The press and the Democrats are going on and on about President Bush’s “flip flop” on terror.
Bush said in a candid interview that the war on terror couldn’t be won. The Kerry campaign latched onto this statement and then went on the offensive when Bush clarified his statement yesterday.
The Democrats took this as blood in shark-infested water, but I took it thus: FINALLY, we have some truth about how the war on terror is really going. For the Democrats to attack such a truthful statement and then say the war on terror CAN be won to score election year points is irresponsible. Kerry/Edwards will not win the war on terror either.
Let’s face it: al-Qaeda will not be face to face with the United States at the bargaining table negotiating the unconditional surrender of all al-Qaeda forces around the world or on a battlefield. Bush was absolutely right on this point. They will fight to the death if they can or commit suicide. If we are fortunate, our people in the field may capture them.
I believe Bush compounded his mistake by saying the next day that “we will win the war on terror.” No, no, no. He should have clarified his mistake as he did, but not said we will win. That is the Bush flip-flop that the Democrats are attacking. He should have thought that one through a little more. He was hasty.
The war on terror is not about winning, or being sensitive. It’s about prevention and deterrence. It’s about making sure that our mortal enemies never hurt us again as they did on September 11th. It’s a long-term fight, not a conflict that will end after a hundred hours of ground combat or by fighting a war that lasts two months. Anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves. Stopping terrorist activities will not involve only the military, but law enforcement and intelligence agencies as well. If any politician is naïve enough to declare victory against all future terrorism, then they deserve to lose their office.
Hopefully no politician is stupid enough to do something like that, but the rumblings coming from the campaigns is disturbing enough to make me think that they might do so if they thought it was the best political thing to do. That kind of politicking must STOP!
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Delegates Assaulted
Read that some GOP delegates are having ugly confrontations with protesters, some of whom have turned the altercations violent. Sounds like some people have serious maturity problems to me.
Peaceful demonstrations are one thing; using physical force against delegates and police to express a political view is wrong and should be condemned. Likewise, delegates should conduct themselves professionally as well and report dangerous situations to law enforcement.
Anarchists and other radicals are behind the attacks on the delegates. Reminds me of Nazi tactics used to intimidate their opponents in 1930's Germany.
I do not recall reading about incidents like this at the Democratic National Convention. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Peaceful demonstrations are one thing; using physical force against delegates and police to express a political view is wrong and should be condemned. Likewise, delegates should conduct themselves professionally as well and report dangerous situations to law enforcement.
Anarchists and other radicals are behind the attacks on the delegates. Reminds me of Nazi tactics used to intimidate their opponents in 1930's Germany.
I do not recall reading about incidents like this at the Democratic National Convention. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Monday, August 30, 2004
Elian Gonzales Revisited
Does anyone recall this national disgrace?
The Elian Gonzales case was another example of the Clinton Justice Department taking shortcuts to resolve a situation to their satisfaction. In this case, they bypassed court rulings by attacking the house that the boy was staying at, entering it by force, and abducting the boy.
The end result was what I wanted, but the way that it was done was unconscionable.
The Justice Department has this nasty tendency to violate its own procedures and the law to get what it wants. Right or wrong, the court system had agreed with Elian's relatives in Florida that he should be allowed to stay. Rather than go for a court ruling, then-Attorney General Janet Reno ordered the boy removed by force.
This action was representative of the Clinton Justice Department's willingness to take shortcuts. It withheld thousands of pages of documents from Timothy McVeigh's attorneys in his death-penalty case, they blew the Ruby Ridge and Waco standoffs, which resulted in innocent people being burned alive or shot by federal officers. Using battering rams and weapons to force a family to give up a child?
I mention all of this because the family sued the government for use of excessive force (see above picture) and for violating court orders. The courts recently ruled that the government was within its rights to use force.
I do have a problem with this because legal procedures were short-circuited for political gain. Reno wanted a dramatic end to the case and so sent guys with guns in. This should have been the measure of last resort...if the family had disregarded an order from the court to give Elian up and they refused, then the use of force would have been more palatable.
Instead, they did a night raid, swooped in and took the screaming child.
I wanted the kid to go back to his dad, but I wanted the system to deal with it properly first. The courts were not allowed to do so due to political considerations. We ought to legislate that!
The end result was what I wanted, but the way that it was done was unconscionable.
The Justice Department has this nasty tendency to violate its own procedures and the law to get what it wants. Right or wrong, the court system had agreed with Elian's relatives in Florida that he should be allowed to stay. Rather than go for a court ruling, then-Attorney General Janet Reno ordered the boy removed by force.
This action was representative of the Clinton Justice Department's willingness to take shortcuts. It withheld thousands of pages of documents from Timothy McVeigh's attorneys in his death-penalty case, they blew the Ruby Ridge and Waco standoffs, which resulted in innocent people being burned alive or shot by federal officers. Using battering rams and weapons to force a family to give up a child?
I mention all of this because the family sued the government for use of excessive force (see above picture) and for violating court orders. The courts recently ruled that the government was within its rights to use force.
I do have a problem with this because legal procedures were short-circuited for political gain. Reno wanted a dramatic end to the case and so sent guys with guns in. This should have been the measure of last resort...if the family had disregarded an order from the court to give Elian up and they refused, then the use of force would have been more palatable.
Instead, they did a night raid, swooped in and took the screaming child.
I wanted the kid to go back to his dad, but I wanted the system to deal with it properly first. The courts were not allowed to do so due to political considerations. We ought to legislate that!
Oil Prices Drop After Iraq Oil Stops
OK, now the price of oil has fallen below $42.00 a barrel. This in spite of the fact that Iraq's southern oil terminals have been stopped by terrorists who attacked parts of Iraq's main southern pipeline. If we were to follow the usual pattern of behavior in the oil futures markets, it should have sent prices skyward once again. It didn't and the price continues to fall.
A million barrels of oil per day have been taken out of the equation, and the price drops?
What kind of crock is being pulled on us?
A million barrels of oil per day have been taken out of the equation, and the price drops?
What kind of crock is being pulled on us?
First Lady Under Fire
It’s been brought to my attention that First Lady Laura Bush is under fire from Democrats because she also refused to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads that criticize John Kerry’s military record.
CNN posted this on their web site about the comment:
In the interview she is asked, "Do you think these swift boat ads are unfair to John Kerry?"
"Not really," she replies. "There have been millions of terrible ads against my husband."
That’s what she’s being criticized for? Big deal!
Also from CNN’s web site: "Mrs. Bush's statement in support of the swift boat smear ads is more sad evidence that these attacks have been coordinated from the top down at the White House," Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said in a statement.
Kerry is still trying to have it both ways, with him pressuring Bush to condemn the Swift Boat “527” ads that are anti-Kerry, while refusing to condemn the (overwhelmingly) anti-Bush 527s.
Democrats should really vote for someone other than Kerry…his candidacy is approaching total meltdown stage.
CNN posted this on their web site about the comment:
In the interview she is asked, "Do you think these swift boat ads are unfair to John Kerry?"
"Not really," she replies. "There have been millions of terrible ads against my husband."
That’s what she’s being criticized for? Big deal!
Also from CNN’s web site: "Mrs. Bush's statement in support of the swift boat smear ads is more sad evidence that these attacks have been coordinated from the top down at the White House," Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said in a statement.
Kerry is still trying to have it both ways, with him pressuring Bush to condemn the Swift Boat “527” ads that are anti-Kerry, while refusing to condemn the (overwhelmingly) anti-Bush 527s.
Democrats should really vote for someone other than Kerry…his candidacy is approaching total meltdown stage.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Democrats & The GOP Convention
I think that it is interesting to note that when the Democrats had their convention, the GOP pulled all of its ads off the air and went silent for the duration of the Democratic convention. Only after Kerry had made his speech did the Republicans go back on the offensive.
You would think that the Democrats would show the same courtesy while the GOP convention is going on.
Nope. In an election year, the Democrats go right back to breaking unwritten rules of conduct in the hope of saving their sinking candidate. Kerry should have picked up a twelve point lead in the polls, but Bush got the bounce instead and the GOP got fired up, not the Democrats.
Here’s another prediction from me: At the upcoming debates, Kerry will agree to the debate rules but will proceed to break every one of them in short order, speaking out of turn and too long, while Bush will stay within the confines of the rules. It will be a mirror image of Gore sighing while Bush was talking at the 2000 debates.
You would think that the Democrats would show the same courtesy while the GOP convention is going on.
Nope. In an election year, the Democrats go right back to breaking unwritten rules of conduct in the hope of saving their sinking candidate. Kerry should have picked up a twelve point lead in the polls, but Bush got the bounce instead and the GOP got fired up, not the Democrats.
Here’s another prediction from me: At the upcoming debates, Kerry will agree to the debate rules but will proceed to break every one of them in short order, speaking out of turn and too long, while Bush will stay within the confines of the rules. It will be a mirror image of Gore sighing while Bush was talking at the 2000 debates.
Friday, August 27, 2004
9/11-Style Hit in Russia
The Russian Federation confirmed today that one of two Siberian airliners that crashed three minutes apart was blown out of the sky by terrorists. Russian FSB (the reformed KGB) confirmed that they found traces of explosives in the wreckage of one of the downed airliners. In addition, a Chechan web site linked to the separatist movement in Chechnya itself has claimed responsibility for the hijacking and destruction of both airliners.
So it was terrorism.
It should be noted that it’s the first coordinated terrorist attack on multiple civilian airliners since al-Qaeda struck New York City and Washington. Although there is no evidence that al-Qaeda itself was involved, al-Qaeda is believed to provide material and logistical support to the rebels, many of whom share Islamic ties with one another.
Though this terrorist act was against Russia and the elections that are due to be held any day in Chechnya (which the pro-Moscow candidates are expected to win), it points out weaknesses in airport security around the world and that many nations have a long ways to go before achieving mass-transit security.
It’s a very troubling situation.
So it was terrorism.
It should be noted that it’s the first coordinated terrorist attack on multiple civilian airliners since al-Qaeda struck New York City and Washington. Although there is no evidence that al-Qaeda itself was involved, al-Qaeda is believed to provide material and logistical support to the rebels, many of whom share Islamic ties with one another.
Though this terrorist act was against Russia and the elections that are due to be held any day in Chechnya (which the pro-Moscow candidates are expected to win), it points out weaknesses in airport security around the world and that many nations have a long ways to go before achieving mass-transit security.
It’s a very troubling situation.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Bush Trumps Kerry on 527s
President Bush asked Senator John McCain to assist in stopping all “527” ads today. As predicted, Bush has taken the lead in dealing with the problem, while the silence from the Kerry campaign is deafening.
While I was expecting Bush to take the lead on this, I wasn’t expecting it this soon and I didn’t expect him to draw in John McCain.
The fact of the matter is that Kerry needs the 527s to hurt Bush so he won’t denounce them.
Definition: "527 organization": According to the IRS, a Section 527 (§527) organization is an organization that is created to receive and disburse funds to influence or attempt to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates for public office. Unlike Political Action Committees (PACs), they have no limit on what they can spend to attack or defend candidates. This is considered "soft money" that has been the subject of much debate in Congress in recent months.
The good news is that 527s are required by law to stop their campaigns 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election. However, this is being challenged in court right now as the 527s want to keep going. Other 527s are spending millions on ads that haven't been released yet.
While I was expecting Bush to take the lead on this, I wasn’t expecting it this soon and I didn’t expect him to draw in John McCain.
The fact of the matter is that Kerry needs the 527s to hurt Bush so he won’t denounce them.
Definition: "527 organization": According to the IRS, a Section 527 (§527) organization is an organization that is created to receive and disburse funds to influence or attempt to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates for public office. Unlike Political Action Committees (PACs), they have no limit on what they can spend to attack or defend candidates. This is considered "soft money" that has been the subject of much debate in Congress in recent months.
The good news is that 527s are required by law to stop their campaigns 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election. However, this is being challenged in court right now as the 527s want to keep going. Other 527s are spending millions on ads that haven't been released yet.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
527s Again
This is getting utterly stupid now.
Not satisfied with Bush’s denunciation of all “527” ads, John Kerry is dispatching two of his Vietnam war buddies to President Bush’s ranch to pressure President Bush to go even further and condemn specific ads that have been effective in neutralizing Kerry’s military record.
Now wait just a damn minute!
Like I said before, Kerry won’t condemn the anti-Bush 527s, but if he’s crying about these ads and sending his friends to speak to his opponent about discrediting specific ads that are anti-Kerry, that’s not right! The door HAS to swing both ways!
My advice for Kerry would be to get up on the podium, denounce all 527s, call for a ban on those ads, and THEN approach President Bush with an offer to denounce specific anti-Bush ads in return for President Bush denouncing specific anti-Kerry ads.
That is a fair and equitable solution to this mess.
I am also a little sick of campaign staffers of the Bush and Kerry campaigns not being able to support whatever group that they want without the candidate being accused of supporting the same causes. I don’t think that Bush supports the Swift Boat Veterans; some of his supporters do. I don’t think Kerry is funding moveon.org or supporting their efforts, but some of his supporters do.
So what? Get over it and let these people practice their First Amendment right to association. Neither group mentioned has done anything illegal, so there should be no problem with a staffer belonging to groups that he/she supports.
Not satisfied with Bush’s denunciation of all “527” ads, John Kerry is dispatching two of his Vietnam war buddies to President Bush’s ranch to pressure President Bush to go even further and condemn specific ads that have been effective in neutralizing Kerry’s military record.
Now wait just a damn minute!
Like I said before, Kerry won’t condemn the anti-Bush 527s, but if he’s crying about these ads and sending his friends to speak to his opponent about discrediting specific ads that are anti-Kerry, that’s not right! The door HAS to swing both ways!
My advice for Kerry would be to get up on the podium, denounce all 527s, call for a ban on those ads, and THEN approach President Bush with an offer to denounce specific anti-Bush ads in return for President Bush denouncing specific anti-Kerry ads.
That is a fair and equitable solution to this mess.
I am also a little sick of campaign staffers of the Bush and Kerry campaigns not being able to support whatever group that they want without the candidate being accused of supporting the same causes. I don’t think that Bush supports the Swift Boat Veterans; some of his supporters do. I don’t think Kerry is funding moveon.org or supporting their efforts, but some of his supporters do.
So what? Get over it and let these people practice their First Amendment right to association. Neither group mentioned has done anything illegal, so there should be no problem with a staffer belonging to groups that he/she supports.
Russian Air Disaster--Terrorism?
The news coming out of the Russian Federation this morning is very troubling and it highlights the fact that other countries aren’t doing enough to secure their airports from terrorist takeovers or attacks.
Two commercial airliners took off from the same airport near Moscow several minutes apart and then went down three minutes apart several hours later. One of the airliners sent out a distress signal indicating that a hijacking was in progress. The Russian Emergency Ministry indicated that there were no survivors among the passengers or crew.
Russia has been fighting a bloody war in Chechnya to keep the breakaway republic as part of the Russian Federation and Chechen rebels have spread the war outside Chechnya’s borders, striking Moscow itself and several border provinces with terrorist attacks. Some of the Chechen groups are allied to al-Qaeda and get funding from Osama bin-Laden.
Those aircraft could have been rammed into the Kremlin in a 9/11-style attack or some other target.
Russian officials are eliminating other possibilities before coming out and saying that it was terrorism. Fuel problems and pilot error are being examined closely as well as the usual mechanical things that are part of crash investigations, but the hijacking distress call puts this tragedy into the “highly suspicious” category.
Terrorist attacks can happen in any country, anywhere in the world, and all governments are responsible for anti-terrorism measures to protect their citizens and foreign nationals who are on those aircraft and in those airports.
Two commercial airliners took off from the same airport near Moscow several minutes apart and then went down three minutes apart several hours later. One of the airliners sent out a distress signal indicating that a hijacking was in progress. The Russian Emergency Ministry indicated that there were no survivors among the passengers or crew.
Russia has been fighting a bloody war in Chechnya to keep the breakaway republic as part of the Russian Federation and Chechen rebels have spread the war outside Chechnya’s borders, striking Moscow itself and several border provinces with terrorist attacks. Some of the Chechen groups are allied to al-Qaeda and get funding from Osama bin-Laden.
Those aircraft could have been rammed into the Kremlin in a 9/11-style attack or some other target.
Russian officials are eliminating other possibilities before coming out and saying that it was terrorism. Fuel problems and pilot error are being examined closely as well as the usual mechanical things that are part of crash investigations, but the hijacking distress call puts this tragedy into the “highly suspicious” category.
Terrorist attacks can happen in any country, anywhere in the world, and all governments are responsible for anti-terrorism measures to protect their citizens and foreign nationals who are on those aircraft and in those airports.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
527 Fallout
As predicted, Kerry is taking full advantage of Bush’s call to ban “527” ads. I hate to say “I told you so,” so I’ll say “told ya” instead.
Kerry launched a blistering attack on Bush today, blaming Bush for the 527s that attacked his military record and have called his character into question.
It’s Kerry’s own fault for being so wishy-washy on his record and FLIP-FLOPPING faster than a fish would out of water.
The latest Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad has devastated Kerry’s support among veterans, especially Vietnam vets who were prisoners of war and had Kerry’s 1971 congressional testimony played back to them while they were prisoners of the North Vietnamese.
Kerry would be in much better shape if he hadn’t made his Vietnam service an issue. Regardless of whether he earned his medals or not, his past is coming back to bite him in the butt and he isn’t holding up too well. It’s starting to backfire and this entire issue has blown the Presidential campaign off track.
Speaking of going off track, whatever happened to that Kerry intern who fled to Africa? There’s more to that story than what came out on the news.
If Kerry wins, betcha that issue comes up again. The media will keep that story in its back pocket until Kerry is in power. They don't want to use that ace yet.
Kerry launched a blistering attack on Bush today, blaming Bush for the 527s that attacked his military record and have called his character into question.
It’s Kerry’s own fault for being so wishy-washy on his record and FLIP-FLOPPING faster than a fish would out of water.
The latest Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad has devastated Kerry’s support among veterans, especially Vietnam vets who were prisoners of war and had Kerry’s 1971 congressional testimony played back to them while they were prisoners of the North Vietnamese.
Kerry would be in much better shape if he hadn’t made his Vietnam service an issue. Regardless of whether he earned his medals or not, his past is coming back to bite him in the butt and he isn’t holding up too well. It’s starting to backfire and this entire issue has blown the Presidential campaign off track.
Speaking of going off track, whatever happened to that Kerry intern who fled to Africa? There’s more to that story than what came out on the news.
If Kerry wins, betcha that issue comes up again. The media will keep that story in its back pocket until Kerry is in power. They don't want to use that ace yet.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Death Ship on the Move
For the fourth year in a row, an abortion ship is prowling the waters off of Europe, performing abortions in international waters that are beyond the reach of law enforcement officials in various parts of pro-life Europe. Abortion is not universally accepted as some would lead the public to believe and this ship has been showing up in strong Catholic countries like Poland and Portugal. This is offensive to the extreme.
As a pro-life advocate, I hope that governments around the world ban such ships from entering their ports. “Women on Waves” operate the clinic and lay a course into international waters to perform abortions that may be illegal in the country that they are docked in. What a travesty!
Murdering the unborn on ships AND flaunting the laws of the nations that they are docked in. Sounds like a good case of persona non grata to me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3592718.stm
As a pro-life advocate, I hope that governments around the world ban such ships from entering their ports. “Women on Waves” operate the clinic and lay a course into international waters to perform abortions that may be illegal in the country that they are docked in. What a travesty!
Murdering the unborn on ships AND flaunting the laws of the nations that they are docked in. Sounds like a good case of persona non grata to me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3592718.stm
Bush Denounces "527" Ads
It’s nice that President Bush denounced all "527" ads today, including the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad, which has brazenly attacked Kerry’s military record.
Now let’s see if Kerry denounces moveon.org’s Bush/Hitler advertisements and “Fahrenheit 9/11”, which is nothing more than an anti-Bush ad in the movie theaters. Betcha he won’t. He now has an advantage over Bush due to Bush denouncing the anti-Kerry ads first.
Chances are that he will do the political thing and demand a stop to 527 ads, but won’t acknowledge the specific ads, even if he is questioned about it. That would fall into his usual pattern of statement and denial.
I doubt anything will change. This is positive publicity for both candidates, but things are going to get a lot worse before Election Day happens.
Now let’s see if Kerry denounces moveon.org’s Bush/Hitler advertisements and “Fahrenheit 9/11”, which is nothing more than an anti-Bush ad in the movie theaters. Betcha he won’t. He now has an advantage over Bush due to Bush denouncing the anti-Kerry ads first.
Chances are that he will do the political thing and demand a stop to 527 ads, but won’t acknowledge the specific ads, even if he is questioned about it. That would fall into his usual pattern of statement and denial.
I doubt anything will change. This is positive publicity for both candidates, but things are going to get a lot worse before Election Day happens.
Janet Jackson Blames White House For Her Problems
It’s been reported that Janet Jackson told Genre magazine that the Bush Administration used her “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl to distract the public from the Iraq War.
EXQUEEZE me, but if anyone distracted the public from the Iraq War, it was Janet Jackson with her publicity stunt, not the White House.
Who did the wardrobe, the exposed body part, the wardrobe tear-off idea itself and the ultimate responsibility belong to? Janet Jackson. Those “items” did not belong to a member of the government, Congress, the courts or the Bush Administration. Janet’s obviously joined Bruce Springstein’s “beat Bush” campaign and is using an error that was totally hers and Timberlake’s to bash Bush.
She ought to quit blaming others for her dismal sales on her last release, which coincided with the Super Bowl and directly with her actions there. For the record, I felt sorry for her and bought the stupid CD when it was released. I gave the CD away because I do not listen to her music.
Genre magazine managing editor Mike Slezak says the interview will be printed in the October edition. Big whoop.
EXQUEEZE me, but if anyone distracted the public from the Iraq War, it was Janet Jackson with her publicity stunt, not the White House.
Who did the wardrobe, the exposed body part, the wardrobe tear-off idea itself and the ultimate responsibility belong to? Janet Jackson. Those “items” did not belong to a member of the government, Congress, the courts or the Bush Administration. Janet’s obviously joined Bruce Springstein’s “beat Bush” campaign and is using an error that was totally hers and Timberlake’s to bash Bush.
She ought to quit blaming others for her dismal sales on her last release, which coincided with the Super Bowl and directly with her actions there. For the record, I felt sorry for her and bought the stupid CD when it was released. I gave the CD away because I do not listen to her music.
Genre magazine managing editor Mike Slezak says the interview will be printed in the October edition. Big whoop.
Friday, August 20, 2004
Oil, Investors, Russia & Iraq
What is the deal with oil investors, events in Iraq, and the cost of a barrel of oil? It is likely that the price of a barrel of oil will top $50 in by the weekend or early next week..
Consider this: U.S. forces continue to stomp all over the terrorist al-Sadr's henchmen in Najaf after the terrorists continued shelling Iraqi citizens and Iraqi and U.S. military positions. al-Sadr's acceptance of the Iraqi government terms may have been some kind of ruse, and the fighting continues. Civilians continue to die faster on the battlefields than the combatants.
Just a few hours ago it was announced that members of al-Sadr's militia broke into an oil company's compound in Basra and torched several buildings. The price of oil jumped immediately. Why?
Iraq's oil has been embargoed for years. The addition or subtraction of ANY Iraqi oil (whether it be 900,000 barrels a day, or 1.8 million barrels a day or 40,000 barrels a day) should LOWER the price of crude oil, not raise it.
If you ask me, this spike in oil prices is a conspiracy between the oil companies, the oil sheiks, and investors who all stand to profit from high oil prices. Think about it: the oil companies decide to cut back their estimates of how much oil is left in their oil fields. This new estimate allows investors to spike the price of crude oil. The Saudis and OPEC insist they need $28-$34 a barrel to make a decent profit and raise their production levels to keep the supply up and the demand down. But they won't turn away the extra billions of dollars that $48.75 a barrel brings in. Why should they?
In the meantime, the investors are keeping watch on every little thing that will allow them to raise the price even further. Attacks on oil terminals in Iraq; the possible (but HIGHLY unlikely) bankruptcy of a Russian oil firm; the "estimated" amounts of oil left in the oil fields, the amount of fuel coming in from Venezuela and other nations currently undergoing civil unrest that contribute to the oil supply, the phases of the moon and everything else that suggests that the sky is falling.
We do have to allow for unexpected growth in China and in the Third World that contributes to more gas being purchased and consumed by those nations, which leaves less for other nations that need the oil. However, even with that, the price of gas should be around $35 a barrel.
If anyone has any ideas for alternative fuels, now is the time to speak up!
Consider this: U.S. forces continue to stomp all over the terrorist al-Sadr's henchmen in Najaf after the terrorists continued shelling Iraqi citizens and Iraqi and U.S. military positions. al-Sadr's acceptance of the Iraqi government terms may have been some kind of ruse, and the fighting continues. Civilians continue to die faster on the battlefields than the combatants.
Just a few hours ago it was announced that members of al-Sadr's militia broke into an oil company's compound in Basra and torched several buildings. The price of oil jumped immediately. Why?
Iraq's oil has been embargoed for years. The addition or subtraction of ANY Iraqi oil (whether it be 900,000 barrels a day, or 1.8 million barrels a day or 40,000 barrels a day) should LOWER the price of crude oil, not raise it.
If you ask me, this spike in oil prices is a conspiracy between the oil companies, the oil sheiks, and investors who all stand to profit from high oil prices. Think about it: the oil companies decide to cut back their estimates of how much oil is left in their oil fields. This new estimate allows investors to spike the price of crude oil. The Saudis and OPEC insist they need $28-$34 a barrel to make a decent profit and raise their production levels to keep the supply up and the demand down. But they won't turn away the extra billions of dollars that $48.75 a barrel brings in. Why should they?
In the meantime, the investors are keeping watch on every little thing that will allow them to raise the price even further. Attacks on oil terminals in Iraq; the possible (but HIGHLY unlikely) bankruptcy of a Russian oil firm; the "estimated" amounts of oil left in the oil fields, the amount of fuel coming in from Venezuela and other nations currently undergoing civil unrest that contribute to the oil supply, the phases of the moon and everything else that suggests that the sky is falling.
We do have to allow for unexpected growth in China and in the Third World that contributes to more gas being purchased and consumed by those nations, which leaves less for other nations that need the oil. However, even with that, the price of gas should be around $35 a barrel.
If anyone has any ideas for alternative fuels, now is the time to speak up!
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Najaf's Imam Ali Mosque: Flashpoint
Fact: Muqtada al-Sadr is a renegade Iraqi terrorist leader.
Let’s not mince words. He’s hiding behind his religion to oppose the government of Iraq. His troops are firing indiscriminately from the mosque that they’ve holed up in and are killing more Iraqi civilians than they are Iraqi or American/coalition troops who are there to keep his murderous henchmen bottled up. This turns his statement that he's a freedom fighter into a lie. He's fighting freedom, that's what he's doing.
I hope the Iraqi courts get their hands on him.
His occupation of the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf is a political move designed to raise Shiite hatred of the United States to a new level and to discredit the outgoing Iraqi provisional government. It is al-Sadr that has endangered one of Islam’s holiest sites, not the United States or the Iraqi government.
al-Sadr is called a cleric, but he’s actually a terrorist who happens to be a cleric. Shiite Islam would do well to get rid of him; his war crimes speak for themselves.
Let’s not mince words. He’s hiding behind his religion to oppose the government of Iraq. His troops are firing indiscriminately from the mosque that they’ve holed up in and are killing more Iraqi civilians than they are Iraqi or American/coalition troops who are there to keep his murderous henchmen bottled up. This turns his statement that he's a freedom fighter into a lie. He's fighting freedom, that's what he's doing.
I hope the Iraqi courts get their hands on him.
His occupation of the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf is a political move designed to raise Shiite hatred of the United States to a new level and to discredit the outgoing Iraqi provisional government. It is al-Sadr that has endangered one of Islam’s holiest sites, not the United States or the Iraqi government.
al-Sadr is called a cleric, but he’s actually a terrorist who happens to be a cleric. Shiite Islam would do well to get rid of him; his war crimes speak for themselves.
NPR Weighs in on Crusader vs. Jihad
For those who are interested, my dialogue on crusader vs. jihad was online two days before the National Public Radio report aired. NPR’s report centered on the history of the Crusades themselves and the historical backdrop behind the words. I thought it did a great job of doing the historical perspective.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Terrorists Detained in Britain--Orange Alert Justified
It appears that the recent Orange terror alert in parts of New York and New Jersey were well-founded, much to the distress of political hacks who were hoping that the Bush Administration was using the terror threat to divert attention from domestic politics in an election year.
Britain has detained al-Qaeda members who were in possession of blueprints of the New York Stock Exchange, the International Monetary Fund headquarters (also in New York), the Prudential Building in Newark, New Jersey, and the Citigroup Center skyscraper in New York City, which is the fifth tallest building in New York (915 feet high).
Well, well, well. The system appears to be working.
The eight terror suspects are being held in London and will be charged with violating the British Terror Act.
Too bad, hacks.
Britain has detained al-Qaeda members who were in possession of blueprints of the New York Stock Exchange, the International Monetary Fund headquarters (also in New York), the Prudential Building in Newark, New Jersey, and the Citigroup Center skyscraper in New York City, which is the fifth tallest building in New York (915 feet high).
Well, well, well. The system appears to be working.
The eight terror suspects are being held in London and will be charged with violating the British Terror Act.
Too bad, hacks.
Military Draft in 2005?
I think a military draft has become inevitable.
It has become painfully clear that we do not have enough troops to do the job that is needed around the world. We’ve already sent the reserves into combat and National Guard units have been stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan for a year or more. Some are already going back over for a second tour of duty.
Eventually these troops will have to be replaced, and I don’t see a line outside the Army recruiter’s office these days. I think the writing is on the wall.
Another successful (and large-scale) terrorist attack on the United States could be the trigger needed to start the process. If we are hit in October as the government has hinted at, I think by mid-2005 we will see the first draft notices. 18-21 year olds will be at risk first.
I hope I’m wrong.
It has become painfully clear that we do not have enough troops to do the job that is needed around the world. We’ve already sent the reserves into combat and National Guard units have been stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan for a year or more. Some are already going back over for a second tour of duty.
Eventually these troops will have to be replaced, and I don’t see a line outside the Army recruiter’s office these days. I think the writing is on the wall.
Another successful (and large-scale) terrorist attack on the United States could be the trigger needed to start the process. If we are hit in October as the government has hinted at, I think by mid-2005 we will see the first draft notices. 18-21 year olds will be at risk first.
I hope I’m wrong.
Whistleblower's Family Threatened
The soldier who blew the whistle on the Abu Gharib prison abuse scandal remains a controversial figure and so, apparently, is his family.
Sgt. Joseph Darby brought the scandal to the attention of his superiors as he was required to do under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as U.S. Army regulations with regards to treatment of prisoners.
Astonishingly, some in the military and some civilians view Darby as a traitor.
Sgt. Darby is in protective military custody, and now his family has been taken into protective custody as well after being threatened by people who they thought were their friends and neighbors.
Members of the 372nd Military Police Company were seen in now-infamous photographs humiliating naked Iraqi men and forcing them into homosexual acts. NOTE: Not all in the 372nd were involved. That has to be made clear.
So are these people upset that their family members or friends have been exposed as war criminals? Are they mad that their precious code of silence was broken? Did they enjoy the photos? What are they mad about?
Darby talked, that’s what the problem is.
Too bad. Hopefully Darby and his family will come out of this all right. He did what his conscience told him to do and no one should fault him for that. He should be credited with upholding the honor of the United States Army when others in his unit chose to abandon it. For others to defend the actions of the accused is indefensible.
To blame his family for his choice is utterly moronic and brainless.
Do a web search on Sgt. Joseph Darby to view all the stories.
Sgt. Joseph Darby brought the scandal to the attention of his superiors as he was required to do under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as U.S. Army regulations with regards to treatment of prisoners.
Astonishingly, some in the military and some civilians view Darby as a traitor.
Sgt. Darby is in protective military custody, and now his family has been taken into protective custody as well after being threatened by people who they thought were their friends and neighbors.
Members of the 372nd Military Police Company were seen in now-infamous photographs humiliating naked Iraqi men and forcing them into homosexual acts. NOTE: Not all in the 372nd were involved. That has to be made clear.
So are these people upset that their family members or friends have been exposed as war criminals? Are they mad that their precious code of silence was broken? Did they enjoy the photos? What are they mad about?
Darby talked, that’s what the problem is.
Too bad. Hopefully Darby and his family will come out of this all right. He did what his conscience told him to do and no one should fault him for that. He should be credited with upholding the honor of the United States Army when others in his unit chose to abandon it. For others to defend the actions of the accused is indefensible.
To blame his family for his choice is utterly moronic and brainless.
Do a web search on Sgt. Joseph Darby to view all the stories.
Monday, August 16, 2004
It's the Oil, Stupid!!
Is anyone pleased with the price of a gallon of gas these days?
The oil companies and oil sheiks are. So's al-Qaeda; anything to screw us meets with their approval. Screw them.
Now is the time to pour tons of money into finding an alternative to Arab oil. And I don't mean Texas oil or Alaskan oil. We need to be free and clear of oil in the next ten to fifteen years or so. Then we can tell the cartels what to go and do with their oil!
It is clear that we won't get any relief from "W" as he is heavily invested in the oil industry. We'll have to wait until the next President (after Bush's second term in office) to pour the needed billions into alternative fuel research.
So much of our foreign policy is geared toward securing and maintaining our oil supplies. When we no longer have need of it, how will our foreign policy change? Hopefully whatever it turns into, it will be for the betterment of all humankind.
The oil companies and oil sheiks are. So's al-Qaeda; anything to screw us meets with their approval. Screw them.
Now is the time to pour tons of money into finding an alternative to Arab oil. And I don't mean Texas oil or Alaskan oil. We need to be free and clear of oil in the next ten to fifteen years or so. Then we can tell the cartels what to go and do with their oil!
It is clear that we won't get any relief from "W" as he is heavily invested in the oil industry. We'll have to wait until the next President (after Bush's second term in office) to pour the needed billions into alternative fuel research.
So much of our foreign policy is geared toward securing and maintaining our oil supplies. When we no longer have need of it, how will our foreign policy change? Hopefully whatever it turns into, it will be for the betterment of all humankind.
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Jihad vs. Crusade
When someone from the Middle East hears a Christian talking about a "crusade" against something, the Middle Easterner gets all offended because he or she thinks it is about destroying Islam. That's incorrect.
When someone from the West hears the word "jihad" thrown around by al-Qaeda or Yasser Arafat, the Westerner thinks "terrorism" and "anti-Christian" and "9/11." The Afghans declared jihad against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979; Iran and Iraq declared jihad on one another after Saddam's troops invaded Iran; Iran also declared jihad on the United States; the Palestinians declared jihad against Israel (and so have all of Israel's neighbors at one point or another), and Osama bin-Laden declared jihad on the United States. This interpretation is not entirely correct either.
Here are some dictionary terms:
Crusade--1) Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. 2) A holy war undertaken with papal sanction. 3) A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse.
Jihad--1) A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels. 2) Crusade or struggle for a cause against an abuse.
Muslims: When a Christian talks about launching a crusade against injustice, it's definition #3.
Christians: When a Muslim is talking about jihad against poverty, it's actions taken to combat the causes of poverty and a great deal of prayer.
Now, when either term is used against another country or group of people, then people have good reason to be nervous. Both sides would be trying to destroy one another. If Bush had spoken of a Crusade against the Iraqi people, I'm sure we would have had entire Arab armies from neighboring Arab countries fighting alongside the Republican Guard and the Fedayeen Saddam against the U.S. Army and Marines. The portion of the Navy in the Persian Gulf would find air attacks coming in from every direction and the Air Force would have to fly their missions in from halfway around the world.
Likewise, if any Arab nations had declared jihad against the United States on 9/11 or shortly thereafter, we would OWN those countries. There would be no talk of rebuilding or friendship. Libya, Syria and Saudi Arabia would belong to us now.
See how nasty words can be?
If I launch a holy war against poverty, which definition would fit better? Crusade or jihad? In this case, it's the same definition, so both words would be equally valid.
I wish people wouldn't freak out when someone uses the term that they're more uncomfortable with.
When someone from the West hears the word "jihad" thrown around by al-Qaeda or Yasser Arafat, the Westerner thinks "terrorism" and "anti-Christian" and "9/11." The Afghans declared jihad against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979; Iran and Iraq declared jihad on one another after Saddam's troops invaded Iran; Iran also declared jihad on the United States; the Palestinians declared jihad against Israel (and so have all of Israel's neighbors at one point or another), and Osama bin-Laden declared jihad on the United States. This interpretation is not entirely correct either.
Here are some dictionary terms:
Crusade--1) Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. 2) A holy war undertaken with papal sanction. 3) A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse.
Jihad--1) A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels. 2) Crusade or struggle for a cause against an abuse.
Muslims: When a Christian talks about launching a crusade against injustice, it's definition #3.
Christians: When a Muslim is talking about jihad against poverty, it's actions taken to combat the causes of poverty and a great deal of prayer.
Now, when either term is used against another country or group of people, then people have good reason to be nervous. Both sides would be trying to destroy one another. If Bush had spoken of a Crusade against the Iraqi people, I'm sure we would have had entire Arab armies from neighboring Arab countries fighting alongside the Republican Guard and the Fedayeen Saddam against the U.S. Army and Marines. The portion of the Navy in the Persian Gulf would find air attacks coming in from every direction and the Air Force would have to fly their missions in from halfway around the world.
Likewise, if any Arab nations had declared jihad against the United States on 9/11 or shortly thereafter, we would OWN those countries. There would be no talk of rebuilding or friendship. Libya, Syria and Saudi Arabia would belong to us now.
See how nasty words can be?
If I launch a holy war against poverty, which definition would fit better? Crusade or jihad? In this case, it's the same definition, so both words would be equally valid.
I wish people wouldn't freak out when someone uses the term that they're more uncomfortable with.
Friday, August 13, 2004
Better Nader than Kerry!
I think Democrats who are voting for Kerry should consider voting for Nader instead.
You know where Nader stands on things. He doesn’t flip-flop like Kerry does. Kerry just won’t take a stand, and when he does he reverses positions on where he stands. Liberal Democrats opposed to the Iraq War don’t know what Kerry’s going to say next either. The flip-flops are getting worse as the election gets closer. A few weeks ago, he was telling a group of liberal Democrats that he was THE anti-war candidate. A few days later he was pro-Iraq War for another audience. "Sensitive war on terror" ring a bell? Does he comprehend the fact that the media reports everything he says in public?
Bush definitely knows where he stands. He says what he’s going to do, and then he does it. Love him or hate him, he’ll tell you straight-up where he stands on every issue.
Picked up on Kerry’s most common refrain yet? “I started thinking about tax cuts in the trenches of Vietnam.” “I started thinking about gay rights while I was in Vietnam.” “I started thinking about civil rights when I was shooting at the North Vietnamese Army.” His attempting to tie his war record into his stands on the issues is ridiculous! It really started at his acceptance speech when he would make a profound statement (in his own mind) about foreign policy, then tie it in to domestic issues, which killed his original statement. He must have done that twenty-five times in fifty-five minutes. Unbelievable!
People used to say “anyone but Bush” for President. Some of those people are now saying “anyone but Kerry” now. The world turns, does it not?
You know where Nader stands on things. He doesn’t flip-flop like Kerry does. Kerry just won’t take a stand, and when he does he reverses positions on where he stands. Liberal Democrats opposed to the Iraq War don’t know what Kerry’s going to say next either. The flip-flops are getting worse as the election gets closer. A few weeks ago, he was telling a group of liberal Democrats that he was THE anti-war candidate. A few days later he was pro-Iraq War for another audience. "Sensitive war on terror" ring a bell? Does he comprehend the fact that the media reports everything he says in public?
Bush definitely knows where he stands. He says what he’s going to do, and then he does it. Love him or hate him, he’ll tell you straight-up where he stands on every issue.
Picked up on Kerry’s most common refrain yet? “I started thinking about tax cuts in the trenches of Vietnam.” “I started thinking about gay rights while I was in Vietnam.” “I started thinking about civil rights when I was shooting at the North Vietnamese Army.” His attempting to tie his war record into his stands on the issues is ridiculous! It really started at his acceptance speech when he would make a profound statement (in his own mind) about foreign policy, then tie it in to domestic issues, which killed his original statement. He must have done that twenty-five times in fifty-five minutes. Unbelievable!
People used to say “anyone but Bush” for President. Some of those people are now saying “anyone but Kerry” now. The world turns, does it not?
Chicanery in New Jersey Governor's Office
New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevey startled the political world yesterday when he resigned from his office over a gay affair that he had after being married.
So what? I am not interested in his sordid affairs.
However, there is something rotten in the state of New Jersey. Under the New Jersey constitution, if a vacancy occurs in the Governor’s office sixty days or more before a general election, then an election is to be held on said general election.
Governor McGreevey announced he didn’t want to weaken the governorship with the scandal and felt that his ability to govern had diminished. If this was true, then his resignation should have gone into effect at noon today. It didn’t happen. He announced that his resignation will be effective November 15th. So New Jersey is left with a lame-duck governor whose ability to govern will be diminished even further.
Here’s my problem: he announced his resignation eighty-two days before the general election on November 2nd. This means that the New Jersey constitutional requirement is fulfilled and an election can happen on November 2nd. But instead of giving the people the choice on November 2nd of selecting a new Governor, McGreevey is clinging to power to guarantee that the people have to wait until the following November to elect a new Governor, who could very possibly be a Republican. The New Jersey constitution states that if the vacancy occurs WITHIN sixty days of a general election, then the next one in line of succession will become acting Governor until the following general election, which is in November 2005.
In this case, it’s a liberal Democrat who is next in line. There may be more politics at play, however. There is a very popular Republican in the state legislature who has signaled his intention to run for the position. He may well be the next elected Governor of New Jersey, but the Democrats don’t want a heavy Republican turnout as it may shift the balance of the Presidential election in George Bush’s favor. New Jersey has been very independent on whom they vote for and Kerry holds a slim lead right now over Bush.
McGreevey really ought to step down now so that the people can decide who their next Governor will be, not be stuck with an unelected acting Governor. Three weeks from now it will be too late for the vote to happen, so the Republicans are probably thinking about suing to allow the election on November 2nd.
Strange story.
So what? I am not interested in his sordid affairs.
However, there is something rotten in the state of New Jersey. Under the New Jersey constitution, if a vacancy occurs in the Governor’s office sixty days or more before a general election, then an election is to be held on said general election.
Governor McGreevey announced he didn’t want to weaken the governorship with the scandal and felt that his ability to govern had diminished. If this was true, then his resignation should have gone into effect at noon today. It didn’t happen. He announced that his resignation will be effective November 15th. So New Jersey is left with a lame-duck governor whose ability to govern will be diminished even further.
Here’s my problem: he announced his resignation eighty-two days before the general election on November 2nd. This means that the New Jersey constitutional requirement is fulfilled and an election can happen on November 2nd. But instead of giving the people the choice on November 2nd of selecting a new Governor, McGreevey is clinging to power to guarantee that the people have to wait until the following November to elect a new Governor, who could very possibly be a Republican. The New Jersey constitution states that if the vacancy occurs WITHIN sixty days of a general election, then the next one in line of succession will become acting Governor until the following general election, which is in November 2005.
In this case, it’s a liberal Democrat who is next in line. There may be more politics at play, however. There is a very popular Republican in the state legislature who has signaled his intention to run for the position. He may well be the next elected Governor of New Jersey, but the Democrats don’t want a heavy Republican turnout as it may shift the balance of the Presidential election in George Bush’s favor. New Jersey has been very independent on whom they vote for and Kerry holds a slim lead right now over Bush.
McGreevey really ought to step down now so that the people can decide who their next Governor will be, not be stuck with an unelected acting Governor. Three weeks from now it will be too late for the vote to happen, so the Republicans are probably thinking about suing to allow the election on November 2nd.
Strange story.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Rule of Law Returns to San Francisco
Finally!
The California Supreme Court ruled that the mayor of San Francisco overstepped his authority when he illegally issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of state law.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you don't change laws by disobeying them, and that's especially true of politicians on all levels of government! If you are a politician, you use your position to influence legislation for or against an issue, not do what you want in defiance of the law. The mayor's actions weakened the entire system and the California Supreme Court's unanimous decision strengthened and reinforced it.
I would have been cheering if Governor Schwarzenegger had ordered State Police to arrest the mayor for defying the law. This ruling is not about gay rights, it is about a politician who took an issue and illegally used his authority to effect change on the entire system after it had already been decided by state law. California law currently states that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. The mayor knew that, and he broke the law. What can happen to politicians who break the law?
The gay rights issue itself (in California) will be decided in about a year when brand-new lawsuits challenging the state law finally reach the California Supreme Court.
The mayor should still be charged with abuse of power, corruption and failure to uphold the California Constitution as he swore to at his inauguration. His attempt to force the system to change has failed. The California Supreme Court may agree with the mayor's goal in about a year, but at least it will be a LEGAL change, not a hokey act of defiance by a bombastic politician.
For the record, I think California's current law is correct. Marriage is between a man and a woman; civil unions are for everyone else.
The California Supreme Court ruled that the mayor of San Francisco overstepped his authority when he illegally issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of state law.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you don't change laws by disobeying them, and that's especially true of politicians on all levels of government! If you are a politician, you use your position to influence legislation for or against an issue, not do what you want in defiance of the law. The mayor's actions weakened the entire system and the California Supreme Court's unanimous decision strengthened and reinforced it.
I would have been cheering if Governor Schwarzenegger had ordered State Police to arrest the mayor for defying the law. This ruling is not about gay rights, it is about a politician who took an issue and illegally used his authority to effect change on the entire system after it had already been decided by state law. California law currently states that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. The mayor knew that, and he broke the law. What can happen to politicians who break the law?
The gay rights issue itself (in California) will be decided in about a year when brand-new lawsuits challenging the state law finally reach the California Supreme Court.
The mayor should still be charged with abuse of power, corruption and failure to uphold the California Constitution as he swore to at his inauguration. His attempt to force the system to change has failed. The California Supreme Court may agree with the mayor's goal in about a year, but at least it will be a LEGAL change, not a hokey act of defiance by a bombastic politician.
For the record, I think California's current law is correct. Marriage is between a man and a woman; civil unions are for everyone else.
Plan To Curtail Guard Towers Opposed--Mining Journal
There is a debate going on in Michigan about cutting back on guards in guard towers in the Michigan prison system in favor of electronic surveillance cameras. This is a bad idea.
Maximum security prisoners don't respect cameras. They respect the snipers. When a "lifer" has nothing left to lose but his life, how much effect will a camera have? Deterrence is the only thing that keeps maximum security prisons under control. Here is part of a story from a recent issue of the Daily Mining Gazette:
In July, a warning shot from a guard in the tower of the Carson City Correctional Facility was the only thing that gained control in a melee involving four inmates and correctional officers.
That's a circumstance that correctional officers at the Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility say they face periodically. Carson City houses levels I, II and IV prisoners, and the correctional officers at the maximum security prison in Baraga must deal with Level V offenders, or as one called it, "the worst of the worst."
Maximum security prisoners don't respect cameras. They respect the snipers. When a "lifer" has nothing left to lose but his life, how much effect will a camera have? Deterrence is the only thing that keeps maximum security prisons under control. Here is part of a story from a recent issue of the Daily Mining Gazette:
In July, a warning shot from a guard in the tower of the Carson City Correctional Facility was the only thing that gained control in a melee involving four inmates and correctional officers.
That's a circumstance that correctional officers at the Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility say they face periodically. Carson City houses levels I, II and IV prisoners, and the correctional officers at the maximum security prison in Baraga must deal with Level V offenders, or as one called it, "the worst of the worst."
These are not nice people in Level V prisons. They are convicted murderers, rapists, arsonists, drug dealers, bank robbers, habitual offenders and the worst parts of the human condition. They are a threat to society and belong where they are. This means that the prison guards have to exercise total control over the prisons. If a warning shot can stop a killer from murdering or beating a prison guard or another prisoner, then it doesn't need to be changed.
If they wish to add cameras to the guard towers in addition to keeping the snipers in place, I have no issue with it. But replacing snipers (or gunners if they so wish to be called) with cameras OR reducing the number of guards up there in favor of electronics is a REAL bad idea.
Cut coffee or weight rooms out of maximum security prisons, not the guards in the guard towers. If the prisoners can seize control of a prison, they can get out.
I can't imagine the chaos that would result if Alger Maximum Security Prison near Munising, MI, emptied or Marquette Max in Marquette, MI, experienced a mass breakout. The same thing goes for Baraga Max near Baraga, MI. The local police departments would be outnumbered and the residents of those small Upper Peninsula towns would begin to be murdered in their homes, front yards, or in the street. The crime wave would be unprecedented.
Replacing a sniper with a camera? I don't think so! Those towers need to be manned 24/7. See the link below or do a Google search on "Michigan guard towers prison."
Addendum 8/13/04: I think there should be gun turrets at the end of every hallway in Level V prisons as well as the gun towers.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
EMP Weapons: America's Achilles Heel
A study was recently released that suggests that the U.S. is extremely vulnerable to the effects of an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP). It has been long feared that a nuclear weapon exploding high above the United States could black out the entire country and send the U.S. back into the Stone Age for years.
For this post, here is the definition of an electromagnetic pulse from the EMP Commission:
In addition to the ability to kill thousands of people instantly, nuclear weapons have another, equally crippling capability to destroy or disrupt power grids, electronic systems, and communications in an entire country, while sparing the lives of its people--at least initially.
Specifically, a nuclear bomb detonated above the earth's atmosphere would create a split-second electromagnetic pulse, similar to an extremely high-energy radio wave.
For example, a single nuclear weapon detonated at an altitude of 500 kilometers could produce an EMP that would blanket the entire continental United States, potentially damaging or destroying military forces and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure essential to modern society.
EMP can also be created artificially. Some police departments were testing a new EMP device that causes a car’s alternator to shut down if it is hit by a focused pulse. Police have hopes that the EMP field will enable them to stop pursuits that often turn into high-speed chases that lead to fatalities. Unfortunately, it destroys the alternator and could cause someone with a battery-powered pacemaker to die as well as it would destroy the battery powering the pacemaker. See the hit movie “The Core” for an illustration of what happens when a pulse hits people with pacemakers.
Back to the subject at hand, some nuclear weapons are designed to produce huge electromagnetic pulses. Others have EMP effects that are not as severe.
It would be a good idea to expand EMP shielding to include critical military systems as well as critical areas in the civilian sector as well. Here’s the commission’s recommendations:
Develop a clear policy about how it will respond to an EMP attack;
Assess which assets of the nation's power grid and telecommunications infrastructure are most critical to the overall system;
Harden those critical assets against EMP;
Retrofit at least a portion of U.S. military assets to protect against EMP;
Engineer EMP protections into a greater percentage of future military capabilities; and
Deploy an effective ballistic missile defense.
The EMP Commissionpoints out that this is an old threat, but now we are dealing with terrorists who are crazy enough to use weapons like this against us.
An ounce of prevention....you get the idea. If they turn the United States into a sub-Third World country, will our American civilization survive long enough to rebuild?
The link below leads to the full article. It's pretty scary.
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg1784.cfm)
Kerry, Vietnam & Iraq
Will the real John Kerry please stand up?
The ghost of Vietnam will be unleashed again with the anti-Kerry book "Unfit for Command" due to be released on Tuesday.
Kerry's record in Vietnam will be under extremely heavy fire next week from Vietnam veterans who are hotly disputing Kerry's assertions about his military record in Vietnam.
So we have the anti-Bush films (NOT DOCUMENTARIES) "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "The Manchurian Candidate" and the anti-Kerry "Unfit for Command" book.
This Presidential race sucks.
The ghost of Vietnam will be unleashed again with the anti-Kerry book "Unfit for Command" due to be released on Tuesday.
Kerry's record in Vietnam will be under extremely heavy fire next week from Vietnam veterans who are hotly disputing Kerry's assertions about his military record in Vietnam.
So we have the anti-Bush films (NOT DOCUMENTARIES) "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "The Manchurian Candidate" and the anti-Kerry "Unfit for Command" book.
This Presidential race sucks.
Monday, August 09, 2004
U.S. Elections To Be Observed By International Group
It was announced by the State Department that international observers will be coming in to monitor the Presidential election in November.
Here’s the background:
Florida 2000: A constitutional crisis began when the electoral system in the state of Florida broke down and the winner was unclear. Court challenges to the election began and the issue was finally decided the following month in the United States Supreme Court. George W. Bush was declared the winner (even though the media recount confirmed the results of Gore’s court-ordered recount) and the embarrassment of the election ended.
Fast forward to last month (July 2004): Thirteen Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives petitioned the United Nations to ask for international monitors to make sure that there will be no civil rights issues in the November 2004 election. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan rejected the appeal, saying that the Bush Administration had to make the request.
The Democratic delegation then asked Secretary of State Colin Powell and he took it under advisement. Powell asked the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to send in observers.
Now, this is not the first time the OSCE has sent observers here: they monitored the midterm 2002 elections and the California gubernatorial recall election. Over the last ten years, they’ve sent 10,000 observers to monitor 150 elections in 30 countries around the world, including Europe, the United States and other industrialized nations.
They monitored elections recently in Spain and in Northern Ireland.
This is nothing to get worked up about. With any amount of luck, they’ll be able to go home to their native countries and tell their countrymen that our elections are a model for the rest of the world to follow.
Here’s the background:
Florida 2000: A constitutional crisis began when the electoral system in the state of Florida broke down and the winner was unclear. Court challenges to the election began and the issue was finally decided the following month in the United States Supreme Court. George W. Bush was declared the winner (even though the media recount confirmed the results of Gore’s court-ordered recount) and the embarrassment of the election ended.
Fast forward to last month (July 2004): Thirteen Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives petitioned the United Nations to ask for international monitors to make sure that there will be no civil rights issues in the November 2004 election. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan rejected the appeal, saying that the Bush Administration had to make the request.
The Democratic delegation then asked Secretary of State Colin Powell and he took it under advisement. Powell asked the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to send in observers.
Now, this is not the first time the OSCE has sent observers here: they monitored the midterm 2002 elections and the California gubernatorial recall election. Over the last ten years, they’ve sent 10,000 observers to monitor 150 elections in 30 countries around the world, including Europe, the United States and other industrialized nations.
They monitored elections recently in Spain and in Northern Ireland.
This is nothing to get worked up about. With any amount of luck, they’ll be able to go home to their native countries and tell their countrymen that our elections are a model for the rest of the world to follow.
9/11 Justice Un-delivered
There is a report in the Associated Press being circulated in the papers and on cnn.com, foxnews.com and other web sites that 9/11 prosecutors are angry with the Justice Department for not sharing evidence needed to prosecute suspected terrorists.
Several jihaddists have gotten off because the government did not tie them to al-Qaeda, nor were they shown on video engaging in planning for terrorist strikes on buildings and other targets around the country. The evidence is officially classified information and so the prosecutor’s hands were tied; it could not be shown to jurors.
This weakened the government’s position and caused some of the prosecutions to collapse.
Why do we even bother to prosecute these people if the prosecution doesn’t have the evidence that they need?
The Justice Department needs to be doing a whole lot better.
Several jihaddists have gotten off because the government did not tie them to al-Qaeda, nor were they shown on video engaging in planning for terrorist strikes on buildings and other targets around the country. The evidence is officially classified information and so the prosecutor’s hands were tied; it could not be shown to jurors.
This weakened the government’s position and caused some of the prosecutions to collapse.
Why do we even bother to prosecute these people if the prosecution doesn’t have the evidence that they need?
The Justice Department needs to be doing a whole lot better.
Sunday, August 08, 2004
9/11 Politics
There has been a lot of noise over the raising of the terror alert to Orange last week.
Critics are charging that it shouldn't have been raised because part of the information is 3-4 years old. Some people are ignoring the fact that there is direct evidence that 9/11 was at least four years in the making.
If that's true, then what is all this noise about? If we had discovered plans (on September 10th) that dated back to 1996 that laid out the attack on the World Trade Center, complete with plans to ram hijacked airliners into both towers, would we have done nothing? WHOOPS!! That's exactly what happened last time!
This is election-year politics, AGAIN!
Why do idiot politicians put election year POLITICS ahead of preventing the terrorists from carrying out attacks on specific targets?
They're unfastening our country's belt and preparing to drop our nation's drawers as al-Qaeda prepares to turn around and give us a thrashing! Burying our heads in the sand will NOT make this problem go away, so do us all a favor, politicians, and deal with reality AS IT IS, not AS YOU WANT IT.
Critics are charging that it shouldn't have been raised because part of the information is 3-4 years old. Some people are ignoring the fact that there is direct evidence that 9/11 was at least four years in the making.
If that's true, then what is all this noise about? If we had discovered plans (on September 10th) that dated back to 1996 that laid out the attack on the World Trade Center, complete with plans to ram hijacked airliners into both towers, would we have done nothing? WHOOPS!! That's exactly what happened last time!
This is election-year politics, AGAIN!
Why do idiot politicians put election year POLITICS ahead of preventing the terrorists from carrying out attacks on specific targets?
They're unfastening our country's belt and preparing to drop our nation's drawers as al-Qaeda prepares to turn around and give us a thrashing! Burying our heads in the sand will NOT make this problem go away, so do us all a favor, politicians, and deal with reality AS IT IS, not AS YOU WANT IT.
Friday, August 06, 2004
School of the Americas, School of Shame
I’ve been following the saga of the School of the Americas for the last four years or so and have come to some conclusions about this “school.”
It either needs to be closed down, or totally transformed, and the U.S. government needs to take responsibility for what the school has helped to bring about in Latin America.
This is not good.
To give you some background, the school is located at a U.S. military base in Fort Benning, Georgia, and was started in 1946 to professionalize Latin American and Caribbean armies. In 1963, the school was renamed as the “School of the Americas” by President Kennedy’s administration and the new focus was on resisting communist aggression in central and south America as well as in the Caribbean. Their new Cold War mission was to train anti-communist Latin American army units in the arts of counter-insurgency, infantry tactics, military intelligence, counter-narcotics operations, and commando operations.
It became a goal of the United States government to keep neutral and friendly countries from falling under the USSR’s influence and so the school’s mission changed to accomplish that goal. The results were much different than what was intended.
Instead of helping preserve democracy and freedom, SOA graduates led military coups and were responsible for massacres of hundreds of people. Among the SOA's nearly 60,000 graduates were notorious dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, and Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador. SOA graduates were responsible for the Uraba massacre in Colombia, the El Mozote massacre of 900 civilians in El Salvador, the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, and the Jesuit massacre in El Salvador, the La Cantuta massacre in Peru, the torture and murder of a UN worker in Chile, and hundreds of other human rights abuses over the years.
In 1996, the U.S. government released seven Spanish-edition manuals to the media and the true horror of what our military was teaching to the participants became known. The techniques in the manual included instruction in interrogation techniques like torture, execution, blackmail and arresting the relatives of those being questioned. This is wrong.
The system turns out professional terrorists and kidnappers, not professional soldiers! This was not intended, but the system was not changed when the results of the training became known. So the U.S. government has some work to do.
It’s time to change the SOA into a military police academy, or a training center for the new Iraqi army, or SOMETHING other than what it is currently being used for. If the cause of freedom and democracy are not being advanced, then it’s no good.
Most Americans have developed a natural hatred of terrorists, so why, then, are we producing them? It makes no sense!
It either needs to be closed down, or totally transformed, and the U.S. government needs to take responsibility for what the school has helped to bring about in Latin America.
This is not good.
To give you some background, the school is located at a U.S. military base in Fort Benning, Georgia, and was started in 1946 to professionalize Latin American and Caribbean armies. In 1963, the school was renamed as the “School of the Americas” by President Kennedy’s administration and the new focus was on resisting communist aggression in central and south America as well as in the Caribbean. Their new Cold War mission was to train anti-communist Latin American army units in the arts of counter-insurgency, infantry tactics, military intelligence, counter-narcotics operations, and commando operations.
It became a goal of the United States government to keep neutral and friendly countries from falling under the USSR’s influence and so the school’s mission changed to accomplish that goal. The results were much different than what was intended.
Instead of helping preserve democracy and freedom, SOA graduates led military coups and were responsible for massacres of hundreds of people. Among the SOA's nearly 60,000 graduates were notorious dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, and Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador. SOA graduates were responsible for the Uraba massacre in Colombia, the El Mozote massacre of 900 civilians in El Salvador, the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, and the Jesuit massacre in El Salvador, the La Cantuta massacre in Peru, the torture and murder of a UN worker in Chile, and hundreds of other human rights abuses over the years.
In 1996, the U.S. government released seven Spanish-edition manuals to the media and the true horror of what our military was teaching to the participants became known. The techniques in the manual included instruction in interrogation techniques like torture, execution, blackmail and arresting the relatives of those being questioned. This is wrong.
The system turns out professional terrorists and kidnappers, not professional soldiers! This was not intended, but the system was not changed when the results of the training became known. So the U.S. government has some work to do.
It’s time to change the SOA into a military police academy, or a training center for the new Iraqi army, or SOMETHING other than what it is currently being used for. If the cause of freedom and democracy are not being advanced, then it’s no good.
Most Americans have developed a natural hatred of terrorists, so why, then, are we producing them? It makes no sense!
Scientist Thinks Ireland is Lost Island of Atlantis
A scientist from Sweden has put forth an unusual theory about where Atlantis is:
It's just off the coast of England, and is now called Ireland.
I don't know if this theory will hold up in the scientific community, but it's a facinating idea for discussion and for works of science-fiction.
According to myth, Atlantis was an advanced civilization that existed some 11,000+ years ago, and was destroyed by some kind of natural disaster that caused the entire island to sink beneath the surface of the ocean.
Many movies have been made about Atlantis being discovered on the bottom of the Atlantic, and many researchers have set out to discover the location of Atlantis. Predictibly, all efforts have failed.
This theory may be laughed at, but I think someone will write some great works of fiction about this idea!
What do I think? I don't know if I buy into the scientific part of the theory, but if it's proven to be true, it could change some parts of western history. That hasn't happened in quite some time. What a cool theory!
What do you think?
It's just off the coast of England, and is now called Ireland.
I don't know if this theory will hold up in the scientific community, but it's a facinating idea for discussion and for works of science-fiction.
According to myth, Atlantis was an advanced civilization that existed some 11,000+ years ago, and was destroyed by some kind of natural disaster that caused the entire island to sink beneath the surface of the ocean.
Many movies have been made about Atlantis being discovered on the bottom of the Atlantic, and many researchers have set out to discover the location of Atlantis. Predictibly, all efforts have failed.
This theory may be laughed at, but I think someone will write some great works of fiction about this idea!
What do I think? I don't know if I buy into the scientific part of the theory, but if it's proven to be true, it could change some parts of western history. That hasn't happened in quite some time. What a cool theory!
What do you think?
Abu Ghraib Hearing Day 2
During the U.S. Army Abu Ghraib Prison scandal hearing today, government witnesses revealed that others were complicit in the sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners and have escaped prosecution so far. The list includes officers, civilians, CIA operatives, security contractors and military intelligence officials.
What is the United States government doing to do about that? They need to arrest some people and put them on the stand too.
Others testified that they saw what was happening to the Iraqis and did nothing (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128233,00.html). One soldier testified that he didn’t report anything, including the “human pyramid” because he thought “someone was in charge.” So what? Just because someone’s “in charge” makes it right?
The following statement is from the “Soldier’s Manual of Common Tasks” (Skill Levels 2 - 4 STP 21-24-SMCT August 2003) and it reads: You are a soldier in the U.S. Army. As a soldier, you are responsible for identifying, understanding, and complying with the provisions of the Law of War, including the Geneva and Hague conventions. You are also responsible for identifying and notifying the appropriate authorities of any suspected or known violations of the Law of War. The appropriate authorities, including your chain of command, must enforce the provisions of the Law of War, including the Geneva and Hague conventions.
This is required reading for every U.S. Army soldier, whether it is for an infantryman, or a cook behind the lines, or a water treatment specialist, or a military policeman, or a prison guard.
This is from FM 27-10, the official U.S. Army Field Manual for conduct during wartime:
93. Questioning of Prisoners
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this equivalent information.
If he willfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.
Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand. (GPW, art. 17.)
----------
So, not only were the Geneva and Hague conventions violated, but these soldiers also violated standing Army procedures for questioning and treatment of prisoners.
As for the others, the authorities need to make a complete list and charge them with violations of the Geneva & Hague Conventions respectively, if U.S. Army policy doesn’t apply to them.
It should also be pointed out that this sex abuse scandal was to punish the prisoners in that particular section for killing one of their own who was cooperating with the U.S., not to "soften them up" for interrogators. Several of the accused have already said this.
What is the United States government doing to do about that? They need to arrest some people and put them on the stand too.
Others testified that they saw what was happening to the Iraqis and did nothing (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128233,00.html). One soldier testified that he didn’t report anything, including the “human pyramid” because he thought “someone was in charge.” So what? Just because someone’s “in charge” makes it right?
The following statement is from the “Soldier’s Manual of Common Tasks” (Skill Levels 2 - 4 STP 21-24-SMCT August 2003) and it reads: You are a soldier in the U.S. Army. As a soldier, you are responsible for identifying, understanding, and complying with the provisions of the Law of War, including the Geneva and Hague conventions. You are also responsible for identifying and notifying the appropriate authorities of any suspected or known violations of the Law of War. The appropriate authorities, including your chain of command, must enforce the provisions of the Law of War, including the Geneva and Hague conventions.
This is required reading for every U.S. Army soldier, whether it is for an infantryman, or a cook behind the lines, or a water treatment specialist, or a military policeman, or a prison guard.
This is from FM 27-10, the official U.S. Army Field Manual for conduct during wartime:
93. Questioning of Prisoners
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this equivalent information.
If he willfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.
Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand. (GPW, art. 17.)
----------
So, not only were the Geneva and Hague conventions violated, but these soldiers also violated standing Army procedures for questioning and treatment of prisoners.
As for the others, the authorities need to make a complete list and charge them with violations of the Geneva & Hague Conventions respectively, if U.S. Army policy doesn’t apply to them.
It should also be pointed out that this sex abuse scandal was to punish the prisoners in that particular section for killing one of their own who was cooperating with the U.S., not to "soften them up" for interrogators. Several of the accused have already said this.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Soldier on Trial
The pre-trial of one of seven soldiers accused of abusing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad has gotten underway.
The female soldier is accused of thirteen counts of abusing detainees and six counts stemming from possession of sexually explicit photos, which are prohibited by U.S. Army policy.
I said so before and I’ll say it again: do some of our people not know the difference between a right and wrong? Is it now acceptable behavior to force unwilling participants into committing homosexual acts on one another? Or any sexual act for that matter?
It doesn’t matter if the soldiers were ordered to do it, they had a right and a moral obligation to say “NO!” and to speak out, as one brave soldier finally did, which brought about an end to the torture.
The accused soldier may not have done what she is accused of, but she failed to say “NO!” The Army doesn’t want officers and soldiers that blindly follow orders that violate their conscience. “I was only following orders” is a pathetic excuse used by many around the world to justify war crimes, as this is.
The soldier faces up to thirty-eight years in prison if she is convicted. I have very little sympathy for a soldier that disobeys her orders, goes into a part of the prison that she has no business being in, gets caught in the sack with her boyfriend by her superiors, is counseled four times in six months for not doing her job or violating regulations, gets caught up in the scandal, and comes home pregnant. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing their j-o-b-s properly WITHOUT violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but these seven couldn’t?
Here’s the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128095,00.html
So in the end, it doesn’t matter if they were ordered to commit these atrocities or not. They had the moral obligation to say “NO!” but they didn’t do it. They are guilty of violating moral decency and human respect. The criminals they are in charge of have basic human rights as well, even though many of them are scum and are as guilty as sin. The criminals ought to be tried under the rule of law, NOT by the law of the jungle!
If the soldiers were ordered to do it, then those responsible should be in the dock as well to face trial.
Let justice be done and the laws of the United States be vigorously enforced.
The female soldier is accused of thirteen counts of abusing detainees and six counts stemming from possession of sexually explicit photos, which are prohibited by U.S. Army policy.
I said so before and I’ll say it again: do some of our people not know the difference between a right and wrong? Is it now acceptable behavior to force unwilling participants into committing homosexual acts on one another? Or any sexual act for that matter?
It doesn’t matter if the soldiers were ordered to do it, they had a right and a moral obligation to say “NO!” and to speak out, as one brave soldier finally did, which brought about an end to the torture.
The accused soldier may not have done what she is accused of, but she failed to say “NO!” The Army doesn’t want officers and soldiers that blindly follow orders that violate their conscience. “I was only following orders” is a pathetic excuse used by many around the world to justify war crimes, as this is.
The soldier faces up to thirty-eight years in prison if she is convicted. I have very little sympathy for a soldier that disobeys her orders, goes into a part of the prison that she has no business being in, gets caught in the sack with her boyfriend by her superiors, is counseled four times in six months for not doing her job or violating regulations, gets caught up in the scandal, and comes home pregnant. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing their j-o-b-s properly WITHOUT violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but these seven couldn’t?
Here’s the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128095,00.html
So in the end, it doesn’t matter if they were ordered to commit these atrocities or not. They had the moral obligation to say “NO!” but they didn’t do it. They are guilty of violating moral decency and human respect. The criminals they are in charge of have basic human rights as well, even though many of them are scum and are as guilty as sin. The criminals ought to be tried under the rule of law, NOT by the law of the jungle!
If the soldiers were ordered to do it, then those responsible should be in the dock as well to face trial.
Let justice be done and the laws of the United States be vigorously enforced.
Clarification on a Previous Post
A clarification on a previous post:
Whenever I mentioned Howard Dean's name in the post, I inserted the infamous "Dean Scream". That's not me screaming about Dean, that's me reminding everyone of why he's not the Democratic candidate.
There were some questions about that. That's the deal with it.
Whenever I mentioned Howard Dean's name in the post, I inserted the infamous "Dean Scream". That's not me screaming about Dean, that's me reminding everyone of why he's not the Democratic candidate.
There were some questions about that. That's the deal with it.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Heinz-Kerry and "Shove It" In The News Again
OK, now this is really getting ridiculous!
Teresa Heinz-Kerry’s telling a reporter to “shove it” has been the subject of some 381 stories in publications around the country since July 25th when the incident happened.
In contrast, Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign mottos did not catch. According to Factiva, "One America" got 57 mentions, "Hope is on the way," got 50 mentions and "America can do better" just 21 in the same time period.
What is this press fascination with the words “shove it”? Is the ENTIRE presidential election to be based on Billionaire Teresa’s rudeness to a reporter?
This is the dumbest continuing story that I have EVER seen. The Washington Times is reporting that the reporter who had the argument with Heinz-Kerry (and I don’t care if she uses hyphens in her name or not either) has been the subject of death threats and obscene messages (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040803-121322-5779r.htm). How childish. Sounds like some people still need to grow up.
I have nothing but contempt for people who think other people deserve to die for exercising their First Amendment rights.
Kerry's campaign is in REAL trouble: the press is more interested in what his wife is saying than what he is. The numbers prove it.
Teresa Heinz-Kerry’s telling a reporter to “shove it” has been the subject of some 381 stories in publications around the country since July 25th when the incident happened.
In contrast, Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign mottos did not catch. According to Factiva, "One America" got 57 mentions, "Hope is on the way," got 50 mentions and "America can do better" just 21 in the same time period.
What is this press fascination with the words “shove it”? Is the ENTIRE presidential election to be based on Billionaire Teresa’s rudeness to a reporter?
This is the dumbest continuing story that I have EVER seen. The Washington Times is reporting that the reporter who had the argument with Heinz-Kerry (and I don’t care if she uses hyphens in her name or not either) has been the subject of death threats and obscene messages (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040803-121322-5779r.htm). How childish. Sounds like some people still need to grow up.
I have nothing but contempt for people who think other people deserve to die for exercising their First Amendment rights.
Kerry's campaign is in REAL trouble: the press is more interested in what his wife is saying than what he is. The numbers prove it.
Dean & Terror
Was out in the woods for the last four days and so completely ignored the news.
Heard that Howard Dean (yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!) accused Bush of changing the subject to terrorism whenever “he gets into trouble” on the domestic side of things. That’s not how the system works.
The Director of Homeland Security and other intelligence agencies brief the President daily on terrorist threat detection and make recommendations based on the latest intelligence that is gleaned from interrogations of terrorist prisoners (both “in-custody” or “newly captured” al-Qaeda/Hamas/Ansar al-Islam/other agents).
The President then makes a decision about the terror alert posture based on that daily information, regardless of timing.
One important note: Bush/Cheney are getting briefings and so is Kerry/Edwards. They are qualified to make statements about current threats and the threat detection posture of the nation. Dean (yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!) is NOT getting briefings and is making assertions based on his interpretations of the NEWS, which is not told everything either.
Dean (yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!) the cowboy is the one turning this into a political issue. In an election year, all actions are deemed political, regardless of who does what and when and I’m a little surprised that Dean (you get the idea) would do that too. Dean (uh huh) is going to really look like an idiot if something happens in the next few weeks with the Republican National Convention kicking off in New York and the 9/11 anniversary approaching not long after that.
Now is not the time for partisan politics over terror.
Heard that Howard Dean (yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!) accused Bush of changing the subject to terrorism whenever “he gets into trouble” on the domestic side of things. That’s not how the system works.
The Director of Homeland Security and other intelligence agencies brief the President daily on terrorist threat detection and make recommendations based on the latest intelligence that is gleaned from interrogations of terrorist prisoners (both “in-custody” or “newly captured” al-Qaeda/Hamas/Ansar al-Islam/other agents).
The President then makes a decision about the terror alert posture based on that daily information, regardless of timing.
One important note: Bush/Cheney are getting briefings and so is Kerry/Edwards. They are qualified to make statements about current threats and the threat detection posture of the nation. Dean (yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!) is NOT getting briefings and is making assertions based on his interpretations of the NEWS, which is not told everything either.
Dean (yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!) the cowboy is the one turning this into a political issue. In an election year, all actions are deemed political, regardless of who does what and when and I’m a little surprised that Dean (you get the idea) would do that too. Dean (uh huh) is going to really look like an idiot if something happens in the next few weeks with the Republican National Convention kicking off in New York and the 9/11 anniversary approaching not long after that.
Now is not the time for partisan politics over terror.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
DNC Speakers
I’ve been watching some of the Democratic National Convention with interest. In my opinion so far, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, Al Sharpton and Jennifer Granholm were the three most interesting speakers so far, not in what they said, but in how they said it. All three speakers were quite good; between them and the Clintons, they made Edwards look weak. He came across as, well, woody. He didn’t seem to have it all together.
If Kerry speaks in monotones tonight like he normally does, it will swing undecided voters away from the Democratic ticket and more toward candidates that have a pulse. For all the excitement that the selection of John Edwards has created in the Democratic Party, I cannot say that his performance was enough to justify getting excited. My official position on the matter: BORING! The undercard has been consistently better than the main events so far!
Kerry has to deliver a grand slam tonight if he hopes to knock Bush out in November; if he doesn’t, then it will not matter what happens with Florida’s troubled election system. The stakes for Kerry tonight are huge. If he doesn’t deliver, then Bush definitely will in New York in a few weeks. His use of humor is consistently better than Kerry’s, he varies his voice tones, and uses his trouble pronouncing words to his advantage.
After California Governor Davis was voted out of office and Arnold Schwarzenegger was voted in, Bush met with the Governor-elect a short time later and made a statement that "We both married well, people talk about both of us not being able to speak the English language, and we both have big biceps.” His ability to poke fun at himself makes Bush more appealing to a wider audience; it also makes him more disliked in some quarters by those who want Bush out of office.
We’ll see what happens tonight.
If Kerry speaks in monotones tonight like he normally does, it will swing undecided voters away from the Democratic ticket and more toward candidates that have a pulse. For all the excitement that the selection of John Edwards has created in the Democratic Party, I cannot say that his performance was enough to justify getting excited. My official position on the matter: BORING! The undercard has been consistently better than the main events so far!
Kerry has to deliver a grand slam tonight if he hopes to knock Bush out in November; if he doesn’t, then it will not matter what happens with Florida’s troubled election system. The stakes for Kerry tonight are huge. If he doesn’t deliver, then Bush definitely will in New York in a few weeks. His use of humor is consistently better than Kerry’s, he varies his voice tones, and uses his trouble pronouncing words to his advantage.
After California Governor Davis was voted out of office and Arnold Schwarzenegger was voted in, Bush met with the Governor-elect a short time later and made a statement that "We both married well, people talk about both of us not being able to speak the English language, and we both have big biceps.” His ability to poke fun at himself makes Bush more appealing to a wider audience; it also makes him more disliked in some quarters by those who want Bush out of office.
We’ll see what happens tonight.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Florida Election Nighmare in the Making
The New York Times is reporting that the 2002 gubernatorial primary voting records in Miami-Dade County in Florida have been wiped out by two computer crashes.
Miami-Dade was one of the counties that held up the 2000 Presidential Election because of the breakdown of their punch-style voting machines and voter confusion with the butterfly-style voting ballots.
In response, Miami-Dade and half of Florida went over to touch-screen voting machines, which were supposed to eliminate any repeat of the 2000 fiasco. But problems continue with votes being lost, records being lost and the machines generally not working as advertised with no paper backup of the records!
It was calculated that 8% of all votes were lost with the new machines.
It may be time to go back to paper ballots and optical scanners in Florida, which provide a paper backup when the technology fails. We are at war, and the nation cannot afford a repeat of the 2000 Election! We need leadership, not confusion and lawsuits.
Miami-Dade was one of the counties that held up the 2000 Presidential Election because of the breakdown of their punch-style voting machines and voter confusion with the butterfly-style voting ballots.
In response, Miami-Dade and half of Florida went over to touch-screen voting machines, which were supposed to eliminate any repeat of the 2000 fiasco. But problems continue with votes being lost, records being lost and the machines generally not working as advertised with no paper backup of the records!
It was calculated that 8% of all votes were lost with the new machines.
It may be time to go back to paper ballots and optical scanners in Florida, which provide a paper backup when the technology fails. We are at war, and the nation cannot afford a repeat of the 2000 Election! We need leadership, not confusion and lawsuits.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Transcript of "Shove It" Incident
The following is from USA Today on the "Shove It" thingy with Teresa Heinz-Kerry:
In a speech to Pennsylvania delegates Sunday night, Teresa Heinz Kerry said there needed to be a change in American politics.
"We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics," she said.
Afterward, she had this exchange with Colin McNickle, editorial page editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
McNickle: (inaudible) Un-American activity? You mentioned un-American?
Heinz Kerry: No, I did not say that.
McNickle: What did you mean?
Heinz Kerry: I did not say that (pointing finger at reporter).
McNickle: Well, what did you say?
Heinz Kerry: I did not say that.
McNickle: I am just asking what did you say.
Heinz Kerry: Why are you putting those words in my mouth?
McNickle: I thought you said something about being un-American?
Heinz Kerry: No I did not say that.
Heinz Kerry turns away, then returns a few moments later.
Heinz Kerry: Are you from the Tribune-Review?
McNickle: Yes, I am.
Heinz Kerry: Of course (turns away quickly).
McNickle: Come here (tapping her on the elbow).
Heinz Kerry: (Turns back to reporter) Understandable. You said something I didn't say — now shove it!
Sources: The Associated Press, ABC News
-------
Here's my translation:
What!! What!! What!! Huh??! What!! Well, duh!! Shove it!
Why is the press spending so much time on this? She obviously didn't want to talk to the reporter but didn't want to be misquoted. That's the story. At least she didn't use the "f" word. Now that would have been news!
In a speech to Pennsylvania delegates Sunday night, Teresa Heinz Kerry said there needed to be a change in American politics.
"We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics," she said.
Afterward, she had this exchange with Colin McNickle, editorial page editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
McNickle: (inaudible) Un-American activity? You mentioned un-American?
Heinz Kerry: No, I did not say that.
McNickle: What did you mean?
Heinz Kerry: I did not say that (pointing finger at reporter).
McNickle: Well, what did you say?
Heinz Kerry: I did not say that.
McNickle: I am just asking what did you say.
Heinz Kerry: Why are you putting those words in my mouth?
McNickle: I thought you said something about being un-American?
Heinz Kerry: No I did not say that.
Heinz Kerry turns away, then returns a few moments later.
Heinz Kerry: Are you from the Tribune-Review?
McNickle: Yes, I am.
Heinz Kerry: Of course (turns away quickly).
McNickle: Come here (tapping her on the elbow).
Heinz Kerry: (Turns back to reporter) Understandable. You said something I didn't say — now shove it!
Sources: The Associated Press, ABC News
-------
Here's my translation:
What!! What!! What!! Huh??! What!! Well, duh!! Shove it!
Why is the press spending so much time on this? She obviously didn't want to talk to the reporter but didn't want to be misquoted. That's the story. At least she didn't use the "f" word. Now that would have been news!
Moore at DNC
Did everyone catch Michael Moore sitting in the Presidential box at the opening night of the Democratic National Convention? He was sitting two seats over from Ted Kennedy.
Any more dumb questions on Moore's intent behind "Fahrenheit 9/11"?
Any more dumb questions on Moore's intent behind "Fahrenheit 9/11"?
The French...again
My thoughts on Jacques Chirac, the President of France, have been made clear on my other postings: he’s an idiot.
During the build-up to the war in Iraq, the bombastic Chirac insisted that the new nations of the European Union follow France’s lead on its opposition to the Iraq War. The French also warned of consequences in the European power block if new EU members supported the U.S. Naturally, this had/has many new EU members upset with French attempts to insert France's influence into their affairs.
While I do not have an issue with French opposition to the Iraq war, I do have a major problem with France not being honest over why it really opposed the war. Billions of dollars in agreements between Saddam Hussein and France made the French government’s position very suspect during the lead-up to the war. French complicity in the oil-for-food scandal did not help the French image over here. Their attempts to sabotage U.N. involvement in the rebuilding of Iraq also made it look like the French were protecting their contracts (most of which will not be honored by the new Iraqi government) instead of helping the Iraqi people regain their freedom and restore stability to that war-ravaged country.
Many in Europe and in the U.S. will be cheering when the bombastic French leader leaves office. It seems like for all the screaming that the French are doing these days about the U.S. taking unilateral action in Iraq, the French are doing the same thing in other parts of the world. U.S. political leaders are not taking France to task over libelous statements that the French leadership has made over Iraq, over Turkey’s admission to the E.U., over the recent French accusations that Washington is blackmailing developing countries into accepting trade agreements in exchange for AIDS medicines and other French slurs. It has also not made a big deal out of France’s foot-dragging when it comes to admitting to its own war crimes guilt in Algeria over the hundred-year occupation of Algeria.
I think that the verbal sparring between Israel’s Prime Minister and Chirac has lain open French arrogance for the entire world to see. Sharon and Chirac are so alike that they are naturally aggressive toward one another. In a lot of ways, Bush and Chirac are alike too, so the sparks tend to fly. It’s actually been fun to watch. Reminds me of a back-and-forth tennis match.
The French continually underestimate Bush and Bush has turned right around on them and it annoys the daylights out of Chirac. Bush has also underestimated Chirac and has had his nose publicly punched, much to the delight of the French population, which also dislikes Bush.
This is what happens when egos replace common sense.
During the build-up to the war in Iraq, the bombastic Chirac insisted that the new nations of the European Union follow France’s lead on its opposition to the Iraq War. The French also warned of consequences in the European power block if new EU members supported the U.S. Naturally, this had/has many new EU members upset with French attempts to insert France's influence into their affairs.
While I do not have an issue with French opposition to the Iraq war, I do have a major problem with France not being honest over why it really opposed the war. Billions of dollars in agreements between Saddam Hussein and France made the French government’s position very suspect during the lead-up to the war. French complicity in the oil-for-food scandal did not help the French image over here. Their attempts to sabotage U.N. involvement in the rebuilding of Iraq also made it look like the French were protecting their contracts (most of which will not be honored by the new Iraqi government) instead of helping the Iraqi people regain their freedom and restore stability to that war-ravaged country.
Many in Europe and in the U.S. will be cheering when the bombastic French leader leaves office. It seems like for all the screaming that the French are doing these days about the U.S. taking unilateral action in Iraq, the French are doing the same thing in other parts of the world. U.S. political leaders are not taking France to task over libelous statements that the French leadership has made over Iraq, over Turkey’s admission to the E.U., over the recent French accusations that Washington is blackmailing developing countries into accepting trade agreements in exchange for AIDS medicines and other French slurs. It has also not made a big deal out of France’s foot-dragging when it comes to admitting to its own war crimes guilt in Algeria over the hundred-year occupation of Algeria.
I think that the verbal sparring between Israel’s Prime Minister and Chirac has lain open French arrogance for the entire world to see. Sharon and Chirac are so alike that they are naturally aggressive toward one another. In a lot of ways, Bush and Chirac are alike too, so the sparks tend to fly. It’s actually been fun to watch. Reminds me of a back-and-forth tennis match.
The French continually underestimate Bush and Bush has turned right around on them and it annoys the daylights out of Chirac. Bush has also underestimated Chirac and has had his nose publicly punched, much to the delight of the French population, which also dislikes Bush.
This is what happens when egos replace common sense.
Gore's At It Again
Did you hear Al Gore up on the stage last night, asking Americans to vote?
That part was fine and dandy, but then Goremeister HAD to slip in the comment to not allow the Supreme Court to "choose the next President." EXQUEEZE ME, but was it not Gore who initiated court action to override the Florida count? Was it not Gore who insisted on hand-counting the ballots in the disputed counties? Was it not Gore who did NOT insist on a state-wide ballot recount, which WOULD have given him the victory? By insisting on only those counties that had major discrepancies, GORE ensured Bush's victory, not the Supreme Court.
So get over it, Al, and quit trying to rewrite history again!
That part was fine and dandy, but then Goremeister HAD to slip in the comment to not allow the Supreme Court to "choose the next President." EXQUEEZE ME, but was it not Gore who initiated court action to override the Florida count? Was it not Gore who insisted on hand-counting the ballots in the disputed counties? Was it not Gore who did NOT insist on a state-wide ballot recount, which WOULD have given him the victory? By insisting on only those counties that had major discrepancies, GORE ensured Bush's victory, not the Supreme Court.
So get over it, Al, and quit trying to rewrite history again!
Monday, July 26, 2004
DNC Convention Week
Al-Qaeda had better stay away from Boston and New York City during the respective conventions that will be occurring in those two cities.
I am particularly worried about Boston as my brother will be attending the Democratic National Convention. He's not the political type, but he's working security there so I've told him to keep his wits about him if the bullets start to fly or whatever the problem is.
May the Democrats have a very safe and uneventful convention this week.
I am particularly worried about Boston as my brother will be attending the Democratic National Convention. He's not the political type, but he's working security there so I've told him to keep his wits about him if the bullets start to fly or whatever the problem is.
May the Democrats have a very safe and uneventful convention this week.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
Star Wars Episode III Title Revealed
Starwars.com announced today that the full title of the third episode of the Star Wars prequel will be "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith."
This is AWESOME!
The original title of the sixth movie was "Revenge of the Jedi" but was changed to "Return of the Jedi" after George Lucas decided that revenge was part of the Dark Side of the Force. It is altogether appropriate for the evil Sith, who will establish the Galactic Empire as the Republic crumbles and the Jedi are annihilated.
My bet was on something along the lines of "Fall of the Jedi" or "Fall of the Republic" but I think the newly minted title is better than my ideas.
This is AWESOME!
The original title of the sixth movie was "Revenge of the Jedi" but was changed to "Return of the Jedi" after George Lucas decided that revenge was part of the Dark Side of the Force. It is altogether appropriate for the evil Sith, who will establish the Galactic Empire as the Republic crumbles and the Jedi are annihilated.
My bet was on something along the lines of "Fall of the Jedi" or "Fall of the Republic" but I think the newly minted title is better than my ideas.
Friday, July 23, 2004
Thank you, Manila
Six more hostages have been taken due to the terrorists being emboldened by their success in driving the Philippines from Iraq.
Thank you, Manila, for confirming Washington's fears.
They're kidnapping citizens from noncombatant countries and demanding they withdraw their troops from Iraq, even though those nations do not have troops in Iraq.
This tells me they are grabbing any non-Iraqi that they can find, regardless of nationality.
Kenya is trying to free its own hostages, but they have been unsuccessful so far. If Kenya wants to knuckle under to free their hostages, then they have learned nothing from al-Qaeda atttacks in their country. Have they forgotten the bombings in Nairobi, which leveled the targeted U.S. embassy and killed hundreds of Kenyans and wounded thousands?
This is kind of like Spain sweeping the March 11th terrorist attacks on Madrid under the carpet and trying to forget about it. The victims won't stand for it.
Thank you, Manila, for confirming Washington's fears.
They're kidnapping citizens from noncombatant countries and demanding they withdraw their troops from Iraq, even though those nations do not have troops in Iraq.
This tells me they are grabbing any non-Iraqi that they can find, regardless of nationality.
Kenya is trying to free its own hostages, but they have been unsuccessful so far. If Kenya wants to knuckle under to free their hostages, then they have learned nothing from al-Qaeda atttacks in their country. Have they forgotten the bombings in Nairobi, which leveled the targeted U.S. embassy and killed hundreds of Kenyans and wounded thousands?
This is kind of like Spain sweeping the March 11th terrorist attacks on Madrid under the carpet and trying to forget about it. The victims won't stand for it.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
9/11 Commission Report Released
The 9/11 Commission report was released today.
I am reading it and it looks like there will be lots of topics to talk about.
More to follow!
I am reading it and it looks like there will be lots of topics to talk about.
More to follow!
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Attack on Fox News Continues
Liberal political group MoveOn.org and supposedly non-partisan group Common Cause are continuing their attack on Fox News’s content and marketing. At issue is Fox’s “Fair and Balanced” slogan, which liberal critics decry as false advertising. They have petitioned the FTC to go after Fox News and issue a cease-and-desist order.
The FTC chair says that the petition will most likely fail because in order for the FTC to examine whether the slogan is false advertising, they would have to examine the news content, judge it and decide if it was acceptable. This intrudes on First Amendment guarantees of a free press.
While I do not care about the slogan itself, the First Amendment is again in danger of being weakened by people who care only about silencing their most vocal critic. Both groups have been severely criticized by Fox News for distorting facts when they make their political arguments. These groups have no thought of what they are doing to the entire system; they only care about their immediate short-term political objectives. Further, the second part of the Fox News slogan is being conveniently ignored by the libs: “We Report. You Decide.”
Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity have ridiculed the nonsense and utter hatred coming from MoveOn.org (see the Hitler/Bush ads for example) and Moveon.org has taken it upon themselves to destroy Fox News in return.
Common Cause is a bit of a surprise since they have usually gone right down the middle. I still agree with some of the stuff on their web site, but on other issues they’ve gone way left. Too far left for my taste. They appear to have moveon.org’ed.
Let’s look at the definition of false advertising via www.dictionary.com:
False advertising--the crime or tort of publishing, broadcasting, or otherwise publicly distributing an advertisement that contains an untrue, misleading, or deceptive representation or statement which was made knowingly or recklessly and with the intent to promote the sale of property, goods, or services to the public.
Here’s a news flash—There is no sale of property, goods or services to the public. "We Report. You Decide." In other words, if you don't like what they are saying, watch something else. Conclusion: this is nothing but a smear campaign and an attempted rape of the First Amendment. End of story.
Here's the link:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040720/D83UJ63G3.html
The FTC chair says that the petition will most likely fail because in order for the FTC to examine whether the slogan is false advertising, they would have to examine the news content, judge it and decide if it was acceptable. This intrudes on First Amendment guarantees of a free press.
While I do not care about the slogan itself, the First Amendment is again in danger of being weakened by people who care only about silencing their most vocal critic. Both groups have been severely criticized by Fox News for distorting facts when they make their political arguments. These groups have no thought of what they are doing to the entire system; they only care about their immediate short-term political objectives. Further, the second part of the Fox News slogan is being conveniently ignored by the libs: “We Report. You Decide.”
Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity have ridiculed the nonsense and utter hatred coming from MoveOn.org (see the Hitler/Bush ads for example) and Moveon.org has taken it upon themselves to destroy Fox News in return.
Common Cause is a bit of a surprise since they have usually gone right down the middle. I still agree with some of the stuff on their web site, but on other issues they’ve gone way left. Too far left for my taste. They appear to have moveon.org’ed.
Let’s look at the definition of false advertising via www.dictionary.com:
False advertising--the crime or tort of publishing, broadcasting, or otherwise publicly distributing an advertisement that contains an untrue, misleading, or deceptive representation or statement which was made knowingly or recklessly and with the intent to promote the sale of property, goods, or services to the public.
Here’s a news flash—There is no sale of property, goods or services to the public. "We Report. You Decide." In other words, if you don't like what they are saying, watch something else. Conclusion: this is nothing but a smear campaign and an attempted rape of the First Amendment. End of story.
Here's the link:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040720/D83UJ63G3.html
Monday, July 19, 2004
Can The Government Stop Terrorists From Entering American Airspace?
The answer to that question is uncertain. Our air defense system was designed to counter a massive Soviet attack on the United States in the event of World War III breaking out. To counter the Soviet threat, at the height of the Cold War, fifty fighters would be on “alert” at a dozen installations around the country to protect American airspace from Soviet incursions. The Red Air Force and the U.S. Air Force seemed to love to test one another’s detection and response systems as it happened regularly.
According to NORAD documents presented to the 9/11 Commission, there were fourteen fighters on alert at seven installations across the United States to protect the entire country on 9/11. This was due to the Cold War ending, and America not realizing that another war was about to be started. The Air Force could not vector in fighters to make any difference whatsoever and so the hijacked airliners either crashed into their intended targets or crashed after passengers attempted to retake their hijacked airliner from the terrorists.
Immediately after the attacks, the Air Force went to maximum alert and launched Operation Noble Eagle. Four hundred fighters were on duty around the clock, which continues to this day. According to NORAD documents, over 35,000 sorties have been launched since then with dozens of airliners coming under Air Force escort.
Yet, when the Reagan funeral was going on, the grounds of the Capitol and the Supreme Court were evacuated when a small plane entered restricted airspace. It was carrying the Governor of Kentucky, who had received permission to enter Washington airspace, but was experiencing radio trouble and so couldn’t contact ground control. This set off alarm bells and the Air Force responded. They were unable to intercept the plane before it was over key federal installations. It was fortunate that this was a false alarm, but the fact was that it broke through the Washington defenses with little opposition.
NORAD won’t say too much due to security concerns, but two fighters were scrambled to intercept the airplane but were too far away. On the ground, the Capitol was evacuated in record time. The plane landed without being challenged.
According to reports, the FAA didn’t inform the military or other agencies that this flight was a friendly or scheduled, the Air Force jets were out of position, the flight should not have been allowed under existing Homeland Security directives, and there was more than one radar system scanning the skies for potential threats with no coordination between the responsible agencies.
Major upgrades have been made since the incident, but the question remains whether the existing setup is good enough to stop inbound hostile air traffic. It appears that terrorists can use low-technology solutions to overcome high-technology defenses and this needs to be looked at, not shoveled under the carpet.
According to NORAD documents presented to the 9/11 Commission, there were fourteen fighters on alert at seven installations across the United States to protect the entire country on 9/11. This was due to the Cold War ending, and America not realizing that another war was about to be started. The Air Force could not vector in fighters to make any difference whatsoever and so the hijacked airliners either crashed into their intended targets or crashed after passengers attempted to retake their hijacked airliner from the terrorists.
Immediately after the attacks, the Air Force went to maximum alert and launched Operation Noble Eagle. Four hundred fighters were on duty around the clock, which continues to this day. According to NORAD documents, over 35,000 sorties have been launched since then with dozens of airliners coming under Air Force escort.
Yet, when the Reagan funeral was going on, the grounds of the Capitol and the Supreme Court were evacuated when a small plane entered restricted airspace. It was carrying the Governor of Kentucky, who had received permission to enter Washington airspace, but was experiencing radio trouble and so couldn’t contact ground control. This set off alarm bells and the Air Force responded. They were unable to intercept the plane before it was over key federal installations. It was fortunate that this was a false alarm, but the fact was that it broke through the Washington defenses with little opposition.
NORAD won’t say too much due to security concerns, but two fighters were scrambled to intercept the airplane but were too far away. On the ground, the Capitol was evacuated in record time. The plane landed without being challenged.
According to reports, the FAA didn’t inform the military or other agencies that this flight was a friendly or scheduled, the Air Force jets were out of position, the flight should not have been allowed under existing Homeland Security directives, and there was more than one radar system scanning the skies for potential threats with no coordination between the responsible agencies.
Major upgrades have been made since the incident, but the question remains whether the existing setup is good enough to stop inbound hostile air traffic. It appears that terrorists can use low-technology solutions to overcome high-technology defenses and this needs to be looked at, not shoveled under the carpet.
Friday, July 16, 2004
Another Kerry Flip-Flop
Unbelievable!
Now Kerry says he would authorize a pre-emptive war if he had credible intelligence that there was a threat!
This after he condemned the Bush Administration in a December 2003 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. He said "Today we have an Administration that has turned its back on [past] values and principles. We have a President who has developed and exalted a strategy of war – unilateral; pre-emptive; and in my view, profoundly threatening to America’s place in the world and the safety and prosperity of our own society."
He really does take both sides!
Now Kerry says he would authorize a pre-emptive war if he had credible intelligence that there was a threat!
This after he condemned the Bush Administration in a December 2003 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. He said "Today we have an Administration that has turned its back on [past] values and principles. We have a President who has developed and exalted a strategy of war – unilateral; pre-emptive; and in my view, profoundly threatening to America’s place in the world and the safety and prosperity of our own society."
He really does take both sides!
Queen Elizabeth II Honors Creator of World Wide Web
From CNN.com---
Tim Berners-Lee, the London-born scientist who invented the World Wide Web, was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II Friday.
He received the knighthood in recognition of his services to the development of the Internet through the invention of the Web, a system to organize, link and browse pages on the Internet.
The Queen made the 49-year-old scientist a knight commander, the second-highest rank of the Order of the British Empire, in a ceremony at Buckingham Palace.
What about Al Gore? He invented the Internet, too! Thhhp!
Tim Berners-Lee, the London-born scientist who invented the World Wide Web, was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II Friday.
He received the knighthood in recognition of his services to the development of the Internet through the invention of the Web, a system to organize, link and browse pages on the Internet.
The Queen made the 49-year-old scientist a knight commander, the second-highest rank of the Order of the British Empire, in a ceremony at Buckingham Palace.
What about Al Gore? He invented the Internet, too! Thhhp!
Iraqi Terrorists Defeat the Philippines
The Philippines are the latest nation to pull its troops out of Iraq under threat.
It's a bit surprising since the Philippine Islands are dealing with their own terrorist problems. They ought to know better than to give in to terrorists holding hostages. This will lead to problems with their own Marxist and Islamic terror cells that are on a campaign to overthrow the government of Manila.
Perhaps we should look at whether we want to keep sending military support to the Philippines to help them fight their insurgents when they pull out of the fight against terrorists in Iraq. Perhaps the French will help them. The French love to fight. Yeah, right.
Bye bye Manila.
It's a bit surprising since the Philippine Islands are dealing with their own terrorist problems. They ought to know better than to give in to terrorists holding hostages. This will lead to problems with their own Marxist and Islamic terror cells that are on a campaign to overthrow the government of Manila.
Perhaps we should look at whether we want to keep sending military support to the Philippines to help them fight their insurgents when they pull out of the fight against terrorists in Iraq. Perhaps the French will help them. The French love to fight. Yeah, right.
Bye bye Manila.
Lansing, MI, Cannot Afford Security for Cheney?
There's a report in the Lansing State Journal that Lansing, MI, (population 450,000) is worried about not having enough money to protect Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John McCain when they visit for a campaign stop today in the state capitol.
Cheney and McCain were expected to draw 1,500 people to the Lansing Center.
This, in spite of the fact that Marquette, MI, (population 20,000) handled 11,000 people showing up for President Bush's recent visit to that Upper Peninsula city with no trouble at all.
How can Marquette absorb over half of its population showing up at the Superior Dome to see Bush and the capitol of Michigan cannot handle a fraction of that number?
This sounds totally ridiculous!
Cheney and McCain were expected to draw 1,500 people to the Lansing Center.
This, in spite of the fact that Marquette, MI, (population 20,000) handled 11,000 people showing up for President Bush's recent visit to that Upper Peninsula city with no trouble at all.
How can Marquette absorb over half of its population showing up at the Superior Dome to see Bush and the capitol of Michigan cannot handle a fraction of that number?
This sounds totally ridiculous!
Kerry & Abortion
Kerry has an abortion problem, all right.
His political views, professed religious beliefs and voting track record are at war with one another. It's almost unfathomable that someone who was supposedly raised in the Catholic faith can go against his religion so completely on one of the most important stands that the Catholic Church has ever taken: to defend the unborn.
What kind of excuse does Kerry offer for his perfect voting record on pro-abortion legislation? "I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist" says he. How very liberal of him.
What about standing up for what he believes in? This is the entire flip-flop thing that Bush has been nailing Kerry on these past several months. Kerry says "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception." His voting record does not reflect this feeling.
Has it not occurred to Kerry that not all abortion foes are Catholic, or even Christian?
This is a sad example of what liberal politics does to religion.
His political views, professed religious beliefs and voting track record are at war with one another. It's almost unfathomable that someone who was supposedly raised in the Catholic faith can go against his religion so completely on one of the most important stands that the Catholic Church has ever taken: to defend the unborn.
What kind of excuse does Kerry offer for his perfect voting record on pro-abortion legislation? "I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist" says he. How very liberal of him.
What about standing up for what he believes in? This is the entire flip-flop thing that Bush has been nailing Kerry on these past several months. Kerry says "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception." His voting record does not reflect this feeling.
Has it not occurred to Kerry that not all abortion foes are Catholic, or even Christian?
This is a sad example of what liberal politics does to religion.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
CBS Flop "The Reagans" Nominated for Award
"The Reagans" have been nominated for several Primetime Emmy Awards.
The acting was quite good, it was parts of the story that were made-up that ruined the thing. Here are the awards that the show has been nominated for:
Casting for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special (The major problem here is that the main characters were played by openly liberal actors and actresses).
Hairstyling for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special (No objection from me)
Lead Actor in a Miniseries or a Movie (James Brolin as President Reagan) (No objection other than he's a liberal)
Lead Actress in a Miniseries or a Movie (Judy Davis as Nancy Reagan) (See previous line)
Made for Television Movie (MAJOR objection here--it wasn't shown on public TV because it was inaccurate and wrong. Bad choice for this category.)
I don't care about the others, but the final category is a bit of a reach. Oh well.
The acting was quite good, it was parts of the story that were made-up that ruined the thing. Here are the awards that the show has been nominated for:
Casting for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special (The major problem here is that the main characters were played by openly liberal actors and actresses).
Hairstyling for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special (No objection from me)
Lead Actor in a Miniseries or a Movie (James Brolin as President Reagan) (No objection other than he's a liberal)
Lead Actress in a Miniseries or a Movie (Judy Davis as Nancy Reagan) (See previous line)
Made for Television Movie (MAJOR objection here--it wasn't shown on public TV because it was inaccurate and wrong. Bad choice for this category.)
I don't care about the others, but the final category is a bit of a reach. Oh well.
News Report on What I'm Talking About
CBS News Same-Sex Marriage Foes Try Again July 15, 2004�08:46:22: "Unable to ban same-sex marriage, congressional Republicans are working to contain it, advancing legislation in the House to eliminate federal courts power over states decisions to recognize marriages.
'When federal judges step out of line, Congress has the responsibility to drop the red flag,' Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday as the court-stripping measure cleared the House Judiciary Committee on a near party-line vote of 21-13.
The measure, called the Marriage Protection Act, would bar any federal court including the Supreme Court from interpreting the application of the Defense of Marriage Act. That 1996 law defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman, and exempted states from recognizing same-sex marriage from other states. "
-----------------------------
Aaah, now this is good legislation. To read the full report, follow the link above.
Limiting federal control over state issues is a good thing.
'When federal judges step out of line, Congress has the responsibility to drop the red flag,' Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday as the court-stripping measure cleared the House Judiciary Committee on a near party-line vote of 21-13.
The measure, called the Marriage Protection Act, would bar any federal court including the Supreme Court from interpreting the application of the Defense of Marriage Act. That 1996 law defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman, and exempted states from recognizing same-sex marriage from other states. "
-----------------------------
Aaah, now this is good legislation. To read the full report, follow the link above.
Limiting federal control over state issues is a good thing.
Marriage Amendment on Hold
The Senate defeat of the Marriage Amendment is being hotly debated around the country today.
Like I've said in previous posts, I do not support gay marriage but I am not in favor of a new Constitutional amendment that defines marriage.
My definition of marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively. Civil unions are between others.
This is a state matter under Constitutional law, as intended by the Framers, so I say let the states decide which way they want to go with it on their own. They do not need a power to be taken away from them by the federal government.
The feds need to take a step back and focus on more important matters and get out of state affairs. This is a huge distraction and the country needs to get over it.
Like I've said in previous posts, I do not support gay marriage but I am not in favor of a new Constitutional amendment that defines marriage.
My definition of marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively. Civil unions are between others.
This is a state matter under Constitutional law, as intended by the Framers, so I say let the states decide which way they want to go with it on their own. They do not need a power to be taken away from them by the federal government.
The feds need to take a step back and focus on more important matters and get out of state affairs. This is a huge distraction and the country needs to get over it.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Bush Visits the U.P.
No politics in this post.
I'm delighted that the presidential candidates are paying attention to the people of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
President Bush spoke in Marquette today, becoming the first sitting President to visit the U.P. since President Taft in 1911. He is the first major Republican candidate to visit in quite some time.
The Democratic presidential candidates of the past or their proxies have visited up there before; Gore was up there twice I think. It's been a while since this kind of national attention was paid to the U.P. so I think it's great.
I attended a speech that then-Vice President Gore gave in Marquette back in '96. It was OK but I was watching the sign language interpreter standing next to the Vice President as the interpreter was my mother. There were protests going on so I was a little concerned that she was standing that close to the Vice President. Everything went well with that speech; the Secret Service did a very good job of keeping things in hand.
Today's speech was at the Northern Michigan University Superior Dome, which, by the way, is the largest wooden dome in the world.
It would be nice if Kerry or Edwards visited too.
I'm delighted that the presidential candidates are paying attention to the people of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
President Bush spoke in Marquette today, becoming the first sitting President to visit the U.P. since President Taft in 1911. He is the first major Republican candidate to visit in quite some time.
The Democratic presidential candidates of the past or their proxies have visited up there before; Gore was up there twice I think. It's been a while since this kind of national attention was paid to the U.P. so I think it's great.
I attended a speech that then-Vice President Gore gave in Marquette back in '96. It was OK but I was watching the sign language interpreter standing next to the Vice President as the interpreter was my mother. There were protests going on so I was a little concerned that she was standing that close to the Vice President. Everything went well with that speech; the Secret Service did a very good job of keeping things in hand.
Today's speech was at the Northern Michigan University Superior Dome, which, by the way, is the largest wooden dome in the world.
It would be nice if Kerry or Edwards visited too.
2000 Elections Revisited
Some web sites are saying that Bush is talking about postponing the elections so he can steal them again.
He didn't steal them in the first place. The opposition tried to steal them in court after the electoral system broke down in Florida. The recounts showed that Bush won it; Gore's insistance that every vote be counted was done by independent news organizations and it was confirmed.
Litigate by the sword, lose by the sword. Get over it. Vote on November 2nd.
He didn't steal them in the first place. The opposition tried to steal them in court after the electoral system broke down in Florida. The recounts showed that Bush won it; Gore's insistance that every vote be counted was done by independent news organizations and it was confirmed.
Litigate by the sword, lose by the sword. Get over it. Vote on November 2nd.
Fox News Under Fire
See, I told you so!
“Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism” is the so-called latest “documentary” to be released by Bush-hating liberals who are continuing their attack on conservative news outlets, politicians and ideas.
If MoveOn.org’s name appears in the credits, it’s a phony. See my write-up on Fahrenheit 9/11 for the difference between propaganda and documentary. This is NOT a documentary due to the heavy concentration of editorializing.
The attempt to besmirch Fox News’s reputation is being strongly countered by corrections on the Fox News web site, explaining who the so-called “publishers” and “editors” really are, not what the film falsely portrays them to be.
CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC and CNN all live in glass houses and are equally vulnerable to charges of being extensions of the liberal Democratic Party. Comments like the long-haired guy on CNN Headline News commenting on rising fuel costs that “we have to get rid of SUV’s” to Dan Rather and Peter Jennings complaining that the Reagan funeral was drawing too much attention from the Iraq War (Waah!) to numerous other examples of naked liberalism on those networks doesn’t leave them with a leg to stand on.
So they shouldn’t be crowing too much. Fox News just goes in a different direction from the liberal networks and does the same stuff that they do, only it’s more entertaining!
“Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism” is the so-called latest “documentary” to be released by Bush-hating liberals who are continuing their attack on conservative news outlets, politicians and ideas.
If MoveOn.org’s name appears in the credits, it’s a phony. See my write-up on Fahrenheit 9/11 for the difference between propaganda and documentary. This is NOT a documentary due to the heavy concentration of editorializing.
The attempt to besmirch Fox News’s reputation is being strongly countered by corrections on the Fox News web site, explaining who the so-called “publishers” and “editors” really are, not what the film falsely portrays them to be.
CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC and CNN all live in glass houses and are equally vulnerable to charges of being extensions of the liberal Democratic Party. Comments like the long-haired guy on CNN Headline News commenting on rising fuel costs that “we have to get rid of SUV’s” to Dan Rather and Peter Jennings complaining that the Reagan funeral was drawing too much attention from the Iraq War (Waah!) to numerous other examples of naked liberalism on those networks doesn’t leave them with a leg to stand on.
So they shouldn’t be crowing too much. Fox News just goes in a different direction from the liberal networks and does the same stuff that they do, only it’s more entertaining!
Marriage--Federal or State?
Is marriage a state issue or a federal issue?
That question is decisively answered by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution does not mention marriage in any way, shape or form. It does not give regulation of marriage to Congress, nor to the states, nor does it forbid the states to do anything about it. Therefore, it is a reserved power for the states.
And so every state in the union has laws on their books on marriage license requirements.
Now…is gay marriage a federal matter or a state matter?
Under the Constitution, as we’ve just discussed, that matter rests with the STATE. Civil unions are not mentioned either, so that falls under the jurisdiction of the states too.
Not so fast…they’re trying to tamper with the Constitution again. It’s not one side or the other this time, it’s both sides. The conservatives are trying to ban gay marriage via a Constitutional Amendment, and the liberals are trying to get the federal courts to overrule states who have banned gay marriage inside their borders.
My advice would be for the big government to leave the little governments alone. I do not support gay “marriage”, but I like the weakening of the Constitution even less.
If a case reaches a state Supreme Court, it should stop there. It’s a reserved power, no matter what activist judges say. Federal judges ought to keep their noses out of it, but both sides want the last word, so they take it up to the federal level if they lose on the state level. What they ought to do is put it on the ballot!
Some people think that if they litigate it enough, they’ll find a sympathetic judge eventually. They ought to pay the entire bill for the process and not dump it on the taxpayers.
That question is decisively answered by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution does not mention marriage in any way, shape or form. It does not give regulation of marriage to Congress, nor to the states, nor does it forbid the states to do anything about it. Therefore, it is a reserved power for the states.
And so every state in the union has laws on their books on marriage license requirements.
Now…is gay marriage a federal matter or a state matter?
Under the Constitution, as we’ve just discussed, that matter rests with the STATE. Civil unions are not mentioned either, so that falls under the jurisdiction of the states too.
Not so fast…they’re trying to tamper with the Constitution again. It’s not one side or the other this time, it’s both sides. The conservatives are trying to ban gay marriage via a Constitutional Amendment, and the liberals are trying to get the federal courts to overrule states who have banned gay marriage inside their borders.
My advice would be for the big government to leave the little governments alone. I do not support gay “marriage”, but I like the weakening of the Constitution even less.
If a case reaches a state Supreme Court, it should stop there. It’s a reserved power, no matter what activist judges say. Federal judges ought to keep their noses out of it, but both sides want the last word, so they take it up to the federal level if they lose on the state level. What they ought to do is put it on the ballot!
Some people think that if they litigate it enough, they’ll find a sympathetic judge eventually. They ought to pay the entire bill for the process and not dump it on the taxpayers.
Sunday, July 11, 2004
Delay the National Elections?
There is talk in the media and the government about postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about Election Day.
Bad idea.
There are not many reasons that we should delay Election Day:
1) Nuclear attack on the United States.
2) BioChem attack on the United States.
3) Massive power outages like the August 2003 blackout that left people without power in the East and Midwest.
4) One or both candidates are assassinated.
We should NOT postpone the elections if a few car bombs go off, or some trains get bombed or if more skyscrapers get rammed by passenger planes or Wall Street is leveled. If they're that worried about an attack, then they should ground all air travel for a few days before and the day of the election.
They can do this by going to Threat Condition Red. This may scare people away from the polls if they do go to Red so maybe that isn't such a hot idea. But the air travel? They can tell people when there will be no air service so that they can make alternate plans.
Delaying Election Day is what rulers do when they are trying to establish a dictatorship. If a dictatorship starts here, then al-Qaeda has won. We may as well bring all of our troops home, ground the Navy and the Air Force, and prepare to fight another revolution. That's the conspiracy theory. Let's not even go there.
If we get nuked, that's a good reason for delaying the election. If there's a plague or a massive attack by an enemy using chemical or biological weapons, that's a good reason. If there's no power, they can't open the polls. That's a good reason. Assassinations are another good reason. If both candidates die, what happens then? That should be addressed. Everything else...life sucks, wear a helmet and VOTE.
Bad idea.
There are not many reasons that we should delay Election Day:
1) Nuclear attack on the United States.
2) BioChem attack on the United States.
3) Massive power outages like the August 2003 blackout that left people without power in the East and Midwest.
4) One or both candidates are assassinated.
We should NOT postpone the elections if a few car bombs go off, or some trains get bombed or if more skyscrapers get rammed by passenger planes or Wall Street is leveled. If they're that worried about an attack, then they should ground all air travel for a few days before and the day of the election.
They can do this by going to Threat Condition Red. This may scare people away from the polls if they do go to Red so maybe that isn't such a hot idea. But the air travel? They can tell people when there will be no air service so that they can make alternate plans.
Delaying Election Day is what rulers do when they are trying to establish a dictatorship. If a dictatorship starts here, then al-Qaeda has won. We may as well bring all of our troops home, ground the Navy and the Air Force, and prepare to fight another revolution. That's the conspiracy theory. Let's not even go there.
If we get nuked, that's a good reason for delaying the election. If there's a plague or a massive attack by an enemy using chemical or biological weapons, that's a good reason. If there's no power, they can't open the polls. That's a good reason. Assassinations are another good reason. If both candidates die, what happens then? That should be addressed. Everything else...life sucks, wear a helmet and VOTE.
Reagan Revisited
I recently watched "The Reagans" on video.
Do liberals really believe all of this crap? For that matter, do non-liberals buy into it?
It was a wise move for CBS not to air it. There were too many inaccuracies to simply explain away. How can the stars of the show admit that certain parts of the film were not supported by reality but then in the very next sentence say that those parts were equally as valid...just because. What a crock!
I came across a rabid anti-Reagan web site recently and the author said that he would never forgive Reagan for saying "Let he who lives in sin die in sin" when referring to AIDS victims. One problem...it never happened. That was something that got a lot of negative publicity from the conservative press. I can't remember if it was cut out of the Showtime viewing of it or not. Nancy says it didn't happen and I'm more inclined to believe her than a liberal show like that.
Are people really that gullible that they take it for Gospel truth? If they do, then I've got a bridge and some land on the moon that I'd like to sell them.
Do liberals really believe all of this crap? For that matter, do non-liberals buy into it?
It was a wise move for CBS not to air it. There were too many inaccuracies to simply explain away. How can the stars of the show admit that certain parts of the film were not supported by reality but then in the very next sentence say that those parts were equally as valid...just because. What a crock!
I came across a rabid anti-Reagan web site recently and the author said that he would never forgive Reagan for saying "Let he who lives in sin die in sin" when referring to AIDS victims. One problem...it never happened. That was something that got a lot of negative publicity from the conservative press. I can't remember if it was cut out of the Showtime viewing of it or not. Nancy says it didn't happen and I'm more inclined to believe her than a liberal show like that.
Are people really that gullible that they take it for Gospel truth? If they do, then I've got a bridge and some land on the moon that I'd like to sell them.
Friday, July 09, 2004
"Protecting our Freedom"
The party line that U.S. troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan to "preserve our freedom" is the most over-trumpeted and inaccurate mantra coming from the Bush Administration.
We are not!
Our soldiers are there to further the cause of democracy and to bring freedom to people who have known only oppression. Period!
Every time President Bush or someone in general says “Thanks to the soldiers over in Iraq for preserving our freedoms,” I think “From whom?” Terrorists? No, no, no!
Thank you to the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan for fighting evil, spreading democracy, getting dangerous weapons away from terrorists and their allies, ensuring that the locals are strong enough to deal with their own domestic and foreign threats, and for PROTECTING AMERICA’S NATIONAL INTERESTS!
Enough of this whimsical “protecting our freedoms.” From who? The only ones who can take away our freedoms are US. Not the terrorists. Us.
We are not!
Our soldiers are there to further the cause of democracy and to bring freedom to people who have known only oppression. Period!
Every time President Bush or someone in general says “Thanks to the soldiers over in Iraq for preserving our freedoms,” I think “From whom?” Terrorists? No, no, no!
Thank you to the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan for fighting evil, spreading democracy, getting dangerous weapons away from terrorists and their allies, ensuring that the locals are strong enough to deal with their own domestic and foreign threats, and for PROTECTING AMERICA’S NATIONAL INTERESTS!
Enough of this whimsical “protecting our freedoms.” From who? The only ones who can take away our freedoms are US. Not the terrorists. Us.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Hair??!
John Kerry mentioned the Democratic ticket had "better hair." The press is having a hairy about it.
What is going on??! Who cares!
What is going on??! Who cares!
Terrorism & Election Day
It’s been reported today that terrorists are planning major strikes around Election Day in this country to disrupt the democratic process. This one has been coming along for quite a while, ever since al-Qaeda sent Spain packing out of Iraq. The March terrorist attacks on Madrid’s train system caused a pro-Iraq War government to be voted out of office a few days later.
Since Kerry and Bush both talk tough on terrorism, and both are likely to do what they say they will do, it seems likely that al-Qaeda doesn’t care about who wins the election. All they want is the election to be severely disrupted and our government to be thrown into Constitutional crisis.
Go out and vote on Election Day and throw it right back into their faces! If a terrorist attack does happen, DO NOT STAY AWAY FROM THE POLLS!
We must not allow terrorists to disrupt our democracy and our way of life!
Since Kerry and Bush both talk tough on terrorism, and both are likely to do what they say they will do, it seems likely that al-Qaeda doesn’t care about who wins the election. All they want is the election to be severely disrupted and our government to be thrown into Constitutional crisis.
Go out and vote on Election Day and throw it right back into their faces! If a terrorist attack does happen, DO NOT STAY AWAY FROM THE POLLS!
We must not allow terrorists to disrupt our democracy and our way of life!
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Internet Explorer in the Crosshairs
How many critical patches has Microsoft released for their bug-plagued Internet Explorer since 2001? Does anyone really know?
It seems obvious that the more complex the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. Microsoft really needs to simplify its core browser technology and stop relying on third-party applications that are helping to blow gaping holes in Microsoft’s security apparatus.
Why aren’t other browsers having the trouble that Microsoft is having? Is it because hackers are focused on screwing Microsoft and ignoring the others, or is Microsoft doing stuff with their browser that makes it more vulnerable?
I just don’t know.
It seems obvious that the more complex the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. Microsoft really needs to simplify its core browser technology and stop relying on third-party applications that are helping to blow gaping holes in Microsoft’s security apparatus.
Why aren’t other browsers having the trouble that Microsoft is having? Is it because hackers are focused on screwing Microsoft and ignoring the others, or is Microsoft doing stuff with their browser that makes it more vulnerable?
I just don’t know.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Saddam's First Court Appearance
I am no fan of Saddam Hussein (Saddam Insane) but I have to say that I was impressed with his first performance in court. I was also impressed with the performance of the Iraqi judge, who stood up to Saddam and admonished him for calling the Kuwaitis a pack of “dogs” (which is a grave insult in the Arab world, as dogs and animals are considered unclean). Both were impressive in their demeanor, but from a communications standpoint, Saddam’s facial expressions, tone and arm movements were extremely effective in getting his message across. Why are evil leaders such good communicators?
The reactions of the Iraqi people were quite revealing as well. Many eyes were glued on the TV sets in Iraq and other people were listening very closely to their radios. Most of the reactions were anti-Saddam, there were smiles and hope for a better future. Not all Iraqis were pleased to see Saddam in the dock. His supporters blamed the coalition for humbling Saddam and the Iraqi people, but the reactions that I saw on Fox News, CNN, CBS and other networks were decidedly anti-Saddam.
It’s their nation and their prisoner, but I had hoped that the provisional government would merely hold onto Saddam until an elected government comes into power after January. Until that time, (and I remind you that I am no fan of Saddam), this is still an installed government...until there are democratic elections, Saddam IS still the President of Iraq, if only on paper (and thank God for that!).
We invaded Iraq, captured Saddam and made him a prisoner of war. WE did not vote him out of office, we conquered his nation. It should be pointed out that we did not invade Yugoslavia and remove Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes. He lost the election for the Presidency of Serbia, and then refused to give up being President. He was driven out by the Serbian people demonstrating in the streets of Belgrade, was arrested and turned over to the United Nations for trial.
In my opinion, the best thing that could happen would be for the interim Iraqi government to keep Saddam and his associates locked up until after national elections and then have the new representative government take over the prosecution. Saddam had no attorney present at the arraignment and he made the Iraqi judge look really bad by forcing the judge to acknowledge that the court had been created by the occupation forces.
Saddam’s been in jail since December, seven more months behind bars won’t be a big deal. It’s going to take investigators and his own defense team time to get their acts together.
The reactions of the Iraqi people were quite revealing as well. Many eyes were glued on the TV sets in Iraq and other people were listening very closely to their radios. Most of the reactions were anti-Saddam, there were smiles and hope for a better future. Not all Iraqis were pleased to see Saddam in the dock. His supporters blamed the coalition for humbling Saddam and the Iraqi people, but the reactions that I saw on Fox News, CNN, CBS and other networks were decidedly anti-Saddam.
It’s their nation and their prisoner, but I had hoped that the provisional government would merely hold onto Saddam until an elected government comes into power after January. Until that time, (and I remind you that I am no fan of Saddam), this is still an installed government...until there are democratic elections, Saddam IS still the President of Iraq, if only on paper (and thank God for that!).
We invaded Iraq, captured Saddam and made him a prisoner of war. WE did not vote him out of office, we conquered his nation. It should be pointed out that we did not invade Yugoslavia and remove Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes. He lost the election for the Presidency of Serbia, and then refused to give up being President. He was driven out by the Serbian people demonstrating in the streets of Belgrade, was arrested and turned over to the United Nations for trial.
In my opinion, the best thing that could happen would be for the interim Iraqi government to keep Saddam and his associates locked up until after national elections and then have the new representative government take over the prosecution. Saddam had no attorney present at the arraignment and he made the Iraqi judge look really bad by forcing the judge to acknowledge that the court had been created by the occupation forces.
Saddam’s been in jail since December, seven more months behind bars won’t be a big deal. It’s going to take investigators and his own defense team time to get their acts together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)