It was announced the United Kingdom left-leaning Guardian newspaper has abandoned its campaign to influence American voters in Ohio to vote against Bush.
Previously, the Guardian was exhorting its readers to send letters to undecided voters in Clark County, Ohio, to encourage them to vote against Bush. When the British paper realized that the opposite effect was happening, they put an end to their campaign. It turned out that the furious locals began volunteering to help Bush in the battleground state.
Good riddance, Guardian lefties. Don’t let the door hit you in the a$$. I hope the rest of the world observes strict neutrality in American domestic affairs and politics, even as we respect their politics and elections.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Design Flaws Ruled Out in WTC Structural Failures
Design flaws have been ruled out in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.
Some have suggested that lack of fireproofing and lack of strength in the lightweight floors played critical roles in the eventual collapse of both towers after they were rammed by hijacked airliners.
A detailed report that was released yesterday points out that “the twin towers failed because the structural columns at the buildings' core, damaged by the impact of the airliners, buckled and shortened as the fires burned, gradually shifting more load to the tower's trademark exterior pinstripe columns.” Those external columns took most of the weight load of the floors above the impact areas and failed, which caused the structures to fall in on themselves.
In other words, the internal structures holding the buildings up were severed, severely damaged, or melted by the 1,000 to 2,000 degree fires that were raging in the damaged areas of the building. Eventually both buildings began to sag in the damaged areas and the weight was caught by the outside columns. You could almost see it happening when you look at video of the burning buildings.
Some of these columns were damaged by the impact as well, or were damaged also by the unbelievable heat, so failure was only a matter of time. When enough of the columns were weakened, the weight overcame the strength of the columns and the skyscrapers collapsed in a matter of seconds, killing thousands of people who were still inside the burning towers as well as people standing near the buildings who couldn’t escape the huge sections of building that came crashing down on top of them.
Here’s the New York Times story.
I don't know if any lessons can be learned from this or what can be done to strengthen existing skyscrapers against the same kind of thing happening. I don't think armoring new towers will help either. Steel and concrete have been shown to be susceptable to this new kind of terrorism. I can't see making the walls one hundred feet thick either. The weight load would be unbelievable. Could such a structure even be built and not collapse under its own weight? More questions than answers.
Some have suggested that lack of fireproofing and lack of strength in the lightweight floors played critical roles in the eventual collapse of both towers after they were rammed by hijacked airliners.
A detailed report that was released yesterday points out that “the twin towers failed because the structural columns at the buildings' core, damaged by the impact of the airliners, buckled and shortened as the fires burned, gradually shifting more load to the tower's trademark exterior pinstripe columns.” Those external columns took most of the weight load of the floors above the impact areas and failed, which caused the structures to fall in on themselves.
In other words, the internal structures holding the buildings up were severed, severely damaged, or melted by the 1,000 to 2,000 degree fires that were raging in the damaged areas of the building. Eventually both buildings began to sag in the damaged areas and the weight was caught by the outside columns. You could almost see it happening when you look at video of the burning buildings.
Some of these columns were damaged by the impact as well, or were damaged also by the unbelievable heat, so failure was only a matter of time. When enough of the columns were weakened, the weight overcame the strength of the columns and the skyscrapers collapsed in a matter of seconds, killing thousands of people who were still inside the burning towers as well as people standing near the buildings who couldn’t escape the huge sections of building that came crashing down on top of them.
Here’s the New York Times story.
I don't know if any lessons can be learned from this or what can be done to strengthen existing skyscrapers against the same kind of thing happening. I don't think armoring new towers will help either. Steel and concrete have been shown to be susceptable to this new kind of terrorism. I can't see making the walls one hundred feet thick either. The weight load would be unbelievable. Could such a structure even be built and not collapse under its own weight? More questions than answers.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
UK Guardian Newspaper Sends Anti-Bush Letters to Ohio Voters
The Guardian newspaper out of the United Kingdom sent anti-Bush letters across the Atlantic to Ohio after acquiring lists of unregistered voters in the battleground state.
Kerry campaign officials were quick to express horror at what has happened.
The news media in this country have begun to tear into the left-leaning Guardian for attempting to influence American voters. Fox News in particular has been very harsh in its coverage of the incident.
In the meantime, the Guardian has stood its ground in its blatant cross-Atlantic attempts to influence American voters to pick the British left’s choice for U.S. President.
Isn’t this kind of thing illegal in the U.S.?
This is what I was afraid of when other nations began to weigh in on our elections. Now we’ve got liberals from other countries sticking their noses in where they’re not wanted.
We don’t need input from overseas, thank you very much. I would suggest that the Guardian get its own house into order before it goes making suggestions on how to run ours.
Kerry campaign officials were quick to express horror at what has happened.
The news media in this country have begun to tear into the left-leaning Guardian for attempting to influence American voters. Fox News in particular has been very harsh in its coverage of the incident.
In the meantime, the Guardian has stood its ground in its blatant cross-Atlantic attempts to influence American voters to pick the British left’s choice for U.S. President.
Isn’t this kind of thing illegal in the U.S.?
This is what I was afraid of when other nations began to weigh in on our elections. Now we’ve got liberals from other countries sticking their noses in where they’re not wanted.
We don’t need input from overseas, thank you very much. I would suggest that the Guardian get its own house into order before it goes making suggestions on how to run ours.
Monday, October 18, 2004
International Leaders Begin to Weigh in on American Elections
The leaders of Russia and Malaysia have urged American voters to vote for Bush on terrorism issues.
While I do not totally disagree with their sentiment, I do disagree with them taking a side in an American election.
Nations need maintain their neutrality in the American political process, even as America maintains neutrality in their political campaigns. This is how it has always been.
This is a continuation of my condemning international polls that show that the rest of the world favors one candidate over another. We don’t care what the rest of the world thinks of our candidates since they are not electing the American President. The American people are.
This could open the floodgates for world leaders to publicly weigh in, which I would take as an attack on our right to choose our own leaders without being influenced by foreign interests.
So I would hope that other nations would remain silent, or if asked by the media, use appropriate diplomatic language that says that they are neutral in American politics.
While I do not totally disagree with their sentiment, I do disagree with them taking a side in an American election.
Nations need maintain their neutrality in the American political process, even as America maintains neutrality in their political campaigns. This is how it has always been.
This is a continuation of my condemning international polls that show that the rest of the world favors one candidate over another. We don’t care what the rest of the world thinks of our candidates since they are not electing the American President. The American people are.
This could open the floodgates for world leaders to publicly weigh in, which I would take as an attack on our right to choose our own leaders without being influenced by foreign interests.
So I would hope that other nations would remain silent, or if asked by the media, use appropriate diplomatic language that says that they are neutral in American politics.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Flu Vaccine Shortage: Solution Needed
The flu vaccine problem in this country needs to be handled differently.
I’m no expert on vaccinations, but there really should be a different way of getting the vaccine into the hands of people that need it the most. There is no reason for a 76-year old grandma or grandpa (lugging around an oxygen tank or standing there on a walker) to stand in line for six friggin’ hours to get a shot and then to get turned away because they run out of doses.
The report that an elderly lady died waiting for a shot really struck a nerve with me.
She apparently fainted from exhaustion, hit her head and died from her injuries.
Can’t the flu vaccine be administered orally and be sold at the local pharmacy, or supermarket, or wherever, and let people buy the damned things on their own time along with their groceries or other pills?
There has to be an easier way to do this.
Kerry and Bush are blaming one another for the shortage. They ought to shut up and fix the problem!
I’m no expert on vaccinations, but there really should be a different way of getting the vaccine into the hands of people that need it the most. There is no reason for a 76-year old grandma or grandpa (lugging around an oxygen tank or standing there on a walker) to stand in line for six friggin’ hours to get a shot and then to get turned away because they run out of doses.
The report that an elderly lady died waiting for a shot really struck a nerve with me.
She apparently fainted from exhaustion, hit her head and died from her injuries.
Can’t the flu vaccine be administered orally and be sold at the local pharmacy, or supermarket, or wherever, and let people buy the damned things on their own time along with their groceries or other pills?
There has to be an easier way to do this.
Kerry and Bush are blaming one another for the shortage. They ought to shut up and fix the problem!
Army Investigating Mutiny of Reserve Unit in Iraq
Part of an Army Reserve platoon apparently disobeyed an order to deliver fuel and supplies to a base and have been placed under house arrest.
They felt that the mission was too dangerous to undertake and refused to carry out the order. Other soldiers from their unit carried out the order without incident.
The Army is conducting an investigation. But one thing is certain: they will probably face court-marital proceedings for disobeying an order.
For those of us who do not understand what size a platoon is, here is how the army is organized and who commands each:
Squad: 4-10 soldiers—Staff Sgt.
Platoon: 3-4 squads (16-40 soldiers)-Lieutenant
Company: 3-4 platoons (100-200 soldiers)-Captain
Battalion: 3-5 Companies (500-900 soldiers)—Lt. Colonel
Brigade: 3 or more battalions (3,000-5,000 soldiers)--Colonel
Division: 3 brigades (10,000-18,000 soldiers)—Major General
Corps: 2-5 Divisions (36,000-90,000 soldiers)—Lt. General
Field Army: 2-5 corps (54,000-450,000 soldiers)—General
These figures are approximate given the size and strength of each individual unit.
Approximately 17 soldiers are being held for questioning.
Before we condemn or support the actions of the soldiers involved in this apparent mutiny, we have to understand something…99.99999% of us weren’t there, so we don’t know if their refusing to obey a lawful order was justified or not.
Let’s give the Army time to sort this out.
They felt that the mission was too dangerous to undertake and refused to carry out the order. Other soldiers from their unit carried out the order without incident.
The Army is conducting an investigation. But one thing is certain: they will probably face court-marital proceedings for disobeying an order.
For those of us who do not understand what size a platoon is, here is how the army is organized and who commands each:
Squad: 4-10 soldiers—Staff Sgt.
Platoon: 3-4 squads (16-40 soldiers)-Lieutenant
Company: 3-4 platoons (100-200 soldiers)-Captain
Battalion: 3-5 Companies (500-900 soldiers)—Lt. Colonel
Brigade: 3 or more battalions (3,000-5,000 soldiers)--Colonel
Division: 3 brigades (10,000-18,000 soldiers)—Major General
Corps: 2-5 Divisions (36,000-90,000 soldiers)—Lt. General
Field Army: 2-5 corps (54,000-450,000 soldiers)—General
These figures are approximate given the size and strength of each individual unit.
Approximately 17 soldiers are being held for questioning.
Before we condemn or support the actions of the soldiers involved in this apparent mutiny, we have to understand something…99.99999% of us weren’t there, so we don’t know if their refusing to obey a lawful order was justified or not.
Let’s give the Army time to sort this out.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Bush & Kerry Campaigns Leave Unpaid Bills Behind
One of the unfortunate consequences of a Presidential campaign coming to town is the bill that is left behind for the locals to deal with.
Under current campaign finance law, the local governments are able to get reimbursed for expenses incurred when a Presidential candidate comes for a visit. The exception is that the locality cannot be reimbursed for security expenses.
Excuse me, but security arrangements are often the biggest expense that there is. Many cities in battleground states are tired of the frequent visits and the ever-larger bill that they will have to deal with.
Here’s a rundown of some of the security tabs that some Midwestern city governments are dealing with:
Cleveland, Ohio: $270,000
Dubuque, Iowa: $36,800
York, Pennsylvania: $21,000
Cloquet, Minnesota: $10,000 (for a 45-minute visit from one of the candidates!)
Davenport, Iowa: $23,000
Akron, Ohio: $21,000
Traverse City, Michigan: $20,000
Grand Rapids, Michigan: $80,000
It is estimated that both campaigns have or will incur a total of $450,000 in unpaid-for security expenses across Michigan.
Michigan communities are making budget cuts to balance their budgets, laying off firemen and police officers, while Bush and Kerry are running up a tab for THEIR campaigns!
Thanks but no thanks.
The law needs to be changed so that towns that play host to national candidates are reimbursed for all of the overtime and security expenses. Or each candidate needs to budget at least $25 million to fully reimburse every community that they visit.
This is ridiculous!
Under current campaign finance law, the local governments are able to get reimbursed for expenses incurred when a Presidential candidate comes for a visit. The exception is that the locality cannot be reimbursed for security expenses.
Excuse me, but security arrangements are often the biggest expense that there is. Many cities in battleground states are tired of the frequent visits and the ever-larger bill that they will have to deal with.
Here’s a rundown of some of the security tabs that some Midwestern city governments are dealing with:
Cleveland, Ohio: $270,000
Dubuque, Iowa: $36,800
York, Pennsylvania: $21,000
Cloquet, Minnesota: $10,000 (for a 45-minute visit from one of the candidates!)
Davenport, Iowa: $23,000
Akron, Ohio: $21,000
Traverse City, Michigan: $20,000
Grand Rapids, Michigan: $80,000
It is estimated that both campaigns have or will incur a total of $450,000 in unpaid-for security expenses across Michigan.
Michigan communities are making budget cuts to balance their budgets, laying off firemen and police officers, while Bush and Kerry are running up a tab for THEIR campaigns!
Thanks but no thanks.
The law needs to be changed so that towns that play host to national candidates are reimbursed for all of the overtime and security expenses. Or each candidate needs to budget at least $25 million to fully reimburse every community that they visit.
This is ridiculous!
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Human Rights: International Setback
Recently a news story broke in the media about a U.S. intelligence unit that is interrogating high-value al-Qaeda leaders at a special Jordanian prison.
The reason that they’re in Jordan is because United States legal protections do not apply to prisoners that are being held by other countries, and Jordan permits torture and other human rights violations on prisoners. It has been shown in recent months that the government is willing to torture enemy prisoners to get information and so you can guess what these intelligence agents are doing in Jordan.
I’m not pleased with this development. The cause of human rights has taken several major body blows in the last couple of years. One of the major parties responsible for this is the United States government. In its pursuit of terrorists, it has disregarded the rule of law to get what it wants from enemy prisoners, and has been reckless in its treatment of civilians in occupied zones.
Our intelligence services need to be bound to observe United States law, whether they are in the United States or in other countries. An unknown number of enemy prisoners have died while in captivity; some have died during interrogation. What caused their deaths during the interrogations? Drugs? Beatings? Other inhumane torture methods? Natural causes?
In addition, we are still holding al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners in Cuba. The methods used there to get information have been called into question in recent months. We already know about the sex abuse scandals in Iraqi prisons. We also know that there are still Americans who are being held on terror-related charges but have been left to languish in prison with no attorney, no trial and no recourse. This is wrong.
This is not the United States legal system at its finest hour.
The United States no longer has the right to criticize the human rights abuses of other nations. This is a sad moment in our history. Until the U.S. straightens up its act and gets with the program of advancing the cause of human rights in its relations with other nations and brings those who are responsible for the violations to justice, it can no longer call itself a champion of human rights.
This country was founded on principals of liberty and justice for all, not liberty and justice for some. Our government needs to do much better. By all means, bring these individuals into courtrooms and charge them with specific crimes, but do not leave them in darkened rooms, outside of the legal system, with nothing but beatings and interrogations to look forward to. This is so wrong.
The reason that they’re in Jordan is because United States legal protections do not apply to prisoners that are being held by other countries, and Jordan permits torture and other human rights violations on prisoners. It has been shown in recent months that the government is willing to torture enemy prisoners to get information and so you can guess what these intelligence agents are doing in Jordan.
I’m not pleased with this development. The cause of human rights has taken several major body blows in the last couple of years. One of the major parties responsible for this is the United States government. In its pursuit of terrorists, it has disregarded the rule of law to get what it wants from enemy prisoners, and has been reckless in its treatment of civilians in occupied zones.
Our intelligence services need to be bound to observe United States law, whether they are in the United States or in other countries. An unknown number of enemy prisoners have died while in captivity; some have died during interrogation. What caused their deaths during the interrogations? Drugs? Beatings? Other inhumane torture methods? Natural causes?
In addition, we are still holding al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners in Cuba. The methods used there to get information have been called into question in recent months. We already know about the sex abuse scandals in Iraqi prisons. We also know that there are still Americans who are being held on terror-related charges but have been left to languish in prison with no attorney, no trial and no recourse. This is wrong.
This is not the United States legal system at its finest hour.
The United States no longer has the right to criticize the human rights abuses of other nations. This is a sad moment in our history. Until the U.S. straightens up its act and gets with the program of advancing the cause of human rights in its relations with other nations and brings those who are responsible for the violations to justice, it can no longer call itself a champion of human rights.
This country was founded on principals of liberty and justice for all, not liberty and justice for some. Our government needs to do much better. By all means, bring these individuals into courtrooms and charge them with specific crimes, but do not leave them in darkened rooms, outside of the legal system, with nothing but beatings and interrogations to look forward to. This is so wrong.
Final Bush-Kerry Debate: Surprise Victory for Bush
Tonight’s debate was a clear victory for Bush. I was very surprised that he did as well as he did. I was equally surprised by Kerry’s lackluster performance tonight. Kerry looked worn out and came out on the short end of the stick. Bush stayed on the attack while Kerry was on the defensive for most of the debate.
Some talking points:
Kerry insisted 1.6 million jobs have been lost under Bush. The number is closer to ½ that.
Bush insisted that 75% of al-Qaeda’s leadership has been eliminated. I’m sure the terrorists have found others to replace the pre-9/11 leadership.
In my opinion, Kerry made a tactical error in bringing up Cheney’s daughter. Kerry stuffed words into her mouth. He’ll probably end up apologizing to her tomorrow, both in public and in private. She’s a private citizen, not a political figure.
He also screwed up when he said that Bush had never met with the Congressional Black Caucus. Bush met with them a little more than two weeks after he was inaugurated (January 31, 2001) and during the crisis in Haiti (February 25, 2004).
Bush and Kerry both promised to cut the deficit in half in the next term. Nope. Can’t happen. If they disbanded the military, laid off 98% of the government, ended Social Security and did a whole bunch of other nasty things, they MIGHT cut the deficit by 2009 as both have promised.
Kerry seems to be faltering. Bush got stronger and stronger as the debate went on. Bush's best effort yet.
Reviewing my predictions: I had predicted a Kerry victory in the first debate, a Bush win on the second one, and a draw on the third one. I was correct about the first debate, the second debate was a draw and the third one turned out to be a Bush win. I didn't see that one coming.
Twenty days to go before the election. We'll see what happens next.
Some talking points:
Kerry insisted 1.6 million jobs have been lost under Bush. The number is closer to ½ that.
Bush insisted that 75% of al-Qaeda’s leadership has been eliminated. I’m sure the terrorists have found others to replace the pre-9/11 leadership.
In my opinion, Kerry made a tactical error in bringing up Cheney’s daughter. Kerry stuffed words into her mouth. He’ll probably end up apologizing to her tomorrow, both in public and in private. She’s a private citizen, not a political figure.
He also screwed up when he said that Bush had never met with the Congressional Black Caucus. Bush met with them a little more than two weeks after he was inaugurated (January 31, 2001) and during the crisis in Haiti (February 25, 2004).
Bush and Kerry both promised to cut the deficit in half in the next term. Nope. Can’t happen. If they disbanded the military, laid off 98% of the government, ended Social Security and did a whole bunch of other nasty things, they MIGHT cut the deficit by 2009 as both have promised.
Kerry seems to be faltering. Bush got stronger and stronger as the debate went on. Bush's best effort yet.
Reviewing my predictions: I had predicted a Kerry victory in the first debate, a Bush win on the second one, and a draw on the third one. I was correct about the first debate, the second debate was a draw and the third one turned out to be a Bush win. I didn't see that one coming.
Twenty days to go before the election. We'll see what happens next.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Let "Stolen Honor" Run on TV
So, let me get this straight.
The Bush haters had no objections to the Michael-Moore/anti-Bush "Fahrenheit 9/11" movie, and the CBS fraud on Bush, but OBJECT to "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" being shown on TV.
What kind of double standard is this?
There ought to be equal time for so-called "documentaries" on both candidates. It seems to me that Michael Moore started a food fight, and now the DNC doesn't want to get hit by food that is being caught and thrown back. Someone once told me never to start a fight unless I was prepared to take major damage in return. The Moore crowd and the DNC is coming across as having thrown a vicious punch and now are begging Bush supporters not hit back and begging the referee to stop the recovering Bush from hurting them back.
Moore made well over $100 million with his movie. The people who created "Stolen Honor" won't make a fraction of that amount. The Bush haters cheered the inaccuracies in Moore's movie, but won't tolerate the same thing in return on Kerry?
Unbelievable hypocrisy.
The Bush haters had no objections to the Michael-Moore/anti-Bush "Fahrenheit 9/11" movie, and the CBS fraud on Bush, but OBJECT to "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" being shown on TV.
What kind of double standard is this?
There ought to be equal time for so-called "documentaries" on both candidates. It seems to me that Michael Moore started a food fight, and now the DNC doesn't want to get hit by food that is being caught and thrown back. Someone once told me never to start a fight unless I was prepared to take major damage in return. The Moore crowd and the DNC is coming across as having thrown a vicious punch and now are begging Bush supporters not hit back and begging the referee to stop the recovering Bush from hurting them back.
Moore made well over $100 million with his movie. The people who created "Stolen Honor" won't make a fraction of that amount. The Bush haters cheered the inaccuracies in Moore's movie, but won't tolerate the same thing in return on Kerry?
Unbelievable hypocrisy.
Edwards Politicizes Reeve's Death
John Edwards' turning the death of actor-turned-activist Christopher Reeve into a political speech to rah-rah John Kerry is sickening and could backfire.
It’s just like the Democrats turning the memorial service for Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota into a political rally. The Democrats paid dearly for their campaigning at Senator Wellstone’s funeral. A furious then-Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura stormed out of the service and chose an independent to take Wellstone’s seat for the remainder of the term, and the Democrats lost in national elections that they were expected to win eleven days later. The Republicans captured control in the Senate and widened their lead in the House. The liberal Democrats were moaning for months afterwards. Oh, and they lost Wellstone’s seat in the election too, in spite of popular liberal Democrat Walter Mondale taking Wellstone's place in the campaign.
Edwards' making wild promises that defy logic and science could cost the Kerry ticket dearly as well. The solution to spinal cord injuries is not four years, or eight years away. It’s decades away; for all the research that has been done so far, the kind of research that could have helped or cured Christopher Reeve is still in its infancy.
This is the worst kind of politics that there is, and I thought that John Edwards would be above that kind of politicking. Revolting!
Opportunistic politician.
It’s just like the Democrats turning the memorial service for Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota into a political rally. The Democrats paid dearly for their campaigning at Senator Wellstone’s funeral. A furious then-Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura stormed out of the service and chose an independent to take Wellstone’s seat for the remainder of the term, and the Democrats lost in national elections that they were expected to win eleven days later. The Republicans captured control in the Senate and widened their lead in the House. The liberal Democrats were moaning for months afterwards. Oh, and they lost Wellstone’s seat in the election too, in spite of popular liberal Democrat Walter Mondale taking Wellstone's place in the campaign.
Edwards' making wild promises that defy logic and science could cost the Kerry ticket dearly as well. The solution to spinal cord injuries is not four years, or eight years away. It’s decades away; for all the research that has been done so far, the kind of research that could have helped or cured Christopher Reeve is still in its infancy.
This is the worst kind of politics that there is, and I thought that John Edwards would be above that kind of politicking. Revolting!
Opportunistic politician.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Goodbye, Christopher Reeve
I was saddened to learn of the death of actor Christopher Reed this morning.
He was an example of someone who overcame tremendous odds and confronted his physical disability with a great deal of courage and determination. He was a living, breathing embodiment of a real-life “Superman.”
He went into cardiac arrest and died following a short hospitalization for treatment of a pressure wound, which is a common injury for those who are paralyzed.
I remember when his near-fatal horse accident happened in 1995, and the appearances that he made after his recovery had begun. He gave hope to many who have similar kinds of injuries and their families by becoming an activist for spinal cord research, and lived his life as an example for others to follow.
My favorite quote from him was this: “America is better when all of us take care of all of us.” Words to live by.
Farewell, Superman. You will be missed.
He was an example of someone who overcame tremendous odds and confronted his physical disability with a great deal of courage and determination. He was a living, breathing embodiment of a real-life “Superman.”
He went into cardiac arrest and died following a short hospitalization for treatment of a pressure wound, which is a common injury for those who are paralyzed.
I remember when his near-fatal horse accident happened in 1995, and the appearances that he made after his recovery had begun. He gave hope to many who have similar kinds of injuries and their families by becoming an activist for spinal cord research, and lived his life as an example for others to follow.
My favorite quote from him was this: “America is better when all of us take care of all of us.” Words to live by.
Farewell, Superman. You will be missed.
Global Warming Spike, Political Move, or Data Error?
A British newspaper is reporting that CO2 emissions have risen sharply over the last two years and that a global breakdown of the Earth’s ability to absorb carbon may be occurring.
I do not know the science behind it, but I do understand the politics of it. It is funny that this report is issued the day before the global warming disaster movie “Day After Tomorrow” is released on video and DVD.
To some, this will come across as a publicity stunt, while others will take it seriously, while yet others will scratch their head and wonder what is really going on.
Here’s my take on it: I’m suspicious about the timing of this news story and something else: why did they put a CO2 sensor on top of a volcano in Hawaii? Of course there will be more CO2 there. This entire report is based on some sensor readings from Mauna Loa and I think it’s borderline fraud to use data from there. If a volcano enters an active phase, it will give off CO2 emissions. The Rim of Fire is entering an active phase for some reason, and many volcanoes that have lain dormant for years are all of a sudden coming back to life.
Here’s the report. Take it as you will.
I do not know the science behind it, but I do understand the politics of it. It is funny that this report is issued the day before the global warming disaster movie “Day After Tomorrow” is released on video and DVD.
To some, this will come across as a publicity stunt, while others will take it seriously, while yet others will scratch their head and wonder what is really going on.
Here’s my take on it: I’m suspicious about the timing of this news story and something else: why did they put a CO2 sensor on top of a volcano in Hawaii? Of course there will be more CO2 there. This entire report is based on some sensor readings from Mauna Loa and I think it’s borderline fraud to use data from there. If a volcano enters an active phase, it will give off CO2 emissions. The Rim of Fire is entering an active phase for some reason, and many volcanoes that have lain dormant for years are all of a sudden coming back to life.
Here’s the report. Take it as you will.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Election Timeframe Change Needed
There must be major changes to the way that elections are held.
The states need to change their primary election dates so that they are in May through mid-July with both parties having their conventions in the late July/early August timeframe. This leaves the candidates who remain plenty of time to get to work and campaign for the general election in November.
The states are responsible for this very long campaign by scheduling their primaries earlier and earlier. It's ridiculous! Who wants a campaign for eight months? I am so sick and tired of the endless inaccurate polls, the nastiness of the two candidates, the nonsense, and the endless prattle of TV analysts who make predictions that are way off.
We're waiting...and waiting...and waiting...for the election in November so that this ENDS!
Enough, already!
The states need to change their primary election dates so that they are in May through mid-July with both parties having their conventions in the late July/early August timeframe. This leaves the candidates who remain plenty of time to get to work and campaign for the general election in November.
The states are responsible for this very long campaign by scheduling their primaries earlier and earlier. It's ridiculous! Who wants a campaign for eight months? I am so sick and tired of the endless inaccurate polls, the nastiness of the two candidates, the nonsense, and the endless prattle of TV analysts who make predictions that are way off.
We're waiting...and waiting...and waiting...for the election in November so that this ENDS!
Enough, already!
Friday, October 08, 2004
Is Bush the Worst President in American History?
An opinion column in today's Los Angeles Times has declared that George W. Bush is the worst President in American history. Columnist Jonathan Chait wrote in part:
“I used to think U.S. history had many bad presidents. Now, my 'bad' category consists entirely of George W. Bush, with every previous president redefined as 'good.'
"There's also the fact that, on a personal level, I despise him with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. What I'm saying is, advocating Bush is kind of tricky." But "what I'll argue instead is that his very awfulness is the reason he deserves reelection. Begin with the premise that a second-term Bush administration is unlikely to make things a whole lot worse." Bush's presidency "is a great mass of contradictions. There's an enormous gap between his purported values - fiscal discipline, toughness against terrorists, a commitment to social conservatism - and his true record.
"Sure, it would be emotionally satisfying to see Bush rejected by the voters once again. But maybe, for this president, defeat is too kind a fate."
-------------------------------------
My, my, my. Such rage.
So let me get this straight…this character is willing to put aside old liberal arguments against other Presidents to denounce the current President? What about George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison and John Tyler, who presided over wholesale slaughters of Native American tribes? By their own arguments, liberals have pushed new interpretations of history into the schools that say these men allowed genocide against a race of human beings to occur. So, by liberal standards…Bush is worse than them? For the record, George Washington was a great President, and I wouldn't compare "W" to George Washington at all.
Let’s look at some other Presidents: James Polk, William McKinley, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and George H.W. Bush engaged in wars of aggression against weaker opponents. Kennedy’s and Johnson’s Administrations got us heavily involved in Vietnam, a war that cost 58,000+ American lives. Bush is worse than that?
Remember the Gulf of Tonkin lie that Johnson used to escalate the war in Vietnam, which led to tens of thousands of American deaths and millions of Vietnamese deaths? Bush is worse than that?
I think this joker needs to read some more books, and not liberal history books, which are subject to the whim of popular opinion. From how he describes his hatred of Bush, it sounds like he has some anger management problems, so he should take a pill, or do whatever to control himself.
“I used to think U.S. history had many bad presidents. Now, my 'bad' category consists entirely of George W. Bush, with every previous president redefined as 'good.'
"There's also the fact that, on a personal level, I despise him with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. What I'm saying is, advocating Bush is kind of tricky." But "what I'll argue instead is that his very awfulness is the reason he deserves reelection. Begin with the premise that a second-term Bush administration is unlikely to make things a whole lot worse." Bush's presidency "is a great mass of contradictions. There's an enormous gap between his purported values - fiscal discipline, toughness against terrorists, a commitment to social conservatism - and his true record.
"Sure, it would be emotionally satisfying to see Bush rejected by the voters once again. But maybe, for this president, defeat is too kind a fate."
-------------------------------------
My, my, my. Such rage.
So let me get this straight…this character is willing to put aside old liberal arguments against other Presidents to denounce the current President? What about George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison and John Tyler, who presided over wholesale slaughters of Native American tribes? By their own arguments, liberals have pushed new interpretations of history into the schools that say these men allowed genocide against a race of human beings to occur. So, by liberal standards…Bush is worse than them? For the record, George Washington was a great President, and I wouldn't compare "W" to George Washington at all.
Let’s look at some other Presidents: James Polk, William McKinley, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and George H.W. Bush engaged in wars of aggression against weaker opponents. Kennedy’s and Johnson’s Administrations got us heavily involved in Vietnam, a war that cost 58,000+ American lives. Bush is worse than that?
Remember the Gulf of Tonkin lie that Johnson used to escalate the war in Vietnam, which led to tens of thousands of American deaths and millions of Vietnamese deaths? Bush is worse than that?
I think this joker needs to read some more books, and not liberal history books, which are subject to the whim of popular opinion. From how he describes his hatred of Bush, it sounds like he has some anger management problems, so he should take a pill, or do whatever to control himself.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
A More Sensitive War? Yeah, Right!
To the Israeli people and members of the Jewish faith, the words "never again" have special meaning. They were, of course, talking about the Holocaust that the Nazis carried out on European Jews and other enemies of the Nazi regime.
I know I feel the same way about those two words when I think about people throwing themselves out of skyscrapers to escape the 2,000 degree heat as the World Trade Center burned. I think about the firefighters and police officers and first responders who were vaporized as the towers fell. I think about all the first responders who were crushed underneath the collapsing towers. I think about Todd Beamer and the other passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 who fought to retake their hijacked airliner from terrorists who had killed the pilots and were steering the plane toward their target. I think about the 3,000 lives that were lost that day. And all of the kids that lost family members...
Never again. Not like that.
One of the candidates wants to sit around and wait for another terrorist threat to materialize. We need a wartime president who will kick the enemy in the ass HARD, not sit around and wait for them to hit us first!
The sitting President will do a better job with the war on terror.
Fight a more sensitive war? Against a merciless enemy who did all of those things on 9/11?
If you believe that kind of hooey, then I've got some land in Fallujah that I'd like to show you.
I know I feel the same way about those two words when I think about people throwing themselves out of skyscrapers to escape the 2,000 degree heat as the World Trade Center burned. I think about the firefighters and police officers and first responders who were vaporized as the towers fell. I think about all the first responders who were crushed underneath the collapsing towers. I think about Todd Beamer and the other passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 who fought to retake their hijacked airliner from terrorists who had killed the pilots and were steering the plane toward their target. I think about the 3,000 lives that were lost that day. And all of the kids that lost family members...
Never again. Not like that.
One of the candidates wants to sit around and wait for another terrorist threat to materialize. We need a wartime president who will kick the enemy in the ass HARD, not sit around and wait for them to hit us first!
The sitting President will do a better job with the war on terror.
Fight a more sensitive war? Against a merciless enemy who did all of those things on 9/11?
If you believe that kind of hooey, then I've got some land in Fallujah that I'd like to show you.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Does The U.S. Military Need More Soldiers?
One of the interesting debates going on between George Bush and John Kerry is whether to increase or decrease the size of the military. I have a few things to say about that.
Kerry’s argument is that the military is overstretched and we need two more divisions. He also wants to double the number of Special Forces.
Bush’s argument is that those extra soldiers are unnecessary and is pulling two heavy divisions out of Europe and thousands of soldiers out of Asia, including South Korea. The brigades that will be taking the places of the 1st Armored Division and the 1st Infantry Division will be smaller units with the new Stryker fast assault vehicles and air support to move them around the world in short amounts of time.
I have to disagree with both of them.
North Korea is crazy enough to start a war and not worry about the consequences. If they think they can win, or win by bluffing, they will invade South Korea with their million-man army, or launch missiles at Japan. Whether this huge force can be put into the field at the same time is questionable, but if they think they can win concessions from the United States, they'll do their best to make trouble.
We also need more troops on the ground to secure Iraq and Afghanistan; now is not the time to be reducing the size of the military. We still need large divisions and massive firepower to secure the peace.
With respect to Kerry's and Bush's plans for the military and North Korea's ambitions, it's a proven fact that armored forces with infantry and air support (or vice versa) will stop the enemy faster than sniper, sapper and demolition operations can. Special Forces belong behind enemy lines wreaking havoc.
Changing the basic structure of the the military is a very unwise move. I'm not sure I follow Bush's logic in doing this. With most of the U.S. Army on the move to or from Iraq (nine out of ten divisions), we need the extra strength to fulfill our treaty obligations, complete our current campaigns and have a fresh military force that is ready to strike terrorists worldwide.
Let's do the job right so we can accomplish ALL of the missions that we have (foolishly at times) taken on and have enough military power in reserve to deal with new threats.
My advice would be to add four more heavy divisions and the mobile brigades, plus triple the number of Special Forces soldiers.
Kerry’s argument is that the military is overstretched and we need two more divisions. He also wants to double the number of Special Forces.
Bush’s argument is that those extra soldiers are unnecessary and is pulling two heavy divisions out of Europe and thousands of soldiers out of Asia, including South Korea. The brigades that will be taking the places of the 1st Armored Division and the 1st Infantry Division will be smaller units with the new Stryker fast assault vehicles and air support to move them around the world in short amounts of time.
I have to disagree with both of them.
North Korea is crazy enough to start a war and not worry about the consequences. If they think they can win, or win by bluffing, they will invade South Korea with their million-man army, or launch missiles at Japan. Whether this huge force can be put into the field at the same time is questionable, but if they think they can win concessions from the United States, they'll do their best to make trouble.
We also need more troops on the ground to secure Iraq and Afghanistan; now is not the time to be reducing the size of the military. We still need large divisions and massive firepower to secure the peace.
With respect to Kerry's and Bush's plans for the military and North Korea's ambitions, it's a proven fact that armored forces with infantry and air support (or vice versa) will stop the enemy faster than sniper, sapper and demolition operations can. Special Forces belong behind enemy lines wreaking havoc.
Changing the basic structure of the the military is a very unwise move. I'm not sure I follow Bush's logic in doing this. With most of the U.S. Army on the move to or from Iraq (nine out of ten divisions), we need the extra strength to fulfill our treaty obligations, complete our current campaigns and have a fresh military force that is ready to strike terrorists worldwide.
Let's do the job right so we can accomplish ALL of the missions that we have (foolishly at times) taken on and have enough military power in reserve to deal with new threats.
My advice would be to add four more heavy divisions and the mobile brigades, plus triple the number of Special Forces soldiers.
Cheney vs. Edwards: VP Candidates Debate
The Vice-Presidential debate between Vice-President Cheney and Senator Edwards was excellent, with both men scoring critically needed points on one another.
I gave the edge to Cheney on foreign policy and the overall debate, while Edwards did better in domestic issues. The debate did get heated in some spots, and Cheney was able to get Kerry’s voting record back on the table. Since people still do not know who John Kerry is, they have to look at how the senator voted on various issues over the last twenty years to determine where he stands on issues and what is important to Kerry.
The picture there is confusing at best. Kerry knows this, and that's why his campaign is telling voters not to look to the past, but to the future.
I also saw no signs of cheating, which is very good news. Both stretched the truth as only politicians can, and now the various news web sites and networks are analyzing both candidates' statements for accuracy. But they were both on even ground, and the rules were enforced by the moderator.
It was obvious that Edwards was on Cheney’s ground and was uncomfortable with it. I liked Edwards during the Democratic primary because he was always more positive than the other candidates (I preferred Joe Lieberman on the Democratic side). But last night he had to fight Cheney in a negative way, and he didn’t do as well as he would have if his orders weren’t to “get Cheney” or “hold Cheney accountable,” as the political banners on CNN’s web site are loudly proclaiming this morning. Journalistic integrity on display at cnn.com?
Now, about the morning-after polls: my advice would to be to ignore the polls that are coming out. They can manipulate the data by interviewing more Democrats or Republicans to get the result that they want to see and by interviewing fewer undecided voters. That’s why so many polls have had different results. It all depends on who they are polling, not what they are polling about.
I gave the edge to Cheney on foreign policy and the overall debate, while Edwards did better in domestic issues. The debate did get heated in some spots, and Cheney was able to get Kerry’s voting record back on the table. Since people still do not know who John Kerry is, they have to look at how the senator voted on various issues over the last twenty years to determine where he stands on issues and what is important to Kerry.
The picture there is confusing at best. Kerry knows this, and that's why his campaign is telling voters not to look to the past, but to the future.
I also saw no signs of cheating, which is very good news. Both stretched the truth as only politicians can, and now the various news web sites and networks are analyzing both candidates' statements for accuracy. But they were both on even ground, and the rules were enforced by the moderator.
It was obvious that Edwards was on Cheney’s ground and was uncomfortable with it. I liked Edwards during the Democratic primary because he was always more positive than the other candidates (I preferred Joe Lieberman on the Democratic side). But last night he had to fight Cheney in a negative way, and he didn’t do as well as he would have if his orders weren’t to “get Cheney” or “hold Cheney accountable,” as the political banners on CNN’s web site are loudly proclaiming this morning. Journalistic integrity on display at cnn.com?
Now, about the morning-after polls: my advice would to be to ignore the polls that are coming out. They can manipulate the data by interviewing more Democrats or Republicans to get the result that they want to see and by interviewing fewer undecided voters. That’s why so many polls have had different results. It all depends on who they are polling, not what they are polling about.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Polish President Responds to Kerry's Snub
The President of Poland shot back at Kerry's ignoring his country's contribution (and war dead) in the Iraq War during the debate.
Said President Kwasniewski: "It is sad that a senator with 20 years of experience does not recognize Polish contribution. This is immoral.....There is one thing which should be stated clearly: this coalition is not just the United States, Great Britain, Australia alone; it also involves participation of Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Spanish soldiers who have died. It is immoral not to recognize the involvement we contributed based on our conviction that there should be unity in fighting terrorism, that there was a need to display international solidarity and that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous individual of this world."
The Polish President was unhappy that Kerry disrespected the coalition and ignored the fact that few countries can match our military strength or contributions to the Iraq situation. Why Kerry chose that tactic during the debate defies belief, and undermined a possible Kerry Administration. It wouldn't surprise me if those countries that he insulted went flying out of Iraq en masse if he won the election and took office in January.
He's got some explaining to do to the coalition.
Said President Kwasniewski: "It is sad that a senator with 20 years of experience does not recognize Polish contribution. This is immoral.....There is one thing which should be stated clearly: this coalition is not just the United States, Great Britain, Australia alone; it also involves participation of Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Spanish soldiers who have died. It is immoral not to recognize the involvement we contributed based on our conviction that there should be unity in fighting terrorism, that there was a need to display international solidarity and that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous individual of this world."
The Polish President was unhappy that Kerry disrespected the coalition and ignored the fact that few countries can match our military strength or contributions to the Iraq situation. Why Kerry chose that tactic during the debate defies belief, and undermined a possible Kerry Administration. It wouldn't surprise me if those countries that he insulted went flying out of Iraq en masse if he won the election and took office in January.
He's got some explaining to do to the coalition.
Monday, October 04, 2004
News Organizations Screwing Up
CBS News, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal have all made blunders recently that call into question their editorial command-and-control systems.
CBS News, which aired falsified documents on their 60 Minutes program, is again being accused of a similar situation, this time involving a woman who is “petrified” that her sons may be drafted. CBS omitted the fact that the woman in question is the head of a liberal group called the “Parents Against the Draft”, that the Selective Service debunked any talk of a draft, and that a mass e-mail that was sent out a few weeks ago concerning the possible reinstatement of a draft was totally false. Here’s what FactCheck says.
Fox News had to apologize because of a story (that was supposed to be humorous and kept in the office) ended up being posted on their web site. In it, they made up a whole bunch of false Kerry statements; kind of like some of Jay Leno’s skits on the first Presidential Debate. But they posted it as news and then hurriedly took it down after the mistake was discovered. Dumb! Who was the genius who approved that article?
The Wall Street Journal is defending one of its reporters who wrote a nasty e-mail about Iraq that ended up on the Internet. She had just returned from Iraq, and wrote that “Despite President Bush's rosy assessment, Iraq remains a disaster. ... [the] Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities. ... The situation, basically, [is] a raging barbaric guerilla war.” This has led the Wall Street Journal to defend her journalistic neutrality on her reporting from the war zones.
Journalistic integrity seems to be in trouble these days. When reporters break rules, or take shortcuts to get a story out, or do whatever they do to call their integrity into question, it is bad news for the free press. It takes people a long time to forget that an incident happened. And government oversight is NOT the answer. That would lead to government judging whether news content is “good” or “bad” or “approved”, which is a violation of the First Amendment.
News organizations need to be doing their jobs better, and their stories need to be verified before the story sees the light of day.
CBS News, which aired falsified documents on their 60 Minutes program, is again being accused of a similar situation, this time involving a woman who is “petrified” that her sons may be drafted. CBS omitted the fact that the woman in question is the head of a liberal group called the “Parents Against the Draft”, that the Selective Service debunked any talk of a draft, and that a mass e-mail that was sent out a few weeks ago concerning the possible reinstatement of a draft was totally false. Here’s what FactCheck says.
Fox News had to apologize because of a story (that was supposed to be humorous and kept in the office) ended up being posted on their web site. In it, they made up a whole bunch of false Kerry statements; kind of like some of Jay Leno’s skits on the first Presidential Debate. But they posted it as news and then hurriedly took it down after the mistake was discovered. Dumb! Who was the genius who approved that article?
The Wall Street Journal is defending one of its reporters who wrote a nasty e-mail about Iraq that ended up on the Internet. She had just returned from Iraq, and wrote that “Despite President Bush's rosy assessment, Iraq remains a disaster. ... [the] Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities. ... The situation, basically, [is] a raging barbaric guerilla war.” This has led the Wall Street Journal to defend her journalistic neutrality on her reporting from the war zones.
Journalistic integrity seems to be in trouble these days. When reporters break rules, or take shortcuts to get a story out, or do whatever they do to call their integrity into question, it is bad news for the free press. It takes people a long time to forget that an incident happened. And government oversight is NOT the answer. That would lead to government judging whether news content is “good” or “bad” or “approved”, which is a violation of the First Amendment.
News organizations need to be doing their jobs better, and their stories need to be verified before the story sees the light of day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)