Here's a thought:
Instead of launching the same shuttles over and over and having them re-enter Earth's atmosphere repeatedly, why doesn't NASA build an orbital spacedock that is large enough to hold the entire shuttle fleet and armored enough to withstand strikes from meteorites and other space debris?
Think about it: they would build shuttles on the ground and launch them once.
They would have to develop a new way of getting the shuttle crews up there as well as cargo for the International Space Station and the spacedock.
They could use the spacedock to deploy shuttles that have a longer range for other missions.
What about this: If they want to stop the foam from coming off the external fuel tank, then they should incorporate the external tank into the shuttle and eliminate it (the foam-covered external tank) from use.
They need to get outside the box and start looking at all the options if they want to save the troubled shuttle program.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Democrats Insist on More Roberts Documents
Apparently the Congressional Democrats are speed-readers and have read 75,000 pages of documents by and about Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts in the last three days.
And apparently they think that there is not enough information in Roberts' own legal writings to draw a conclusion about the man they will have sitting in front of them in late August.
What?
What?
They haven't even seen the documents yet? You mean they haven't even started reading this 75,000 page book but are claiming that they don't have enough information?
Who are they kidding?
And apparently they think that there is not enough information in Roberts' own legal writings to draw a conclusion about the man they will have sitting in front of them in late August.
What?
What?
They haven't even seen the documents yet? You mean they haven't even started reading this 75,000 page book but are claiming that they don't have enough information?
Who are they kidding?
Discovery Crew Not Happy About Foam Fall-off and Possible Damage to Shuttle
NASA has egg in its face after it was learned that foam broke off from the shuttle Discovery after it blasted out of Cape Canaveral a few days ago. Some of the foam may have hit the wing and underbelly of the shuttle in a spooky reminder of the doomed Columbia mission from two years ago.
Understandably, the shuttle crew is nervous. According to a story in the press, the shuttle commander said that "...shuttle's crew had been surprised and disappointed to find that NASA had not solved the foam debris problem that caused the Columbia disaster." Here's that story.
As well they should be. NASA sends these astronauts into space with assurances that everything was hunkey-dorey and then they are told that the problem wasn't fixed and that foam hit the shuttle and caused some damage. What are they to think?
Understandably, the shuttle crew is nervous. According to a story in the press, the shuttle commander said that "...shuttle's crew had been surprised and disappointed to find that NASA had not solved the foam debris problem that caused the Columbia disaster." Here's that story.
As well they should be. NASA sends these astronauts into space with assurances that everything was hunkey-dorey and then they are told that the problem wasn't fixed and that foam hit the shuttle and caused some damage. What are they to think?
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Foam Flies Off Shuttle Discovery Just After Take-Off: NASA Grounds Entire Shuttle Fleet
NASA has grounded the space shuttle fleet indefinitely after it was discovered that foam broke off the shuttle Discovery shortly after it blasted off from Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Luckily it appears that the foam did not strike the Discovery.
If the entire shuttle fleet is grounded indefinitely, how will NASA mount a rescue mission if the crew of the Discovery has to abandon ship in orbit? One scenario was that if a space shuttle was damaged enough that it couldn't re-enter Earth's atmosphere without being destroyed, the crew would leave the shuttle in orbit and wait for another shuttle to be launched to bring them home.
NASA did not do what it was supposed to do and fix ALL the problems that resulted in the destruction of the Columbia. It did reinforce the wings but did not fix the external fuel tank where the foam came off on both shuttles.
This is what happens when an over-aggressive launch schedule overrides all other concerns.
Luckily it appears that the foam did not strike the Discovery.
If the entire shuttle fleet is grounded indefinitely, how will NASA mount a rescue mission if the crew of the Discovery has to abandon ship in orbit? One scenario was that if a space shuttle was damaged enough that it couldn't re-enter Earth's atmosphere without being destroyed, the crew would leave the shuttle in orbit and wait for another shuttle to be launched to bring them home.
NASA did not do what it was supposed to do and fix ALL the problems that resulted in the destruction of the Columbia. It did reinforce the wings but did not fix the external fuel tank where the foam came off on both shuttles.
This is what happens when an over-aggressive launch schedule overrides all other concerns.
White House to Turn Over 75,000 Pages of Roberts Documents to Senate Judiciary Committee
The White House is turning over 75,000 pages of documents prepared by (and about) Supreme Court nominee John Roberts to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
This was a wise decision to make.
The senators on the Judiciary Committee should have more than enough documents to get a snapshot of the man that they will consider appointing to the Supreme Court.
Given the sheer volume of documents that are being turned over, the Democrats should be satisfied and not worry about the documents that are being excluded from the turn-over due to executive privilige. President Bush is putting forward a reasonable effort to satisfy those who want a little more openness about who he is nominating to important federal positions. He is to be commended for his efforts to compromise.
This was a wise decision to make.
The senators on the Judiciary Committee should have more than enough documents to get a snapshot of the man that they will consider appointing to the Supreme Court.
Given the sheer volume of documents that are being turned over, the Democrats should be satisfied and not worry about the documents that are being excluded from the turn-over due to executive privilige. President Bush is putting forward a reasonable effort to satisfy those who want a little more openness about who he is nominating to important federal positions. He is to be commended for his efforts to compromise.
Scouting Community Mourns Loss of Four Leaders at National Boy Scout Jamboree
The Scouting community is mourning the loss of four adult leaders of Boy Scout Troop 711 out of Anchorage, Alaska, after a tragic accident on the first day of the National Jamboree.
The leaders were helping to set up a large mess tent when a center pole touched overhead electrical lines. The four leaders died from the subsequent electrical current that ran down the pole and electrocuted them. It is not known if a spotter was outside the tent watching where the poles were going. As many as three other adults were also hurt in the accident.
Some thirty-five Scouts were in the immediate vicinity and witnessed the horrifying accident. Two of the leaders had sons at the Jamboree; all three boys have been sent home to Alaska to mourn and be with their families. The rest of Alaska contingent is receiving counseling near the scene.
Forty-two thousand Scouts and leaders from around the world are at Fort A.P. hill near Bowling Green, Virginia.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the Scouts and leaders who are suffering from this disaster. May the Great Scoutmaster comfort the mourning, heal the injured and be with the participants of the Jamboree as it continues on.
Rest in Peace
Michael J. Shibe, 49
Mike Lacroix, 42
Ronald H. Bitzer, 58
Scott Edward Powell, 57
The leaders were helping to set up a large mess tent when a center pole touched overhead electrical lines. The four leaders died from the subsequent electrical current that ran down the pole and electrocuted them. It is not known if a spotter was outside the tent watching where the poles were going. As many as three other adults were also hurt in the accident.
Some thirty-five Scouts were in the immediate vicinity and witnessed the horrifying accident. Two of the leaders had sons at the Jamboree; all three boys have been sent home to Alaska to mourn and be with their families. The rest of Alaska contingent is receiving counseling near the scene.
Forty-two thousand Scouts and leaders from around the world are at Fort A.P. hill near Bowling Green, Virginia.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the Scouts and leaders who are suffering from this disaster. May the Great Scoutmaster comfort the mourning, heal the injured and be with the participants of the Jamboree as it continues on.
Rest in Peace
Michael J. Shibe, 49
Mike Lacroix, 42
Ronald H. Bitzer, 58
Scott Edward Powell, 57
Monday, July 25, 2005
Taser Mounting PR Campaign to Sell Taser Stun Guns to General Public: Not a Good Idea
Taser is mounting a major campaign to get stun guns into the hands of the general public for self-defense purposes.
This is not a great idea.
The potential for abuse and misuse of these defensive weapons is so great that they should rethink what they're trying to do. In addition to Johnny or Jane Citizen having these stun guns, the bad guys will be able to buy them too.
Think about this: the police sometimes aren't sure when it's appropriate to use these weapons; in some very publicized cases, the weapons were used on children. Some of those children subsequently died from the electrical current causing major damage. Some adults have died too.
Schools are using them too to enforce discipline. This is an outrageous use of these devices whose short and long-term health effects are still being researched.
If the police use of stun guns sometimes causes death, what will happen when untrained Johnny or Jane use them to discipline their kids, or use them to impose their will on others? How many more problems will we be creating?
Using these weapons for anything other than outright self-defense against another human being should be a crime and the penalties should be very stiff if it's proven that someone used one of these devices on another person for no good reason.
It doesn't matter if the civilian versions will be weaker than the military and police ones. They still have to be strong enough to disable someone otherwise they're useless. Does "weaker" mean that it will only throw out 90,000 volts instead of 100,000 volts?
There will definitely be justifiable use of these devices, but how many people are going to get shocked for no good reason?
I think the police and military do need these devices, but I'm not sure that Johnny and Jane do.
What defensive measure does a police officer have against a Taser that is used against them by a criminal? Will the police officer be able to withstand the voltage, or will he or she be disabled like everyone else who gets hit with one of these devices?
This is a disaster waiting to happen.
This is not a great idea.
The potential for abuse and misuse of these defensive weapons is so great that they should rethink what they're trying to do. In addition to Johnny or Jane Citizen having these stun guns, the bad guys will be able to buy them too.
Think about this: the police sometimes aren't sure when it's appropriate to use these weapons; in some very publicized cases, the weapons were used on children. Some of those children subsequently died from the electrical current causing major damage. Some adults have died too.
Schools are using them too to enforce discipline. This is an outrageous use of these devices whose short and long-term health effects are still being researched.
If the police use of stun guns sometimes causes death, what will happen when untrained Johnny or Jane use them to discipline their kids, or use them to impose their will on others? How many more problems will we be creating?
Using these weapons for anything other than outright self-defense against another human being should be a crime and the penalties should be very stiff if it's proven that someone used one of these devices on another person for no good reason.
It doesn't matter if the civilian versions will be weaker than the military and police ones. They still have to be strong enough to disable someone otherwise they're useless. Does "weaker" mean that it will only throw out 90,000 volts instead of 100,000 volts?
There will definitely be justifiable use of these devices, but how many people are going to get shocked for no good reason?
I think the police and military do need these devices, but I'm not sure that Johnny and Jane do.
What defensive measure does a police officer have against a Taser that is used against them by a criminal? Will the police officer be able to withstand the voltage, or will he or she be disabled like everyone else who gets hit with one of these devices?
This is a disaster waiting to happen.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Here They Go Again: Bush Administration Will Withhold Roberts Documents
In a repeat of the John Bolton fiasco, the Bush Administration has decided to withhold certain documents on his nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts, from the Senate.
What is it this time, national security?
The Senate should vote down every nominee 100-0 until the Bush Administration sees fit to be more open about these people that they are putting in front of the Senate for confirmation.
Here's the story.
Full disclosure means full disclosure. Roberts would make a fine justice, but if there's a smoking gun in these documents, it's better to know about it in advance.
What is it this time, national security?
The Senate should vote down every nominee 100-0 until the Bush Administration sees fit to be more open about these people that they are putting in front of the Senate for confirmation.
Here's the story.
Full disclosure means full disclosure. Roberts would make a fine justice, but if there's a smoking gun in these documents, it's better to know about it in advance.
Poll Says Americans Believe World War III Will Happen: What Do They Think is Going on Right Now?
A recent poll conducted in Japan and in the U.S. indicated that a larger percentage of Americans than Japanese believe that they will see another world war in their lifetime.
They're right. It's happening right now.
The 9/11 attacks on the United States were the first shots of World War III. Since then, the U.S. and a coalition of various nations have invaded and occupied two Islamic countries.
This war is unlike any other war fought. Instead of nations declaring war and going at it with huge armies, navies and air forces, this war is nations against terrorists and their sponsors. The enemy uses time bombs and other kinds of explosives and are already near the targets that they intend to attack and destroy. There is no need for them to land troops on the shores of Britain or the U.S.: they're already here. The enemy has no navy to sink or air force to destroy.
The days of industrialized nations mobilizing and switching their economies over to war production are probably over. Wars will continue to go on, but Allies vs. Axis or NATO vs. Warsaw Pact types of conflicts are very likely finished.
World War I was all about groups of nations declaring war on one another or a member nation of one alliance attacking another nation from another alliance and thus bringing in the entire coalition.
World War I unfolded thus: Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary was assassinated by a Serbian assassin; Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia; Russia came to Serbia's aid by mobilizing; Austria-Hungary had a treaty with Germany against Russia so Germany declared war on Russia; France had a treaty with Russia and so declared war on Austria-Hungary and Germany; Germany demanded Belgium stay neutral as it sent troops across Belgium's border to attack France; Belgium refused the German demands so Germany invaded; Great Britain had a treaty to defend Belgium and declared war on Germany. Member states of the British Empire also declared war on Germany; the U.S. eventually came in as an ally of Britain and France and Russia. The treaty system ensured that if two small European nations got into a food fight that all of Europe would get into it as well.
World War II was not limited to European soil; it took place in Europe, Africa, Asia and other regions of the world. Free nations fell to Nazi invasion and occupation; Japan tore through Asia. The U.S. lend-lease program kept the Allies in the fight until the U.S. entered the war against Germany and Japan following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
So, yes, World War III is currently underway. World War IV may be fought with nuclear weapons, but World War III won't. Terrorists may use nuclear or atomic weapons against the coalition but there will be no nuclear response from nuclear-armed America or Britain or France. Since the terrorists are already living near their targets, no sane government would use nuclear weapons on its own territory to kill an al-Qaeda cell while killing hundreds of thousands of its own people in the process.
This goes back to old-fashioned detective and law-enforcement work as well as military action using forces that are already in the field. That's how World War III will be fought.
They're right. It's happening right now.
The 9/11 attacks on the United States were the first shots of World War III. Since then, the U.S. and a coalition of various nations have invaded and occupied two Islamic countries.
This war is unlike any other war fought. Instead of nations declaring war and going at it with huge armies, navies and air forces, this war is nations against terrorists and their sponsors. The enemy uses time bombs and other kinds of explosives and are already near the targets that they intend to attack and destroy. There is no need for them to land troops on the shores of Britain or the U.S.: they're already here. The enemy has no navy to sink or air force to destroy.
The days of industrialized nations mobilizing and switching their economies over to war production are probably over. Wars will continue to go on, but Allies vs. Axis or NATO vs. Warsaw Pact types of conflicts are very likely finished.
World War I was all about groups of nations declaring war on one another or a member nation of one alliance attacking another nation from another alliance and thus bringing in the entire coalition.
World War I unfolded thus: Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary was assassinated by a Serbian assassin; Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia; Russia came to Serbia's aid by mobilizing; Austria-Hungary had a treaty with Germany against Russia so Germany declared war on Russia; France had a treaty with Russia and so declared war on Austria-Hungary and Germany; Germany demanded Belgium stay neutral as it sent troops across Belgium's border to attack France; Belgium refused the German demands so Germany invaded; Great Britain had a treaty to defend Belgium and declared war on Germany. Member states of the British Empire also declared war on Germany; the U.S. eventually came in as an ally of Britain and France and Russia. The treaty system ensured that if two small European nations got into a food fight that all of Europe would get into it as well.
World War II was not limited to European soil; it took place in Europe, Africa, Asia and other regions of the world. Free nations fell to Nazi invasion and occupation; Japan tore through Asia. The U.S. lend-lease program kept the Allies in the fight until the U.S. entered the war against Germany and Japan following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
So, yes, World War III is currently underway. World War IV may be fought with nuclear weapons, but World War III won't. Terrorists may use nuclear or atomic weapons against the coalition but there will be no nuclear response from nuclear-armed America or Britain or France. Since the terrorists are already living near their targets, no sane government would use nuclear weapons on its own territory to kill an al-Qaeda cell while killing hundreds of thousands of its own people in the process.
This goes back to old-fashioned detective and law-enforcement work as well as military action using forces that are already in the field. That's how World War III will be fought.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Proposed Constitutional Amendments Since 1991
The information below is for reference for a post that I am working on and will be referring to in future posts. It is proposed Constitutional Amendments since 1991.
109th Congress (2005-2006)
- To specifically permit prayer at school meetings and ceremonies
- To allow non-natural born citizens to become President if they have been a citizen for 20 years
- To specifically allow Congress to regulate the amount of personal funds a candidate to public office can expend in a campaign
- To ensure that apportionment of Representatives be set by counting only citizens
- To make the filibuster in the Senate a part of the Constitution
- To provide for continuity of government in case of a catastrophic event
108th Congress (2003-2004)
- To lower the age restriction on Representatives and Senators from 30 and 25 respectively to 21
- To ensure that citizens of U.S. territories and commonwealths can vote in presidential elections
- To guarantee the right to use the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the national motto
- To restrict marriage in all states to be between a man and a woman
- To remove any protection any court may find for child pornography
- To allow Congress to pass laws for emergency replenishment of its membership should more than a quarter of either house be killed
- To place Presidential nominees immediately into position, providing the Senate with 120 days to reject the nominee before the appointment is automatically permanent
107th Congress (2001-2002)
- Calling for the repeal of the 8th Amendment and its replacement with wording prohibiting incarceration for minor traffic offenses
- To specify that progressive income taxes must be used
- To specify a right to "equal high quality" health care
- To limit pardons granted between October 1 and January 21 of any presidential election year
- To require a balanced budget without use of Social Security Trust Fund monies
- To allow for any person who has been a citizen of the United States for twenty years or more to be eligible for the Presidency
- To force the members of Congress and the President to forfeit their salary, on a per diem basis, for every day past the end of the fiscal year that a budget for that year remains unpassed
106th Congress (1999-2000)
- To provide a new method for proposing amendments to the Constitution, where two-thirds of all state legislatures could start the process
- To allow Congress to enact campaign spending limits on federal elections
- To allow Congress to enact campaign spending limits on state elections
- To declare that life begins at conception and that the 5th and 14th amendments apply to unborn children
- To prohibit courts from instructing any state or lower government to levy or raise taxes
105th Congress (1997-1998)
- To force a national referendum for any deficit spending
- To provide for the reconfirmation of federal judges every 12 years
- To prohibit the early release of convicted criminals
- To establish the right to a home
- To define the legal effect of international treaties
- To clarify that the Constitution neither prohibits nor requires school prayer
- To establish judicial terms of office
104th Congress (1995-1996)
- To clarify the meaning of the 2nd Amendment
- To provide for the reconfirmation of federal judges every 6 years
- To force a two-thirds vote for any bill that raises taxes
- To repeal the 16th Amendment and specifically prohibit an income tax
- To provide for removal of any officer of the U.S. convicted of a felony
- To permit the States to set term limits for their Representatives and Senators
103rd Congress (1993-1994)
- To allow a Presidential pardon of an individual only after said individual has been tried and convicted of a crime
- To allow Congress to pass legislation to allow the Supreme Court to remove federal judges from office
- To provide for the reconfirmation of federal judges every 10 years
- To provide for the recall of Representatives and Senators
- To remove automatic citizenship of children born in the U.S. to non-resident parents
- To enable or repeal laws by popular vote
- To define a process to allow amendments to the Constitution be proposed by a popular ("grass-roots") effort
- To force a three-fifths vote for any bill that raises taxes
- To prohibit retroactive taxation
- To provide for run-off Presidential elections if no one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote
- To prohibit abortion
- To bar imposition on the States of unfunded federal mandates
102nd Congress (1991-1992)
- To disallow the desecration of the U.S. Flag
- To allow a line-item veto in appropriations bills
- To expand the term of Representatives to four years
- To provide for direct election of the President and Vice-President (eliminating the Electoral College)
- To force a balanced budget
- To prohibit involuntary bussing of students
- To make English the official language of the United States
- To set term limits on Representatives and Senators
- To repeal the 22nd Amendment (removing Presidential term limits)
- To guarantee a right to employment opportunity for all citizens
- To grant protections to unborn children
- To provide for "moments of silence" in public schools
- To allow Congress to regulate expenditures for and contributions to political campaigns
- To provide for the rights of crime victims
- To provide for access to medical care for all citizens
- To repeal the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms)
- To prohibit the death penalty
- To protect the environment
- To repeal the 26th Amendment (granting the vote to 18-year olds) and granting the right to vote to 16-year olds
- To provide equal rights to men and women
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Limbaugh Keeps Missing the Point on Role of the Supreme Court
Rush Limbaugh and others on the right have been making a lot of noise lately about how the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of unelected attorneys who do not have a moral right to judge the constitutionality of law and impose its will on the entire nation.
Rush's opinion carries a lot of weight around here, but he's wrong in this instance. He's more interested in attacking the liberals (who are also wrong) and what they're saying about the Supreme Court and the Republicans who control both houses of Congress and the Presidency instead of focusing on what the Supreme Court is and should be.
It's a counterbalance against the Congress and the President. If Congress doesn't like a ruling and they have popular support as well as the support of the White House, they can attempt to amend the Constitution. It's been done in the past.
Rush is also ignoring the rest of the judicial system.
One of the accusations that have been leveled against the high court is that the Justices don't go into enough depth on the court cases that come before them. The question that needs to be asked here is: why should they?
All of that information has already been vetted out during the appeals process that led to their being reviewed by the Supreme Court. They get all the summaries from the lower courts and read the briefs beforehand to help in their questioning of the witnesses and their own private deliberations.
Rush wasn't complaining when the Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount in 2000.
It almost sounds like he wants to get the President's nominee to take Sandra Day O'Conner's place onto the court without the advice and consent of the Senate. He also says that the Supreme Court is not supposed to be a political institution, yet he says that the Justices are unelected and have no mandate.
Rush needs to get back on track. And he needs to get over campaign finance reform. That's what his REAL beef is.
This court IS too activist, so if Rush means what he says, he should be pushing for a moderate Justice who has no history of political involvement, party labels or involvement in activist movements and will have a strict interpretation of what the Constitution means and how it applies to today.
Rush's opinion carries a lot of weight around here, but he's wrong in this instance. He's more interested in attacking the liberals (who are also wrong) and what they're saying about the Supreme Court and the Republicans who control both houses of Congress and the Presidency instead of focusing on what the Supreme Court is and should be.
It's a counterbalance against the Congress and the President. If Congress doesn't like a ruling and they have popular support as well as the support of the White House, they can attempt to amend the Constitution. It's been done in the past.
Rush is also ignoring the rest of the judicial system.
One of the accusations that have been leveled against the high court is that the Justices don't go into enough depth on the court cases that come before them. The question that needs to be asked here is: why should they?
All of that information has already been vetted out during the appeals process that led to their being reviewed by the Supreme Court. They get all the summaries from the lower courts and read the briefs beforehand to help in their questioning of the witnesses and their own private deliberations.
Rush wasn't complaining when the Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount in 2000.
It almost sounds like he wants to get the President's nominee to take Sandra Day O'Conner's place onto the court without the advice and consent of the Senate. He also says that the Supreme Court is not supposed to be a political institution, yet he says that the Justices are unelected and have no mandate.
Rush needs to get back on track. And he needs to get over campaign finance reform. That's what his REAL beef is.
This court IS too activist, so if Rush means what he says, he should be pushing for a moderate Justice who has no history of political involvement, party labels or involvement in activist movements and will have a strict interpretation of what the Constitution means and how it applies to today.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Ex-Clinton Aid Accuses Republicans of Wanting to Kill Him and His Family to Keep Tax Cuts in Place: What is This Guy's Problem?
A former aide to President Clinton got on a stage at the Campus Progress National Student Conference and accused the Republicans of wanting to kill him and his family to keep tax cuts on the rich in place. The conference itself is sponsored by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party to teach and encourage liberals on campuses to continue debating issues.
He managed to tie national security into his rant too.
Sounds like this guy needs to get back on whatever he is supposed to be taking.
Here's the story.
Couple of notes from the report:
He also took great delight in pointing out that Republicans had to be "dragged into World War II" by Democrats. He forgot to mention Democratic Administrations dragging the U.S. into a war in Vietnam and that President Nixon was the first President to scale back the military involvement before all U.S. combat forces were withdrawn on March 29, 1973. Here's a comprehensive look at the Vietnam story from 1945-1975.
One has to look at the entire picture before making the types of conclusions that he has. For him to make an argument that the Republicans got us into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and wanted to stay out of World War II until Pearl Harbor forced the issue, while ignoring Democratic mistakes over the last seventy years is a deliberate error on his part. It's all propaganda mixed into a "history" lesson.
He managed to tie national security into his rant too.
Sounds like this guy needs to get back on whatever he is supposed to be taking.
Here's the story.
Couple of notes from the report:
He also took great delight in pointing out that Republicans had to be "dragged into World War II" by Democrats. He forgot to mention Democratic Administrations dragging the U.S. into a war in Vietnam and that President Nixon was the first President to scale back the military involvement before all U.S. combat forces were withdrawn on March 29, 1973. Here's a comprehensive look at the Vietnam story from 1945-1975.
One has to look at the entire picture before making the types of conclusions that he has. For him to make an argument that the Republicans got us into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and wanted to stay out of World War II until Pearl Harbor forced the issue, while ignoring Democratic mistakes over the last seventy years is a deliberate error on his part. It's all propaganda mixed into a "history" lesson.
Delay of Space Shuttle Launch is Actually Good News
The long-awaited launch of the space shuttle Discovery was put off after a faulty fuel gauge showed that the fully-fueled hydrogen tank was empty.
The engineers decided to put the launch on indefinite hold today. They had hoped to make a Sunday launch window, but their troubleshooting is not going as quickly as they had hoped.
This is actually good news.
The shuttle is NOT ready to fly. They've done some modifications to the tank to prevent ice and foam from coming off as the shuttle blasts off, but they've done nothing to reinforce vulnerable parts of the shuttle that cannot withstand a high-velocity impact from a one or two pound object. The wings can still be blown full of holes from impacts like the one that tore a hole in Columbia's left wing.
In addition, NASA has not come up with a shuttle patch to be used in space if the shuttle gets damaged the way the Columbia was.
Now there's talk that if they will launch the Discovery even if they cannot find the problem with the fuel tank gauge. Wrong answer.
NASA should not allow an over-aggressive launch schedule to override their better judgment. If they can't find the problem, the entire tank should be replaced as well as the affected sensors. If that will take too much time, perhaps they should launch the Endeavor or the Atlantis instead. That will take even more time as both shuttles are undergoing refits. If a bird is too wounded to fly, why are they not keeping it on the ground?
They need to do this right; if they lose the Discovery, the ramifications would be severe, and a major disaster for another shuttle crew and their families. The shuttle program doesn't need another shuttle to be destroyed due to lax standards.
Lax standards and shortcuts have led to two space shuttles being lost. That's two too many.
The engineers decided to put the launch on indefinite hold today. They had hoped to make a Sunday launch window, but their troubleshooting is not going as quickly as they had hoped.
This is actually good news.
The shuttle is NOT ready to fly. They've done some modifications to the tank to prevent ice and foam from coming off as the shuttle blasts off, but they've done nothing to reinforce vulnerable parts of the shuttle that cannot withstand a high-velocity impact from a one or two pound object. The wings can still be blown full of holes from impacts like the one that tore a hole in Columbia's left wing.
In addition, NASA has not come up with a shuttle patch to be used in space if the shuttle gets damaged the way the Columbia was.
Now there's talk that if they will launch the Discovery even if they cannot find the problem with the fuel tank gauge. Wrong answer.
NASA should not allow an over-aggressive launch schedule to override their better judgment. If they can't find the problem, the entire tank should be replaced as well as the affected sensors. If that will take too much time, perhaps they should launch the Endeavor or the Atlantis instead. That will take even more time as both shuttles are undergoing refits. If a bird is too wounded to fly, why are they not keeping it on the ground?
They need to do this right; if they lose the Discovery, the ramifications would be severe, and a major disaster for another shuttle crew and their families. The shuttle program doesn't need another shuttle to be destroyed due to lax standards.
Lax standards and shortcuts have led to two space shuttles being lost. That's two too many.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Karl Rove's Reputation as Bush's Master Tactician: A Democratic Ploy to Distract Attention from Bush
Karl Rove has been described in the media as Bush's master strategist and power broker who brought about President Bush's thumping of John Kerry in last year's Presidential elections.
This is not quite accurate.
Bush ran the campaign, not Rove. There is no denying that Rove added a great deal to the campaign, but it was ultimately Bush's decisions that led to the victory.
For several years, the Democrats have used Rove's (Democratic Party-created) reputation to distract attention away from Bush's own abilities as a master planner and campaigner; something that the Congressional Democrats and their liberal allies in the media are loathe to even admit.
In their eyes, Bush is an idiot.
Now they want Rove out of the way. Rove managed to get their dander up when he made a (widely reported) comment about liberal and conservative reactions to 9/11. He didn't even mention the Democrats by name, but they went bonkers when they heard his comments.
He said "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives," he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war." He also said that that groups linked to the Democratic Party (moveon.org) made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.
Now the Democrats are looking to silence a grating voice in the form of a possible Rove leak of a CIA operative's name to the media. Democrats haven't stopped screaming since the story broke. Here's the real deal on that situation:
The CIA employee was not under cover. She was not overseas when her name was leaked to the media. She was not in danger of being captured by enemy forces. She was not spying on anyone. She was not gathering information on Chinese or Russian nuclear weapons. She was not blowing up Iran's nuclear reactor. She was not gathering intelligence on Hamas or Ansar-al-Islam, nor was she rescuing hostages in Baghdad. She WAS manning her desk at CIA headquarters and answering the phone and drinking coffee and analyzing information. When the CIA was contacted about her being mentioned in a report, they did not request her name be withheld in the story. Why?
Because she was a normal CIA employee doing her duty to her country.
So if she was not a super-secret agent, and the CIA didn't ask to have the story killed or altered, she does not qualify as being the sort of CIA person/agent that the law intended to protect.
In other words, no crime was committed. So it doesn't matter if Rove screwed up or intentionally leaked the information to discredit someone. This is pure political hay that Rove's enemies are making. Get over it!
This is not quite accurate.
Bush ran the campaign, not Rove. There is no denying that Rove added a great deal to the campaign, but it was ultimately Bush's decisions that led to the victory.
For several years, the Democrats have used Rove's (Democratic Party-created) reputation to distract attention away from Bush's own abilities as a master planner and campaigner; something that the Congressional Democrats and their liberal allies in the media are loathe to even admit.
In their eyes, Bush is an idiot.
Now they want Rove out of the way. Rove managed to get their dander up when he made a (widely reported) comment about liberal and conservative reactions to 9/11. He didn't even mention the Democrats by name, but they went bonkers when they heard his comments.
He said "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives," he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war." He also said that that groups linked to the Democratic Party (moveon.org) made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.
Now the Democrats are looking to silence a grating voice in the form of a possible Rove leak of a CIA operative's name to the media. Democrats haven't stopped screaming since the story broke. Here's the real deal on that situation:
The CIA employee was not under cover. She was not overseas when her name was leaked to the media. She was not in danger of being captured by enemy forces. She was not spying on anyone. She was not gathering information on Chinese or Russian nuclear weapons. She was not blowing up Iran's nuclear reactor. She was not gathering intelligence on Hamas or Ansar-al-Islam, nor was she rescuing hostages in Baghdad. She WAS manning her desk at CIA headquarters and answering the phone and drinking coffee and analyzing information. When the CIA was contacted about her being mentioned in a report, they did not request her name be withheld in the story. Why?
Because she was a normal CIA employee doing her duty to her country.
So if she was not a super-secret agent, and the CIA didn't ask to have the story killed or altered, she does not qualify as being the sort of CIA person/agent that the law intended to protect.
In other words, no crime was committed. So it doesn't matter if Rove screwed up or intentionally leaked the information to discredit someone. This is pure political hay that Rove's enemies are making. Get over it!
Friday, July 15, 2005
Catholics Excluded from Consideration for Adoption by Christian Adoption Agency
This is difficult to believe.
A Christian adoption agency headquartered in Grand Rapids is under fire because one of their agencies excludes Catholic parents from adopting babies. They don't discriminate against other faiths, just the Catholic one because it "goes against their articles of faith and adoption."
Sounds like a group of people who don't understand their own religion, let alone the Catholic one.
Discrimination like this should not still be going on, yet here it is.
The Statement of Faith from Bethany reads (in its entirety):
Bethany Christian Services is founded upon the Scriptures which reveal the triune God. Members of the national board, local boards, staff and adoptive applicants indicate their personal agreement with BethanyÂ’s Statement of Faith by signing below.
I believe that the sovereign, triune God created the world out of nothing and sustains His creation. The heavens and earth are His handiwork. He made man and woman in His image and likeness as the crown of creation. All creation reflects His greatness and power.
I believe that God created the family, giving Adam and Eve the responsibility to conceive, bear and nurture children. As the creator of life, God Himself begins each human life at conception and gives to each person, as His image bearer, meaning, dignity and value.
I believe that sin entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sought to be independent of Him. As a result of this Fall, all people are estranged from God and live in a world permeated by sin.
I believe that God, by His grace, provided redemption and restoration in Jesus Christ for all who repent and believe. As the Savior, Jesus takes away the sins of the world. Jesus is the one in whom we are called to put our hope, our only hope for forgiveness of sin and for reconciliation with God and with one another.
I believe that in all matters of faith and life, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the final authority. The Scriptures point us with full reliability to Jesus, GodÂ’s Son. The Scriptures tell us that we receive forgiveness of sins by faith in Jesus Christ, and that God provides salvation by grace alone for those who repent and believe.
I believe that forgiveness comes through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, GodÂ’s Son, who was made flesh, took our place in death, rose from the dead, and is now in glory with the Father interceding and praying for His people.
I believe that God, through His Spirit, lovingly calls, redeems and adopts us into His family, the Church and that, in gratitude for GodÂ’s saving love in Christ, we are called to live a life of faithfulness and obedience according to the scriptures.
I believe that Jesus, through His Spirit, is presently directing GodÂ’s work of making all things new.
I believe that the Christian Church, as the community of believers, has an obligation to protect, preserve, and enhance life as fully as possible for each person, born and unborn, from the beginning to the end of life. As Christians we are called to a life of faith into an ongoing ministry until that mission is completed by the coming of the Kingdom in its fullness. The Holy Spirit empowers us to fulfill that calling.
I, along with all followers of Christ, believe and wait expectantly for the triumphant return of Jesus Christ our King. At that time, I believe that Jesus Christ will gather us to Himself as one complete family and will, throughout eternity, fully enhance the lives of His children as citizens of His kingdom, sons and daughters in our Father's house. As His children we long hopefully for that day to appear and we face that day without fear, for the Judge is our Savior and Lord. To Him be the glory.
----
Catholics believe in all these things. In fact, they're more outspoken on many of these issues than the ones doing the discriminating in this case.
This is disappointing to hear about. Christians shouldn't do this to Christians.
NOTE: This post is directed at one particular Bethany agency. All Bethany agencies are independent from one another. Hopefully all the other agencies are more inclusive than the one written about here. Some of the other affiliated agencies have expressed shock and dismay at the discriminatory practices of this one agency.
A Christian adoption agency headquartered in Grand Rapids is under fire because one of their agencies excludes Catholic parents from adopting babies. They don't discriminate against other faiths, just the Catholic one because it "goes against their articles of faith and adoption."
Sounds like a group of people who don't understand their own religion, let alone the Catholic one.
Discrimination like this should not still be going on, yet here it is.
The Statement of Faith from Bethany reads (in its entirety):
Bethany Christian Services is founded upon the Scriptures which reveal the triune God. Members of the national board, local boards, staff and adoptive applicants indicate their personal agreement with BethanyÂ’s Statement of Faith by signing below.
I believe that the sovereign, triune God created the world out of nothing and sustains His creation. The heavens and earth are His handiwork. He made man and woman in His image and likeness as the crown of creation. All creation reflects His greatness and power.
I believe that God created the family, giving Adam and Eve the responsibility to conceive, bear and nurture children. As the creator of life, God Himself begins each human life at conception and gives to each person, as His image bearer, meaning, dignity and value.
I believe that sin entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sought to be independent of Him. As a result of this Fall, all people are estranged from God and live in a world permeated by sin.
I believe that God, by His grace, provided redemption and restoration in Jesus Christ for all who repent and believe. As the Savior, Jesus takes away the sins of the world. Jesus is the one in whom we are called to put our hope, our only hope for forgiveness of sin and for reconciliation with God and with one another.
I believe that in all matters of faith and life, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the final authority. The Scriptures point us with full reliability to Jesus, GodÂ’s Son. The Scriptures tell us that we receive forgiveness of sins by faith in Jesus Christ, and that God provides salvation by grace alone for those who repent and believe.
I believe that forgiveness comes through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, GodÂ’s Son, who was made flesh, took our place in death, rose from the dead, and is now in glory with the Father interceding and praying for His people.
I believe that God, through His Spirit, lovingly calls, redeems and adopts us into His family, the Church and that, in gratitude for GodÂ’s saving love in Christ, we are called to live a life of faithfulness and obedience according to the scriptures.
I believe that Jesus, through His Spirit, is presently directing GodÂ’s work of making all things new.
I believe that the Christian Church, as the community of believers, has an obligation to protect, preserve, and enhance life as fully as possible for each person, born and unborn, from the beginning to the end of life. As Christians we are called to a life of faith into an ongoing ministry until that mission is completed by the coming of the Kingdom in its fullness. The Holy Spirit empowers us to fulfill that calling.
I, along with all followers of Christ, believe and wait expectantly for the triumphant return of Jesus Christ our King. At that time, I believe that Jesus Christ will gather us to Himself as one complete family and will, throughout eternity, fully enhance the lives of His children as citizens of His kingdom, sons and daughters in our Father's house. As His children we long hopefully for that day to appear and we face that day without fear, for the Judge is our Savior and Lord. To Him be the glory.
----
Catholics believe in all these things. In fact, they're more outspoken on many of these issues than the ones doing the discriminating in this case.
This is disappointing to hear about. Christians shouldn't do this to Christians.
NOTE: This post is directed at one particular Bethany agency. All Bethany agencies are independent from one another. Hopefully all the other agencies are more inclusive than the one written about here. Some of the other affiliated agencies have expressed shock and dismay at the discriminatory practices of this one agency.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
NHL Returns: What Happens Now?
The National Hockey League owners and players union struck a deal to end out the year-long lockout. It will be voted on next week.
Finally!
Major changes are coming due to the new deal; it will be interesting to see how the fans respond to both the return of their beloved teams and to the changes in how the NHL and teams are run. The agreement is said to be some 600 pages long.
NHL players are preparing to return from Europe and find out if they still have jobs with the teams that they left behind.
It's going to be very interesting. Not ready to put out the Red Wings flag just yet.
Finally!
Major changes are coming due to the new deal; it will be interesting to see how the fans respond to both the return of their beloved teams and to the changes in how the NHL and teams are run. The agreement is said to be some 600 pages long.
NHL players are preparing to return from Europe and find out if they still have jobs with the teams that they left behind.
It's going to be very interesting. Not ready to put out the Red Wings flag just yet.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Much Tougher Laws on Sex Offenders Needed Until a Better Solution is Developed
Sex crimes should have a mandatory life sentence.
There is good reason for this: sex offenders who do not serve their full sentence are at least four times more likely to commit another sex crime after they are released. Unfortunately, due to early release programs, there are TOO MANY who are not serving their full sentences and it is increasing the danger to communities after they are freed from jail.
Low-risk crimes (like indecent exposure) would have to be judged on whether or not there were other crimes committed at the same time AND if a "low-risk" crime like indecent exposure would be included on the mandatory sex crimes list. Other lesser crimes would also have to be decided on by the legal system if they were to be included on the list of sex crimes that would require a mandatory life sentence.
A life sentence would eliminate the need for sex registries that the states would have to maintain and track. This is something that many states have been TOO lax on already. Tens of thousands are already unaccounted for under the current system. No one knows where these people even are or if they are keeping out of trouble.
It would also eliminate the need to have laws on the books that ban convicted sex offenders from living near schools and day-care centers. The future of those laws (which fourteen states and many municipalities across this country have enacted) is uncertain due to untested waters of constitutionality of those laws. A group of convicted sex offenders are challenging such a law in Binghamton, New York, that sets a quarter-mile "exclusion zone" for them around schools. Until these laws stand up in court, they (the laws) should not be relied on as they could be overturned at any time.
This would also eliminate issues related to people who are convicted of sex crimes against family members who are released and wish to return to their families. Family members would then have a choice of visiting their relative in jail IF they wished.
Plea bargains would be out the window, and so would early releases due to overcrowding. There would be no more need for probation officers to keep track of offenders anymore, nor waste taxpayer money on GPS tracking of offenders. Short sentences would be eliminated.
Until someone comes up with a better way to deal with sex offenders, this is the best solution.
It seems kind of ridiculous that illegal drugs can earn someone a life sentence depending on how much dope a person has in their possession, but raping a child will only earn someone a fourteen-year sentence and then they are released have more opportunities to rape other children in other states.
Our laws need to be fixed.
There is good reason for this: sex offenders who do not serve their full sentence are at least four times more likely to commit another sex crime after they are released. Unfortunately, due to early release programs, there are TOO MANY who are not serving their full sentences and it is increasing the danger to communities after they are freed from jail.
Low-risk crimes (like indecent exposure) would have to be judged on whether or not there were other crimes committed at the same time AND if a "low-risk" crime like indecent exposure would be included on the mandatory sex crimes list. Other lesser crimes would also have to be decided on by the legal system if they were to be included on the list of sex crimes that would require a mandatory life sentence.
A life sentence would eliminate the need for sex registries that the states would have to maintain and track. This is something that many states have been TOO lax on already. Tens of thousands are already unaccounted for under the current system. No one knows where these people even are or if they are keeping out of trouble.
It would also eliminate the need to have laws on the books that ban convicted sex offenders from living near schools and day-care centers. The future of those laws (which fourteen states and many municipalities across this country have enacted) is uncertain due to untested waters of constitutionality of those laws. A group of convicted sex offenders are challenging such a law in Binghamton, New York, that sets a quarter-mile "exclusion zone" for them around schools. Until these laws stand up in court, they (the laws) should not be relied on as they could be overturned at any time.
This would also eliminate issues related to people who are convicted of sex crimes against family members who are released and wish to return to their families. Family members would then have a choice of visiting their relative in jail IF they wished.
Plea bargains would be out the window, and so would early releases due to overcrowding. There would be no more need for probation officers to keep track of offenders anymore, nor waste taxpayer money on GPS tracking of offenders. Short sentences would be eliminated.
Until someone comes up with a better way to deal with sex offenders, this is the best solution.
It seems kind of ridiculous that illegal drugs can earn someone a life sentence depending on how much dope a person has in their possession, but raping a child will only earn someone a fourteen-year sentence and then they are released have more opportunities to rape other children in other states.
Our laws need to be fixed.
Encouraging Sign: Afghan Village Hid and Protected Wounded Navy SEAL From Taliban
In a very encouraging piece of news coming out of Afghanistan, the sole surviving Navy SEAL of a battle between remnants of the Taliban and a four-man SEAL recon team was able to make good his escape after being blown down a mountainside by an RPG that exploded near him during the battle.
According to reports, he was able to walk two miles from the battle before being found by an Afghan villager who took him in, treated his wounds and hid him from the Taliban who came looking for him. The villager then took a note from the wounded SEAL and took it to nearby U.S. and coalition forces.
This story is good news: villagers are actively resisting the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in the mountains of Afghanistan.
The other three members of the SEAL team perished in the battle along with sixteen other Special Forces soldiers who came looking for them and were shot down by the Taliban a couple of weeks ago.
Afghanistan remains one of the world’s most dangerous places and is still a central battlefield for the ongoing war on terror. It’s safe to say that the war in Afghanistan is continuing to go better than expected in spite of the recent battles and heavy casualties suffered by the SEALS and U.S. Special Forces and Afghan Army soldiers.
They’re doing a terrific job.
Here's the story.
Hopefully the coalition will protect the Afghan who saved the SEAL from the Taliban, who may now take revenge on the man and his family.
According to reports, he was able to walk two miles from the battle before being found by an Afghan villager who took him in, treated his wounds and hid him from the Taliban who came looking for him. The villager then took a note from the wounded SEAL and took it to nearby U.S. and coalition forces.
This story is good news: villagers are actively resisting the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in the mountains of Afghanistan.
The other three members of the SEAL team perished in the battle along with sixteen other Special Forces soldiers who came looking for them and were shot down by the Taliban a couple of weeks ago.
Afghanistan remains one of the world’s most dangerous places and is still a central battlefield for the ongoing war on terror. It’s safe to say that the war in Afghanistan is continuing to go better than expected in spite of the recent battles and heavy casualties suffered by the SEALS and U.S. Special Forces and Afghan Army soldiers.
They’re doing a terrific job.
Here's the story.
Hopefully the coalition will protect the Afghan who saved the SEAL from the Taliban, who may now take revenge on the man and his family.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
FBI Confirms Remains Found in Montana are Those of Missing Idaho Boy
As the disaster in Florida continued to unfold today, one sad piece of news was put onto the back burner by the networks until the hurricane subsided.
The FBI crime lab in Quantico, Virginia, confirmed today that human remains found in a Montana forest are those of nine-year-old Dylan Groene.
With that, one terrible chapter of this gruesome story ends and the prosecution of the damned dirty ape that committed these unspeakable crimes can get underway.
One day, the killer/child rapist will die and his deserved punishment will REALLY begin!
And despite his pro-Satan rantings and ravings, this scum has NO idea of the type of punishment that awaits him!
And why was this sex offender let loose??! Someone has some EXPLAINING to do! This guy should have been locked up FOREVER after he videoed himself sexually abusing a Minnesota boy a year ago AND GOT CAUGHT!!
Didn't someone get the message that this guy was a threat after that convincing piece of evidence? They should have done their homework! Idiots!!
The FBI crime lab in Quantico, Virginia, confirmed today that human remains found in a Montana forest are those of nine-year-old Dylan Groene.
With that, one terrible chapter of this gruesome story ends and the prosecution of the damned dirty ape that committed these unspeakable crimes can get underway.
One day, the killer/child rapist will die and his deserved punishment will REALLY begin!
And despite his pro-Satan rantings and ravings, this scum has NO idea of the type of punishment that awaits him!
And why was this sex offender let loose??! Someone has some EXPLAINING to do! This guy should have been locked up FOREVER after he videoed himself sexually abusing a Minnesota boy a year ago AND GOT CAUGHT!!
Didn't someone get the message that this guy was a threat after that convincing piece of evidence? They should have done their homework! Idiots!!
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Town Council Bans “Wal-Mart” From Being Mentioned at Town Meetings: Have These Fools Ever Heard of the First Amendment?
In a childish move to stifle free and open discussion of whether a Wal-Mart should be built in their town, the Yelm, Washington, town council banned the terms “Wal-Mart” and “big-box store” and “moratorium” from their council meetings.
The usual controversy erupted in the small town as it usually does when a market superpower like Wal-Mart comes in and threatens the locally owned businesses.
Instead of rejecting the application from Wal-Mart, as the town council could have done, they banned people’s rights to bring up Wal-Mart instead. This amounts to the same thing as burying their heads in the sand and hoping that the problem will go away.
Each member of this council should be provided with a copy of the Constitution of the United States and encouraged to read the First Amendment carefully.
Someone should go to a council meeting, get arrested for violating the ban, go before the judge and ask him/her to overturn the ban as it is unconstitutional. Citizens must have the right to have access to “free and accountable” government as provided for in the Constitution. Since the ACLU has no plans to get involved, this issue should be forced. This must not be allowed to stand.
If the council doesn’t want Wal-Mart, they should reject the application instead of assaulting the First Amendment. Here's the story.
The usual controversy erupted in the small town as it usually does when a market superpower like Wal-Mart comes in and threatens the locally owned businesses.
Instead of rejecting the application from Wal-Mart, as the town council could have done, they banned people’s rights to bring up Wal-Mart instead. This amounts to the same thing as burying their heads in the sand and hoping that the problem will go away.
Each member of this council should be provided with a copy of the Constitution of the United States and encouraged to read the First Amendment carefully.
Someone should go to a council meeting, get arrested for violating the ban, go before the judge and ask him/her to overturn the ban as it is unconstitutional. Citizens must have the right to have access to “free and accountable” government as provided for in the Constitution. Since the ACLU has no plans to get involved, this issue should be forced. This must not be allowed to stand.
If the council doesn’t want Wal-Mart, they should reject the application instead of assaulting the First Amendment. Here's the story.
Egypt’s Ambassador to Iraq Killed by al-Qaeda After Being Kidnapped
Egypt’s ambassador to Iraq, Ihab el-Sherif, was executed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s “al-Qaeda in Iraq” terror group.
Zarqawi’s group is responsible for beheading many Western, Muslim and Iraqi hostages.
The Egyptian ambassador was taken at gunpoint near his home as he stopped to buy a newspaper in an Iraqi market.
This execution is apparently in response to the international community pledging support to the new Iraqi government and Egypt announcing that it would be the first Arab nation to send a full ambassador to Baghdad. al-Qaeda didn't like that, calling the Egyptians "infidels."
Coming from a two-bit terrorist like Zarqawi, whose behavior is an insult to God, calling the Egyptians 'infidels' would be laughable if he hadn't just murdered Egypt's emissary to Iraq.
Hopefully other nations will make their Iraqi embassies into fortresses until the security situation in and around Baghdad improves. Ambassadors should have residences inside their compounds, not outside of them where any Zarqawi thug with a gun and an attitude can take a shot at them.
Zarqawi’s group is responsible for beheading many Western, Muslim and Iraqi hostages.
The Egyptian ambassador was taken at gunpoint near his home as he stopped to buy a newspaper in an Iraqi market.
This execution is apparently in response to the international community pledging support to the new Iraqi government and Egypt announcing that it would be the first Arab nation to send a full ambassador to Baghdad. al-Qaeda didn't like that, calling the Egyptians "infidels."
Coming from a two-bit terrorist like Zarqawi, whose behavior is an insult to God, calling the Egyptians 'infidels' would be laughable if he hadn't just murdered Egypt's emissary to Iraq.
Hopefully other nations will make their Iraqi embassies into fortresses until the security situation in and around Baghdad improves. Ambassadors should have residences inside their compounds, not outside of them where any Zarqawi thug with a gun and an attitude can take a shot at them.
Friday, July 08, 2005
British Absorb Terror Attacks and Come Away Stronger Than Before
Al-Qaeda failed in its brutal attack on London to scare the British into complying with their demands and made the United Kingdom even more united in their resolve to defeat terrorism.
The death toll stands above fifty so far; hundreds were hurt and dozens are reported as being missing. World leaders denounced the attacks as ‘barbaric’ and the worldwide outpouring of support for the people of London was heart-warming to see.
The Mayor of London said what everyone thinks: low-level terrorism is inevitable. London has been expecting an attack by terrorists for quite some time; so have other nations who are actively fighting terrorism.
The thing is, this type of terrorism is difficult to stop and almost certainly won’t be detected beforehand as we saw in London and Madrid.
The bombs were said to have been home-made and put into backpacks before being left on the subway or in the bus.
The only thing that Western governments can do is react and take out terror cells as they give themselves away or they find information about people living in their countries who went to terror camps and so forth.
There is some question if this is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s work or if this was done by Osama bin-Laden. Bin-Laden had been encouraging al-Zarqawi to not limit his fight to Iraq, and it is possible that al-Zarqawi used his international connections to put this terrorist attack on London together.
In any case, the fight against international terrorism will continue. The pressure must be kept up.
The death toll stands above fifty so far; hundreds were hurt and dozens are reported as being missing. World leaders denounced the attacks as ‘barbaric’ and the worldwide outpouring of support for the people of London was heart-warming to see.
The Mayor of London said what everyone thinks: low-level terrorism is inevitable. London has been expecting an attack by terrorists for quite some time; so have other nations who are actively fighting terrorism.
The thing is, this type of terrorism is difficult to stop and almost certainly won’t be detected beforehand as we saw in London and Madrid.
The bombs were said to have been home-made and put into backpacks before being left on the subway or in the bus.
The only thing that Western governments can do is react and take out terror cells as they give themselves away or they find information about people living in their countries who went to terror camps and so forth.
There is some question if this is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s work or if this was done by Osama bin-Laden. Bin-Laden had been encouraging al-Zarqawi to not limit his fight to Iraq, and it is possible that al-Zarqawi used his international connections to put this terrorist attack on London together.
In any case, the fight against international terrorism will continue. The pressure must be kept up.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Al-Qaeda Attacks London: Similar to 3/11 Terror Attacks on Madrid
Great Britain came under terrorist attack when three subways and a double-decker bus were bombed in and around London. It is very likely that al-Qaeda is behind it.
As bad as these bombings were, it could have been much worse. The death toll is still unknown.
There can be no peace as long as al-Qaeda exists and continues to threaten Western powers.
Hopefully Spain watches how Great Britain handles this deadly situation and watches as Britain DOES NOT knuckle under like they did when al-Qaeda launched terror attacks on Madrid.
As bad as these bombings were, it could have been much worse. The death toll is still unknown.
There can be no peace as long as al-Qaeda exists and continues to threaten Western powers.
Hopefully Spain watches how Great Britain handles this deadly situation and watches as Britain DOES NOT knuckle under like they did when al-Qaeda launched terror attacks on Madrid.
Monday, July 04, 2005
BBC Apologizes to Viewers for Live 8 Stars Swearing on Live TV
The BBC apologized to people in Great Britain and around the world for singers appearing on the Live 8 concerts in London who were swearing on live (no time delay) TV.
The BBC tried to excuse the swearing by Madonna and Snoop Dogg as an emotional reaction to Live 8.
Yeah, right.
Can’t Madonna and her fellow stars control themselves? Do they have to swear and cuss and use the “f” word to express themselves?
Their lack of self-discipline is disgusting.
NOTE: Most of the stars behaved themselves and conducted themselves properly. It was only a few that added this sour note to Live 8. Also...what was the deal with the $12,000 gift bags for each star on the show?
The BBC tried to excuse the swearing by Madonna and Snoop Dogg as an emotional reaction to Live 8.
Yeah, right.
Can’t Madonna and her fellow stars control themselves? Do they have to swear and cuss and use the “f” word to express themselves?
Their lack of self-discipline is disgusting.
NOTE: Most of the stars behaved themselves and conducted themselves properly. It was only a few that added this sour note to Live 8. Also...what was the deal with the $12,000 gift bags for each star on the show?
Congressional Conservatives Tell President Bush Not to Nominate Gonzales for Vacant Supreme Court Seat
President Bush’s conservative allies are telling him not to nominate his Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, to the Supreme Court to fill Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s position.
They are worried about his views on abortion and other issues.
Where were these people when Bush’s friend Gonzales was being nominated for the Attorney General’s position? Some objected to President Bush’s picking Gonzales over his support of not extending civil rights to prisoners taken in Iraq and Afghanistan and the fact that he was a close friend of President Bush and appeared to be ready to follow Janet Reno’s and John Ashcroft’s disastrous inclination to ignore the law and weaken parts of the Constitution. Where were the conservatives with their concerns then?
At the time Gonzales was nominated for Attorney General, this blogger was concerned that Gonzales couldn’t operate independently of Bush and make the tough calls should an investigation of President Bush become necessary for whatever reason.
Janet Reno’s use of the Justice Department to shield President Clinton from legitimate investigations proved that the Justice Department could be used as a tool by a sitting President suspected of breaking laws.
The Attorney General must uphold the law regardless of their friendship with the President.
President Bush needs to come up with a better choice for the Supreme Court.
They are worried about his views on abortion and other issues.
Where were these people when Bush’s friend Gonzales was being nominated for the Attorney General’s position? Some objected to President Bush’s picking Gonzales over his support of not extending civil rights to prisoners taken in Iraq and Afghanistan and the fact that he was a close friend of President Bush and appeared to be ready to follow Janet Reno’s and John Ashcroft’s disastrous inclination to ignore the law and weaken parts of the Constitution. Where were the conservatives with their concerns then?
At the time Gonzales was nominated for Attorney General, this blogger was concerned that Gonzales couldn’t operate independently of Bush and make the tough calls should an investigation of President Bush become necessary for whatever reason.
Janet Reno’s use of the Justice Department to shield President Clinton from legitimate investigations proved that the Justice Department could be used as a tool by a sitting President suspected of breaking laws.
The Attorney General must uphold the law regardless of their friendship with the President.
President Bush needs to come up with a better choice for the Supreme Court.
7 Year-Old Boy Drowns in Hotel Pool; Searchers Couldn’t See the Bottom Clearly
A young boy drowned at a hotel swimming pool in Kissimmee, Florida, over the weekend after he raced ahead of family members to get to the pool first and went missing. Desperate searchers frantically tried to locate the boy for nearly two hours before one of the searchers put on a pair of goggles and looked at the bottom of the eight foot deep pool. The boy was on the bottom.
Attempts to revive him failed. Here’s the story.
Apparently the pool was so murky that it was impossible to see the bottom of it even if one was standing at the side of it looking down.
If hotels are spending the money to have a pool, they should spend the money to have them cleaned regularly and use chemicals that keep the water clear enough to see the bottom.
Sometimes when too many chemicals are put in, it causes a cloud which obscures the bottom of the pool, so the staff should have training in how much chlorine and other chemicals to add to keep the strength of the chlorine up, and keep the water clear.
Just because hotels do not have lifeguards on duty does not abrogate their responsibility to maintain certain safety standards, such as water clarity and proper lighting in the pool. If the family had seen the kid at the bottom of the pool in the first couple of minutes of this disaster, and gotten him to the surface, this story would likely have had a much different ending.
Instead this kid was underwater for two hours while searchers were wasting time talking to pool patrons, looking in restrooms and restaurants and thinking that someone grabbed this kid when he was struggling at the bottom of the pool to survive before he lost consciousness.
What a calamity!
Attempts to revive him failed. Here’s the story.
Apparently the pool was so murky that it was impossible to see the bottom of it even if one was standing at the side of it looking down.
If hotels are spending the money to have a pool, they should spend the money to have them cleaned regularly and use chemicals that keep the water clear enough to see the bottom.
Sometimes when too many chemicals are put in, it causes a cloud which obscures the bottom of the pool, so the staff should have training in how much chlorine and other chemicals to add to keep the strength of the chlorine up, and keep the water clear.
Just because hotels do not have lifeguards on duty does not abrogate their responsibility to maintain certain safety standards, such as water clarity and proper lighting in the pool. If the family had seen the kid at the bottom of the pool in the first couple of minutes of this disaster, and gotten him to the surface, this story would likely have had a much different ending.
Instead this kid was underwater for two hours while searchers were wasting time talking to pool patrons, looking in restrooms and restaurants and thinking that someone grabbed this kid when he was struggling at the bottom of the pool to survive before he lost consciousness.
What a calamity!
Egypt's New Ambassador to Iraq Kidnapped by Insurgents: What Was He Doing Outside the Egyptian Embassy on His Own?
Egypt's new ambassador to Iraq has been kidnapped by Iraqi insurgents near his home in Baghdad.
NEAR HIS HOME??!
Is it common practice for ambassadors to own houses outside their embassies in their host countries?
Iraq is still a very dangerous place to be and the diplomats should have their residences within their embassies. The only reason that they should be leaving their secured embassies in Baghdad is for official business with the Iraqi government or for other diplomatic functions.
Going to a house that the insurgents obviously knew about and stopping to buy a newspaper was an unwise decision by both the Egyptian ambassador and the Egyptian government.
The practice of ambassadors living in houses outside their embassies is fine in nations where there is no war going on, but in war-torn Iraq, this is a huge mistake that all governments should learn from.
NEAR HIS HOME??!
Is it common practice for ambassadors to own houses outside their embassies in their host countries?
Iraq is still a very dangerous place to be and the diplomats should have their residences within their embassies. The only reason that they should be leaving their secured embassies in Baghdad is for official business with the Iraqi government or for other diplomatic functions.
Going to a house that the insurgents obviously knew about and stopping to buy a newspaper was an unwise decision by both the Egyptian ambassador and the Egyptian government.
The practice of ambassadors living in houses outside their embassies is fine in nations where there is no war going on, but in war-torn Iraq, this is a huge mistake that all governments should learn from.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Are We Really Surprised That the New Iranian President Has Terrorist Links?
Five former hostages from the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Iran in 1979 have identified the new Iranian President as one of the hostage-takers. This is being probed by the U.S. government and others. There is much uncertainty as to whether or not this is accurate.
His Vice-President was definitely involved in the seizure and interrogation of the hostages and has said that she would have killed the hostages if she had been "provoked."
The new Iranian President has also been linked to the killing of Iranian Kurdish leaders in Vienna in 1989. Austrian authorities are said to have compelling evidence to support this claim.
People are asking how someone like this could become the President of a nation.
Consider: they had elections in Iran a few weeks ago, but they were as far away from being democratic elections as is possible. A council of Islamic leaders filtered out who could run.
Out of a thousand candidates, only three or four made the final cuts. They cut out all the women who were running; they cut out reformers and pro-Western candidates and left the candidates who were hard-liners or had connections with previous governments in the running.
In the United States, we have primary elections to filter out who will end up running in the general election; they have a group of old farts who arbitrarily decide who gets to run and takes the decision away from the voters. They then tell the people how to vote. Free elections indeed.
The clerics chose the most rabid of the candidates to run. They care more that this guy was a commander in the Revolutionary Guard and don't care about crimes that he may have committed to further the cause of THEIR revolution.
So is it any surprise that the Iranians have elected someone who is anti-Western and has the blood of others on his hands? After all, he's the candidate of the clerics and they know better than the Iranian people do.
What a boatload of crap!
His Vice-President was definitely involved in the seizure and interrogation of the hostages and has said that she would have killed the hostages if she had been "provoked."
The new Iranian President has also been linked to the killing of Iranian Kurdish leaders in Vienna in 1989. Austrian authorities are said to have compelling evidence to support this claim.
People are asking how someone like this could become the President of a nation.
Consider: they had elections in Iran a few weeks ago, but they were as far away from being democratic elections as is possible. A council of Islamic leaders filtered out who could run.
Out of a thousand candidates, only three or four made the final cuts. They cut out all the women who were running; they cut out reformers and pro-Western candidates and left the candidates who were hard-liners or had connections with previous governments in the running.
In the United States, we have primary elections to filter out who will end up running in the general election; they have a group of old farts who arbitrarily decide who gets to run and takes the decision away from the voters. They then tell the people how to vote. Free elections indeed.
The clerics chose the most rabid of the candidates to run. They care more that this guy was a commander in the Revolutionary Guard and don't care about crimes that he may have committed to further the cause of THEIR revolution.
So is it any surprise that the Iranians have elected someone who is anti-Western and has the blood of others on his hands? After all, he's the candidate of the clerics and they know better than the Iranian people do.
What a boatload of crap!
Friday, July 01, 2005
Sandra Day O’Conner Retires: Nasty Fight in Senate is at Hand
The battle that was stopped before it started may be about to re-ignite in the Senate. Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired from the Supreme Court today, clearing the way for President Bush to nominate a replacement and for the Senate to pick up the fight where it left off (remember the much-vaunted nuclear option and filibustering?)
The grinding of metal can be heard coming from Senate offices as the Senators sharpen their swords and prepare to fight one another on the battlefield of the Senate over Justice O’Connor’s replacement.
The rhetoric was already starting with Democratic Senators sending President Bush thinly veiled warnings to consult them before nominating anyone to replace Justice O’Connor. Other Senators from both parties held what are being described as “dueling” press conferences to vent their spleens and to put their opponents in their places before a candidate is even announced.
The press immediately went into a tizzy, special interest groups began powering up and Limbaugh went nuts, saying the Supreme Court is a political organization and that the press’s use of the term “swing vote” to describe O’Connor’s voting record (another political term blasted by Limbaugh) proves it.
Limbaugh sure wasn’t talking that way when the 2000 Presidential Election stalled in Florida and the Supreme Court voted 5-4 (with O’Connor voting with the majority mind you) to end the Gore recount. How times change.
Get used to the rhetoric because unless something else happens over the 4th of July weekend, this will be all that you hear about on all the networks. Hopefully the press and the politicians remember that Independence Day is on the 4th.
The grinding of metal can be heard coming from Senate offices as the Senators sharpen their swords and prepare to fight one another on the battlefield of the Senate over Justice O’Connor’s replacement.
The rhetoric was already starting with Democratic Senators sending President Bush thinly veiled warnings to consult them before nominating anyone to replace Justice O’Connor. Other Senators from both parties held what are being described as “dueling” press conferences to vent their spleens and to put their opponents in their places before a candidate is even announced.
The press immediately went into a tizzy, special interest groups began powering up and Limbaugh went nuts, saying the Supreme Court is a political organization and that the press’s use of the term “swing vote” to describe O’Connor’s voting record (another political term blasted by Limbaugh) proves it.
Limbaugh sure wasn’t talking that way when the 2000 Presidential Election stalled in Florida and the Supreme Court voted 5-4 (with O’Connor voting with the majority mind you) to end the Gore recount. How times change.
Get used to the rhetoric because unless something else happens over the 4th of July weekend, this will be all that you hear about on all the networks. Hopefully the press and the politicians remember that Independence Day is on the 4th.
UNOCAL Deal: Chinese Offer Should Be Rejected
The Chinese offer to buy out the American oil company UNOCAL should be rejected.
Here's why:
The Chinese company making the buyout offer (CNOOC Ltd.) is not an independent company that is a stand-alone corporation. 70% of it is owned by the Chinese government. This is a REAL national security threat.
For communist China to control the ninth largest American oil company is unacceptable. Our internal oil supply systems need to be free and clear of non-democratic foreign government influence, and for CNOOC to take over UNOCAL would represent a loss of American control over a substantial amount of oil that might be cut off if the U.S. and China ever get into it over Taiwan.
If this was anything BUT oil, it wouldn't raise nearly as many hackles, but with oil prices approaching record highs, now is not the time to give up control of a large percentage of oil to a communist government that is intent on either conquering a democratic neighbor or destroying it (Taiwan).
If China was a democracy, there wouldn't be an issue. Venezuela's ownership of Citgo is a problem for the U.S. right now; so is Saudi Arabia's control of other U.S. oil assets.
Until we develop a home-grown fuel alternative, we are vulnerable to supply problems affecting the price for gas. So 'no' to the Chinese for now.
Here's why:
The Chinese company making the buyout offer (CNOOC Ltd.) is not an independent company that is a stand-alone corporation. 70% of it is owned by the Chinese government. This is a REAL national security threat.
For communist China to control the ninth largest American oil company is unacceptable. Our internal oil supply systems need to be free and clear of non-democratic foreign government influence, and for CNOOC to take over UNOCAL would represent a loss of American control over a substantial amount of oil that might be cut off if the U.S. and China ever get into it over Taiwan.
If this was anything BUT oil, it wouldn't raise nearly as many hackles, but with oil prices approaching record highs, now is not the time to give up control of a large percentage of oil to a communist government that is intent on either conquering a democratic neighbor or destroying it (Taiwan).
If China was a democracy, there wouldn't be an issue. Venezuela's ownership of Citgo is a problem for the U.S. right now; so is Saudi Arabia's control of other U.S. oil assets.
Until we develop a home-grown fuel alternative, we are vulnerable to supply problems affecting the price for gas. So 'no' to the Chinese for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)