|
|
| Give them enough Rope.... By Redneck Bob |
| 07.30.04 (10:18 am) |
In a comment on Stepdad's article "Toning Down the Rhetoric", Iconoclastic Deer states:
[i]"Unfortunately we Liberals were too polite for too long and the neo-cons walked all over us-- no more.
Perhaps we can return to the days of civility, but we will now defend ourselves.
P.S. stepdad wrote some pretty ugly and nasty vile stuff about Teresa Heinz-Kerry. So I suggest that stepdad look in the proverbial mirror before he/she condemns everyone else."[/i]
I have asked him(her?) for specific citations, but at this point nothing has been forthcoming, so I will address the issue with information currently available to me.
Liberals (Pardon me, they prefer to be called "Progressives" now) repeatedly charge that we "Neo-Cons" (whatever that means) are mean and nasty and vile and ugly in our dealings with them. They cite Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., and now Stepdad, as examples of this incivility.
Look. I listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, and a number of other talk show hosts. I also follow news programs on MSNBC, CNN and Fox, and read from a number of news sources daily. I also frequent sites such as Fark.com and a number of message board and chat rooms to catch as many different viewpoints as I can. I've been listening to Limbaugh for years, and while he is bombastic, plays up his ego, and pokes fun at politicians he disagrees with, I have never heard from him the type of nastiness that I hear from liberals. Sean Hannity, while he also pokes occasional fun at his opponents, such as Robert "KKK" Byrd, as he refers to him, still presents the majority of his program from a reasoned, documented standpoint. Boortz refers to Senator Clinton as "the Hildabeast", and Kerry as the "Poodle" (because he "Has a poodle-cut, is french, and is a rich woman's toy"), but when he seriously discusses an issue, he does so citing sources, and arguing logical issues using proof. He also warns his listeners on his website and occasionaly on the air to not believe anything he says unless they have checked it our for themselves.
Personally, I think that personal attacks and namecalling detract from their good arguments, but to a certain extent, the demands of the audience are for this kind of discourse, because a simple discussion of issues without any humour or controversy would be, frankly, boring. I haven't listend to AirAmerica, but I am almost certain that their hosts behave in a probably worse manner, given other quotes I've seen from people like Franken. I've been known to make the occasional sarcastic comment myself. However, I don't say things that aren't true. I don't fling around accusations and assertions that cannot be backed up by at least some kind of evidence. I have known "Stepdad" for a number of years, and know him to be a man of integrity and reason.
Having laid a background, I now will address the assertion that [i]"stepdad wrote some pretty ugly and nasty vile stuff about Teresa Heinz-Kerry"[/i]. The only thing I've been able to find that Stepdad has said about her in this forum is his 7/27/04 article [u]"Therese Heinz Kerry, was that shove it or shoveling it?"[/u], where he, in sum, states that his viewing of the videotape doesn't match her assertion that this reporter was somehow trying to "get" her and that she was some kind of victim. I'm not going to post the whole thing here, you all know how to work an archive.
The harshest words he uses are at the end. "So, Mrs. Heinz Kerry, feel free to shove that." Which simply uses her own words. That's pretty vile and ugly and nasty stuff, right there. Let's contrast that, for a moment, with something I found while I was searching for all of Stepdad's comments on Mrs. Kerry.
First, these statements found on Iconoclastic Deer's blog.:
[i]"NEIS = No End In Sight to Dubya's Corruption and Nazi-Style Coup d'Etat over the U.S.A.!!!"[/i]
[i]"Check-Out "Bush: "All human beings begin life as a feces" [link] ... Just another Bush BRAIN FART ... Jeez!"[/i] (A quick snopes search showed this "news item" to be complete BS)
[i]'It's the OIL, Stupid'!!! There ain't any!!! Don't bet on Dubya/Cheney doing too much since neither they, nor their neo-con whores, nor their corporate pimps have alot to gain in power & riches!!!"[/i]
And the crowning glory of my search, from Iconoclastics' fellow traveller UsefulIdiot, posted 7/24/04 [b](CAUTION - Language)[/b]:
[i]UPDATE: "jesusisangry" is the newest Tblogger to be added to the Neo-Con Shitbag's mindless drivel ... I just couldn't wade through Reducto/Refucto's newest shitload of garbage (where is jimmytherighteous when we need him???) because after the 1st sentence [link] , it became obvious that Reducto is tragically suffering from psychotic delusions yet again ... Noguru was pissing his pants with glee at attacks against other Tbloggers, one of the fuckwit's favorite pastimes since his banal Neo-Con Lies are exposed daily for frauds ... [B]One is just waiting for stepdad to step-in after he sodomizes his stepkids[/b] (since he can't make it to his favorte fun-resort Abu Ghraib, where he wholeheartedly defends the torture conducted by Bush/Cheney's thugs!) in order to hold-up the back-end of these jack-asses!!! LOL [/i] [B](Emphasis mine - RB)[/b]
Stepdad "after he sodomizes his stepkids"... that's great. very nice. I don't mean to get all nasty and vile here, but if someone spoke those words in my presence, he'd would be rightly deserving of a punch in the mouth for slandering a good man in such fashion. Iconoclastic, is that how you define "defending" yourself? Do you condone this type of speech?
Read the above quotes. Read their blogs. Listen to the democrat mouthpieces who, when presented with a simple question, cannot answer it, but instead immediately revert back to their talking points and unsubstantiated attacks. Now read Stepdad's blog, and my own entries, if you care to, and tell me who it is that is "vile, nasty, ugly" and hateful. I'll leave that decision in your hands. I've presented the evidence. You decide.
Submitted by: RedneckBob
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| An Objective Case for The War in Iraq |
| 07.30.04 (10:08 am) |
A lot has been bandied about on the subject thus far, and a great deal of criticism has been leveled at our President for the War in Iraq, some of it has been fair and some of it, indeed a lot of it has been way off base.
However, I believe that an objective case can be made for the War in Iraq, even with all of the information we have available today.
On Sept 11, 2001 our nation was subjected to the most heinous act of terrorism we have ever witnessed. Hijackers boarded jet liners and used them to destroy high profile targets.
I know the emotional impact this event still has for many, myself included. But when we stop and examine this event critically, the only reason this worked is because it was a surprise. Traditionally when a plane was hijacked the hijackers would either try and force the plan to land somewhere it wasn't scheduled to land or make some form of demands for the release of the hostages. As a result passengers and flight crews normally wouldn't offer a lot of resistance to a hijacking attempt, as the odds were actually fairly good that as long as they cooperated they would probably live to see another day.
Sept 11th changed all of that. We now realize the danger, the threat that a hijacked airplane can represent and so do the flight crews and the passengers. Look at what happened in Pennsylvania on Sept 11 as an example, that hijacked aircraft never reached its destination because once the passengers realized the danger they counter attacked the terrorists.
As a result the odds of another terrorist organization being able to pull off a similar attack using aircraft are very low indeed. If you know you are going to die anyway when the terrorist nutcase flying the plane crashes it into a building, why not risk your life trying to retake the plane? No, the use of commercial jetliners as a poor mans "WMD" is not likely to be very effective now, even without any additional security procedures at airports, any more than the Trojans would be likely to fall for that hide some soldiers in a big horse gag more than once.
So now we turn our attention to Iraq, immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Consider the situation. You have a crazy power mad dictator like Saddam in power. He has known ties to Islamofacist terrorist groups and gives them everything from training and financing to safe harbor inside his country.
All of your best intelligence information believes that Saddam has a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. He's avoided, harassed and confused WMD inspectors from the UN for over 14 years.
But even if he has a stockpile of WMD's, Iraq is still no threat to the US, at least not by itself. You are not going to be launching a Sarin gas artillery shell at New York or Washington from Baghdad, and if they had retaliation would have been swift and overwhelming. No the real threat here was never Iraq, at least not by itself.
The real threat is Iraq plus terrorists. Not necessarily Al Queda, any Islamofacist terrorist group would suit such a purpose nicely. Al Queda may have been the ones that struck us on 9/11, but any of these groups would give their eye teeth to be able to do it again and if anything upstage the original attack.
But another airliner attack is not likely to succeed. What has a good probability of success? Obtain a WMD from a friendly government. Take Sarin for example, it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless nerve gas that will dissolve in water and is highly lethal. Not all that difficult to slip into the US with, it's very hard to detect. Iraq has plenty of it, and even if they lack the stockpiles they can always make more.
Saddam gets fed up one day and gives some of this to a terrorist group. Pick one, they all hate us. They transport this to the US and attack a major city like New York or DC. The probability for success is high, again because this is a surprise attack. In the aftermath you have a death toll that will probably be a great deal higher than 9/11.
Saddam can deny any connection at all to the terrorist in question, he had the perfect delivery system for WMD's. Nearly undetectable and almost totally deniable. Just imagine, for one instant, if during the Cold War the Soviets had developed a nuclear missile that could be fired at us here in the US, arrive and destroy without warning, and we could never even prove that the missile came from them at all so a retaliatory strike would be nearly impossible.
That is the danger that Iraq under Saddam represented to the United States in a post 9/11 world. We simply could not afford to allow that kind of threat to continue, to do so would be foolhardy at best. He didn't need huge stockpiles of WMD's, he didn't even need nukes. Just the ability to create Sarin would have been more than sufficient to make him a clear and present danger to our nation. Make no mistake about it, this is perhaps the greatest threat we have ever faced as a nation. If we had left Saddam in power we would have had to rely on his “good will” that he wouldn’t eventually turn over something like Sarin or another WMD to an Islamofacist terrorist group. Sorry, but anyone that would rely on “good will” from such a ruthless dictator needs to have their head examined.
Now there are those that will doubtless make a huge deal over the fact that we didn't find huge stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. But huge stockpiles aren't the danger here. All you really need is a little bit and the people willing to use it. The capability of manufacturing it combined with a totally deniable delivery system is the true threat, and Iraq now had both.
Even knowing what I know now I would fully support a War with Iraq, that is assuming we never find any further evidence of WMD's whatsoever. That one artillery shell of Sarin, in the wrong hands and a halfway intelligent plan could have resulted in massive deaths of innocent American civilians, and Iraq had demonstrated on many occasions that they had the technology to produce such WMD's and the will to use them.
It would have only been a matter of time. While our brave soldiers will probably never receive the credit they are due, they have managed to eliminate what is probably the greatest threat our nation has ever faced. The Soviet Union may have had huge stockpiles of nuclear arms, but they could never risk using them without fear of retaliation. Saddam could have struck us, virtually at will, and been able to deny the whole thing.
Think about that for a bit, before you go out and pick up a protest sign.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| A Picture Is Worthless, How About A Thousand Words Instead? |
| 07.30.04 (7:23 am) |
[image]stepdad_1029217232 .jpg[/image]
A lot has been made over this particular photo of Senator Kerry visiting NASA. The Kerry campaign has even alleged that the photo was "leaked" by NASA at the behest of the Bush administration in an effort to damage the Senator's campaign.
So I'd like to take a moment and respond to the Kerry campaign, more specifically to the Senator himself. Senator, you were visiting NASA, and operating in a "clean environment". Anyone that has ever had to go into a "clean environment" realizes that the bunny suit, no matter how ridiculous it might make you look, is mandatory and not optional. So you wore the bunny suit. So you looked ridiculous. So what. It is simply impossible to look cool wearing a bunny suit. That's why their called bunny suits. That's why guys that work in clean rooms change before they go to singles bars.
So honestly Senator, just take a deep breath and relax. Try and laugh at yourself. As a public official you should be well aware of the fact that when you do things like this photographs will be taken and they will eventually find their way to the press, no matter what the circumstances.
Give the American people some credit Senator, were a lot more intelligent than you might think. Most of us will decide who to vote for based on the issues, on who we think will do the best job for our country, no matter how ridiculous he might look in a bunny suit.
So instead of worrying so much about your image try showing us a bit of substance. I've heard you say things like "we'll stay the course in Iraq", but what I'd really like to hear is something with some substance to it. What are your plans? If elected, what will you do?
Not in generalities, but in specifics.. You and your Democrat colleagues in the Senate demanded such specifics from Bush about the war in Iraq, down to wanting him to account for every single penny spent and assign due dates on every task to be performed. If you would expect that much from the President, then why should'nt we as the American public expect the same level of accountability from you?
So take a moment and tell us all what your plans are, what you intend to do if elected. Give us some specifics here. You've talked about Universal Healthcare, and that might sound really good as a sound-bite, but how do you intend to pay for it? How do you solve the problems of waste, fraud and abuse that plague so many other such government entitlement programs? What is going to make your "universal" health care program different than the abysmal failure that Canada's universal health care program?
And how about the economy Senator? You’ve said you wanted to strengthen it, question is, exactly what is your plan for doing so, and why will it work better than what Bush is doing now?
These are the sorts of things we’d like to know, not whether or not you look stupid in a bunny suit.
So forget the photo Senator, and give us a few thousand words of specifics instead.
|
|
3 Comments
|
| |
| Toning Down the Rhetoric |
| 07.29.04 (12:10 pm) |
I've been reading some of the blogs hereabouts and indeed quite a few other sources where those who are supporting Kerry's bid for President have been posting regarding their political views and the upcoming election.
I suppose I'm a little surprised at the sheer nastiness involved in a lot of these postings. Don't get me wrong, I've discussed politics enough that I sort of expect a certain level of heated debate.
But what I see transpiring here can't really be called a debate, it is almost become a veritable witch hunt. Conspiracy theories abound, outlandish accusations are made almost daily without a shred of factual evidence, indeed some of the most vile, hateful statements I've seen in years are directed at our current President or anyone that might be considered a conservative or republican on an almost daily basis.
I'm not saying that there aren't some legitimate gripes, and I'm quite certain that for those left of center our current President certainly isn't scoring many points with his policies. But it is possible to disagree with someone without the need to proclaim them to be the most evil demon of modern times. It's possible to debate the policies rather than attack the personality.
Sadly however it seems that the the left, those that spend so much time energy and effort preaching to the rest of us about "tolerance" have absolutely no tolerance of their own for anyone that dares to either challenge their views or not implement them immediately as policy. If you dare to disagree you are attacked personally, made out to be some terrible ogre. Facts, issues and common sense are discarded in favor of kooky conspiracy theories and just general nastiness.
I myself have thus far been called a wide variety of names simply for having the temerity to disagree with some of the viewpoints expressed by some of the more liberal posters here abouts. I guess their tolerance only extends to those that agree with their point of view. Anyone that doesn't apparently doesn't deserve to live.
Pardon me folks, but I'm off to bar the castle gates yet again, looks like another angry mob with torches and pitchforks is headed my way for daring not to agree with them :D
|
|
4 Comments
|
| |
| A Critical Look At Abortion |
| 07.29.04 (10:48 am) |
Almost anytime anyone discusses the issue of abortion and argues against the notion that it should be legal they are almost immediately branded as some sort of religious fanatic. It is wrong, people will tell you, to try and oppose your religious morals on the rest of us.
But there are a great many of us who oppose abortion that base this opinion not on religious grounds, but rather on legal ones. The 14th Amendment to our Constitution clearly states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now, as you can see one cannot deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. This is not a “implied right” as the “right to privacy”, which is really nothing more than a “right” that was read into the Constitution as a result of a variety of Supreme Court decisions. This is a fundamental right, stated in no uncertain terms.
So really the only true debate here is whether or not the fetus qualifies as a “person”. The dictionary definition of the word “person” hasn’t really changed since the time the Constitution was written. In order to be considered a person, you must meet two criteria. You have to be human, and you must be an individual. The fact that we are human from the moment of conception is also not a matter of debate, but rather one of scientific fact. There has never been a biology text ever written that will state that at some point during the gestation process we somehow magically change species.
So the only true question left to us is a simple one, is the fetus an individual as well? Again discarding any emotive arguments and sticking just with the facts, it is very easy to prove beyond any measure of doubt that the fetus is indeed an individual. From the moment of conception your DNA is different than that of your mothers, or your father’s. It is recognized as proof of individual identity in a court of law, and you have this individual, unique DNA from the moment you are conceived.
So from a scientific standpoint there really is no debate, no discussion. It is a provable scientific fact that you are a human being and a person according to the dictionary definition of the term from the moment you are conceived. The only area that is even somewhat debatable is whether or not you are “legally” considered a person.
And this of course is where we introduce a huge double standard into our legal system with this notion of legalized abortion. When our nation was first founded we also had this same type of double standard, where we chose to judge who was and was not legally recognized as a “person” under the law not based on any scientific fact but rather based on a scientifically ignorant, biased opinion as to who should qualify for such protections.
Had you gone back to 18th century America and asked almost anyone whether or not a slave should be treated as a person you would have at best been scoffed at, at worst you might have ended up in an asylum somewhere for repeating any notion that crazy. As time went on people’s opinions on the subject changed, and the law eventually caught up, but not until after a huge injustice was done to one class of people, simply because they were not considered people under the law. But that injustice occured because one class of people wrongly assumed that another class of people were not worthy of being called a "person" under the law.
We find other historical examples of this, perhaps the most notable of which was the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. Here we have a class of people that are declared “un-people” under the law, without anyone every having to prove that they were not people. As a result over 6 million were killed.
Sadly we have done the same thing here, in modern America. Without really considering the science we have assumed that this entire class of people, the unborn, are not actually “people” and deserve no protection under the law, despite clear scientific evidence to the contrary. As a result by my best estimates over 38 million lives have been lost, over 6 times the number that were lost in the holocaust, and that number is growing by at least 1.2 million per year. Perhaps the scariest thing of all is when you consider that these numbers are based solely on numbers that were voluntarily reported to the CDC (Center for Disease Control) by abortion providers. Such providers are under no requirements to report anything to anyone, and as a result these numbers represent only those abortions that are actually reported, not all of those being performed.
I can understand that those who support “reproductive rights” feel that this is an issue about the mothers “right to privacy”. But her “right to privacy” that is inferred by the Constitution cannot be given so much consideration that another person (in this case the fetus) is denied their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as undeniably stated by the Constitution. That isn't about enforcing someones religious morality on someone else, it's about protecting the rights of people that cannot speak for themselves.
|
|
4 Comments
|
| |
| It's A Hate Love Relationship |
| 07.28.04 (10:27 am) |
LOS ANGELES — Courtney Love was sentenced Tuesday to 18 months in drug rehab, closing one chapter in a troubled saga that began when she was accused of trying to break into her ex-boyfriend's home while high on cocaine.
Superior Court Judge Patricia M. Schnegg gave the rocker until Oct. 29 to enroll in a drug counseling program, which will require frequent drug testing. She will be permitted to travel, but will be barred from taking non-prescription drugs, drinking alcohol or being in places that serve alcohol.
I think Judge Schnegg should have sentenced the prosecutor in this case to rehab and Ms. Love to as much prison time as could possibly be mandated by the law.
Seems that the prosecutor allowed Ms. Love to plead to a misdemeanor offense rather than pursuing all of the possible charges in this case. If this were Ms. Love's very first incident of breaking the law that might be appropriate or warranted.
But Ms. Love has quite the history of lawless behavior and a total disrespect for our justice system. She even showed up 15 minutes late to this particular sentencing hearing and as soon as she got there she started reading a magazine, which is simply indicative of the lack of respect she possesses for the law. I suppose we should give her some kudo's for improvement though, last time she had a court appearance she showed up over 5 hours late.
So Ms. Love will go into rehab, again. Of course if she were not a celebrity I seriously doubt she would be receiving such kid glove treatment, she would most likely be facing felony charges and some serious jail time.
As for Ms. Love I don't bear her any ill will personally, I really do hope she can clean up her act. But it's not really Ms. Love's well being that concern's me. Just imagine what this sort of idiotic, self destructive behavior is doing to that poor woman’s child. It's a pity that the authorities in her local jurisdiction seem to have no interest in the child's well being, or at least not enough intestinal fortitude to weather the bad press they might get for actually doing their jobs.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Kerry Edwards intends to vote for Bush-Cheney... |
| 07.28.04 (6:10 am) |
You know, in all the hype and celebration going on at the DNC in Boston, there's something that hit the news tonight. I'm sure this will get hushed up, because I can't find the reference again. Its been pulled from the newsites. Anyway, here's the earth-shattering revelation:
Kerry Edwards supports Bush Cheney!
One of the reasons why, "Their views are more in line with my own."
That's right. You read that correctly.
Oh, yeah. I should probably let you know, Kerry Edwards is a midwestern farmer.
Submitted by: Wombat
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Welcome our new commentator, Redneck Bob |
| 07.28.04 (5:17 am) |
|
Just wanted to encourage everyone to welcome our new commentator, Redneck Bob. Bob offers a common sense, no nonsense approach that is often missing in politics and indeed in political commentary. I hope you'll all join me in welcoming him to our team.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Just sing, wouldya! |
| 07.28.04 (5:00 am) |
I was listening to Peter Gabriel's [i]"Secret World Live"[/i] tonight in the car, and found myself wondering whatever in the heck happened to Paula Cole, who was singing some backing vocals on that album. I was really impressed by her voice when I first got the album, and she kind of fell off the face of the earth after [i]"Where have all the cowboys gone".[/i]
So, I Google her. Find her website, and get assaulted by her none-too charitable opinions of our current President. Why did you have to do that, Paula? I don't want to dislike you. I have respect for your talent and want you to succeed so I can enjoy hearing you sing.
I know, I know, freedom of speech. But dangit! This is yet another artist I can't just enjoy without being put off by her (in my opinion, ill-informed and ill-considered) political views. You're an entertainer! I used to kinda like the Dixie Chicks, but that's hosed. Ben Affleck has put himself on my list... it's getting kinda depressing.
The problem is not even their political opinion, I guess, which I could get over, but the manner in which they express it. Often they are insulting, demeaning, and downright rude when speaking about our President. Her lyric in a song she has posted on her website goes [i]"Daddy's little helper, silver foot in your mouth. Policeman of the world, gonna start another war. Connecticut Yankee in a cowboy hat.... Your my hero Mr President"[/i] When it comes right down to it, they sound stupid. They don't provide a reasoned argument, they just spout the lib talking points and call the President names.
I've been a musician and actor myself, if only in local venues, with moderate success, but I don't imagine for a moment the sole fact that I can sing and recite lines from a play makes me an expert on politics, and I at least try to be civil if I'm criticizing something. It's even more onerus when one of these folks, driving their fancy cars and living in their lush "cribs" tries to condescend to me about how awful the common man has it, and act like they know why. Your lives are a fantasy. A dream that we all have to be a rock star or a movie star. You are Pan. You have not had to grow up. Liberal idealism is great, but you don't have the grounding in reality to make the distinctions between the ideals, and how the real world works. [i]You don't live in it[/i]. The fact that so many people have nothing better to do than read about who you're in the sack with now, and line up for days in advance to shell out cash for your albums and watch your movies should tell you that things aren't really all that bad. And if you're really worried about the poor and hungry, use some of your own money to solve the problem, and quit trying to use mine. I barely have enough for me and mine as it is.
It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with how Bush is handling things. It's not reasonable, nor does it make you look good, to run off at the mouth about how he's a stupid cowboy who only went after Sadaam to appease daddy, and we're only there for the oil, and he lied to us, and he knew about 9/11 in advance, and he stole the election, and all the [u]tripe[/u] that you people are spouting. It makes you look all the more foolish because it's not true, and you can't back it up. You sound like a child throwing a tantrum (President Bush is a doo-doohead!!!), not a reasoned commentator on political issues. If you can make a reasoned argument, I can agree to disagree, and can still enjoy your art. If you are another primadonna celebrity spouting BS you apparently know little about, I can't do that.
All of this is appropo of nothing of course, cuz she has the right to say whatever she wants. I guess I know what happened to her now, and no longer care, which I find dissapointing. Best of luck Paula, and remember "It is better to be silent and be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Submitted by: RedneckBob
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Therese Heinz Kerry, was that shove it or shoveling it? |
| 07.27.04 (7:21 am) |
His wife, Heinz Kerry, who drew attention this week by telling a reporter to "shove it" said in an interview broadcast Tuesday she would do it again, displaying the same unapologetic bluntness that Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) showed when he defended uttering a vulgarity to a Democratic senator last month.
"If someone is really attacking your honor, or trying really to be dishonest, really to try to get you, I think most Americans, most people, would say, you know, defend yourself. And that's what I did," she said on CBS-TV's "The Early Show."
Small problem here, I saw the video tape on the news today, and it didn't appear to me that the reporter in question did anything even remotely close to attacking her honor. I didn't get the sense that he was being dishonest, and I also didn't get the sense that she was defending herself.
She had made a comment during her speech about how there were those that were being "Unamerican". The reporter in question asked her to clarify that comment, merely asking her what she had meant by that.
I saw no badgering, no snottiness on the part of the reporter here. He asked a simple question. She responded somewhat angrily that she had never said that and that she was being misquoted, and when the reporter attempted to correct her she walked off toward another delegate at the convention.
Ok, so maybe someone else had written her speech for her and she wasn't paying that much attention when she read it, fair enough. Maybe she didn't realize that she had actually used the term Unamerican in her speech, as the transcripts clearly show she did.
The video tape clearly shows however that the reporter did not chase her, or harass her, or even continue to press the issue at all. That was when she learned that this particular reporter apparently worked for a newspaper that has a conservative editorial page.
She then turned around and came back to the reporter, and that was when she told him to shove it. He wasn't chasing her, harrassing her or even forcing the issue. He asked her the question, she denied that she had said Unamerican, he pointed out that she had (which was true) but wasn't nasty or confrontational about it, she walked away from him, then she came back and got in his face and told him to shove it. She went after him, not the other way around.
Ok, maybe not the most dignified of things to say but I suppose I can't really even fault her too much for that. I can't imagine what it would be like to be under such intense scrutiny by the press, and it's bound to make anyone a little defensive.
So I don't really take issue with the fact that she lost her temper or even that she told this reporter to shove it. I do take issue with the fact that she is now trying to portray herself as an innocent victim and the reporter as some mean, angry partisan with an ax to grind.
Sorry, but the video doesn't lie, and it clearly shows that this reporter never said or did anything that could even remotely be construed as harrasment or attacking her honor. All he did was ask her a question.
Ok, maybe it was a question she didn't like, and maybe this guy works for a newspaper she doesn't like. But if her Highness doesn't like being asked questions about throwing out bombshells like calling other people Unamerican then maybe she should'nt be up on the podium spouting off.
I don't think she owes the reporter an apology for telling him to shove it. I do think she owes him a huge apology, as well as a public statement, to clear his good name that she is now trying to muddy simply because she lost her temper and behaved in a childish fashion in public. Rather than just admit she lost her temper she is now trying to control the damage by making him look like an ogre and portraying herself as some poor innocent victim. It's not fair to him that his reputation is now under attack just because Her Highness is trying to cover her own butt.
So, Mrs. Heinz Kerry, feel free to shove that.
|
|
1 Comments
|
| |
| The Right to Keep and Arm Bears |
| 07.26.04 (5:29 pm) |
I don't buy the idea that the 2nd amendment is ambiguous. It is a 2 part sentence. Part one is the reason for the amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," <--- that's -why-. Part 2 says "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That's not ambiguous at all. It doesn't say the right of the militia or the right of the state, or the right of the managment of the local Dairy Queen, it says the right of the PEOPLE, as in We, the People. The populace, the average guy on the street. >
The founders, being revolutionaries themselves, realized that a people could only be oppressed by their government if they did not have the means to defend themselves. These people led an armed revolt against English rule. They were determined that ultimate authority in the representative republic that they created should rest with the people, not government.
The US Constitution, particularly in this instance the Bill of Rights, does not protect the rights of the government. It protects individual rights -against- government intrusion. The government does not have the right to free speech and press and practice of religion, you do. The government does not have the right to vote, you do.
"The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," (Am IV) does not apply to a government organized special group of people, it applies to all.
Amendment V: "No PERSON shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any PERSON be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against HIMSELF, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall PRIVATE PROPERTY be taken for public use, without just compensation.
IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.
and X: 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 Bill of Rights protects -individual- rights. When it says "The People", it -means- "The People". Websters, entry 5, the most applicable definition in my opinion: "The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: “those who fear and distrust the PEOPLE, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes” (Thomas Jefferson)."
Note the use of a quote of one of the founders as an example of the definition.
The second amendment could not be more clear. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The only argument is between those who believe in individual rights, and those who would see them subordinated to the whims of the Nanny State, who should care for us mindless peasants who obviously are not capable of thinking for ourselves, from cradle to grave.
The kind of thinking that places a government in complete control of your security and well-being is an invitation to be enslaved. The founders meant us to take care of ourselves, and be wary of a government that would take care of us, for "our own good". The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed. The abuse of that right (to commit robberies, assaults, and murders) should be met with swift, sure, and severe consequences. -That- would be the proper "gun control". A gun is a -tool-. The problem is the one wielding it. Prosecute and punish those who commit crimes using weapons, instead of persecuting law-abiding citizens who chose to excercise their rights under the Second Amendment.
Submitted by: Redneck Bob
|
|
1 Comments
|
| |
| Freedom of Religion, revisted |
| 07.26.04 (10:47 am) |
Got quite a bit of commentary on the original posting so I thought this might be a topic worth revisiting. One of the more, shall we say, interesting topics of debate centers on the notion that our Founding Fathers somehow wanted a total separation of Church and State.
This simply is not historically accurate by any stretch of the imagination. Examples abound of expressions of religious ideas and ideals by our Government since indeed even before we were a nation.
The very first document ever drafted by what would become our government, the Declaration of Independence, speaks of how our rights are granted to us by our Creator.
The expression of religious ideas and ideals by our government certainly didn't stop there. The building in which the Supreme Court is housed has the Ten Commandments prominently displayed on the walls behind the justices. Construction on this particular building was started in 1932 and completed in 1935, and no one seemed to have any difficulties with the notion of including a reference or "monument" to the Ten Commandments at the time. It certainly wasn't even considered controversial then, though doubtless if we were building a new building to house the Supreme Court in today it would raise more than just some eyebrows. The notion apparently that we have always had this "wall of separation", this notion of course is patently false.
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions ... upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison.
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." Samuel Adams
"Republican government loses half its value where the moral and social duties are ... negligently practiced. To exterminate our popular vices is work of far more importance to the character and happiness of our citizens than any other improvements in our system of education." Noah Webster.
"... True religion affords to government its surest support." George Washington.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
"... The cultivation of the religious sentiment represses licentiousness ... inspires respect for law and order, and gives strength to the whole social fabric." Daniel Webster.
"... The happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality...." United States Supreme Court, 1892.
"... Offenses against religion and morality ... strike at the root of moral obligation, and weaken the security of the social ties ... this [First Amendment] declaration ... never meant to withdraw religion ... and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law ..." Supreme Court, 1811.
"It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs whether any free government can be permanent where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape." Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story.
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." George Washington.
"The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country." President Calvin Coolidge
"Moral habits ... cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits ... Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens." Daniel Webster
"The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which a Christian man derives his faith - the Bible. United States Supreme Court, 1844.
"... What constitutes the standard of good morals? Is it not Christianity? There certainly is none other. Say that it cannot be appealed to, and ... what would be good morals The day of moral virtue in which we live would, in an instant, if that standard were abolished, lapse into the dark and murky night of ... immorality." Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1846.
"... For whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government ... because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order." Supreme Court of New York, 1811.
"... Religion ... must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests ... In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity ... the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions." Senate Judiciary Committee, 1853.
"It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible-reading people. The principles off the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom." Horace Greely
"... But for [the Bible] we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare ... are to be found portrayed in it." Abraham Lincoln
"The basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a ... government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State!" President Harry S Truman
This notion that there is a total separation between Church and State, or should be according to our Constitution, didn't begin until 1947 with the Supreme Court decision of Everson v. Board of Education, but it should be noted that Emerson v. Board of Education actually reversed earlier Supreme Court precedent on this subject.
Since then we've had a string of Supreme Court rulings, each one building that particular "wall" higher and higher, each one reinforcing the notion that any public display or indeed even discussion of religion by a governmental body or institution represented a violation of the First Amendment.
But the funny thing is when you actually read the First Amendment the language of it is quite clear, it specifically forbids Congress (and only Congress, it doesn't say anything about the Executive or Legislative Branch of our Government) from making any laws respecting the establishment of a religion or the free exercise of such religion.
Even the original wording is quite clear, that Congress does not have the power to establish one religion as the state religion, nor can it make any laws that interfere with someone’s free exercise of their chosen beliefs. It doesn't say anything at all about any Government being forbidden from expressing any form of religious beliefs or forbidding the government to honor the Judeo Christian beliefs on which it was founded.
Believe me folks, I don't want a state religion any more than most atheists do, but I think we've taken this "wall of separation" past the extreme and into the realm of stupidity. We spend thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of tax payer dollars to replace a monument to the Ten Commandments that was costing us mere pennies to maintain, because we fear that a monument to the ten commandments will convince some poor schmo that is not Christian that our Government prefers the Christian religion over his own?
Again, how insecure in your belief system would you have to be to even care about this? If a monument on public property to someone elses beliefs causes you such pain and aggravation then your simply taking yourself entirely too seriously. So what if there are more monuments to Christianity in this country then there are to other religions. Our country has been predominatly Christian throughout it's history. I wouldn't expect to see a lot of monuments to Christianity in a country like India, nor would I switch to Hinduism or Islam soley because there were more monuments there or more expressions of those faiths made by their governments.
If I understand my opposition correctly, merely having a monument on public property dedicated to the Ten Commandments constitutes a government "endorsement" of Christianity, and that such endorsements must be prevented. My question is, just what kind of person is going to convert religions based on that much persuasion? How could this in any way, shape or form be considered "damaging" or even "threating" to other religions? Is anyone really going to convert from Islam, or Atheism for that matter, based soley on the presence of such a monument?
Or is it instead more true to state that such monuments and expressions of faith represent no real danger, no real threat to anyone's belief system, and as such couldn't possibly be construed, even by the wildest of imaginations, as a "law respecting the establishment of a religion"?
|
|
13 Comments
|
| |
| Good for the Goose |
| 07.26.04 (8:51 am) |
BOSTON - Helicopters were buzzing over Boston on Monday morning as delegates gathered for the Democratic National Convention. There were many more signs of increased security, including camouflaged soldiers near train lines, bomb-sniffing dogs and a tall barricade around the FleetCenter, the site of the gathering.
On Sunday, a team of U.S. Capitol Police carrying automatic weapons guarded a harborfront hotel and work crews dropped metal barriers around City Hall as security forces completed convention preparations.
Camouflaged military police staked out elevated subway lines overlooking the FleetCenter, where 4,350 delegates will convene Monday through Thursday to nominate their presidential candidate. A surveillance helicopter often hovered over the area.
Bomb-sniffing dogs and officers roamed nearby streets. Metal barricades about 7 feet high directed foot traffic. In other ways, however, Boston was eerily quiet for a sunny summer day that would normally be bustling with tourists.
The Capitol Police were providing security for those staying at the Boston Harbor Hotel, but officials would not disclose details. The U.S. Coast Guard (news - web sites) patrolled the harbor and expected to board commercial ships at random for security checks.
I have to admit this is pretty ironic, when you stop and think about it. The vast majority of the attendees to this convention oppose things like the Patriot Act and other measures designed to keep your average citizen safe, and yet when it comes to their own well being and safety absolutely no expense is spared.
I have no problem at all with the increased security in Boston, in light of the recent terror warnings I think it would be foolish not to have rather tight security. I just find it amusing that the big movers and shakers within the Democratic Party are always talking about the little guy and his civil rights, and yet the little guy protestors can't get within a few thousand feet of the building and even when they are in their "free speech zone" they are being watched like hawks, probably through the scopes of some high powered rifles.
Will security for the Republican convention be this tight? Probably so, if not tighter. Again given the threats about terrorists trying to interfere with our elections it makes sense to beef up security. I just find it rather ironic that for all the noises certain Democratic leaders have made about how terrible this administration has been for trying to increase security for all of our nations citizens are the same folks that have gone completely silent about the topic now. Suddenly when it is their own well being at stake the rules have changed.
I guess what's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander after all.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| All we are saying, is give surrender a chance.... |
| 07.26.04 (5:20 am) |
NEVE SHALOM, Israel - Singing the national anthem and waving Israeli flags, tens of thousands of Jewish settlers and their supporters joined hands to form a human chain along a 55-mile route, serving notice they will fight Prime Minister Ariel Sharon' plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip.
In the West Bank, Israeli soldiers shot to death six members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in a gunbattle in the town of Tulkarem, the military said. Palestinians officials said five militants and a teenage bystander were shot in a restaurant. The Aqsa movement, which is loosely linked to Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, has claimed responsibility for many suicide bombings in Israel.
Sunday's demonstration was the largest yet against the plan to dismantle Jewish settlements and pull Israeli forces out of the Gaza Strip. The plan, which has strong international support, including from the United States, has cost Sharon his parliamentary majority and left him fighting for political survival.
Police put the turnout as 70,000 but organizers spoke of 150,000 participants. Israeli media estimates ranged from 70,000 to 130,000, including some members of Sharon's own Likud Party.
People of all ages lined the dusty roads from Gaza to Jerusalem, many wearing orange baseball caps, a reference to the color of the Gaza settlers' movement, which organized the protest.
The United States and a lot of other nations have put a lot of political pressure on Isreal to withdraw from the West Bank, but I'm not sure if this is really the best course of action here.
I understand the "logic" being employed, but as far as I can tell it simply isn't working. Isreal has withdrawn from terrority before, ceding it to the Palestinians. The idea is that if Isreal makes such a concession, perhaps this will alleviate the Palestinians anger and the wave of terrorist attacks will lesson.
The problem I have here is that this has never worked. Every time Isreal makes a concession like this the number and ferocity of such attacks normally increases. This policy of capitulation has failed, and yet we continue to work with this failed idea. Israel keeps waving the white flag, and it keeps getting shot up. Time to stop waving the white flag and try something different.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the Palestinian people. A lot of them are just hardworking folks who are trying to do their best to get by and make a life for themselves.
But if they are ever going to get anywhere they are going to have to rid themselves of all of these hardline militant whack jobs. Sadly though, most of the hardline, militant whack jobs are the guys in charge over there.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| A vote for Kerry is a vote for... Anyone? Anyone? Kerry? |
| 07.24.04 (6:48 am) |
I was reading a few articles in the news today about the upcoming Democratic national convention. One in particular that caught my eye came from Fox News:
Kerry's primary identity has been as a Massachusetts senator with 20 years of votes, some that Kerry touts and some that President Bush has tried to use against him. During the convention, Kerry hopes to move beyond his Senate voting record to define himself as a husband, father, combat veteran, tough prosecutor, national security expert, outdoorsman and man of faith, according to a campaign message document.
Ok, fair enough, Kerry wants to present a more personal side of himself. I can see that if your running for office. But I guess the problem here is I have no idea where Kerry stands on any of the issues. None. I've poked around quite a bit and so far I haven't found a single major issue that he's actually taken a stand on, and worse yet it seems the last person you want to ask about Kerry's stand on the issues is Kerry himelf:
"I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
This of course is just one small example among a multitude. Almost any major issue you can name, Kerry has tried to come out on both sides of the issue. To a certain extent I suppose I can see part of Kerry's problem, he has one of the most liberal voting records in the senate and that sort of thing while certainly appreciated by certain key elements of the Democratic Party just doesn't play well in the general election.
Democratic Canidates will nearly always start out much further left of center to appeal to the base during the primaries and then try to appear less liberal once they've won their parties nomination. It's the nature of the beast in a Presidential Election. But Kerry seems to be all over the road, in fact he is nearly campaigning against himself at this point by claiming to oppose things that he has spent 20 years in the Senate supporting.
It shall be interesting to see how well this plays in the general election.
|
|
3 Comments
|
| |
| UN Rushes to Prove Itself Totally Superfluous |
| 07.23.04 (1:17 pm) |
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Congress late Thursday night passed resolutions declaring that atrocities that have been unfolding in western Sudan are genocide and urged the Bush administration to do the same.
The resolutions came as U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell met with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan thursday, for the second time in three weeks, to discuss what he called a "humanitarian catastrophe" in Darfur.
An estimated 30,000 civilians have been killed — most of them black Africans — and up to 1 million displaced since two groups from the Darfur region's African tribes took up arms over what they regard as unjust treatment by the government in their struggle with Arab countrymen over land and resources.
No problem at all, easy fix. We just send this over to the UN, have them take 14 years and pass a couple of dozen resolutions all while not really lifting a finger to do anything at all.
So far the UN has tried to get some supplies and aid into the country, but hasn't really done a thing to stop the wholesale slaughter of over 30,000 civilians.
I'm not sure about you folks, but it really makes me wonder just what exactly the UN is supposed to do if not to stop things like this from happening. What possible purpose does it serve? We don't really need them to deliver aid to the Sudan, in fact it would be cheaper and more effective to either send such aid ourselves or work through other charitable organizations that already have a foothold in the Sudan.
If all the UN can do is to pass a bunch of useless resolutions condemning the slaughter, then what good are they? Why do we even have an organization like this? What purpose does it serve? We don't really need them to pass a "resolution" telling us that this is bad, we know it's bad. The problem wasn't reported by the UN, nor has it really be acted on by the UN without a great deal of insistence by the United States.
The UN can't prevent the slaughter (or at least has been unable to do so thus far), in fact they can barely get more than a couple of trucks worth of supplies into the area, and if it works like most UN "relief" operations seem to work odds are the lions share of that is going to the local warlords and the guys doing the shooting, not to the average joe on the street.
So honestly, can anybody give me a valid reason why we even have a UN? If their only purpose is to serve as a gathering of diplomats from various nations lets do ourselves a huge favor, save ourselves a ton of money and replace the entire kit and kaboodle with a few web cams and Microsoft Netmeeting.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| All they need is a second chance.. |
| 07.23.04 (12:08 pm) |
From Fox News:
BEAVER FALLS, Pa. — A woman robbed a store within minutes of being released from police custody for an earlier robbery the same day, police said.
The suspect, Sharon Armstrong, 40, of Beaver Falls, was released Saturday after allegedly robbing a doughnut shop when a district justice advised police to release her and mail the charges, according to police in Beaver Falls.
Nine minutes later, Armstrong went to a hot dog shop and demanded money, claiming she had a gun, according to Capt. Jay Alstadt.
Police caught Armstrong at the shop and the district justice, Martin V. Schulte, told police to arraign her. Armstrong was held at the Beaver County Jail on charges of robbery and attempted robbery after she failed to post $50,000 bond.
Schulte did not return calls for comment.
This is the sort of story that makes you wonder if you should laugh or cry. I'd love to be able to give Judge Schulte the benefit of the doubt here but what on earth could you possibly be thinking to allow a robbery suspect to just walk out of your court room and mail her the charges? I can see this sort of treatment for someone accused of a misdemeanor offense, but a serious felony? Is it really any wonder why so many of us have lost almost all faith in the Judicial Branch of our government?
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water |
| 07.23.04 (11:29 am) |
Interesting, if not depressing article from the AP:
Teen's Birthday Party Gets Out of Control
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — A group of softball players and people attending a 13-year-old's birthday party at a recreation center got into a fight after several balls sailed over a fence and landed near the facility's swimming pool. At one point, more than 30 people were involved in the fracas that erupted Sunday at the Kanawha City Community Center, said Charleston Police Sgt. H.P. Hickman.
An unidentified pregnant woman was knocked down during the fight but did not appear to be seriously injured, Hickman said. Members of two softball teams were playing a game near the recreation center when several balls were hit over the fence and landed in the pool area. The fight erupted after one of the players walked into the pool area to retrieve the balls. John Ciampanella said several softballs almost hit children who were swimming in the pool. The party was being held for his grandson Caleb.
"They kept hitting them over. Finally, one of the boys came over, and we asked them to leave," Ciampanella said. Jodi Scott said the partygoers threw the first ball that came over the fence back and asked the players to be careful. She claims the players then intentionally hit several other balls over the fence. "One of the balls went by my face so fast that I felt air," she said. Nadia Myers disputed those claims, saying a player was attacked when he went to apologize to the partygoers.
"A woman was cussing them, but it's out of their control. A couple guys hit home runs. They're playing a softball game," she said. No arrest were made and no other injuries were reported, Hickman said.
Is it really any wonder that we have so many problems with kids getting involved in gangs, violence and drugs in this country after reading something like this? Where were the supposedly responsible adults here, and what were they doing other than starting or participating in the brawl?
It takes a special kind of stupidity to start a physical altercation with a bunch of strangers, whether your a softball parent or just hosting your grandkids birthday party. Pity the police didn't put everyone at this little event over the age of 18 in jail for a night or two, maybe it would have given them a bit of pause and perhaps they would stop and think before they acted next time.
But wait, since we can't prove who started the fight what charge do we use to justify putting them in jail? Simple... Child abuse and neglect. Anyone that is setting that bad of an example for their kids needs a good reality check.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Flight 93 Remembered |
| 07.23.04 (7:40 am) |
Picked this up from CNN today:
Who actually put United Flight 93 into a death dive, causing it to slam into the Pennsylvania countryside on September 11, 2001, is revealed in the 9/11 commission report released Thursday.
The report reveals that the target of the terrorists that hijacked Flight 93 on 9/11/2001 was indeed the White House, and that the counter attack by the brave passengers onboard that flight prevented the plane from reaching it's destination, causing it instead to crash in the Pennsylvania countryside.
I must stop this morning and reflect on those events, the unarmed men and women aboard Flight 93 struggling to save their own lives and the lives of others, attempting to prevent these savage madmen from carrying out their nefarious scheme. If not for them our nation could have lost even more on that fateful day.
It saddens me that many seem to have forgotten their sacrifice and the sacrifice of so many others on and since that fateful day. It saddens me that nasty political rhetoric seems to be weakening our public resolve to effectively prosecute this war on terror.
It amazes me that there are those that simply don't get it. We are fighting an enemy that will not accept anything other less than our extinction as an acceptable outcome. They want us all dead, and it doesn't matter how kissy-faced we are or how much we try and play nice, these people are still going to want us all dead. That's all of us folks, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, every last man woman and child.
If these people have their way they will just as readily put folks like Tim Robbins and Whoopi Goldberg up against the wall and shoot them as they would people like George Bush and Dick Cheney. Our political views mean nothing to these animals. All they crave is our destruction.
So before you decide who to vote for in the next election, think for just a moment about those terrified passengers on Flight 93. Think about their desperate last minute bid to try and save not only their own lives, but the lives of others on the ground. The terrorist didn't stop and ask any of those people if they were animal rights activists, anti-war, or whether or not they supported Palestine over Israel. To the terrorists those people, and all of us, are infidels who need to be destroyed.
Now ask yourself, who will do a better job of dealing with people like this? Someone who will try and use negotiation, reason and ask permission from organizations like the UN (who have already proven totally ineffective in this regard) to deal with the situation, or someone that is going to do whatever it takes, no matter what the political fallout, to get the job done.
To me the choice is clear. Hopefully it will be to you as well.
|
|
4 Comments
|
| |
| Pam Anderson writes a book, still uncertain if she can read it |
| 07.23.04 (7:10 am) |
I ran across something rather interesting today from Ananova:
Pamela Anderson is set to publish her debut novel, Star.
The novel is about a small town girl who enjoys decadent lifestyle when she makes it big in Hollywood.
The story revolves around naive and busty blond actress Star Wood Leigh who lands a cover for a men's magazine and goes on to fulfill her dreams.
Anderson tells the New York Post the story is "inspired" by her own life growing up on a small island to having sex with rock stars.
Early in the book Star enjoys a lesbian encounter with a friend and later is in an orgy scene with her rock star lover. She also enjoys an affair with a girl named Bambina and there are also sex scenes in a lift, cars and in public.
Asked if Anderson has had more sex than her fictional alter ego, the actress replies, "I think we're both running even, but not at the moment. I'm living vicariously through Star right now. I have no time to date. Just a lot of friends, kids and surf camp (for her two children.)"
Not even sure where to begin commenting on this one, but I suppose my first thought is one of amazement over what some people will spend their hard earned money on. If nothing else it's bound to be more entertaining than "My Life" by Bill Clinton, which is to say it's probably slightly more engaging than reading the ingredients label on the back of the peanut butter jar.
I wonder if perhaps Pam and Bill might get together and co-author something... Ok, nope, not going for the obvious jokes there..
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Freedom of Religion, Not Freedom From Religion |
| 07.23.04 (6:34 am) |
Seems hardly a day goes by anymore that you can pickup a newspaper or turn on the TV without learning about yet another lawsuit filed by the ACLU to have the Ten Commandments or some other religious symbol or icon removed from public property.
Their rational is that having the 10 Commandments or other expressions of religious faith on public property violates the so called ban on the "separation of church and state" in our constitution. Funny thing though, the words "separation of church and state" don't appear anywhere in our Constitution, nor in our Bill of Rights. The clause that is often referred to as the “separation” clause appears in the First Amendment, and reads as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
So the Constitution specifically forbids Congress from making any laws respecting the establishment of a religion. It doesn't say anything about forbidding any type of expression of religious faith on public property, up to and including monuments or statues. It just says Congress cannot pass laws to establish a religion or prevent anyone from exercising their religion freely.
Many of our Founding Fathers had come from nations that had established national religions, and those that chose to worship differently were persecuted as a result. In fact that was why many of the groups that chose to immigrate to the “colonies” came her at first, to escape religious persecution. That was the reasoning behind this particular clause in the first Amendment. But our Founding Fathers were also men of deep religious convictions, who expressed their faith publicly and often. Even our own Declaration of Independence states this quite clearly “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” In fact our entire system of government is based on the Judeo-Christian beliefs of our Founding Fathers.
The problem is that today we have a lot of people who seem to feel that they have a Constitutional right not to be offended. They find any expression of Judeo-Christian beliefs offensive and want them banished from public view. To these folks I would simply say, “Get over it”. The notion that displaying the Ten Commandments or some other religious symbol constitutes the government endorsement of religion is ludicrous at best. We’ve had such expressions of faith since our nation was founded, beginning with the Declaration of Independence (the very first document ever written by our government as a free nation) and extending on for hundreds of years, up to and including the words “In God We Trust” on our currency and of course the phrase “One nation, under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance.
In those 150-200 years prior to the almost draconian crack down on public displays of religious faith, non-Christian religions in the United States were hardly persecuted, in fact they have flourished. To state that such public expressions of faith are the establishment of a religion or cause other faiths to suffer is simply idiotic, as history proves such expressions do not have any adverse effect on other religions.
So if you are offended by such public displays of faith, then by all means continue to be offended. That is your right as an American citizen, after all. But if your own belief system is so incredibly fragile that merely passing by a monument dedicated to the Ten Commandments or hearing the word “God” spoken aloud is enough to challenge your belief system, then perhaps it’s time to re-examine your beliefs and find some new ones. If your own “faith” or lack of it is that tenuous then obviously your beliefs weren’t much to begin with.
|
|
25 Comments
|
| |
| If you can't get elected, sue! |
| 07.22.04 (1:49 pm) |
Also in from the AP:
A federal lawsuit filed by the consumer activist says Texas ballot access laws for independent candidates are unconstitutional. It was set for a hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel on Thursday.
If you can't win the election, sue. If you can't get on the ballot, sue. If you can't get Dennis Kucinich to endorse you.... Well, I don't think even Nader is so far gone he's willing to sue over that.
Look Ralph, nothing personal here, but if you had enough support in Texas or any other state you wouldn't need to sue to get your name on the ballot. You don't have enough support. This could be that your ideas are far in advance of their time, or it could mean that your just a crackpot. Either way, your not going to win the election in Texas or any other state. So rather than wasting a ton of taxpayer money trying to defend the Texas election laws designed to keep crackpots.. er, sorry, I mean "third party canidates" from completely mucking up the election process, why not give it a rest and try working harder so that the next time you run for President you can actually get more than 10 people to vote for you in Texas?
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Kerry Gets "Bump" from Special K |
| 07.22.04 (1:35 pm) |
From the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON — Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who has remained in the presidential race despite John Kerry's obvious lock on the party's nomination, will formally throw his support to the Massachusetts Democrat on Thursday.
The Ohio congressman, who has waged a long-shot bid for right to challenge President Bush in November, will announce the endorsement during a joint appearance with Kerry in Detroit, according to spokesmen for both candidates.
So Kucinich is going to finally bow out and throw all of his support behind Kerry. That should be.. hmm.. well at least 2 votes anyway, assuming Dennis can convince his mom to vote for Kerry. Did anyone else even remember that Kucinich was still in this race? Guess we can file that one under self important but still trying... lol..
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Armstrong Strong Arms the French |
| 07.22.04 (12:05 pm) |
Looks like more than a few Frenchmen are quite upset at Lance Armstrong. Armstrong is currently 4 minutes up on his nearest competitor in the Tour De France, and he stands a very good chance of winning the Tour an unprecedented 6 times.
And how do our noble, gentile, lovable "allies" respond? By screaming obscenities and spitting at him as he rides past. Nice to know that France is such an enlightened nation. I'm sure that not all Frenchman feel this way, but those that don't really should do or say something to those that do behave in such a childish fashion.
I for one really hope that Lance wins the Tour, and to be honest with you I'm not entirely certain what the French are so worked up about. The should be accustomed to losing by now, at least those that have ever been in their military.
|
|
7 Comments
|
| |
| Moore Confusion on the First Amendment |
| 07.22.04 (8:17 am) |
Just when you thought you'd heard it all from Micheal Moore, he's back again, this time writing nasty grams to Bill Timmons, the current President of the Aladdin Casino in Las Vegas.
Seems that singer Linda Ronstadt took the opportunity during one of her stage performances to talk about what a great film Fareinheit 9/11 was and what a wonderful director Micheal Moore is, ad nauseam. The audience, however, didn't really seem to appreciate this impromptu political advertisement in the middle of a show that they had paid a lot of money to attend.
The result? Ms. Ronstadt was soundly booed, reportedly some audience members stormed out the theater and even tore down some of Ms. Ronstadt’s concert posters in response. Many of the audience members, quite angry that they had paid good money to get a polisci lecture, demanded their money back.
Bill Timmons, the president of the Alladin Hotel and Casino, promptly fired Ms. Ronstadt and had her escorted off the premises. I can't really blame Mr. Timmons here. Granted, it may have been going a bit overboard to throw her to the curb that very evening, but I think I would be more than a little miffed too if some halfwit singer I hired to entertain my customers had nearly caused a riot in my hotel because she didn't have the common sense not to discuss a hot button issue like religion or politics during her stage performance.
Naturally of course this isn't the end to our story. Michael Moore is not one to avoid publicity, and simply couldn't resist the opportunity to grab his poison pen and send Mr. Timmons a letter expressing his "outrage".
"What country do you live in?" Moore asked. "Last time I checked, Las Vegas is still in the United States. And in the United States, we have something called, 'The First Amendment.'...For you to throw Linda Ronstadt off the premises because she dared to say a few words in support of me and my film, is simply stupid and Un-American."
Last time I checked, Mr. Moore, the First Amendment protects private citizens from having their right to free speech abridged by the government. It prevents the legislature from passing laws restricting our right to express our selves. The First Amendment allows Ms. Ronstadt to express almost any idea she wishes, no matter how ignorant or misinformed, without fear that the government can punish her.
It does not, however, in any way shape or form give her complete free reign and total immunity from the consequences of her ignorant, misinformed opinion in an improper venue. If other people who disagree with her wish to express their disagreement they are well within their rights to do so, as long as their response remains in the realm of legal and appropriate. While one could certainly chastise the audience members who tore down the posters, vandalism is a crime after all, I certainly cannot fault those who simply left and demanded a refund.
Ms. Ronstadt was hired to do a job, in this case to entertain an audience. Rather than focusing on that job she thought she might impress the crowd with how hip and trendy she is by interjecting her own political views into her act. But those people didn't pay their hard earned money to hear Ms. Ronstadt's myopic view of politics. If they had wanted a polisci lecture I'm sure they wouldn't have gone to a Vegas Casino. Ms. Ronstadt should have respected that, and she should have fulfilled her obligation to the paying customers (who incidently were also paying her salary.)
Instead she chooses to start spouting her opinions on politics. As anyone who has ever been in a bar will tell you, the two topics you always stay away from in any social setting are religion and politics. No matter what your opinions happen to be, it is extremely rude to begin discussions of this nature because odds are at least one person in the crowd will have a completely opposite viewpoint than yours and is likely to be quite offended by your views. This is also extremely rude to the rest of the crowd, as they are now caught in an extremely uncomfortable position of being in the middle.
So Mr. Timmons has the good sense to fire Ms. Ronstadt for not doing the job for which she was hired. Good for him. Did he violate her First Amendment rights? Not at all, and only someone with no concept of what the First Amendment states or what it was designed to do would even make such an idiotic claim.
But hey, what can one expect from the likes of Michael Moore?
|
|
3 Comments
|
| |
| On the Lighter Side |
| 07.22.04 (7:20 am) |
This just in from the AP:
STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Organizers of a race for homing pigeons were still scratching their heads in wonder Thursday after about 1,500 of the birds, famous for their ability to find their way home, went missing during the contest.
Of the 2,000 pigeons let loose last week, only about 500 have returned to their lofts after the 150-kilometer (93 mile) flight between the cities of Ljungby and Malmoe in southern Sweden, said Lars-Aake Nilsson of the Malmoe Homing Pigeon Club.
If anyone out there happens to see a group of 1500 or so pigeons just milling about, please call Lars immediately.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| The 9/11 Report - 567 pages of hindsight |
| 07.22.04 (6:57 am) |
Well, the much awaited report is finally released. The conclusion? Hindsight is 20/20. Good thing we have a 567 page report to back that up with I suppose.
The 9/11 commission didn't find any real culpability in our government for their failure to detect and prevent the terrorist attacks of 9/11, but then again I don't think any reasonable person should really have expected them too. It's easy to look back now knowing when, where and how the attacks occurred and find clues and ominous warning signs that might have tipped us off to the intent of the terrorists.
But when you really consider the flood of information that most intelligence agencies have to deal with, and the number of false reports and leads that they have to sift through I think it's pretty unrealistic to expect them to have prevented the 9/11 attacks given the information they had at the time.
So what was important about the 9/11 report? In truth, not much. Mostly the commission itself only served as a partisan shooting gallery, allowing a lot of accusations and finger pointing to take place on national television. Political partisans used it to try and score points against the opposition. The commission itself had serious credibility problems, particularly when you consider at least one member on the commission was almost single handedly responsible for the making the “wall” they constructed to prevent sharing information between intelligence services almost impenetrable. If such hadn’t been the case, could we have prevented 9/11? In truth, probably not. But it’s hard to take a commission seriously when some of the people on the commission should actually be the ones being investigated by the commission.
So what about their final recommendations? I think their on the right track to try and remove the "wall" between some of our intelligence services. Better communication will give us better analysis. But I think this idea of an intelligence "Czar" is going to prove to be counterproductive at best. We don't really need more bureaucrats in the mix here. It was primarily bureaucratic red tape that has hamstrung our intelligence services to this point. Adding another layer of bureaucracy is only bound to make things worse.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Swinging for the Fence |
| 07.22.04 (5:55 am) |
This just in from the AP:
During a visit to the Jewish state, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana on Thursday said Israel's West Bank separation barrier violates international law.
Hmm.. ok, so far we have a ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, a resolution by the UN and now a statement by the EU all condemning Israel for building a wall to keep out suicide bombers.
It would be entertaining, if it were not so sad. I wonder if they perhaps the UN, EU and the International Court of "Justice" would feel better if Israel were to simply roll across the border with their entire military and simply massacre all the Palestinians in wholesale fashion.
After all, the UN, EU and ICJ seem to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to such activities in many African Nations. I think such institutions would be much better off trying to deal with the wholesale slaughter going on in places like Somalia or Rwanda rather than wasting so much time worrying about a fence Israel is building to try and prevent it's own innocent women and children from being blown to smithereens by some whack job with a bomb.
I also note that while the UN, EU and ICJ seem quite intent on condemning Israel for building a fence, they are almost totally silent when it comes to saying anything to the Palestinians about the terrorist attacks on Israel.
I don't really care what Israel has supposedly done to the Palestinians, intentionally targeting innocent civilians is a cowardly act of terrorism and can never be justified or condoned, which is precisely what the UN, EU and ICJ are doing by condemning Israel and saying nothing about the Palestinian terrorists and the ultra-corrupt Palestinian Authority that encourages their activities.
So to you Mr. Javier Solana may I say with all due respect, you can sit down and shut up now.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Special Forces Troops to Help Protect Olympics |
| 07.21.04 (1:39 pm) |
Picked this up from MSNBC
WASHINGTON - Responding to a request from Greece, the United States has committed 400 American special forces soldiers to the job of helping protect the Olympic Games next month, a U.S. counterterrorism official said Wednesday.
De Oppresso Liber boys. Good luck and Godspeed.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Time to Pull Out of California |
| 07.21.04 (12:27 pm) |
I've heard quite a few folks who are very angry about the war in Iraq and how many casualties we've had since the beginning of the war. They think we should pull out of Iraq immediately before any more American lives are lost or any more money is spent.
Fair enough, but before we do perhaps we should consider pulling out of another "quagmire" that is costing us far more American lives than Iraq and at the moment is representing a bigger drain on our economy, namely the State of California. Our operations in Iraq have resulted in 900 American casualties to date. Looking at just the homicide rates in the State of California over a similar period of time we find that we have lost over 4,000 American lives (these are only the statistics for homicides, mind you) and the death toll continues to mount.
We've only been in Iraq for a very short period of time, and yet they have already been restored to a sovereign nation. We've been stuck in this California Quagmire now for over 154 years, and the death toll just keeps mounting.
Think about it.
Authors Note: Please note that the above makes heavy use of satire to make a specific point. If you are easily offended or have no grasp of irony, satire, or sarcasm we advise you to try a self-help group of some sort before registering a complaint that we are likely to ignore anyway.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Public Education Deserves an F |
| 07.21.04 (10:39 am) |
I am the proud stepfather of two girls and the proud father of a third. Two years ago all of my girls were removed from the public school system and placed into private school. It's an expensive endeavor, since I am now paying not only for their private school tuition I also get to continue to pay the public school for a job they are no longer performing, namely educating my children. I won't burden you with anecdotal evidence concerning my own children; suffice to say as a parent I am much, much happier with the education they are receiving in private school. I just find it rather difficult to justify any reason why it is that I should be forced to pay the public school system for a job that they have failed to do and that I am currently paying someone else to do as a result.
Think about it. If you hired a kid to mow your lawn and he rarely if ever showed up, did a really bad job when he did bother to do it, would you continue to pay him? Would you hire a second kid to mow your lawn but still continue to pay the first? What kind of sense would that make? If you did, do you think the first kid you hired would ever bother to work harder to do a better job, even though he knew that he could do a really poor job (or not do it at all) and still get paid the same amount of money? This is the biggest problem facing our public schools today. We continue to pour more and more tax dollars into public education, for fewer and fewer returns. By every measurable standard our public education system gets worse despite the fact that we continue to spend more money on it.
Take a look at the Detroit school system, for example. The Detroit school district went from spending $8,830 per student back in 1997 to spending more than $11,000 per student in 2003. I spend far less than that on tuition for each of my girls to attend a really good private school. In fact I spend less than $11,000 per year in tuition for all three of them combined, and they are getting a much higher quality of education. I get better results for about 1/3 the money the public schools are charging John Q. Taxpayer. Looking at the Detroit school system 2003-2004 numbers again, we find they spent $11,000 per child on approximately 147,808 children in the Detroit area. If all of those 147,808 kids had been enrolled in a private school with tuition rates comparable to the one my daughters attend, you could pay for all of those kids to go to private school and you’d still be looking at saving the taxpayer about 108 million dollars per year. That is right, 108 million dollars, just in the Detroit area alone.
Those kids would be receiving a much better quality education and the taxpayer would be saved millions. Add a few more major cities to that list and you’re looking at saving billions, while giving kids a much better education than what they are currently receiving. That is assuming you wanted to go the route of putting those kids into private schools. Just imagine if ten parents got together and pooled the 11,000 dollars that the school currently spends per student per year. They could employ a private tutor for their kids and pay that teacher over 100,000 a year to teach just 10 kids, with plenty of money left over for books and incidentals. No more concerns about low teacher pay or large class sizes there. The point of this is obvious, the current system wastes money hand over fist and each year the end result (our children’s education) is worse than the year before despite the fact that we spent more money on it than we did the previous year.
We keep paying the kid to mow our lawn, our lawn looks worse each time he does it and yet we continue to not only have him come back and mow again but we keep increasing his pay to boot. We could now pay 3 other kids that do outstanding jobs to mow our lawn at the same price were paying this one kid that does a really bad job, and somehow we foolishly expect him to just straighten up at some point and get his act together. Sorry folks, it’s simply not going to happen. Any reasonable person would have canned this kid years ago and looked for someone else to do the job. That’s what we should do now in regards to public education.
We are not going to see any real reform in our educational system until we take the power out of the hands of the government and the powerful education lobbies and put it back where it belongs, with the parents.
|
|
7 Comments
|
| |
| Who Owns Your Politician? |
| 07.21.04 (10:38 am) |
I've been giving some thought recently to the whole McCain-Feingold Campaign finance "reform", and it occurs to me that this bill is probably one of the worst laws our nation has enacted in quite some time. That having been said, I find it interesting that as of yet Michael Moore's new "documentary", if one could call anything that factually challenged a documentary, seems to be exempt from this particular restriction.
It's obvious that Moore's movie is really little more than a rather long (boring and tedious) political advertisement, and the timing of its release is certainly no accident. So why is it that Moore is allowed to shovel such propaganda about and yet those of us who are private citizens or have banded together in groups of mutual interest are banned from purchasing advertising to support our pet cause or favorite candidate? I guess you have to be a movie industry big wig to be able to speak your mind in this country, at least in a fashion in which you have a good chance of being heard by more than 5 people at once. But of course McCain Feingold was a terrible idea to begin with, and really needs to be thrown on the trash heap. Everyone knows that their politician is bought and paid for by some special interest group or another, regardless of their political party affiliation or statements to the contrary.
McCain Feingold won't stop Kerry and Edwards from taking huge amounts of money from folks like the trial lawyers, the ACLU, NARAL and Planned Parenthood anymore than it will stop Bush Cheney from receiving donations from the NRA or certain business interests. No, the problem here is not that our politicians are bought and paid for, the problem is that a lot of times we simply don't realize who has purchased them. That is why I suggest we take our queue from the people who understand how to do it right, NASCAR.
From now on take all the limits off of campaign financing. Organizations are allowed to donate as much as they wish with no limits to any candidate they want. However, whenever campaigning each candidate must always appear in public wearing a NASCAR style jumpsuit, replete with patches showing his "sponsors". The bigger the donation, the bigger the patch. That way there would never be any question as to who owns your politician of preference. John Kerry could have nice big patches from Planned Parenthood and NOW, while Bush could sport patches from Exxon and the NRA. We would all be a lot better off and it might make politics a lot more interesting.
|
|
9 Comments
|
| |
| One Berger and a Side of Lies Please |
| 07.21.04 (10:34 am) |
It's interesting to me that thus far the only "defense" of Sandy Berger's supporters has been the "timing" of the news stories about Berger's activities. Granted, there was quite a delay between the time that Berger stole the documents and the time that the information was revealed to the public. That of course, is not all that unusual, but I suppose it is a valid concern to ask why the information is being made public now as opposed to last year when the thefts actually took place.
While the timing of the release might be damaging to the Kerry campaign, I think if this were done intentionally for political reasons (as Berger apologists would have us believe) there were two much better times this information could have been leaked to cause much more political fall out. My first choice would have been during the 9/11 hearings themselves. What could have been more politically damaging than discovering that a senior Democratic official had stolen documents related to the 9/11 attacks to prevent the commision from having all the facts during the televised hearings?
If I were trying to damage the Kerry-Edwards campaign I would have waited until much closer to the election, at the very least until after the Democratic National Convention, as most folks that are not political junkies pay very little attention to politics or political news until after the conventions. No, I think if this were a direct effort to damage the Kerry-Edwards campaign it would have been much better to "leak" the information much closer to the election. As it is by the time the election rolls around the only folks who will probably remember or care about this flap with Berger were the ones that had already made up their minds who to vote for prior to the information being made public.
Either way this isn't about when the information was released, it's about the fact that Mr. Berger stole classified documents relating to the Clinton Administrations handling of 9/11 prior to the 9/11 hearings. I think that should be of interest to everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, and that rather than focusing on partisan politics we should be focusing on the danger this represents to our National Security.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| One Berger, Hold the Truth Please... |
| 07.20.04 (8:50 pm) |
A lot has been written about the recent scandal involving Sandy Berger and documents that he removed from the National Archives. For those of you who haven't heard much about this story, allow me to offer you a brief synapses of events.
Sandy Berger was President Clinton's national security advisor, a pretty high ranking cabinet post. He went into the National Archives and took out classified papers concerning the Clinton Administration and it's handling of Al Qaeda terror threats. Supposedly these classified papers got mixed up with his notes, and that he accidentally took them home. When the people at the National Archives contacted him he brought some of these papers back. Some, but not all. Supposedly the others were thrown away by accident. These are documents that should have gone before the 9/11 commission and probably would have, if they hadn't of "accidentally" disappeared.
While I'd certainly love to give Mr. Berger the benefit of the doubt here, there are a couple of problems with this scenario that come to mind almost immediately. Classified documents are stamped with their security classification on each and every page, with a big red stamp. Anyone that has ever worked with classified documents can tell you that even in a group of other papers they stick out like a sore thumb, which of course is the whole reason for putting that big red stamp on them in the first place.
The notion Mr. Berger supposedly managed to mix in these classified documents with his own notes and not notice them is a bit of a stretch, but to think that he managed to dispose of them when he got home without noticing that they were classified almost boggles the mind.
This man used to be the National Security Advisor of the United States. This is someone that has handled literally thousands of classified documents in his time, someone that should have been well versed in their care. However somehow he managed to get classified documents marked with big red stamps mixed in with his own "notes", documents that dealt with the Clinton Administration and his own performance in regards to the 9/11 attack, and now somehow some of those documents have disappeared even though his "notes" seem to be intact.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven as a cover-up of some sort. Think about it for just a moment. Let's assume Berger did indeed remove the papers by accident - pretty unlikely but within the realm of possibility. He has just spent all day down at the National Archives taking notes, he gets home and he has all this classified material mixed in with his notes.
Now how does it get "accidentally" thrown away? It's not like he's going to just grab a stack of those papers and throw them in the trash can without looking through them first, after all he just spent all day in the archive taking notes... Those notes must be of things he felt were important enough to write down. If he did plan to throw some of that material away, he'd be shuffling through it trying to decide what to keep and what to toss, not just grabbing a big stack and throwing it in the trash. Why would he do something like that and risk getting rid of notes that were important enough for him to spend most of the day at the archives writing down?
No, if he's going to be throwing anything away he'll be shuffling through these papers, at least glancing at each one, to decide what to keep and what to throw away. No chance he is going to miss that big red stamp on the classified material telling him it's classified. Sorry, but my kids come up with far better whoppers to explain why they didn't get their chores done. This goes way beyond the realm of the believable. So the question we should be asking her is what was destroyed, and why?
Sadly our mainstream press doesn't really seem to be interested in finding out. I've learned from news reports (primarly Fox News) that the documents were related to the Clinton Administrations handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration. I think this would be pretty big news myself, a former National Security Advisor stealing documents from the National Archives
And they wonder why their ratings are failing so badly and why no one seems to trust their objectivity any more. It truly does boggle the mind.
I think the quote that sums it up best for me comes from the Fox News website:
Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.
Ok, I can see accidentally putting some classified documents that are mixed in with regular documents into your portfolio. But how in Hades do you accidentally put a document into your socks?
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Democratic National Convention in Boston, without Kerry? |
| 07.20.04 (6:19 am) |
I was reading through the news this morning and ran across something rather interesting in a CBS article:
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Sunday canceled an appearance at the U.S. Conference of Mayors rather than cross a promised police union picket line at the event.
"I don't cross picket lines. I never have," Kerry said as he left Mass Sunday night at Our Lady of Good Voyage chapel in South Boston.
That should make the Democratic National Convention rather interesting, since the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association seems quite intent on picketing them as well.
That leaves Kerry with an interesting choice, does he cancel his appearance at the National convention in Boston or does he break his commitment not to cross picket lines?
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| When adding comments |
| 07.20.04 (5:40 am) |
When adding comments please keep in mind that personal attacks and childish behavior are not welcome here. While I certainly welcome dissenting points of view, I will delete any commentary that includes name calling of any sort.
I would also ask that you try not to be simply repetitive in your comments. If you've posted it once then once is enough, particularly if what your posting are allegations, conjecture or theory rather than facts. Reposting something doesn't make it any more true than the first time you posted it, it merely takes up bandwidth that could be better served discussing issues calmly and rationally.
As I said, I welcome other points of view here, but this is not a forum in which wild, unsupported allegations will go unchallenged or unchecked. Simply repeating the same allegations will most likely get the duplicate posting deleted. Have a point to make with your posts, if we've heard it before we are not interested in hearing it again. Any childish behavior or personal insults will likewise result in deletion. Your views are welcome here, as long as their stated in an intelligent, rational and adult fashion. If your interested in bashing anyone, and I do mean anyone then your in the wrong forum and should simply move on.
Thanks,
The Management
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Massachusetts Mayhem |
| 07.19.04 (1:10 pm) |
Ever hear of Emile Goguen? He's a state legislator for the state of Massachusetts, and he's filed an indictment of Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall, Associate Justices John M. Greaney, Roderick L. Ireland and Judith A. Cowin of the Massachusetts Supreme court.
It is his contention that these justices should be removed from the bench for their ruling forcing same sex marriages to be recognized in the state of Massachusetts. He cites quite a few instances in which Chief Justice Marshall in particular violated Massachusetts state law in regards to her conduct.
For example, according to Massachusetts state law "A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned …"
Apparently Chief Justice Marshall believes herself to be above this law. In 1999 she addressed an annual dinner of the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association in which she made her position on the subject quite clear. It is very evident from her remarks that she not only fully supported Gay and Lesbian marriages as far back as 1999; she also made it quite clear that in her opinion it was a matter that should be brought before the courts for resolution.
As such she should have recused herself from this particular case, as she already had made up her mind at least 4-5 years before she actually heard the case in question.
There are other specific instances of wrongdoing by Justice Marshall in this case as well; you can read the entire indictment here.
I suppose the natural reaction one might have is to simply dismiss Representative Gougen as some sort of right wing ideologue. Not going to be easy to do, however, since he happens to be a democrat.
Really no matter which side you support in the Gay marriage debate, the real crux of the matter here is not whether or not you support marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. The true issue is whether or not you think our laws should be passed by duly elected representatives who are assigned this duty by our Constitution (the legislatures) or whether a handful of unelected officials should be allowed to impose their own legislative agenda on the populace without allowing the populace any reasonable recourse.
If you support gay marriage, for example, and some legislator tries to pass a bill banning it you can always contact other legislators and try to drum up support for your views. If you feel the need you can even try and get him/her out of office during the next election cycle, and replace them with someone that more accurately represents your views. If you can get enough people to agree with you, odds are you'll be succesful and your ideology will carry the day. That is how the system is supposed to work. Our laws are not supposed to be enacted by a small group of anyhwere from 3-7 individuals who have no accountability to the electorate. Justice Marshall has no right to create new laws from her bench; she is not an elected official of the State of Massachusetts. She also had no right to sit in judgment over a case on which she has already shown a public bias towards a preformed opinion. She broke the law, and should be removed from the bench as a result.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Abu Ghriab in perspective |
| 07.19.04 (12:59 pm) |
The national media is absolutely saturated lately with stories about the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison. After reading and viewing a great deal of this coverage myself, it seems to me that some much needed perspective on this situation has been lost.
The small number of soldiers implicated in the Abu Ghraib incident are being thoroughly investigated and prosecuted for crimes under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Their actions were criminal and they are being treated accordingly, because that is how a civilized nation like the United States should conduct itself when incidents like this occur.
But has anyone in the national media or any of the critics of the current administration or our military asked what the terrorist group Muntada al-Ansar has done in response to the torture and murder of Nicholas Berg? Do any of these critics believe that this terrorist group will prosecute those responsible for Nicholas Berg's death? Have any of them pointed out that Al-Qaeda has no intention of punishing Osama Bin Laden for his crimes?
Think about that the next time someone tries to claim some moral equivalence between the United States and the terrorists we are fighting. As a civilized nation we punish those who participate in barbaric acts. We do not exalt them as heroes, and that is a very important difference indeed.
|
|
8 Comments
|
| |
|
|
|
