner dialogue is actually telling the truth despite the dishonest outer dialogue.
Today, we now know that Bill Clinton did have sex with Monica Lewinsky, and despite the torturous definition of the word 'is', it is clear that even former President Clinton thinks so. This is revealed by the exact phrasing of the sentence he used for his denial:
"I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." Now, he couldn't actually say, "I didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky" because he knew that was a lie and feared some hooding of the eyes or other twitch might betray him. Choosing to state it that way, most people would probably take it the way he wanted, that "Monica Lewinsky" was an appositive for "that woman", and thus are one and the same; but to pull off the lie, he most likely made a mental shift and "that woman" was a different woman than "Monica Lewinsky."
So my question is: who was "that woman" in former President Clinton's mind? ...what are the odds it might just be Hillary Rodham...?
Show Comments »
Iraqi insurgents from Fallujah are in intense negotiations with the country's interim government to hand over control of the city to Iraqi troops, according to representatives of both sides, in hopes of averting a bloody military battle for the city of 300,000 that has become a haven for foreign guerrillas and a symbol of the limits of Baghdad's authority....
The talks apparently gained momentum Wednesday after the mujaheddin shura -- or council of holy warriors -- that now governs Fallujah voted overwhelmingly to accept the broad terms demanded by Iraq's government. By a vote of 10 to 2, the council agreed to eject foreign fighters, turn over all heavy weapons, dismantle checkpoints and allow the Iraqi National Guard to enter the city.
Simultaneously, another troublesome insurgency movement is taking steps towards allowing peace.
Keep in mind, however, that al-Sadr has broken more treaties than the US Govt did with Native Americans in the 1800s, and he has more positions and empty promises than John Kerry. So it doesn't mean much, but if we are hurting him enough to make him squeal and try to gain some breathing room, it tells us we are doing the right things and hitting him where it hurts.
Unfortunately, it may be a while before we see the benefit from these forward strides. Ramadan is just around the corner...
Show Comments »
Okay, either Sitemeter is having problems, or no one is stopping by my site at all.
Either way, this sucks.
Show Comments »
Part of my maturation into an adult included a recent/belated recognition of the importance of character.
Simply put, as I look back on the most devastating mistakes of my life, most were because I dismissed or did not take the time to fully ascertain a person's character. I made decisions based on optimism, hope, or what the other person chose to display. I saw mixed messages of behavior and chose to take the ones I preferred as the "true" personality.
Now, however, I base all my interactions, choices, decisions, etc, on the character of the individual I'm engaging. Based on what I formerly considered "unrelated" behaviors, and by noticing what choices a person makes on "little" issues, I can predict with great accuracy how they will act or choose or react under stress, when encountering obstacles, on major issues, or when their own self-interest is involved.
Based on all that, the debate and dispute over Saddam al-Hussein's possession WMD is silly, unproductive, and useless.
As I've said before, I can think of three distinct, easily-implemented scenarios by which on the day we invaded, Saddam al-Hussein still had the stockpiles of WMD suggested by Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, yet we would still be unable to find any actual evidence:
1) He possessed large stockpiles, and used GPS to hide it in the trackless desert wastes.
2) He possessed large stockpiles of gas, but released it into the atmosphere in an uninhabited region of the desert.
3) He possessed large stockpiles, but shipped it out to Syria early in the war.
Remember, all of the WMD unaccounted for at the end of Gulf War I that we know he possessed would fit inside the space of a two-car garage. Even if he tripled it, it wouldn't take all that many trucks to transport the entire stockpile anywhere that could be reached by road.
Thus, assertions that Saddam al-Hussein and the state of Iraq didn't possess WMD stockpiles still seem to me to be inconclusive, at best. And dishonest, at worst.
But the bottom line is: Capability plus Intent equals Threat. Saddam al-Hussein clearly had the intent to use WMDs, his character confirms that. The Capability to produce, obtain, and use WMD is ridiculously easy to obtain and maintain and keep hidden. The only way to remove this proven Threat to the United States and to the strategic region of the world was to remove Saddam al-Hussein.
I must conclude that anyone who comes to any other conclusion is simply disregarding the demonstrated character of Saddam al-Hussein. Interestingly, the people who most object to our invasion of Iraq are the people who tend to dismiss character as unimportant, anyway.
Show Comments »
October 06, 2004
The bad news:
Show Comments »
Why do they keep citing the less accurate Establishment Payroll Survey?!??!?!
The discrepancy between the job numbers produced by the Establishment Payroll Survey and those produced by the Household Survey has finally been getting attention in the last few months. I never payed attention to the Establishment survey because I never worked directly for an establishment. In fact there has never been a time when the money which supported me came from a countable job. Those whose premises are supported by the lower Establishment numbers tend to dismiss the new ways of earning a living as not being "real" jobs. I have no doubt that some of the tens of thousands of people who now support their families would really rather be back in that nice warm foundry, or working rotating shifts at the tire plant, but not many of them.
Show Comments »
So do you think untold masses of Democrat-voting women look at liberal candidates and think, "Mm-mm-mm! I'd like to abort his baby!"...?*
Read More "Hmmm..." »Show Comments »
Okay, I declare this Friday to be the first Spokane blog meet-up. We are going to meet at the bar restaurant section* at John Michael's Thomas** restaurant (used to be The Solicitor's Corner) at the Northwest corner of Francis and Division, because it is insanely easy to find: it's the big yellow barn-looking thing right across from PetCo.
We'll meet between 7 and 7:30pm 8 and 8:30pm. Don't be late, because once we all get there, I will be open to suggestions that we relocate to a different venue. Then again, we may spend the whole evening there...
Significant others are more than welcome, if not actually required. Unfortunately, children aren't allowed in the bar section... Ask for "Nathan's Table" when you get there. Or if you get there first, set up "Nathan's Table". [grin] Right now, I wouldn't expect more than 8 of us, max.
Check back later in the week, because if anyone is adamant about changing the date or location or time, we'll discuss it here. I know it's short notice, but you work with the time you have...
Oh, and I only know of 5 Spokane-area bloggers, including me, so feel free to send others this way if you know of 'em. Heck, if anyone wants to come out from Seattle or anything, speak up now!
Read More "The Great Inland Northwest Blogjam, Attempt 1" »Show Comments »
Didn't watch it. Lots of commentary all over the place. If you can't find any of it, you are an idiot.
However, my absolute favorite* is this, hands down:
The Democrats have a healthcare plan. Time to put a lock on my wallet. Or hide it. Maybe I can outsource my wallet.Read More "The Vice President Debate" »
Show Comments »
October 05, 2004
No, wait, silly me: the fringe are never a reflection on the Democrats. Heaven's, no!
Show Comments »
The "UN Oil-for-Food" Program.
Show Comments »
From an update of this post by Michelle Malkin.
Ok, Edwards has now said I am crazy, Tere$$$$a has said that I am an idiot, and Maureen Dowd called my security mom-wife dumb. I get it, but I wish they would stop before they start insulting my mother, father, or my beautiful children. Is this the campaign of inclusion and one of bringing people together[?] I think not...
Truedat. Democrats are "uniters" only if they get the chance to euthanize anyone who disagrees with them. For evidence, check out the tolerance found in speech codes at liberal institutions like Berkeley University.
Show Comments »
McQ summarizes up the significance of recent successes in Samarra, Iraq.
The most important part is right at the beginning:
In a remarkable display of skill, elements of the U.S. Army’s 1st Infantry Division and newly trained Iraqi national forces drove the terrorists from the city of Samarra last week. Killing over 100 of freedom’s enemies and capturing many more, our troops lost a single soldier.The two-day sweep through Samarra incorporated lessons learned on the ground over the past several months especially the need to win swiftly in urban settings. Our soldiers performed flawlessly under difficult conditions. Iraqi commandos, backed by our Special Forces, liberated two key mosques before a hostile media could intervene on terror’s behalf. The city’s population is glad that their oppressors are gone.
This is very significant and highly important, because as I've stated several times before, the difference between Afghanistan's success and Iraq's little-success-in-sight is that we were increasingly able to turn over military actions to the locals in Afghanistan. It started with co-opting the warlords' private armies into a militia, and has continued with the training, organization, and development of a professional national military to displace the militias. It's working in Afghanistan, and we are finally getting the same process under way at speed in Iraq.
Sure, we've had setbacks there, and will have still more. But what does the best military in the world do when it encounters a setback?
The NTC has set up MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) training as an integral part of all rotations. Concurrent training is taking place at the home bases of units. CALL (combat arms lessons learned) are collected and disseminated throught the military giving up to the minute tips, tactics and techniques from lessons learned in Iraq. The best trained military in the world simply shifts focus, trains and retrains, and then takes on one of the most difficult military operations there is. If Samarra is any indication of success in that focus shift, I’d say they’re well on their way to digging the terrorists out of the "no-go" cities.
Show Comments »
There's been some heated rhetoric from both sides all over the 'sphere, pretty much making a scandal of the possibility of a scandal surrounding foreign objects on the debate podium. Um, including my own participation here.
This has now reached "Kerfuffle" proportions, as evidenced by the debate-between-friends occuring in the comments and links here.
But the final point(s) I still take away from all of this (and what I would like everyone else to take away from all of this) is (from the comments at the linked INDC post):
With this somewhat silly pen dealie we saw the whole gammut of honesty and lunacy and a bit of gotcha. Jeez that this issues sparked so much debate is amazing. But in the end we arrived at something at least fairly clear. If it hand't been cleared up you can bet some people would be floating around conspiracy theories for quite a bit. And yet attacks came out immediately. And moonbattery ensued. I agree with Allah this wasn't a big deal. But I see no reason to attack someone for trying to establish what the facts were. Whatever the reasons, partisan or curiousity. If someone has a valid point and you attack them for it then, imho, your being a weasel. I dont expect politicians to be honorable, so this pocketgate wasn't a big deal to me, but I was perfectly willing to allow that maybe its a big thing to Bill.
Or to Me. (and the emphasis was added by me).
And a summary/recap:
When Bill and I decided to put together our joint post we were extremely careful not to do it in a shrill manner.I recorded the video, slowed down the section in question where Kerry removed an object from his jacket – and Bill put together some copy that was clear: Bringing any object to the podium was a violation of the agreement outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding.
This morning, I called Fox News and spoke with a producer who was helpful enough to go and review the tape from another angle. Within minutes of the producer describing the object as a pen, both Bill and I had updated our blogs.
Special Report with Brit Hume showed a freeze fame of the pen, and both of our blogs had posted a screenshot before the show was even over.
I would submit that in identifying, pursuing, and solving the nature of Kerry’s violation of the debate agreement in one day, both Daily Recycler and INDC Journal were not only diligent, but in fact demonstrated a journalistic ethic not always seen in the mainstream media.
Criticism seems to come in two forms:
1)It was just a pen.
Great. The reason you know that to be true is because of INDC Journal, Daily Recycler, or Fox News – who ran the clip after we contacted them.2)It’s a stupid issue, who cares?
The idea that bloggers should not pursue an investigation because it doesn’t serve a political advantage seems a bit silly. The amount of attention this received because of the Drudge Report was not in our control. Whether or not it’s a “big deal”, we posted on the violation – investigated – and updated with the result.
Emphasis again added by me.
Show Comments »
...maybe I just want to be shocked?
Show Comments »
October 04, 2004
Oh, sure, they'll tell you now that they knew it all along, while out of the other side of their mouth they'll be talking down the progress made. But that was a different story before, wasn't it?
Oh, wait, that's not liberals,, it's the fringe players, right?
See, these people want to believe that WWII was the last "just" war. They'll admit it was right to fight Germany because they killed millions of Jews, but they don't care that we have an enemy that wants to kill every non-Muslim in the world. They'll admit it was right to fight Japan because of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, but refuse to admit that the attack on the World Trade Center Towers put us at war just as much.
They want to believe that history is safely in the past, that we are just one step from Utopia. I'd like to believe that, too, but I can't afford to live in a dreamworld, protected from naivete and foolishness: I've got kids to raise.
I don't question their patriotism, no, but I do question their common sense.
Show Comments »
Jeff G. gets serious for one post.
Show Comments »
Was it just me, or was anyone else half-expecting that George Bush would end one of his painfully long pauses by saying,
Read More "Absolutely Positively the Last Definitive Post Regarding the 1st Debate Between President George Bush and Senator John F. Kerry" »Show Comments »
If so, it was probably George Stephanopolis and George Soros, respectively.
Show Comments »
I'm with Jon Henke on this: The CNSNews report that 'confirms' Saddam had WMD and extensive ties to terrorists doesn't seem credible to me.
In fact, I left this comment there:
Well, I'm about as right-wing and conservative as they come, and a blogger to boot...but don't find this report compelling.
To tell the truth, it's more of a gut reaction than anything I can point to; more like it is too much exactly what Iraqi Invasion advocates would need to justify every single aspect of their (our) arguments, and life rarely works out that neatly, if ever.
Who am I to make such a judgment? I'm no one significant at all, so hoot and deride as you will.
To be clear, however, I do think that each and every assertion is true, and that there is some evidence for each point. But such evidence comes from different sources and in different forms, of varying degrees of persuasiveness. The idea that one group of documents could prove every Warblogger talking point is beyond belief for me.
Show Comments »
» The Pink Flamingo Bar Grill links with: CNS article would get more play if the Bush Admini
This is getting really interesting.
Here is a good summary with assertions broken out.
At this point, I'm not sure who is telling the truth, but the way the assertions shake out, someone is lying. Particularly: she says she never brought politics in and wouldn't touch politics with a 10-foot pole in the classroom vs. the administrator's assertions that she offended students with partisan harangues.
If her story is correct, the school administration was way out of line. However, in my experience, someone steeped in the political infighting endemic to school administration would be slightly more credible than a single individual. To tell the truth, I'm beginning to think that she was trying to seize a 'moral' high ground upon which to base a 'wrongful dismissal' argument or something.
Advantage: School Administration (barring more definitive information).
Show Comments »
If FDR had followed the Kerry Doctrine in 1941, he would have asked Congress to declare war on Germany, then refused to fire a shot until the French and Germans could be enlisted as allies.
Show Comments »
He's chock-full of linky goodness. Lots of important stuff in that post. I've found stuff worth reading/remembering in every link that wasn't work-blocked.
In the next post, Allah also has this link, to which I say, "Dang Straight!"
Show Comments »
Teacher "fired" (maybe) for adding President Bush to a row of pictures of US Presidents.
Let me first point out that it is an extremely badly-written article, with tense problems and everything.
However, a few questions:
If it was a row of Presidential pics, why wasn't President Bush's photo up there as of 20 January 2001?
What was the nature of the photograph? If it was merely the standard official photo, then the people who want Kerry's photo added are idiots. But if it was a photo from the campaign trail or convention....well...maybe it was a problem. I hope we see a follow-up on this.
Show Comments »
» Sharp as a Marble links with: Teacher Fired for Exposing Students to the Truth
» Diggers Realm links with: Teacher Walks Out Over Display Of Presidents Picture [Update 6]
October 03, 2004
I didn't watch the video, however, this section of the article,
A top Kerry campaign source explained to the DRUDGE REPORT late Sunday how Bush supporters were once again trying to distract."Kerry did not cheat," said the Kerry insider. "This is more lies from Republicans, who are hoping for a quick change of subject away from the president's performance, and the new polls."
Considering the track record of word choice and tone by Democrats in general and the Kerry campaign in specific, the quote means that it is just about a dead certainty that Kerry cheated.
That would explain quite a bit...
Show Comments »
I didn't watch the video, however, this section of the article,
A top Kerry campaign source explained to the DRUDGE REPORT late Sunday how Bush supporters were once again trying to distract."Kerry did not cheat," said the Kerry insider. "This is more lies from Republicans, who are hoping for a quick change of subject away from the president's performance, and the new polls."
Considering the track record of word choice and tone by Democrats in general and the Kerry campaign in specific, means that its just about a dead certainty that Kerry cheated.
Show Comments »
October 01, 2004
Someone found my site with this search!
Is that cool, or what?
It's official: this has all gotten entirely too metaphysical.
Show Comments »
A more serious ultimate recap.
Show Comments »
Honestly, folks, this is probably the most accurate* of all of 'em.
Read More "The Definitive Debate Recap" »Show Comments »
I still think a couple of bloggers could have done a better job highlighting the differences in the two positions.
However, after thinking about it somewhat, I do believe that the debate did achieve its over-riding goal: to clarify and separate the differences in views between the candidates.
However, Kerry contradicted himself even within the debate. The facts are on Bush's side. Democrats are on losing side of history, it is increasingly clear.
UPDATE: One round-up by Allah, and one by Zomby.
Show Comments »
Via the Corner.
Show Comments »
HammerHead
