We Hold These Truths To Be Self Evident

Political Views & Humor from a Common Sense Perspective
 

Archives
2005 March
2004 December
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
 

BlogRoll
Lynnkramer's Blog
Larryconley's Blog
Thoolou's Lair
The Conservative Hitman
A Healthy Alternative to Work
UberBlog of Anti-Liberalism
A100wwe's Blog

 

Options

Wilson and Akre, Not All That They Appear At First Glance
08.30.04 (11:07 am)
Recently got into a discussion about media bias, and rather than answer some of my own specific questions on the subject several of the progressive bloggers have taken to charging Fox news with bias instead.

Still waiting for either of them to answer my own questions on the subject, however it is not my style to allow questions put to me to go unanswered even if the posters in question do not do me the same courtesy and simply ignore questions put to them. While it would be nice if either of them would answer me as to why most major media outlets who vilified Bush with an investigation of his National Guard Service are now acting as apologists for the Kerry Campaign regarding some pretty obvious whoppers he told about his Vietnam service. But sadly rather than answer such questions directly they instead use a tangent about Fox news being biased. So be it. I may be somewhat disappointed by the evasion tactics, but I'll answer their questions even if they continue to duck mine.

One of the questions I received regarded a scandal about Fox News was regarding a law suit. Apparently Fox was sued by two reporters Steve Wilson and Jane Akre for supposedly trying to suppress or greatly alter a news story they were working on.

Not being a party to the actual events that took place here I can't speak authoritatively on who is in the right and who is in the wrong here. Certainly if Fox news did indeed do such a thing then they were in the wrong, no question about it. However, it seems fairly reasonable to investigate the matter fully before jumping to such a snap judgment. This is one of the things I discovered in my investigation thus far:


August 17, 2000
The Weekly Planet (Tampa, FL)
By John F. Sugg

In early March 1997 I got a phone call that promised a great exclusive news story. Intrigue, skullduggery, ruthless corporations. Journalistically speaking, I salivated.

The caller vowed to give me the scoop on nasty chemicals that were poisoning milk, and how there was an insidious cover-up keeping the news from the public. Further, the caller breathlessly hinted, there was a sexy local angle.

Adding credibility to the promised uncovering of truth was that the tipster was a journalist. He said he would explain why he was clueing me into the story if I would have lunch with him and his partner.

So, a few days later, on March 14, 1997 - the date is significant - I first met Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, his wife and professional partner, at Landry's Seafood House on the Courtney Campbell Causeway.

The restaurant was appropriate because I felt afterward as if I had bitten hard on a hook. The two journalists had certainly done a good job at offering me bait I found difficult to resist. Once they had me on the line, I found out things weren't quite as promised.

The two were working for WTVT-Ch. 13, a.k.a. Fox 13. Hired in December 1996 to become the investigative team, Wilson was paid $40,000 a year for a backbreaking 10 hours a week of work, and Akre got $70,000 for more or less a full-time job that included light duties as anchor. Not a bad gig.

Wilson and Akre had been working on a story about rBGH, a growth hormone used to stimulate milk production in cows. rBGH, trade named Posilac, is
manufactured by Monsanto Co., an outfit that is, without dispute, a corporate thug and one that exemplifies the worst fears about what happens when you mix a hunger for profits with the science of tampering with genetics.

Wilson and Akre sued Ch. 13 in April 1998, claiming they were wrongfully fired. They say Florida's "whistleblower" law protects people who refuse to violate a law or official regulation - in this case the 1934 Communications Act that prohibits broadcasters from beaming a false signal. The trial began July 17 and is still crawling toward a conclusion in Hillsborough County Circuit Court.

The reporting duo claim their never-broadcast series contained explosive material that Monsanto wanted buried. In truth, the rBGH story wasn't exactly news. A WTVT lawyer, Greg Jones, testified in the last week that at least two station news executives had become concerned over the originality of the Wilson-Akre report after the first draft was submitted in February 1997.

I had concerns like that myself. On returning to my office from my first lunch with Wilson-Akre, I found in my rather haphazard files on genetically engineered food two articles - from In These Times, Nov. 11, 1996; and Mother Jones, January 1997 - that pretty much said all that Wilson and Akre had told me.

But exposing Monsanto wasn't why the reporters had sought the meeting. The first draft of their proposed series on rBGH had been submitted Feb. 14 - less than a month before they first called me. At the time we met, the station was still trying to work with Wilson and Akre to get the report on the air - despite, according to testimony at the trial, their intransigence and arrogant hostility.

Jones, the WTVT lawyer who tried to get the Monsanto series in shape for airing, testified last week that "instead of a balanced piece of investigative journalism," the Wilson-Akre piece was "an attack...This wasn't news; this wasn't balanced."

Investigative journalists - I consider myself one - know the catechism of dealing with editors and lawyers. It isn't always pretty, but it's necessary. The idea is to make a story bulletproof, and the simplest tactic is to include fully the position of those targeted. Sure, very often people lie to the press. But the idea of fair reporting is to present both sides, even if the reporter suspects one side is dissembling.

The concept is to present the evidence and let the reader or viewer decide. The Wilson-Akre claim that WTVT was attempting to force them to air lies is cowshit, with or without rBGH added.

Back to my first lunch with the duo. It seemed to me that they intended to push things until an irreparable rupture occurred with the station. That's because although the two couched their mission in terms of crusading against the use of rBGH, their real goal appeared to be to expose that WTVT had caved in to Monsanto's pressure. At the time I thought they were driven mostly by their conniving to create the appearance that they were martyred journalists.

As I learned with some disgust, the whole purpose of the meeting was to prep me for when they ejected from WTVT so that the Weekly Planet could carry their water. While they still had me bluffed that our meeting was to disclose some real story about Monsanto, I had agreed to hold off printing anything until they left the station.

It struck me at the time that the reporters were clearly violating the confidentiality clause of their employment contract with the station.

That was their business, I concluded. However - and this is important - it reinforced my observation that their claims to be working with the station to get the series on the air were bogus. My observation is that they had no intent to do anything but create a crisis.

Wilson and Akre weren't very shrewd reporters, or they would have known that at that time the Planet and WTVT had several informal relationships, including sharing stories. I wasn't about to let their claims go unvetted.

Not giving away where I had heard the story, I asked WTVT journalists about the dispute. The staff's opinions of Wilson and Akre were pretty unanimous - the husband-wife team was hellish to deal with, and what they were trying to do with the Monsanto story had more to do with propaganda than good journalism.

"Believe me, we're trying to get the story on the air," the then news director, Daniel Webster, told me at the time. I did believe him - then and now.

Still, I waited. I occasionally talked to Wilson and Akre, and in fairness to them reserved final judgment. In March 1998, we hired Lynn Waddell, who is pretty savvy on media issues. I set up a lunch and introduced her to Wilson and Akre. After that, I've let Waddell report as she sees fit.

Typically, Wilson resorts to ridicule and intimidation in responding to Waddell's reports. That's not surprising for a guy who, as we reported, once referred to his wife as a "dumb bitch," and who once claimed to be delivering flowers in order to gain entry to a WTVT lawyer's condominium so that he could spy on the attorney.

Nonetheless, we generally have given a pretty positive spin to Wilson and Akre's case. Wilson posts the favorable stories on his Web site but excludes those that he doesn't like - a good comment on how he approaches reporting.

He sent me an e-mail after Waddell's last story, which appeared July 27, grousing that her story had "no quotes" (untrue) and that she "had called the plaintiffs paranoid" (an understatement on our reporter's part).

I've held off writing - biting my tongue because many of my "progressive" friends have been snowed by the Wilson-Akre propaganda machine. (The duo has the gall to link to our articles from their Web site, framing our reports under a banner that panhandles for donations for Wilson and Akre.)

The reason for my silence is that both sides had subpoenaed me, but neither ended up calling me. While under subpoena, I was not allowed to attend the trial.

Wilson wanted me to testify that when, several months ago we were advertising to hire an investigative reporter, we didn't hire him because WTVT had ruined his reputation as a journalist. That was untrue, and I
wasn't about to perjure myself for him. The real story was that we received 100 or so responses to the ad, which stated that we required a resume and samples of work. Every respondent complied - except one, Wilson.

WTVT lawyer Jones remarked at the trial that Wilson didn't want to do journalism, but "wanted to tell viewers what to think." Similarly, Wilson wanted to tell me what to say, and I wouldn't. So he didn't call me.

So, to my friends who truly want to fight "Frankenfood" and companies such as Monsanto, count on the Planet as an ally. But, please, stop prostrating yourselves in front of these cheap, false martyrs.

Seems that Mr. Sugg was none to impressed with these folks. I'll keep digging for more information, but from the outset if Mr. Sugg does turn out to be a reliable source I'd say Wilson and Akre are perhaps not the lily white martyrs they represent themselves to be. There are always two sides to every story, and if Mr. Sugg's account is reliable it would seem that Fox News's major problem with Wilson & Akre is that they seemed to forget that axiom in their reporting. Hopefully I'll have more information as my investigation continues.
7 Comments
 
Charity Begins At Home, Shouldn't it End There Too?
08.30.04 (10:35 am)
I ran across a rather interesting quote today from Walter Williams:

"People in the education and political establishments pretend they're not motivated by such 'callous' motives as greed and profits. These people 'care' about us, but from which areas of our lives do we derive the greatest pleasures and have the fewest complaints, and from which areas do we have the greatest headaches and complaints? We tend to have high satisfaction with goods and services like computers, cell phones, movies, clothing and supermarkets. These are areas where the motivations are greed and profits. Our greatest dissatisfaction is in areas of caring and no profit motive such as public education, postal services and politics. Give me greed and profits, and you can keep the caring."

I thought about that for a while and it occurs to me that Mr. Williams is right, that the services that people are most satisfied with are the ones that are run for profit. I don't remember the last time someone actually said something about how well run or what a great job programs like Social Security or Welfare are doing.

I guess the fundamental question is, why should government be in the charity business at all? Social security of course is not entirely charity, but considering how poorly our government manages and spends money does anyone out there really think putting them in charge of our retirement accounts is a good idea? Can anyone defend this as a valid notion?

And what of our governments forays into charity, programs such as Medicare and welfare. Have such programs put private concerns such as the United Way and various faith based groups out of business? Not at all, plenty of private charities out there that are doing quite well and certainly are in no danger of running out of money. Americans are by and large a generous people.

So again the question becomes why should our government, an organization known to be so terrible at managing money or spending money wisely, be allowed to illicit charitable contributions from us against our will for the welfare of others?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to giving to charity, I make donations regularly myself to various organizations. But what gives the government the right to take that money from me by force so that it can be used as a charitable contribution to someone else? Shouldn't it be my choice where, when and how much I give to charity? Since it’s my money, shouldn’t I be given some say into how it is used?

These questions are not meant to be rhetorical folks, I'd really like to hear from some of you folks who support the liberal/progressive point of view and see if perhaps you can give me a good argument to support the spending on such social programs.
18 Comments
 
Golly Ollie
08.30.04 (10:15 am)
Ran across this today, think the Colonel makes some pretty good points:

"John Kerry complains, 'Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on".' Dear John, Bring it on. As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign. I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved. This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, 'the job isn't finished.' Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff 'seared' into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger. ... The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John. When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote 'The New Soldier,' which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities. On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops 'had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam.' And you admitted on television that 'yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed.' And for good measure you stated, '(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners.' Your 'antiwar' statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John: Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements 'were proof I deserved to be punished.' He wasn't released until March 14, 1973. Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors 'repeated incessantly' your one-liner about being 'the last man to die' for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973. Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations 'were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on.' He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973. John, did you think they would forget? ... One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: 'I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families.' Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?"

--Oliver North, Lt. Col., USMC(ret)
0 Comments
 
The John Edwards Plan, Nuclear Whistlestop
08.30.04 (8:27 am)
NEW YORK - Vice presidential candidate John Edwards on Monday accused the Bush administration of making the nation less secure by miscalculating U.S. foreign policy, serving as the Democrats' critical voice on the opening day of the Republican National Convention.

"Their failed leadership at home and abroad means that they cannot deal with the new threats we face," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery in Wilmington, N.C.

The North Carolina senator said a Kerry administration would create a "Nuclear Whistleblower Initiative" in which the United States would give asylum and protection to any scientist in a foreign country — particularly Iran and North Korea — who discloses an illicit weapons program.

Ok, so your plan is that if any foreign scientist blows the whistle on their own countries WMD programs then we'll give them asylum here in the US. Quite a bargain, I suppose. Certainly sounds really good, doesn't it Senator Edwards. Sadly though I don't think you may have thought this one through to carefully.

People in our own nation who are CINWDI cleared (Classified Nuclear Weapons Design Information) are not allowed to travel to a lot of foreign nations and even when traveling to benign nations who are our allies such folks have to check in with the local FBI first.

So tell me Senator Edwards, if we as a nation offer our citizens the most freedom and we have such strictures in place to protect our nuclear program, what is the likelihood that a scientist from Iran or North Korea who works on their nuclear program would be even allowed to travel here to the US? Even if they were currently outside the borders of their own nations, don't you think the regime’s of those countries would hold their families hostage to prevent these scientists from defecting to the US?

This of course doesn't even address the other major problem with your plan. Lets say for the sake of argument a scientist does blow the whistle and we find out for a fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Then what?

You and your running mate have already made it clear you felt invading Iraq was a bad idea, and that a doctrine of preemptive war is a bad one, primarily because our supposed allies feel threatened by this sort of doctrine.

So what is one to do, Mr. Edwards? If you find out tomorrow that Iran is building nukes but you haven't the intestinal fortitude required to stand up to "allies" who claim to support us but in truth are making big bucks from Iran, what are you going to do exactly?

Will you invade Iran? How will you force them to stop building WMD's? We've tried negotiating for years, it's never worked. Just asking them to stop is insufficient. Clinton tried bribing North Korea, that idea was at least superior to idle talk however it also failed. The North Koreans took Clinton's bribes and went on producing WMD's anyway.

So, just what will we do to prevent these regimes from obtaining WMDs? How far are we willing to go, Mr. Edwards?

I think that information is a lot more important to the voting public than the announcment of some feel good give scientists asylum for ratting out their own nation measure. Just discovering a country is developing WMD's isn't enough. The real question is, what do you do about it?
2 Comments
 
Last Weeks Photo Caption Contest Winners!
08.27.04 (11:38 am)
[image]stepdad_826849711.jpg[/image]

Our third place entry was submitted by Newbie:

I could eat this many oscars!

Our second place entry this week comes from Deshanews:

I'll take the number 2 combo with supersized fries and a large vanilla milkshake. Actually can you make that 2 number 2's? Please add cheese as well.

And our Grand prize this week goes to Brogonzo:

"Mr. Moore, could you tell us the number of facts that appear in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'?"

Thanks again for all the great entries. Since our third place winner is not a member of tblog we couldn't award him tbucks, so we decided instead to double the award given to our first and second place entries. Brogonzo will recieve 50 tbucks, deshanews will recieve 30 tbucks. And since this has been a rather good week for us in terms of the number of hits generated by the blog, we decided to award 10 tbucks to everyone who entered the caption contest last week.

So congratulations to Philr, Darkmood, Averse, A100wwe and LarryConnley, you'll all be recieving 10 tbucks for submitting an entry.

Next week's caption contest is posted, you can reach it by clicking on the photo in the right hand margin. Thanks again to all who entered, keep those great captions coming!
6 Comments
 
This Weeks Hippo
08.27.04 (11:21 am)
This weeks hippo award goes to Stephen Crockett and Al Lawrence, and all of the liberally biased media in Tennessee who kept the knowledge of James Hart's true character and political views hidden from the public until after he won the Republican primary election for the 8th District Congressional race in Tennessee.

After concealing this information from the public, information given to them by the Republican party of Shelby county, they are now turning around and attempting to blame the Republican Party in Shelby, indeed as a whole, for the fact that this racist recieved the nomination. The full story can be found here:

http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=stepdad&static=27 1175" title="http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=stepdad&static=27 1175" target="_blank"http://www.tblog.com/template...

The fault lies not with the Republican party, no the fault here was entirely with the liberal media for manufacturing this scandal by not doing their jobs in the first place. So congratulations to Stephen Crockett, Al Lawrence and the rest of the local media outlets in Tennessee. You are this weeks hypocrites of the week.
1 Comments
 
Outrage in Tennessee
08.27.04 (10:28 am)
James Hart, an avowed racist has caused quite the controversy by managing to win the Republican nomination for the congressional race in Tennessee's 8th district.

So, how does an avowed racist pull something like this off? Ask a few liberal journalists or editorial writers and they'll decry the Republican party for it's racist views. But sadly they are not telling you the whole story, not by a long shot.

It starts with the 8th District congressional race. The Republican party of Shelby County Tennessee was not able to find a candidate to put on the ballot. Considering the rather nasty vetting that candidates, particularly conservative ones can face from the media and the opposition campaign this is really not all that surprising. The democratic incumbent was fairly well entrenched, and as a result the Republican Party of Shelby County did not have a candidate to put forward. This is actually quite common, uncontested races such as this one happen often throughout the entire country.

So how did Hart manage to get his name on the ballot as a Republican candidate? Don Johnson of the Shelby County Republican party gave us some rather interesting information that the press has not yet bothered to report on. Mr. Johnson told us "We were pulling the forms from the Election Commission for Shelby County but Hart filed in another county so we never knew until it was too late."

So Hart snuck off to another county, registered for the primary as a Republican knowing there was no other Republican in the race. By the time the Shelby County Republican Party found out about it, it was too late. The deadline for filing had already passed. So how hard is it to get on the ballot before the deadline? Again Mr. Johnson provided us with some great insight into how this could happen. Apparently in Tennessee it only takes 25 signatures to get your name on the ballot provided you file prior to the deadline date.

By the time the Shelby County Republican Party found out James Hart's name was on the ballot, it was too late. The deadline had come and gone, they couldn't get another candidate listed on the ballot after the deadline. So did the Shelby County Republican's just give up? Not at all.

They did what they could to try and stop Hart from winning the primary. Mr. Johnson told us, "On July 1, we passed that resolution and sent it to media outlets and did not receive any responses. In the middle of July, we published a sample ballot to 70,000 Shelby County households with the name of the write-in candidate that Republicans in the district were supporting."

Sadly however, despite their best efforts Hart still managed to win the nomination. So how did he pull it off? After all, the Republican Party of Shelby had contacted all the local media and asked to convey this information to the general public and prevent Hart from winning the nomination. The local media apparently took no interest in the story until the day before the primary, which simply wasn't enough time to get the word out. The local media also apparently didn't bother to mention that the Republican party was attempting to nominate a write in candidate to prevent Hart from winning the nomination. Without proper the media coverage, most voters had any idea who Hart was or what he stood for.

As Mr. Johnson informed us, "Then, after Early voting had ended and just one day before the primary election, the media finally noticed the issue but gave little mention of our write-in alternative. Unfortunately, a write-in candidacy is very difficult and the challenge proved to be too difficult to overcome."

As I mentioned earlier in Tennessee the normal ballot does not have a space for a write in candidate. In order to write in a candidate you first have to request a special ballot. Since the local news media was of virtually no assistance in informing the public (say, isn't that their only job?) on the situation, Hart in essence conned his way into the nomination. But if anything one shouldn't blame this on the Shelby County Republicans, they did everything they could to stop Hart once they found out he had registered for the Primary. They went far above and beyond the call of duty by anyone's definition of the term. No, if anyone dropped the ball here it was the television and newsprint media for failing to give any notice to the situation until it was far to late to effectively influence the Primary election. Had the newspaper reporters and editors that are now lambasting the Shelby County Republican Party for having this racist on the ballot been doing their jobs then maybe the write in candidate endorsed by the party would have won.

However since it wasn't apparently "newsworthy" until only 1 day before the election, most Republican voters in Tennessee had no idea who James Hart was or what his views were. It proved to be all to easy for Hart to manipulate the system and in essence steal the nomination.

So did the Republican Party of Tennessee give up? Did they decide to simply overlook Hart's racists views and support him anyway? Again, not by a long shot.

They have done something that as far as I can tell has never been done in the entire history of American politics. The Shelby County Republican Party Steering Committee unanimously passed a resolution endorsing the write-in candidacy of Dennis Bertrand for Congress.

Whereas, a candidate named James Hart has filed as a Republican in the Eighth Congressional District who supports a racist and elitist view of man,

Whereas, Hart espouses the same brand of socialism advocated by Adolph Hitler and says that he believes that some races are "favored" over others and wants to "compete with Jesus Christ and Buddha for the destiny of man.",

Whereas Hart himself said in a June 26 Commercial Appeal article: "I think they have every right to oppose my campaign and to have another candidate. I think it's true that I don't represent the ideas of the Republican Party.",

Whereas, it is of the utmost importance for Republicans to unite around a strong Republican candidate to go against Congressman Tanner,

Whereas, a good conservative Republican candidate has stepped up to the plate to redeem our Party name and take on Congressman Tanner;

Whereas TeamGOP, a respected grassroots Republican activist group in West Tennessee has also endorsed Bertrand and asked other Republicans for support,

NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Shelby County Republican Party that we strongly oppose the un-American and evil beliefs espoused by James Hart.

We agree with Dennis Bertrand that we "cannot in good conscience allow a candidate like James L. Hart to represent the Republican Party from the 8th Congressional District in the November General Election."

We urge all 8th district Republicans to unite behind Dennis Bertrand and cast a write-in ballot for him in the August 5, 2004 election.

This resolution shall be sent to all appropriate media outlets and Republican Party Chairmen in the Eighth Congressional District.

I think the Shelby County Republican's have done an absolutely outstanding job and deserve the utmost respect for the tremendous effort they have put in to stop James Hart. No, the people who dropped the ball here were the media outlets in Tennessee and nationally who put politics above principle. By not informing the public they allowed James Hart to win the Republican primary despite his racist views.

But some of these media outlets have gone even further now, in condemning Republicans for James Hart’s primary win.

Take for example what Stephen Crockett and Al Lawrence, hosts of Democratic Talk Radio in Tennessee had to say on the subject.

“His candidacy is showing publicly what Southern Democrats have always known about racial politics in the South. The rise of Bush Republicanism in the South is largely based on white racism."

No, his candidacy is showing publicly that far too many of you so called journalists allow your personal bias to dictate what information is given to the public. You and your fellow “journalists” kept this information from the public and as a result James Hart won the Republican primary. Now you want to say that it is the Republicans that voted for Hart who are at fault, and further go on to make it seem as if the Republican party fully endorses and supports this nutcase.

You should be ashamed of yourselves. You guys are full time, “professional journalists”. I have a day job and 3 kids, I write a blog in my spare time. It took me just a few web searches and and a single email to Mr. Johnson to uncover all of this information. You who have a full time staff of researchers who are paid to get information either couldn’t or didn’t wish to uncover the truth of the matter, and that is simply shameful.

Thanks again to Mr. Don Johnson of the Shelby County Republican Party for responding to our inquiries and providing us with the facts. If you would like more information about the Shelby County Republicans or their fight to defeat James Hart, you can find their website at:

http://www.shelbygop.org/index.shtml" title="http://www.shelbygop.org/index.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.shelbygop.org/inde...
22 Comments
 
Photo Caption Contest
08.27.04 (8:26 am)
[image]stepdad_731388003.jpg[/image]


Our third place entry from starchybean, John Edwards acting his age:

[b]"What's that, John?? You say we're going to win? Oh, GOODY!"[/b]

Our second place entry, because who doesn't dream of being Arnold? Sumbitted by Defensor:

[b]"Quick John, you're losing them! Start flexing."[/b]

Our grand prize winner, Kerry snaps from Deshanews

[b]"I've had it with you hairboy. It's time you were bitch slapped."[/b]
10 Comments
 
Has John Kerry's Swiftboat Washed Ashore on Gilligan's Isle?
08.26.04 (7:28 pm)
Just a few observations and opinion regarding Swiftvets, 527's, Free Speech, and John Kerry.

Much of the attention of the news media and the blogosphere has been focused of recent on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, or Swiftvets. I don't think I really need to get into the meat of the controversy, as it is all available for reading. [url=http://www.captainsquartersbl... ]Captain's Quarter's[/url] has particularly good coverage of this whole affair. Stepdad has written about it, as have I. So far I've done my best to stick to facts that I can document. Right now I'm just going to give some of my extemporaneous impressions regarding this situation and the surrounding issues.

-John Kerry has made his Vietnam service his central focus in his campaign; his chief qualification for the job of President ("I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty!"). Kerry's campaign, months ago, began attacking George Bush's National Guard record, even though Bush has never highlighted his Guard service as a qualification for President, even now.

-When Bill Clinton was up for election, liberals claimed that lack of military service should not be an issue in a presidential campaign, and at the time John Kerry was one of Clinton's chief defenders. But somehow now Kerry's military service is the centerpiece issue of his own campaign.

-Assuming for the moment that Bush completed his National Guard service honorably (there is no conclusive evidence otherwise, and he was honorably discharged) Kerry has been quoted as, in sum, stating that National Guard service is in all ways inferior to service in the active military. This seems to me to be a slap in the face to all who have served in the Guard and Reserves.

-What happens when the next generation begins to run for President, and can't use the Vietnam issue as a campaign issue? Are they considered unqualified? Does the fact of a volunteer military dim this issue as a campaign bone of contention?

-Please note for a moment that our governmental structure intends our military to be controlled by the civilian authority, not a military one. How does this affect the issue of military service as a qualification to be president?

-Swiftvets is being accused of being a Republican Party front, despite there being no evidence that this is so. The Bush campaign's official position is, in fact, opposite that of Swiftvets, that John Kerry served honorably and should be proud of his service. The group is made up of veterans of all political stripes, and spending any time on their site and their message board shows that they are most definitely not rabidly pro-Bush. They are, however, very much Anti-Kerry, for some very deeply held personal reasons. The fact that they have received funding from people who support Bush and/or do not wish to see Kerry elected should be expected (a given, actually) and proves nothing. That an attorney that is a noted expert in election law is consulted by the Swiftvets and also happens to be outside counsel for Bush also proves nothing, and is in fact occurring on a daily basis on the other side of the aisle. I believe that the attorney should not have resigned, as he was doing nothing wrong. Attorneys from both sides of the aisle acknowledge there was no misdeed here, regardless of the screeching from the Kerry side.

-John Kerry intones "Bring it On" in regards to his Vietnam service, and then when someone does, his reaction is -not- to debate the facts of the matter, not to answer the charges with proof that they are false, and not to even react to it himself personally, at first. From the very beginning he used threats of litigation, intimidation tactics, and ad-hominem smears of the Swiftvets and their organization to attempt to cast doubt upon their stories. When confronted with facts about his Cambodia Story and other parts of his service, he has been forced to change his accounts multiple times, first stating that he didn't say he was in Cambodia, then forced to admit he had said that, said that this "seared" memory was fuzzy, and that he wasn't there then, but was "near" there, but later he was there, but in January, then several times over the course of his service, then once... in the Rassman incident (mining and rescue of PCF 3) he first states that he remained to help PCF 3 while the rest of the boats went downriver, then his account has changed to finally admit what the Swiftvets were saying all along, which is he is the only one that left the scene, then had to return for Rassman. Even though Kerry is claiming they were under heavy fire at the time, they spent a significant amount of time rescuing PCF 3, but none of the other boats take heavy damage from gunfire, or any casualties. Either there was no fire, or the VC were really terrible shots. I'm not laying odds on the latter.

-Faced with the Swiftvet accounts, and increasingly forced to backtrack on his stories, the Kerry campaign becomes shriller in trying to discredit the Swiftvets and tie them to the Bush campaign. They latch on to any thread, no matter how tenuous, that they can find to link the Bush campaign to the Swiftvets. They play a game of "six degrees" tying contributors to the org back to Karl Rove, make a bunch of noise over a flyer in Alachua county although neither the Alachua County GOP or the Swiftvets 527 had anything to do with the "pro USA" rally in question. They call repeatedly for Bush to denounce the ad, and when he does them one better by denouncing -all- 527 ads, they scream that it is not enough, and that the moment has passed. And then they start the calls again for him to do what he has already done.

-I disagree with President Bush that the 527's should not be part of the process. This type of political speech is what the founders intended in the First amendment. McCain Feingold is, in my opinion, unconstitutional, and should be repealed at the first available opportunity. Money should be allowed to be given freely to PAC's, but full disclosure should be mandatory. Unions and other organizations that use money compelled from their membership (i.e. union dues) should -not- be allowed to use those funds for political ads. If the AFL-CIO wants to start a PAC and use private donations to fund it, fine. Union dues should be solely for collective bargaining activities and union functions, and not for political campaigns. No one should be compelled to give money to an entity using the funds for political activism.

-The fact that John Kerry has attempted to silence the Swiftvets by means of litigation threats, calls to bookstores not to sell their book, and an ad hominem smear campaign against the authors and contributors speaks ill of his respect for the rights of citizens to speak freely. Unless, of course, they are Michael Moore or Whoopi Goldberg and the message fits his template.

-All Kerry would have to do to prove his accounts of his Vietnam service are true would be to release his military records and allow for a full accounting (As he has demanded President Bush do. Sauce for the goose?). His use of proxy attackers, his shrill calls to the Bush administration to denounce his opponents, his smearing of the veterans, essentially stating that all 200-some-odd of them are lying through their teeth, threatening them with lawsuits, and now reports that PI's have been hired to dig into their private lives, are not the acts of someone who has the truth on his side. If you can refute an argument, you should never have to stoop to personal attacks to attempt to discredit your opponent. You should be able to do so factually, and with no need to set out on a campaign of personal destruction to acheive this end. Kerry is -acting- guilty.

-Regardless of Kerry's service in Vietnam, I find his actions and the actions of his comrades in the Vietnam Vets Against the War deplorable. Their blanket indictment of the US Military as rapists, murderers, pillagers, and war criminals gave comfort to our enemy, prolonged the conflict, demoralized our troops, and led to a large segment of our population treating troops who committed no crime other than serving their country (many involuntarily as a result of a draft) as pariah. Those who put their lives on the line (and many who lost it) in defense of America, and the South Vietnamese, were spit upon, called a disgrace to their country, abused, refused work, shunned, insulted, called baby-killers... No one who serves our country in uniform should have ever, and should never again be subjected to that type of treatment by the populace whom they serve and protect. It is ungrateful, it is disrespectful, it is callous, it is cruel, and it is wrong for even those to do not support a particular cause of action to attempt to paint the HUMAN BEINGS who fight in the US Military as sadists, rapists and barbarians. Each one of these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines is someone's brother, father, daughter, mother, son, best friend, teacher, fellow employee... They all have faces and names, and they are different from you and me only in the fact that they have placed themselves in front of a bullet in our defense. For this they should be honored and supported, not defamed. It is one thing to say that atrocities occurred, and to rightly decry that fact. Atrocities have occurred in war since the dawn of time. It is quite another to tar the entirety of our military with the label "war criminal" stating that this was a systemic evil, that it was all up and down the chain of command.

-And after making these accusations he has the nerve to have his proxies write in a letter to the President "Our pain from seeing these slanderous attacks stems from something much more fundamental, that if one veteran's record is called into question, the service of all American veterans is questioned." It's awfully convenient, 35 years later that John Kerry feels alright with hiding behind his "brothers" when he is under attack, but had no qualms with calling their service into question to further his political career during the war. He has no qualms with calling decorated veterans liars and slanderers when they raise questions about his record. He is willing to attempt to dig for deep dark secrets to muckrake them into being quiet, rather than addressing their accusations head-on. He also had no qualms about calling President Bush's service into question when it suited his purposes, and he and his proxies in Moveon.org and other 527 "attack groups" as they like to label Swiftvets, continue to do so, despite this pious protest, claiming he was AWOL, claiming that his loss of flying status had to do with drug and alcohol problems which, while he has admitted he had these problems, have not been even remotely tied to his military service. They have no problem engaging in slander and libel, personal smears and harmful rhetoric, but scream bloody murder if someone dares question John Kerry's "reporting for Duty" persona.

So there you have my observations on this whole mess. John Kerry's own conduct in this matter casts suspicion. The fact that he chose to focus on this four and one-half months of his life and career, rather than standing on his Senate record, says to me that he has nothing to stand on. The fact that the guy can't even go into a Wendy's and have a burger, but instead has to have a gourmet meal from a yacht club catered to his bus after making an appearance at said establishment, shows that he has no grasp of reality, and obviously only deigns to walk among the peasants when appearing among the unwashed might gain him a vote (and god forbid he should let such common fare as a Wendy's hamburger touch his delicate and refined palate). Such a pandering prevaricator is not fit to be my president.

-Submitted by: RedneckBob
2 Comments
 
Reading.. It's Fundamental
08.26.04 (10:53 am)
I don't normally respond to other people's blogs by writing a blog entry of my own, but every once in a great while I run across something that simply can't be covered (at least in my opinion) adequately with a simple comment.

Dr. Forbush's latest entry, entitled "Republicans Support Racist in Tennessee", is one of these exceptional occasions.

In it Dr. Forbush wishes to make the claim that the Republican party of Tennessee fully supports an avowed racist for office. Some of the more intersting quotes from his own article include:

Unfortunately in the last ten years the Republicans have dragged their political party further and further to the right. They dragged religion into politics and now they have found that Republicans are willing to support the extremist view of racism.

And of course this little gem:

After all if people would just behave the way Republicans think we should then there wouldn’t be any trouble!

Here’s a link to a report on the racist James Hart if anyone doubts my words.

Now normally I don't take these sorts of posts too seriously, but after reading through it I decided to click on the link that the good Doctor provided to prove his assertions that Mr. Hart is indeed a racist.

After reading the entire article I came to the conclusion that if Mr. Hart is indeed being quoted accurately (and at this point I have no reason to doubt that he was) then it would appear that he is indeed a racist.

However, the link that Doc provided also showed that the Republican party was not supporting this individual, not by a long shot, even though it was likely he would win the primary.

How could he do so without support? Easy, they didn't have any other candidate entered. This guy went down and got himself put on the ballot as a Republican, that much is true, but the Republican party is not supporting his bid for election even though he himself chose to register as a republican. In fact the local Republican party is moving heaven and earth to try and defeat this guy, which is also mentioned in the same article Doc provided in his link:

Despite his radical views, Hart may end up winning the Republican nomination because he is the only GOP candidate on the ballot in Thursday's primary. His presence in the campaign has embarrassed Republican leaders, who were blind-sided by Hart after they didn't bother fielding a candidate. Democratic Rep. John Tanner has held the seat for 15 years and is considered safe in November.

Republicans now desperately hope that a write-in candidate will stop Hart.

So nice try Doc, but if your going to provide iron clad evidence that all republicans are racists you might want to take a few moments to actually read your own sources.

Lol..
16 Comments
 
The Smell of Politics
08.26.04 (8:40 am)
Former Senator Max Cleland attempted to deliver a letter to President Bush, asking him to publicly condemn the 527 group Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth for their rather unflattering ads about his political rival John Kerry. The text of the letter (naturally with editorial commentary) appears below.

Here is a copy of the letter:

Dear President Bush,

We, the undersigned members of the United States Senate call on you to specifically condemn the recent attack ads and accompanying campaign which dishonor Senator John Kerry's combat record in the Vietnam War.


Don't you guys watch T.V.? Read newspapers? Bush did condemn the ads, he said that ads from all 527 groups were "detrimental to the process", and while I happen to disagree with him on this point it does bring up a rather interesting quesiton. Why should Bush go any further than this seeing as how the Kerry Campaign and the DNC have never uttered a single peep about all of the outlandish Bush bashing nonsense that appears on Moveon.org?

These false charges represent the worst kind of politics, and we agree with both Senator John McCain and Senator Kerry that a firmly established service record in the United States Military is fully above reproach.

Woah, two steps back there buckwheat. It certainly is not beyond reproach. Senator simply being a vet doesn't make anyone "beyond reproach". Also, as to your claim that the charges are false we have yet to determine that. In fact so far of the 2 charges we have had enough information to check on both the evidence indicates that the Swift Boat Vets were telling the truth. John Kerry is still refusing to release all of his military records for further analysis. He has also never once came out and given any type of evidence to dispute the charges or addressed the charges point by point. All he has done is to try and paint this as a smear campaign.

But we deserve better than that Mr. Cleland. Kerry is trying to tell us that his service in Vietnam qualifies him to run this country. I think we are entitled to find out more about that service. I can only think of one reason why Kerry would continue to refuse to release those records.

As veterans of the armed services, we ask that you recognize this blatant attempt at character assassination, and publicly condemn it.

But what you neglect to realize is that it can only be called character assassination if the charges are untrue. So far the Swift Vets and a few good bloggers have examined the records and presented overwhelming evidence, much of it written or spoken by Kerry himself, that at least 2 of the charges are indeed true. Kerry hasn't been able to address any of the specific charges factually nor is he apparently willing to release his records so that others can check the material over and compare it to the claims made by the swift vets.

Bottom line here Max is that Kerry has been caught red handed lying about his service in Vietnam twice now, and thus far everything the Swift Vets have said would appear to be true. So until Kerry is willing to step up and release his military records I'm afraid he really doesn't have much room to whine here.

Our outrage over these advertisements and tactics has nothing to do with the tax code or campaign finance reform efforts of this nation. Our pain from seeing these slanderous attacks stems from something much more fundamental, that if one veteran's record is called into question, the service of all American veterans is questioned. This administration must not tacitly comply with unfounded accusations which have suddenly appeared 35 years after the fact, and serve to denigrate the service of a true American patriot.

Your outrage? Your pain? Please.. your cheap political ploy is more like it. Thirty years ago Kerry slandered all of the vets, not just the ones in his old unit, by lying his butt off in front of Congress and claiming that they were all guilty of war crimes. You want to talk about outrage and pain? Talk to some of those guys that languished in a North Vietnamese POW camp listening to Kerry call them scumbags and criminals. Then come talk to me about outrage and pain.

The veterans serving today should never have to expect this kind of treatment, when the wars of their generation have passed into history. We brothers and sisters in arms expect our Commander in Chief to stand up and reject this assault upon John Kerry's honor, the honor of American veterans and that of the United States Navy.

Yikes.. Ok, the honor of the veterans of today has absolutely nothing to do with John Kerry's honor, or lack thereof. Kerry abandoned his brothers in arms a long time ago when he accused them of atrocities. To try and use them now to sheild himself from criticism is simply shameful.

As you yourself have said, there is nothing complicated about supporting our troops, and the leaders of this nation should make it clear that the members of our military will not only be supported when they wear the uniform, but also when they return home to the land they fought to defend. Their valor and their wounds, both physical and psychological, make them heroes for as long as they live, a status which should not and must not change simply because they seek to enter public service.

It should be made clear to you that a man that claims to be a war criminal 30 years ago and blames all of his fellow vets for the same, apparently bogus, crimes, shouldn't expect to be able to pass himself as a war hero now. He doesn't get to play both sides of the field and not get called on it. In short, tell your boy to make up his mind.

We Senators and Congressmen who wore the uniform served in different branches of the military and belong to different political parties, but we join together today to defend a fellow veteran from attacks we know to be false, and politically-motivated slander that has no place in our democratic process.

Wait, you "know" them to be false? Have you seen his military records? I sure haven't, and neither has the rest of the public. So what are you basing this "knowledge" on, Kerry's word?

Mr. President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, we believe you owe a special duty to America's combat veterans when they are under false and scurrilous attacks. We hope you will recognize this duty, and speak out against this group and their efforts to smear the reputation of a man who has served this country nobly.

Again you claim the attacks are false and scurrilous, but at this point neither yourself nor anyone at the Kerry can offer any proof that these attacks are indeed false. In fact so far they are two for two and right on the money, your man has been batting zero.

Call on this group to cease and desist.


He can't call them at all, that would be illegal, he could get in big trouble for that under campaign finance reform laws, remember?

We can return this campaign season to a discussion of the issues on either side, and restore faith in the political system. As Americans, we should expect nothing less.

Lol.. your kidding me, right? Ok, so Bush breaks the law for you guys, provides you political cover for an issue that is hitting Kerry hard thanks to his own huge political blunder of trying to portray himself a war hero, and in return you'll do what exactly?

Shut down moveon.org or the multitude of 527 groups you and the DNC have been in bed with since the campaign started? Call on them to stop all their nasty hate filled anti Bush rhetoric?

Lol..

Well Senator Kerry, I guess we have to give you points for trying, if nothing else. But since you once invoked imagery of the movie Apocalypse Now, allow me to do the same in return...

I love the smell of politics in the morning It smells like... fertilizer..

Lol...
3 Comments
 
A Blast from the Past, Literally
08.26.04 (7:46 am)
Laurel poultry grower Bill Layton said he didn't count on finding explosives in his driveway when he spent $600 in November to cover it with clam-shells.

Last month, while poking around in the driveway about 40 feet from his rear door, Layton spotted a grayish object in the crushed shells. It was a World War I French rifle grenade. Thirteen more grenades were found later by a state police bomb team.

"That's what scares the hell out of me," Layton said. "We've been riding over them all winter."

For the past three months, surplus munitions dumped at sea decades ago have been turning up in some shell-covered driveways in Sussex County. Authorities believe the rusted explosives are being dredged up by clam harvesters from the Atlantic Ocean in spots where the Army dumped surplus ordnance after World War I and World War II.

Since early February, bomb disposal teams from the state police and Dover Air Force Base have responded to nine complaints, removing nearly 100 of the potentially dangerous war relics from yards and driveways near Bridgeville, Delmar, Laurel, Gumboro and Rehoboth Beach.

State police Cpl. Jeff Oldham said anyone who purchases clamshells for driveways should contact police if they see anything out of the ordinary in the shell piles.

"I would use extreme caution and be very observant when spreading them," Oldham said. "If you come across anything that looks like ordnance, stop, get away from it and call police."

Many rural residents in Delaware and southern New Jersey, especially on farms and in beach towns, use crushed clamshells as an economical way to create a driveway. Layton's $600 bought about 50 tons of clamshells. Stone, asphalt and concrete could have cost anywhere from three to 10 times as much to cover the same area.

But the cluster of recent ordnance findings are giving some folks second thoughts about their safety.

Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.
0 Comments
 
Killer Bee's found in Oklahoma, Bee Jees deny involvement.
08.26.04 (7:09 am)
OKLAHOMA CITY — A swarm of bees that attacked a work crew earlier this month may be of the Africanized variety, which would mark the furthest north the so-called "killer" bees have traveled in the United States, scientists said.

DNA tests show the bees have Africanized traits, said Russell Wright, head of the Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology at Oklahoma State University.

"They certainly are more Africanized than European," he said.

Wright said the bees have been sent to a U.S. Department of Agriculture Laboratory in Arizona for final confirmation. Those results are expected to take three to four weeks.

Wright said it will be the furthest north the so-called "killer bees" have traveled in the United States.

The bees were discovered when a work crew cut through the limb of a storm-damaged tree last month in the southwest Oklahoma community of Tipton.

"We all ran different directions to the vehicles, and they followed us. There were just so many of them," said Jeff Marshall, a city worker who was stung between 35 and 40 times. Seven members of the work crew were treated at a hospital.

Similar to common honey bees but dangerously aggressive, Africanized honey bees have been detected in New Mexico, Texas, California, Nevada and Arizona. They were first found in Texas in 1990.

The bees' venom is no more toxic than the European honeybee, but they are more dangerous because they attack in larger numbers.

"When they sting, they give off an odor or a pheromone that attracts other bees," he said, "and they will follow you a long way."

That's right folks, Killer Bees in Oklahoma. We need to act and we need to act very, very quickly. This represents a tremendous danger to us all.

No, I'm not worried about getting stung, in fact the danger here is not from the bees themselves at all. The danger here is that Hollywood will start making remakes of all of those really terrible movies about Killer Bees they did back in the 70's.

Trust me, about the only two subjects anyone ever made movies about back then were killer bees and airplane crashes. We were just all really grateful they never made a move about killer bees stinging a 747 pilot causing a plane to crash or worse yet a plane that crashes into a nest of killer bees.
0 Comments
 
More Veterans Respond to Kerry's Campaign
08.25.04 (11:13 am)
Letter to John Kerry

August 25, 2004

Senator John Kerry
304 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Kerry,

We are pleased to welcome your campaign representatives to Texas today. We honor all our veterans, all whom have worn the uniform and served our country. We also honor the military and National Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. We are very proud of all of them and believe they deserve our full support.

That’s why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And that’s why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities – and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

We’re proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.

You said in 1992 “we do not need to divide America over who served and how.” Yet you and your surrogates continue to criticize President Bush for his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard.

We are veterans too – and proud to support President Bush. He’s been a strong leader, with a record of outstanding support for our veterans and for our troops in combat. He’s made sure that our troops in combat have the equipment and support they need to accomplish their mission.

He has increased the VA health care budget more than 40% since 2001 – in fact, during his four years in office, President Bush has increased veterans funding twice as much as the previous administration did in eight years ($22 billion over 4 years compared to $10 billion over 8.) And he’s praised the service of all who served our country, including your service in Vietnam.

We urge you to condemn the double standard that you and your campaign have enforced regarding a veteran’s right to openly express their feelings about your activities on return from Vietnam.

Sincerely,

Texas State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson
Rep. Duke Cunningham
Rep. Duncan Hunter
Rep. Sam Johnson
Lt. General David Palmer
Robert O'Malley, Medal of Honor Recipient
James Fleming, Medal of Honor Recipient
Lieutenant Colonel Richard Castle (Ret.)


[Editor's Note: I choose not to italicize this as I normally do quotations, however it should be noted that I did not write this letter personally it was actually sent by the individuals listed above. For the record I do, however, wholeheartedly agree with everything these individuals have stated.]
2 Comments
 
Senator Kerry And The Chamber of Secrets.
08.25.04 (9:30 am)
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry will dispatch two fellow Vietnam veterans to President Bush's secluded Texas ranch on Wednesday to press him to condemn television advertisements accusing Kerry of lying about his wartime service.

Umm.. but Senator Kerry, you have been lying about your Vietnam War record, your own contradictory statements are more than evidence of that. So why should you expect your Political opponent to condemn a group of vets who appear to be telling the truth?

The move comes one day after it was disclosed that a top lawyer for Bush's re-election campaign has been providing legal advice to the group behind the ads, the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

A lawyer with more than one client? Egads.. I hope someone has a rope available and we can get some gallows built quickly enough.. lol..

Ok, honestly folks, can anyone else say "smokescreen" here?

Kerry is sending to Crawford former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, a frequent companion of Kerry's on the campaign trail and a fellow Vietnam War veteran who lost three limbs during the war.

Cleland and former Army Green Beret Jim Rassman, whose life was saved by Kerry during a Vietnam war firefight, will try to deliver a letter protesting the ads to Bush at his heavily guarded ranch, Kerry aides said.


Lack of confidence in the US Postal Service, or sorry political ploy, you decide..

Kerry's service has dominated the neck-and-neck race for the Nov. 2 election in recent days as both candidates try to portray themselves as the best man to lead the United States in its war against terrorism.

Bush has called for the Swift Boat ads to be stopped along with others run by independent groups, and said Kerry should be proud of his war service.

But Bush stopped short of condemning the group or its specific accusations that the Democratic presidential candidate lied about his record in Vietnam.

If Bush can't prove the allegations true or false then he [b]should[/b] stop short of condemning the allegations specifically. To do otherwise would be to accuse the Swift Boat Vets of lying without proof to substantiate such a charge. This group has made some pretty serious allegations about Kerry's record, a record that Kerry himself made the centerpiece of his campaign. Now that they have, we have learned from various sources (mostly bloggers mind you, the mainstream media is still playing catch up or ignoring the story completely) that so far the Vets have been correct in at least two of their allegations, by admissions made by the Kerry campaign itself. Kerry was not in Cambodia for Christmas in 1968, and his first purple heart was apparently rewarded to him for a self inflicted wound.

But perhaps the biggest issue here is this, The Swift Boats have hit the Kerry campaign hard with these ads and these allegations despite limited funding and a lack of access to the mainstream media. How does Kerry respond? By crying foul and running to his political opponent more or less begging for help to get out of this mess, a mess he created in the first place by trying to pass himself off as a war hero.

So really even if you don't care about Kerry's service in Vietnam (which many of us do not), it may still interest you to take note of John Kerry's reaction to the problem at hand.

Rather than dealing with it directly and addressing the specific charges made by the Vets, what has he and his campaign done in response? Tried to shift the blame and focus off the issue at hand, and then run to the opposition for help in silencing the vets that the smear and intimidation tactics he tried did nothing to silence.

Is this really the sort of President you want? If there is a repeat of 9/11, do you really want a President who reacts like this to the crisis? What will he do if were attacked again, run to the UN for help?

And when he discovers what most of us have already realized, that the UN is hopelessly mired in bureaucracy and corruption to ever fix anything, who does he run to then? Who does he try and shift blame too then?

Sorry folks, but if Kerry really wants to be taken seriously he needs to step up and show evidence that what the Swift Boat Vets accuse him of is not true. He needs to release all of his service records for scrutiny. Otherwise I see no reason for Bush to claim that what the Swift Boat Vets are saying is untrue, because so far they have been right on the money twice and Kerry is still batting zero.

As to the 527 issue, if Kerry wants any credibility here the only way he can get it is to return all of Soros's donations to his campaign and denounce moveon.org and all the other 527's that have been intimately tied to his own campaign and running all of the hateful rhetoric about Bush's administration.

Sorry Johnny, can't have it both ways here. If your not willing to renounce the 527's that work in your favor you should expect Bush to renounce the one 527 that has been kicking your butt severely on an incredibly limited budget.

Has to scare the cream cheese right out of you though I suppose Senator, when you stop and think about the fact that the book Unfit for Command has sold so many copies that bookstores can't keep it on the shelf and can't even come close to meeting the demand for it. I think the only time I've seen a rush like this to purchase a book was the last installment of Harry Potter.
0 Comments
 
The Million Mullah March?
08.25.04 (7:44 am)
NAJAF, Iraq — Iraq's most powerful Shiite cleric returned to the country from Britain on Wednesday and his aides called for a nationwide march to Najaf to end nearly three weeks of fierce fighting between U.S. forces and Shiite militants in this holy city.

The announcement came as heavy fighting persisted in Najaf's Old City. U.S. warplanes fired on the neighborhood, helicopters flew overhead and heavy gunfire was heard in the streets, witnesses said.

Iraqi police sealed the area, preventing cars from entering, and Najaf's police chief, Maj. Gen. Ghalib al-Jazaari, said radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's militia was on its last legs.

"The Mahdi Army is finished," he said. "Its hours are numbered."

Witnesses in Najaf's Old City said relentless American attacks appeared to be weakening the resistance of al-Sadr's loyalists.

The police chief said his officers arrested several al-Sadr aides Wednesday who were carrying valuables from the sacred Imam Ali Shrine, which the Mahdi Army controls. One of al-Sadr's top lieutenants, Sheik Ali Smeisim, was among those arrested, police officials said on condition of anonymity.

Another al-Sadr aide, Aws al-Khafaji, said Mahdi Army fighters would honor the return of Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistani to Iraq by briefly suspending fighting with coalition and Iraqi government forces in every area the religious leader passes through on his way to his home in Najaf.

Al-Sistani, 73, went to London for heart treatment on Aug. 6, one day after fighting erupted in Najaf. The cleric wields enormous influence among Iraq's Shiite majority and his return could play a crucial role in stabilizing the crisis in Najaf.

He crossed into southern Iraq from Kuwait about midday in a caravan of sport utility vehicles accompanied by Iraqi police and national guardsmen, according to an Associated Press reporter with the convoy. The convoy stopped in the southern city of Basra, about 280 miles from Najaf.

After meeting with al-Sistani, Basra Gov. Hassan al-Rashid told reporters the cleric planned to start off on a march to Najaf on Thursday. "The masses will gather at the outskirts of Najaf and they will not enter the city until all armed men, except the Iraqi policemen, withdraw from the city," he said.

I really hope that Husseini al-Sistani's plan will work, it would be great to see this situation resolved without more bloodshed.
0 Comments
 
Why Is He Called Gay If He Acts So Miserably?
08.25.04 (6:40 am)
DAVENPORT, Iowa - Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian, drew criticism from both proponents and foes of gay marriage after he distanced himself from President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town Tuesday, Cheney spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying "freedom means freedom for everyone," when asked about his stand on gay marriage.

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

"The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage," he said.

Bush backs a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, a move Cheney says was prompted by various judicial rulings, including the action in Massachusetts that made gay marriage legal.

"I think his perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change, without allowing the people to be involved," Cheney said. "The courts were making the judgment for the entire country."

Addressing Bush's position on the amendment, Cheney said: "At this point, say, my own preference is as I've stated, but the president makes policy for the administration. He's made it clear that he does, in fact, support a constitutional amendment on this issue."

Those comments drew criticism from the conservative Family Research Council, with President Tony Perkins saying: "I find it hard to believe the vice president would stray from the administration's position on defense policy or tax policy. For many pro-family voters, protecting traditional marriage ranks ahead of the economy and job creation as a campaign issue."

Perkins added that if Cheney sees a problem with activist judges, "then how can he not endorse the same solution the president and his pro-family allies have proposed? We urge Vice President Cheney to support President Bush and a constitutional amendment on marriage."

Steven Fisher, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian advocacy group, said Cheney's remarks show a stark difference with Bush's efforts "to put discrimination in the Constitution."

"President Bush is feeling the heat. The administration has been using gay Americans to drive a wedge into the electorate. There are millions of American families who have gay family members and friends, who are offended by the president's use of discrimination," Fisher said.

I can understand Tony Perkins negative comments, after all he supports a the Constitutional amendment to defend marriage. I can also understand Vice President Cheney's view, even though I disagree with him somewhat.

I think the Constitutional gay marriage ban is necessary, not because I wish to prevent gay couples from having relationships but because I would like to see the power of the judiciary curtailed in this regard. I think activist judges have gotten far to out of hand in this country, usurping power from the legislatures and imposing their own political views on an electorate to which they are not accountable. I think if there is to be gay marriage in this country it should come from the legislature, mandated by the people. Not imposed on us by some judge because he feels its right.

But what I don't understand is Steven Fishers commentary, I'm not sure if Mr. Fisher is aware of it or not but the vast majority of the voting public sides with President Bush on this one. Cheney really isn't under any pressure at all to make a statement like this, other than from his own conscience. Politically speaking the smarter move would be to keep his personal opinions to himself, after all this isn't going to encourage anyone from the Human Rights Campaign to vote Bush-Cheney. If anything it might end up costing them a few votes.

But I admire Cheney for having the guts to say what he believes when he knows it will cost him votes, even if I don't happen to agree with his views. Maybe if we had more men of conscience like this our nation would be a better place.

Sad that Mr. Fisher is too much of an ideologue to recognize that, or Mr. Cheney, for his statements in support of his gay daughter even though it is likely to alienate some of the conservative base. But instead of reaching out and acknowledging Cheney's efforts instead Mr. Fisher tries to score political points for his advocacy group.

What a pity. But given this can you really blame any of us who believe that groups such as the one's represented by Mr. Fisher are far less interested in pursuing "equal rights" and far more interested in forcing social acceptance of their lifestyles?
0 Comments
 
Pete Yost, professional journalist or partisan hack?
08.24.04 (10:43 am)
While the Kerry camp conducts and ever spiraling quest to find any shred of ‘evidence’ of the supposed collusion between Swiftvets and the Bush campaign, Pete Yost of the Associated Press published a story over the weekend [url=] http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... [/url] about a “Kerry volunteer” who picked up a rally flyer in the Alachua County GOP office. The flyer, apparently an amateur effort, can be seen here [url=] http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... [/url]. There is a box in the upper right that lists, among others, the Alachua County Republicans, and the Swiftvets. Much is made about how the Bush campaign was “busted” for participating in “their smear campaign against John Kerry.”

If you read the article you will see the national Bush/Cheney office was questioned and denied any involvement. One of the things that struck me was the lack of anyone actually contacting the Alachua County GOP, from where this flyer apparently originated. Well, I did, and they were most gracious in offering me the following response:

[i]“My name is Greg Newburn. Thanks for contacting us on this story. I am responding on behalf of Travis Horn, Chair of the Alachua County Republican Party.

To date [b](8/22/04 – RB)[/b], Pete Yost has not contacted Travis or the Alachua County GOP for comment. The flyer in question was dropped off at the county headquarters, and remained there until it was called to the attention of the leadership. The Swift Boat Vets rally was not an official GOP event, and the GOP did not spend any money on the rally, or endorse it in any way.

Rather, the rally was billed as a "Pro-USA political rally," and the GOP was listed as an invitee. The rally was organized by a group of veterans completely independent of the local party and the Bush/Cheney campaign.

We think this is a non-issue. That one flyer promoting an event that the GOP did not sponsor, but to which we were invited, was found at our headquarters does not indicate improper collusion with the Swift Vets any more than the existence of pens and staplers indicates collusion with Office Depot.

This is simply another attempt to smear the veterans who are questioning John Kerry's war record, and as the frantic desperation continues, the charges become more transparently weak. We urge the Kerry campaign to stop writing bogus press releases and to stop engaging in the politics of personal destruction. We urge the Kerry campaign to stop deflecting attention from the real issues that matter to Americans, like national security, health care, and jobs.”[/i]

So here’s the scoop: a local veterans group (not even the Swiftvets officially) had put together a rally, and invited the swiftvets and the local GOP, among others. They (ill-advisedly) used the names of the organizations they had invited on their flyer to attract attention (They shouldn’t have done so without permission, but hey, they’re not professional campaigners). They dropped off a flyer, and apparently it was there until the leadership of the GOP office was made aware of it, at which point I assume it was removed. This is not any evidence of collusion, and if Pete Yost had bothered to contact them to get both sides of the story, it probably would have been spiked. Instead he chose to sensationalize this supposed “proof” of collusion. Pretty sad that a professional journalist can’t be trusted to investigate this stuff, when it was easy enough for me, a private citizen, to get the information he failed to seek. Further, he didn’t ask the Swiftvets if they were sponsoring a rally in Gainesville (A quick visit to their website showed that they denied official involvement).

Basically Pete Yost didn’t get his Who When Where, Why, and What covered, which is supposed to be Journalism 101 stuff. Instead of going to the sources (Swiftvets and the local GOP) to see what the deal was, he got a “no comment” quote from the national campaign, knowing that it would make them look bad. The story’s not nearly as sensational when all the facts are in. And we’re supposed to trust that the media is giving us the full story? Investigate for yourselves.

Submitted By: RedneckBob
0 Comments
 
Kerry Campaign Abandons Ship
08.24.04 (10:20 am)
The Kerry Campaign thus far has had an extremely difficult time with the accusations leveled by the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth.

Kerry himself and many of his supporters have professed great outrage that these men dare to question Kerry about his service in Vietnam. They have maintained that the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth are actually liars.

They have not, however, been able to debate the Swift Boat Vets on any of the facts that the present, facts which certainly cast a great deal of doubt on John Kerry's claims about his service in Vietnam.

John Kerry claimed and maintained for nearly 30 years that he spent the Christmas of 1968 conducting illegal operations into Cambodia at the behest of President Nixon, however the Swift Boat Vets have all but proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that this simply wasn't true. At first the Kerry Campaign went berserk over the allegations, trying to smear and discredit the Swift Vets based on the source of some of their contributions, but they never did speak to the actual facts of the event. The Kerry campaign has now retreated, claiming that Kerry was near the Cambodian border, but not necessarily in Cambodia. They still haven't explained how this could possibly be the responsibility of President Nixon since Nixon wasn't President in 68.

Now it seems that yet another thread in the tangled web of John Kerry's Vietnam service is beginning to unravel, the mystery of his first purple heart. The doctor that treated him for the wound claimed it was just a scratch, and credible eyewitness accounts described the wound as self-inflicted.


Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, Kerry's immediate superior, said he doubted Kerry deserved the first of the three Purple Hearts he was awarded during his four months in Vietnam:

"The briefing of some members of the crew the morning after revealed that they had not received enemy fire," Hibbard said. "And yet Lt. j.g. Kerry informed me of a wound, he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s [grenade launcher]. It was later reported to me that Lt. Kerry had fired an M-79 and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline."

Hibbard's doubts are shared by Louis Letson, the physician who treated Kerry for his wound at the Cam Ranh Bay medical facility:

"The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a fire fight. He said that his injury had resulted from this enemy action.

"Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore. The crewman thought that the injury was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks. That seemed to fit the injury which I treated."


This is what the Swift Vets maintained, and again the Kerry Campaign went berserk, attacking the Swift Vets and trying desperately to discredit them, but never once addressing the actual facts of the allegation.

Then from Fox news we discover:

GARRETT: And questions keep coming. For example, Kerry received a Purple Heart for wounds suffered on December 2nd, 1968. But an entry in Kerry's own journal written nine days later, he writes that, quote, he and his crew hadn't been shot at yet, unquote. [b]Kerry's campaign has said it is possible his first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentionally self-inflicted wound.[/b] [Emphasis Mine]

So now the Kerry campaign is retreating again, admitting that yet again the Swift Vets were right and his first purple heart was awarded to him because he was monkeying around with a grenade launcher and caught a piece of shrapnel from some rocks he fired a grenade into.

Looks like it's Swift Vets 2, Kerry 0 as far as telling the truth is concerned. So, the burning question becomes, if Kerry has already been proven to be lying about his Vietnam Service twice, why would anyone choose to believe anything he has to say about the rest of his service in Vietnam?

If this is what he chooses to campaign on, claiming his Vietnam service qualifies him to be president, then shouldn't this issues be examined by the national media? Are they not supposed to be our watchdogs?

Sadly it seems that they have become lapdogs for the Democratic party, and that Kerry will continue in smearing the Swift Vets now just as he did 30 years ago. Sad but true.
2 Comments
 
No More Mr. Nice Alice
08.24.04 (7:40 am)
ALICE COOPER has told the Canadian Press that all the rock stars campaigning for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry are guilty of one thing: treason. The shock-rock legend, a staunch Republican who attends NBA games in Phoenix with Arizona Senator John McCain, was disgusted when he learned of plans by Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, R.E.M. and other bands to hold a series of concerts aimed at unseating U.S. President George W. Bush.

"To me, that's treason. I call it treason against rock 'n' roll because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics," says the 56-year-old Cooper, who begins a 15-city Canadian tour on Aug. 20 in Thunder Bay, Ont.

"When I was a kid and my parents started talking about politics, I'd run to my room and put on the ROLLING STONES as loud as I could. So when I see all these rock stars up there talking politics, it makes me sick.

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."

Despite his strong insistence that rock has no place in politics, Cooper is one of just a handful of high-profile musicians who've proclaimed support for Bush.

I don't really think there is much commentary that could be added here, I think Mr. Cooper has said it all :)
6 Comments
 
Choosy Dictators Choose Kerry
08.24.04 (7:22 am)
From the Herald Sun: NORTH Korea today described US President George W. Bush as an "imbecile" and a "tyrant" who was worse than Adolf Hitler, and ruled out holding new talks on nuclear weapons with the United States.

In an unusually strong attack, a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said comments by Mr Bush calling North Korea a tyrant during campaigning last week in Wisconin were "malignant slanders and calumnies". "He is a political imbecile bereft of even elementary morality as a human being and a bad guy," the spokesman, quoted by the official KCNA news agency, said.

The spokesman blamed Mr Bush for starting wars in Iraq and elsewhere, and said the US was trying to topple the legitimate government of North Korea.

"Bush's assumption of office turned a peaceful world into a pandemonium unprecedented in history as it is plagued with a vicious circle of terrorism and war," the statement said.

The spokesman went on to describe Mr Bush as "a tyrant that puts Hitler into the shade" as well as "an idiot, an ignorant, a tyrant and a man-killer."

He said that after Mr Bush's comments, it would be "impossible" to hold working-level discussions to prepare for a new round of multilateral talks on the nuclear issue. The talks bring together the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the US.

I didn't realize that the North Koreans wrote material for Moveon.org. Most curious indeed. But I suppose this is one iron clad example of those "Foreign Leaders" that Kerry spoke of who were endorsing his bid for president.

Nice to know that Kim Jong is firmly in the Kerry camp, but then from what I understand 4 out of 5 megalomaniacal despots support Kerry for president.
44 Comments
 
Don't Quit Your Day Job
08.24.04 (6:05 am)
A bank robber made things easy for Iowa police — he left behind his rental-car receipt.

The 26-year-old man, whom Council Bluffs, Iowa, police did not name, walked into the Telco Triad Community Credit Union (search) in the Omaha suburb Wednesday afternoon, according to the Omaha World-Herald.

The bank robbery went smoothly enough, Sgt. Ray Mabbitt told the newspaper.

But a slip of paper left at the bank turned out to be an Enterprise Rent-A-Car receipt, which noted that the getaway car had to be returned by 5:57 p.m. that same day.

Sure enough, the alleged robber turned up on time, as did his sister, who was driving and to whom the car had been rented.

Both were arrested. Cash and a pellet gun were found in the car.

As for the robbery suspect, he broke free while being taken to the police station, but officers caught up to him, handcuffs and all, about a block away

So the guy rents a car to rob a bank with. Granted, not the best plan in the world but I suppose it is slightly brighter than using your own car. Not a whole lot brighter, mind you, but slightly.

But I suppose the thing that floors me is that the guy gets away with robbing the bank but is a real honest, upstanding citizen when it comes to returning his rental car.

Ok, sure, maybe he put a deposit on it, but didn't he just rob a bank? Couldn't he afford to loose the deposit and ditch the car?

I guess this is why the guy needed to resort to robbing banks in the first place. Not a lot of other jobs you can do when you lack this much common sense.
8)
0 Comments
 
Sensitivity Training, Conservative Style
08.23.04 (1:11 pm)
Had a gentleman send me a tmail the other day, and while I won't burden you with the entire text in essence he wished to make the point that my support of George W. Bush in the next election was nothing short of insanity.

My response? Simply this:

[image]stepdad_509680940.jpg[/image]

And of course, this:

[image]stepdad_235452913.jpg[/image]

I haven't forgotten September 11th. I'm surprised that so many have. But this images will stay with me for as long as I draw breath.

So, my options are simple. Do I vote for the guy that has promised a more sensitive approach to this problem, or the guy that has actually done something worthwile in this regard?

Easy choice for me. Surprised it seems so difficult to understand for so many others.
22 Comments
 
Politics and Press as usual
08.23.04 (12:51 pm)


SAN FRANCISCO — "Bourne Supremacy" star Matt Damon, "Lost in Translation" actress Scarlett Johansson and other celebrity artists are donating their talents -- not just their cash -- to an online effort to unseat President Bush.

The Internet political group MoveOn.org on Tuesday premieres 10 new anti-Bush ads created by award-winning directors and starring popular Hollywood actors. An independent group not connected directly to Democratic candidate John Kerry, MoveOn has promised an unconventional approach to the election.

"It makes a real difference when performers and visual artists can use the star power to get people to pay attention to the message in the ad."

MoveOn showed its populist appeal with a "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest that generated hundreds of online anti-Bush ads, then spent millions airing the winning ad. With the latest ad campaign, it's stepping up to a new level of sophistication.

John Sayles, the writer-director of "Sunshine State" and "Eight Men Out," teams with actor Martin Sheen for one ad. Doug Liman, who directed "Swingers" and "The Bourne Identity," reunites with Damon for another MoveOn spot.

Rob Reiner, the director of "When Harry Met Sally" and "The American President," uses Bush's own words to form the core of his 30-second ad. They come from an April news conference in which Bush struggled to answer whether he'd made mistakes as president.

Despite their star wattage, some of the ads may never get airtime. While MoveOn spokeswoman Laura Dawn said the group has committed to a "sizable" national cable buy for its first ad, the rest may simply remain on the Internet as a motivator for MoveOn members.

"Whether they go on TV or not depends on how they are tested (with voters)," Dawn said.

I read this and just had to laugh. The fact that some vacuous Hollywood celeb is supporting an ultra-liberal presidential ticket like Kerry Edwards is to be suspected, but the part that cracked me up was this, they take great pains to describe moveon.org as: "An independent group not connected directly to Democratic candidate John Kerry".

Funny isn't it? Do a quick look at almost any story the AP has ever printed on the swift boat vets and they'll mentioned the supposed "connection" between the swift boat vets and the Bush campaign in every single story they have ever done on the topic as far as I can tell.

They always mention the "republican" contributors as if it is some sort of smoking gun. And yet George Soros, who is pumping millions into moveon.org and goodness knows how much into the Kerry-Edwards campaign and the DNC is somehow beyond reproach?

Just another example folks of how badly biased the mainstream media has really become, and why we encourage everyone to not take any news story at face value. Do your own research. Don't assume that what you are being told is the whole story, as it usually turns out they are only telling you what they want you to hear in order to have you believe what they wish you to believe.

There are two sides to every story, and sadly the news media is not above distorting facts, leaving things out or even going out of its way not to get all of the information available so that they can put whatever spin on a story they want. Perhaps the funniest thing of all is that the same media outlets are all running stories about how Kerry is calling on Bush to silence the Swift Boat Vets, but not a one of them have dared to ask Kerry why he doesn’t show the same courtesy and respect to the political process by denouncing MoveOn.org and the vehement Bush bashing that they engage in. But then I suppose you can’t expect the liberal media to apply the same standards to Kerry that they do to Bush, sorry to say even Kerry apparently doesn’t feel the need to apply the same standards to himself that he does to his political opponent.
0 Comments
 
Kerry's Democratic Allies Begin Bailing To Save His SwiftBoat
08.23.04 (7:25 am)
WASHINGTON — The political firefight over Sen. John Kerry's service in Vietnam shows no signs of being extinguished.

Consider the latest:

— Former Sen. Bob Dole — the Republicans' 1996 presidential nominee — suggested Sunday that Kerry apologize for past testimony before Congress about alleged atrocities during the Vietnam War. He joined critics of the Democratic presidential candidate who say he received an early exit from combat for "superficial wounds."

— On Sunday, the Kerry campaign released a new ad accusing the president of backing Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group which has released a series of spots calling into question Kerry's heroism. In the Kerry ad, the narrator claims that families are losing jobs and health care while "George Bush's campaign supports a front group attacking John Kerry's military record." The ad calls the attacks "smears" and "lies."



Easy enough to prove Senator, just release your records. All of your records. You called for this sort of scrutiny over Bush's national gaurd service, seems only right that you too should release all of your records including those that were originally posted on your website and promptly removed when your campaign staff discovered they didn't match some of the stories you were telling concerning your service.

No, all of this could be cleared up simply and easily by just releasing those records, but Kerry refuses to release them. If he truly did serve heroically in Vietnam his records should reflect that, but he wont' release them for the general public.

Which really leaves one to wonder why. I suppose it is small wonder, Kerry has claimed to have committed war crimes and accused his fellow vets of doing the same. He has also claimed that he was on a secret mission in Cambodia during the Christmas of 68 (or possibly the early part of 69, details are getting fuzzy at this point as the story keeps changing).

Apparently his campaign has stated that his mission was so super secret that no records of it exist. Funny thing though, the Admiral in charge of his section doesn't have any knowledge of such a secret mission, or indeed any such mission, having ever taken place.

So apparently this mission was so ultra top secret that they bypassed the Admiral completely and went right to a Lieutenant Junior Grade directly, one who had only been in Vietnam for a couple of months and had less than stellar performance reviews on almost every evaluation?

They asked this rather mediocre officer to take his Swift Boat, a large, noisy, easy to spot craft and sneak it across the Cambodian border despite the fact that most insertions were taking place via helicopter. On the rare occasion that a water landing was called for the boats of preference were generally very small and very quiet, not a large noisy craft like a PCF.

But these orders apparently came from Nixon himself, even though strangely enough he wasn't even President in 1968.

I think it's pretty obvious why Kerry won't release the records, and why he is continuing to try and smear the Swift boat vets as partisan attack dogs even though they have no ties to the Bush administration except for perhaps a few donors in common. No one has suggested that Moveon.org is a "front" for the Kerry campaign, even though they too share common backers.

No Senator, the truth is pretty obvious here, even without your records. But by all means, prove me wrong. Release your records.

Bush did. Of course, he didn’t have anything to hide, now did he?
4 Comments
 
A Bear of A Week
08.20.04 (12:01 pm)
It's not often you run across a weird bear story, almost unheard of to trip over two of them in one week.

LETCHER COUNTY, Ky. — Generally speaking, you have a right under the law to use reasonable force to defend your life, your family and your property.

But what defines a legitimate threat if you come across a bear?

That's what a Kentucky jury must decide when Terry Brock goes on trial in September for killing a 250-pound black bear in his backyard.

Over the last few decades, the black bear has been on the comeback in Kentucky, after years of over hunting almost led to its disappearance. But the animal remains protected because the population is still slightly less than a thousand.

Brock says he regrets shooting the bear, but that it was swatting his dogs, and had his horse so spooked he feared it would break its leg.

He says he tried to scare the bear off by banging on his mobile home, and that his wife called the Kentucky Department of Wildlife (search) for advice. In the end, Brock claims the bear left him with no other choice, because it seemed ready to attack.

But according to the state the evidence suggests otherwise -- the black bear seldom attacks people and is a shy creature by nature.

If convicted, Brock faces 30 days to a year in jail and a fine up to $1,000. Brock says the thought of jail scares him -- but not as much as the bear did.

Hard to believe a man is being prosecuted for killing a bear on his own property that was threating himself and his livestock, but without knowing all the evidence in the case it's hard to determine if prosecution is really warranted for something like this.

But we do have a suggestion for you Mr. Brock, should this sort of thing happen again. Perhaps next time you might want to offer the bear some Raineer Beer instead. It will probably cost less than the lawyer your going to need to keep you out of jail.
0 Comments
 
This weeks Hippo award winner, Howard Fineman
08.20.04 (11:14 am)
Time again to hand our weekly Hippo, and this weeks winner is none other than Howard Fineman of Newsweek.

In an article about John Kerry's bid for the Presidency, Howard Fineman, unbiased reporter extraordinaire, wrote this rather syrupy prose:

[i]"His advocates are the men who served under his command of Swift Boats in the Mekong Delta – one of whom, Jim Rassman, Kerry saved by hoisting him out of the Bay Hap River under enemy fire. Rassman's unscripted appearance in Des Moines was worth millions of ads and months of strategy."[/i]

Geez Fineman, need a tissue there bud? Sad to say that you and the ever so unbiased periodical you work for, Newsweek, thus far has had an absolute blackout of any stories concerning the charges of the men who actually served with Kerry in Vietnam who have a different view, the Swift Boat Veterans for the truth. Guess the story isn’t “news worthy” if it doesn’t support your political agenda, or that of your magazine.

Fineman, and many other liberal journalists, want so desperately to dismiss this group as merely a partisan political organization who are rooting for Bush. But for all of that liberal media spin, the important thing to focus on is that as of yet no one has been able to answer the Swift Boat Vet's specifics or deny the facts that they present.

No one from the Kerry campaign, and certainly none of the liberal cheerleaders masquerading as journalists (like Fineman) have been able to present any sort of factual based rebuttal to the groups charges. They won't even approach it by trying to disprove, point by point, all of the information the Swift Boats have brought to light.

Instead they are attacked and dismissed as a republican "front" for the Bush campaign. Their charges are ignored and dismissed in their entirety without a single fact being presented to dispute them.

After all the time Newsweek and other liberal media outlets spent hounding the President about his National Gaurd service, the myriad of stories done by Newsweek and other bastions of the liberal news media none of them, least of all Fineman, want to give these Swift boat vets, men who served their country with honor and distinction, the time of day.

So congrats Fineman, you and Newsweek are our winner for this weeks hippo. To present yourselves as anything other than an advertising arm of the Democratic Party is disingenuous at best.
0 Comments
 
Last Weeks Photo Caption Contest Winners
08.20.04 (10:46 am)
[image]stepdad_591916009.jpg[/image]

Third Place Entry : a100wwe

[b]"I'm John Kerry, and I support the mentally challenged!"[/b]

Second Place Entry: averse

[b]The magic is in his limp wristed throwing style! OMG! Revenge of the Nerds part 4![/b]

Grand Prize Winner: gfak40

[b]"Oh, never mind my congressional record...lookee what I can do!"[/b]

Thanks for all the great entries, next weeks contest has been posted already.

0 Comments
 
New Photo Caption Contest
08.20.04 (8:55 am)
[image]stepdad_826849711.jpg[/image]

Our third place entry was submitted by Newbie:

I could eat this many oscars!

Our second place entry this week comes from Deshanews:

I'll take the number 2 combo with supersized fries and a large vanilla milkshake. Actually can you make that 2 number 2's? Please add cheese as well.

And our Grand prize this week goes to Brogonzo:

"Mr. Moore, could you tell us the number of facts that appear in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'?"

Thanks again for all the great entries. Since our third place winner is not a member of tblog we couldn't award him tbucks, so we decided instead to double the award given to our first and second place entries. Brogonzo will recieve 50 tbucks, deshanews will recieve 30 tbucks. And since this has been a rather good week for us in terms of the number of hits generated by the blog, we decided to award 10 tbucks to everyone who entered the caption contest last week.

So congratulations to Philr, Darkmood, Averse, A100wwe and LarryConnley, you'll all be recieving 10 tbucks for submitting an entry.

Next week's caption contest is posted, you can reach it by clicking on the photo in the right hand margin. Thanks again to all who entered, keep those great captions coming!
12 Comments
 
Unfit To Be Called A Journalist
08.20.04 (7:47 am)
A lot has been made of a Washington Post Article written by Michael Dobbs, showing Navy records that supposedly dispute accounts given by Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth member Larry Thurlow's account of the Bay Hap River Incident.

After reading Mr. Dobbs' article I was struck by the fact that no mention was made of the other Swift Boat commanders that were on the scene at the time. I assumed that Mr. Dobb's would have contacted these folks and at least made a good faith effort to interview them for his article.

After all, if your doing a story like this one I would think you would like to get all points of view, particularly from the people who were actually eyewitnesses to the event.

I was stunned to find out the truth, not only did Mr. Dobbs' not contact these people, the people in question contacted him, twice, and offered to answer any of his questions. They practically begged him for an interview. Mr. Dobbs' declined. Apparently interviewing the people who were actually there and finding out for himself the veracity of their statements was not Mr. Dobbs' primary goal.

No, his primary goal seems to be to cast aspersions at the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Why else would he completely refuse to interview them and get their side of the story?

Congratulations Mr. Dobbs', you have proven yourself to be totally unfit of the title of journalist. Perhaps you could have your name plaque on your desk changed to partisan hack, and start having the title "Democratic party mouthpiece" added to each of your bylines. At least that way we might have some notion as to how badly biased your reporting truly is at the outset, instead of having to fact check you ourselves later.

You missed some awfully interesting facts in your article, such as the fact that the citation you list as your evidence to cast doubt on Thurlow's statements was based on an after action report that was almost certainly written by Kerry.

I also note you never seem to question Kerry's veracity, despite his obvious, repeated and well documented obfuscations concerning his service in Vietnam. He and his campaign have changed the "Christmas in Cambodia" story at least 5 times now that I can count, and none of them match Kerry's own journal entries made at the time, which place him in Sa Dec over 50 miles away from the Cambodian border at the time.

You also completely missed the fact that Kerry and Rassmann had both claimed that all the other Swift boats fled the area and Kerry's returned to pickup Rassmann, but we now learned that the only Swift Boat that fled the scene was actually Kerry's.

You missed the fact that there is absolutely no physical evidence to support Kerry or Rassmann’s claim that they were being fired on whatsoever. Those Swift Boats were in a channel of water no more than 75 yards wide, mostly stationary for nearly an hour.

Not one crewmember was injured, not one boat was damaged. And yet somehow we should believe that Kerry's version of events, that they were being shot at this whole time, is the truth?

Mr. Dobbs' you should really resign from the journalistic profession and just go work for the Democratic party directly writing ad copy for them. If your going to distort the truth that badly and ignore that many facts at least you should be honest enough to represent yourself as a PR man and not a journalist.

Mostly you should just be ashamed of yourself, as should John Kerry,. the DNC, and all the other members of the liberal media that have attacked and dismissed the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth as "republican attack dogs" and the like.

Thirty years ago these men served their nation with honor and distinction. Then a member of their unit, Mr. Kerry, came back from Vietnam after only 4 months, the shortest tour of duty ever recorded for a vet that wasn't wounded or killed, and started bad mouthing his fellow veterans for political gain.

He told outlandish lies about how they were committing war crimes, burning villages, chopping off ears, and all manner of heinous acts. He told these lies to the United States Senate. Then he went on and lied about being sent into Cambodia on secret missions by Nixon, and even though Nixon wasn't even president in 1968.

He acted shamefully and dishonestly, starting his political career by dishonoring his unit and lying about the other men who served with him in Vietnam.

Now here we are, 30 years later, and he's doing it all over again. He's smearing their good names and their reputations for his own political gain, and you and many of the other PR front men in the liberal media are not only letting him do it, you are helping him do it.

Thank God, Mr. Dobbs', that we have men like the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth that were willing to fight for our liberties and freedoms 30 years ago. Thank God these men are willing to stand up to you and the rest of your ilk’s shameless attacks on their credibility, so that we can know the truth about John Kerry and his service in Vietnam 30 years later.

The American people are learning the truth, slowly but surely, thanks to them. They are learning the whole truth not because of people like you, but rather in spite of people like you. You should consider that carefully Mr. Dobbs', think about it a great deal before you dare call yourself a journalist in public again.
0 Comments
 
Gore Should Demand Another Recount
08.19.04 (1:56 pm)
Former presidential candidate Al Gore is facing a $141 speeding ticket after being cited by officers in the small coastal town of Astoria, Ore.

The Democrat who won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the electoral vote was driving a white, four-door Lincoln on his way to visit family on Aug. 3.

Gore, who was alone in the Hertz rental car, was zapped with a radar gun and clocked at 75 mph along Highway 26 where the posted speed limit is 55.

The Oregon state trooper who pulled Gore didn't immediately recognize the vice president in the Clinton administration – that is, until Gore supplied his driver's license.

"He actually went back up and recontacted [Gore], and asked him if he was who he thought he was, and said he was," OSP Sgt. Andrew Merila told KATU-TV in Portland. "Mr. Gore was very polite and courteous and understood."

Gore, who barely carried Oregon by a mere 6,765 votes in the 2000 race, was said to be polite during the traffic encounter.

The trooper said Gore, who carried Oregon when he ran for president in 2000, was polite throughout the encounter.

He has until 1:30 p.m. on Sept. 13 to pay the ticket or challenge it in court. Should he choose to fight it, he would not need to personally show up for the proceeding, but supply a lawyer or sworn statement.


Take it to court Al. Demand a recount. That blasted Supreme Court will probably stay out of this one after all… Lol… I guess the reason Al was so polite is that the officer had the good sense not to bring up his political preferences. Al hasn't always been known for being quite so polite to those that disagree with his views.

But don't sweat it Al, you can beat the rap. If nothing else just give Sandy Berger a call. I'm sure he can talk his way into the police department and walk out with your ticket tucked, "accidentally" of course, in his pants.

Lol..
0 Comments
 
John Kerry: "Baseball Has Not Been Berry Berry Good To Me"
08.19.04 (1:24 pm)
We've had quite the response on the pictures we posted of John Kerry's football playing prowess, a few in the comments section and quite a few sent as emails/tmails.

I did get one interesting email just today, the individual in question pointed out that perhaps football simply isn't Kerry's game. He used an anecdote to illustrate his point, about his cousin who had no football playing talent at all but was an excellent baseball player.

So to be fair we decided to hold judgment on Kerry's athletic ability since we had no idea how good of a baseball player he might be, at least not until today, when I saw this:

[image]stepdad_802938609.jpg[/image]

I guess we can rule out Kerry as a baseball great quite safely. I do hope the Kerry campaign never realizes just how much these "impromptu photo ops" really benefit the other side, these are just entirely too funny to be missed.
0 Comments
 
When Liberal Just Isn't Liberal Enough
08.19.04 (12:04 pm)
Funny isn't it, how many times liberals/progressive accuse conservatives of being racists or of being intolerant in some fashion or another.

I don't think a day has gone by since I started writing this blog that I haven't been called one or the other at least once per day.

So when I spotted this little news item, again something not widely reported by our mainstream media I just had to bring it to your attention.

Several black and Hispanic male employees of Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles have filed multiple complaints of racism against the organization, charging they were the subject of constant slurs in a hostile, anti-male environment controlled by white women.

The employees made the allegations in sworn affidavits filed with California's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, and Fair Employment & Housing Administration, or FEHA.

According to an EEOC affidavit filed by employee Nnamdi Nkwuda, a member of Planned Parenthood's management "used the word n***** [/i][b] [Editors Note: racial epithet deleted for our younger readers][/b][i] directed to me."

"I am African and was shocked by her cultural insensitivity," Nkwuda stated. "I immediately placed my concerns in writing and requested disciplinary action with the human resources department at PPLA. Nothing ever happened to my complaint. In fact, I was later put on probation by a female supervisor and then terminated. ... There appeared to be a damaging anti-male bias in the organization."

PPLA spokeswoman Laura Morgan did not immediately respond to WND's request for a response to the charges.

Richard D. Ackerman, lead attorney for two of the claimants, said it's "unfortunate to find out that PPLA, as a chief promoter of 'tolerance and diversity' is engaging in what appears to be a most primitive form of hate against its own employees."

"We will be imploring the ACLU and NAACP to join us in repairing this awful situation," said Ackerman, who works with the Sacramento-based Pro-Family Law Center.
[/i]

Anyone taking bets on the fact that the ACLU and the NAACP are both going to pass on this bigtime, as is most of the liberal media? I'd like to get some money down on that one, because you know these organizations won't want to touch this with a ten foot pole.

[i]
A female PPLA contractor, responsible for ensuring the organization complies with regulations, said in a sworn statement a corporate officer "initiated an investigation on the occasion of one of his employees being called a 'n*****' and he was prevented from finishing this investigation. The perpetrator of this ethnic slur ... was never punished for this action."

Another sworn statement from the female PPLA contractor, whose name was withheld, said Planned Parenthood "posters showing males as irresponsible are prominently displayed throughout headquarters; one shows an African American leaving his child abandoned in the middle of an apartment; another shows all male US Supreme Court justices beating down on women's rights ... ."

She said the organization also had postings criticizing President Bush and denouncing Rev. Jerry Falwell even though Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit organization legally required to avoid political activity.

Another female employee, reacting to knowledge of racism at Planned Parenthood, said, under oath, "There was a sense that any employee who was not a white female was going to be carefully watched."

"I am an African-American who witnessed and experienced it," she said. " ... It upset me because if they allowed her to call him one, they were probably calling all of the African-American[s] n***** too."

The employee also corroborated the claim that Planned Parenthood prominently displayed anti-male propaganda throughout the office.

The article goes on of course, talking about the horrid and constant harrasment of non-white, non-female employees of Planned Parenthood. But what can one expect from an organization founded by Margaret Sanger, an avowed racist who's entire purpose in founding the organization was the extermination of African Americans.

Not something you read in the newspapers every day is it? Well if you don't believe me check out just a few of these memorable quotes from Maggie herself:


"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…"

Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."

"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.

"Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives."

"The unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' [is] the greatest present menace to civilization… the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."

"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics."

"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying… a dead weight of human waste… an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."

"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."

"The procreation of [the diseased, the feeble-minded and paupers] should be stopped."

"The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order..."

"[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children..."

"[Mandatory] sterilization for [the insane and feeble-minded] is the answer."

"Give dysgenic groups [people with 'bad genes'] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization."

"No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child… without a permit for parenthood".

When commmenting on the proposed Population Congress with the aim, "...to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization."



Yup, the very epitome of tolerance and racial harmony Maggie was, and apparently the Planned Parenthood apple hasn't fallen all that far from the tree.

Go figure.
3 Comments
 
Canadian Drug Imports No Miracle Cure
08.19.04 (10:27 am)
There is a lot of discussion in political circles about the concept of helping to control drug prices by allowing imports of prescription medications from Canada and/or other foreign countries. The common logic of these discussions are that since Canadian drugs are cheaper that it would allow patients (particularly the senior demographic) to purchase these drugs at lower prices, and it would also have the effect of lowering prices in the American market.

While it sounds very simple, these arguments fail to discuss several key reasons for the price disparity.

First off, it has not been conclusively proven that drug prices as a whole are cheaper in Canada, or that they will remain so. This may be the case for name-brand medications, but a number of generics (which are required by the FDA to have the same active ingredients and effectiveness) are actually less expensive in the USA then in Canada, according to an FDA study [url=] http://www.fda.gov/fdac/featu... [/url]

For the cases where prices are actually higher in the America, there are several factors that must be taken into account, and should be addressed prior to any discussion of imports. First and foremost, a large part of prescription drug prices in the USA is attributable to liability and litigation. Higher legal liability costs “account for about one-third to one-half of the difference in price of patented pharmaceuticals in Canada and the price in the United States”. This according to a Canadian-based Fraser Institute [url=] http://www.fraserinstitute.ca...(43).pdf [/url] The reality of legal liability in the United States points up the need for tort reform as a serious measure to be taken in the fight against higher healthcare costs in general.

In addition to litigation costs, there is the economic reality that the United States is wealthier as a whole than most other countries, thus producers of prescription drugs price accordingly for their market. Again according to the Fraser institute, differing prices can be partly explained by Canada’s lower incomes and declining GDP in relation to the US. This results in producers pricing in each individual market in accordance with what the market will bear. Since the US is less cost-sensitive than Canada, they “price discriminate” towards higher prices in the US to maximize profits.

Add this to government mandated price controls in countries like Canada, and higher prices in the United States are a given. The US is a world leader in both drug utilization and development of new medications. The majority of the top pharmaceutical manufacturers are located in the United States. These firms spend huge amounts of money each year to research and develop new medications. They do this for the reason anyone really does anything: Profit. They make drugs to make money. They sell the drugs at a price that is set to provide a return on their investment that will pay the costs of R&D, manufacturing, labor, equipment, taxes, FDA regulation and testing, and all the other assorted costs of doing business, as well as providing a profit to shareholders and owners. Theses companies are leaders in their industry because America’s free market system allows them to profit from their discoveries, which drives innovation and quality.

When their ability to make money is artificially stifled in places like Canada, they naturally must make up the difference elsewhere. That would be here in the States.

So, when addressing the issue of drug prices, the solutions are not to be found in importing medications from Canada. American producers are not going to ship lower cost meds to Canada simply to have them re-imported to undercut their US sales. They would be cutting their own throat. They’re just not going to do it. In addition, a large number of imports to the US would cause shortages of supply in Canada due to the increased demand, which would drive prices up across the board and negate any positive that our legislators are seeking. There are solutions we can pursue at home.

Tort reform is a big one. Drug prices could be significantly reduced if the “lawsuit lottery” was not always around the corner to sack a drug company for millions, most of which would be paid to a small number of trial lawyers.

Another solution is to educate the American consumer on the costs of medications, and to drive them to buy generics when available, which offer the same effectiveness at lower costs. American consumers tend to want to go for the brand name, and this costs them more over time. Another would be to go over the FDA procedures and restrictions to see if we can save the drug companies some overhead in that area.

Consider also that imports from other countries are not subject to FDA controls on quality. There are a number of internet sites and other distributors offering cut-rate medications imported from foreign countries. A number of these “grey market” imports are subject to no regulation whatever, so you don’t know whether the drugs you are getting are of the same quality as those produced in this country.

Free market solutions will prevail over trying to take advantage of another country’s socialized health care system. Lets look for those solutions before looking over the borders.

-Submitted by: RedneckBob
18 Comments
 
The Al-Qaida Iraqi Connection, According To Richard Clarke
08.19.04 (9:13 am)
Ok folks, we've all heard the endless repeats of how there was supposedly no connection between Al-Qaida and Iraq. It's the same myth that has been perpetrated by the Liberal media and Liberal pundits since the beginning of the war.

But if you need a source that verifies a connection between Al-Qaida and Iraq, what liberal media outlet could possibly doubt Richard Clarke?

Clarke of course was Clinton's former counter-terrorism chief, and one of the major figures trying to perpetrate this myth that there was no connection between the two groups.

But it's interesting to read through the 9/11 reports and discover this little gem on page 134 of the report:

In Feburary 1999. Allen proposed flying a U2 Mission over Afghanistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had coverage. Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Laden might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Laden's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum". Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Laden to go to Iraq. If Bin Laden moved to Iraq, his network would be at Saddam Hussien's service, and it would have been "virtually impossible to find him".

Stop and think about that for just a few minutes folks. This isn't some conservative think tank saying this, this is Richard Clarke, one of the guys who tried to start a partisan weenie roast of the Bush administration at the 9/11 hearings.

This guy knew then that Al Qaida and Iraq probably had ties, and that if Bin Laden hooked up with Hussien the results could be devastating. Clarke understood that this was a clear and present danger to the United States, which is why he was so against sending the U2's in to gather more intel.

Pity that Clarke didn't have the integrity necessary to testify to it all publicly and back the administration up even though he himself realized that Iraq was a serious threat to our national security.

Nope, instead he wanted to play partisan politics and hopefully secure himself another cushy government job someday, assuming he could help another democratic administration take control of the White House.

Well Mr. Clarke if the next election doesn't go your way and the Bush administration remains in power you could always go job hunting over at the U.N.

I hear there always looking for a few good weasels over there.
0 Comments
 
Bring this On
08.19.04 (7:41 am)
WASHINGTON — Sen. John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of relying on front groups to challenge his record of valor in Vietnam, asserting, "He wants them to do his dirty work."

Fighting back, Kerry said if Bush wants to "have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on."' Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard during the war.

I'll bring it on Senator.. shall we start with your Cambodia Christmas? You know, how you spent Christmas in Cambodia, oh wait, near Cambodia, or was it in Sa Dec 50 miles away? That was 1968 wasn't it?.. oh wait, that was January of 69 I guess. Those wacky Vietcong, celebrating Christmas in January and all. You recall the tale, don't you Senator, how you were being shot at by drunken South Vietnamese Solders. No, wait, that was Vietcong, oh, no it was Khmer Rouge wasn't it, you know, that group that didn't even form until 1972 but somehow they were miraculously shooting at you in late 68 or early 69.

Or would you prefer to start with your first Purple Heart, you know the one you managed to earn before the very first time you went into combat according to entries you made in your very own journal? Funny thing is Senator the source for all of this conflicting information is not some Republican "front" group, it's you. You are the one who can't seem to keep your story straight.

But hey, if the Cambodia thing is too tough we can discuss your band of brothers, like Altman. He was on the boat with you in Vietnam, well at least that is what he's been saying to the American public. Turns out though that evidence is mounting that he never served on your boat at all, and all of the combat actions he describes (including one for which you were decorated) were actually someone else’s doing, not yours.

"Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts," Kerry said in remarks to a firefighters convention. "Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam."

Yup.. 30 years ago they gave you a few medals, and from all accounts there are some pretty questionable circumstances involved here. But let us say for the sake of argument that you actually did earn them. Even if one stipulates to that there are still some pretty big questions about all of the whoppers you've told in the last 30 years about your service in Vietnam. When you got back from the war you testified before Congress, under oath, that you had not only witnessed but committed atrocities and war crimes in Vietnam.

Now it seems that you wish to present yourself a war hero, a highly honorable and decorated Vet. Which is it Senator? Again this isn't some front group for the opposition providing these two totally conflicting views of your Vietnam service, this all came straight from the horse’s mouth, namely your own.

Kerry received five medals for his service in Vietnam a generation ago, but his record has come under campaign challenge in television commercials aired by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," funded by supporters of the president.

Bush and the White House have refused to condemn the ads, despite calls to do so — from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a former Vietnam prisoner of war, as well as from Democrats.

No reason for Bush to condemn the ads. The ads are the responsibility of the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, and while some of their donors are indeed republicans the actually organization itself is not. In fact several of it's key members are Democrats. They are not supporting the Bush campaign per see anymore than they are supporting Nader. There message is a simple one, Kerry is unfit for command. I'm sorry McCain has a problem with that. He did serve his country honorably in Vietnam. But what John McCain needs to do is get off his high horse and realize that he is not the arbiter of who is and is not entitled to speak their minds.

Check out Swift Boat Vets yourself and you'll probably discover just what I did, there reasons for exposing all of this is not because they are trying to score political points. There problems with Kerry seem to be entirely personal, not political.

Senior Democrats, including some inside the presidential campaign, have urged Kerry to respond forcefully to the criticism, fearing that if left unanswered, it could undermine his claim as a war-tested veteran ready to assume command in an era of terrorism.

I think I would rather he respond truthfully, rather than just forcefully. Forcefully evading more questions about an issue that he himself made a centerpiece of his own campaign is just ridiculous. Time to step up, Mr. Kerry, and tell us all the truth for a change.

In a rapid response to the Democrat's speech, Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said the charge "leveled by Senator Kerry is absolutely and completely false."

"The Bush campaign has never and will never question John Kerry's service in Vietnam. The president has referred to John Kerry's service as noble service," the Bush spokesman said.

Nice to see at least the President's campaign is taking the high road on this one.

At the same time, neither the president nor any of his spokesmen has condemned the ad.

Nor should they have too, anymore than the liberal media expected Kerry to denounce his own celebrity attack mutts ala Whoopi Goldberg and company. Kerry thinks they represent the "heart and soul of America", and that's just fine by the liberal media's standards, they gave him a free pass on it.

So for once why don't we apply the same standards to both sides, because I think the Swift Boat Vets are far more representative of the heart and soul of America than Whoopi Goldberg and her assemblage of Bush hating Hollywood liberals could ever hope to be.

So by all means Mr. Kerry, Bring it On.
2 Comments
 
Do We Call Fish And Wildlife, or the ATF?
08.19.04 (6:51 am)
BAKER LAKE, Wash. (AP)

When state Fish and Wildlife agents recently found a black bear passed out on the lawn of Baker Lake Resort, there were some clues scattered nearby — dozens of empty cans of Rainier Beer.

The bear apparently got into campers' coolers and used his claws and teeth to puncture the cans. And not just any cans.

"He drank the Rainier and wouldn't drink the Busch beer," said Lisa Broxson, bookkeeper at the campground and cabins resort east of Mount Baker.

Fish and Wildlife enforcement Sgt. Bill Heinck said the bear did try one can of Busch, but ignored the rest.

"He didn't like that [Busch] and consumed, as near as we can tell, about 36 cans of Rainier."

A wildlife agent tried to chase the bear from the campground but the animal just climbed a tree to sleep it off for another four hours. Agents finally herded the bear away, but it returned the next morning.

Agents then used a large, humane trap to capture it for relocation, baiting the trap with the usual: doughnuts, honey and, in this case, two open cans of Rainier. That did the trick.

"This is a new one on me," Heinck said. "I've known them to get into cans, but nothing like this. And it definitely had a preference."

Personally I think these fish and wildlife guys should be scolded severely, baiting the trap for that bear using Raineer beer. That sort of thing is just abusive.

They should have at least let the bear try a Heineken, or perhaps even a Guinness Stout. The poor beast shouldn't be given just two varieties to choose from before being returned to the wild.
2 Comments
 
Desperate Bid For Freedom And Self Respect Fails
08.18.04 (1:36 pm)
LOS ANGELES — Paris Hilton's publicist said Wednesday the reality television personality's missing Chihuahua Tinkerbell has been found.

The lanky socialite and star of the Fox reality show "The Simple Life 2: Road Trip" was offering $5,000 reward for the dog, missing for a week, Tracy Shaffer confirmed. It was unclear how the dog managed to get away, and there was no information on where the dog turned up or if the reward was given.

That really is a shame, we were rooting for the dog...
Well, better luck next time Tink.
:D
3 Comments
 
Is John Kerry A Republican Attack Dog?
08.18.04 (12:46 pm)
Deshanews posted a great blog entry today concerning how John Kerry has now contradicted himself about how his first purple heart was earned. You can read this awesome blog entry here:

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template... ]Deshanew's Blog Entry[/url]

I have to admit the whole thing has taken on an almost keystone cops type of ambience, I'm almost looking forward to what the Kerry campaign will come up with next.

I wasn't in Vietnam with John Kerry, so really I can't speak authoritatively about what actually happened there. But apparently neither can Kerry, as his story seems to change almost daily now.

First it's Christmas in Cambodia - 4 different versions of that story already, and undoubtedly more on the way. He's being shot at by drunken South Vietnamese, then by Khmer Rouge and Viet Cong, first his in Cambodia, then he's near Cambodia, then he's 50 miles away in Sa Dec, a village from which you can't even get to Cambodia via the river system.

Now his campaign has come out with statements that reveal that Kerry's mission to Cambodia was so ultra top secret that no documents exist to prove that he took part in the mission.

Of course there are three guys supporting Kerry for President that dispute this, two of whom are campaigning for him and the third is none other than Kerry himself, in his own journal entries for Christmas time in Vietnam in 1968. In his journal entry (as discussed in a previous blog) he's talking about sugar plums dancing in his head, and it was made supposedly in Sa Dec - again 50 miles from the Cambodian border.

Funny how quick the mainstream media was to dismiss the Swift Boat Veterans for the truth as "Republican attack dogs" when they dared to question Kerry's service in Vietnam. I wonder if they will now be forced to do the same with Kerry himself, seeing as how he seems to be the primary source of material raising questions about his own service in Vietnam.

Again I think the funniest thing about all of this is it probably wouldn’t be much of an issue, if Kerry hadn’t tried to make it one. You would think the guy would have had enough sense to stay away from it, considering how many different stories he’s told over the years.

I think Kerry was earnestly hoping to come off like JFK, but sadly he’s coming off a lot more like Pinocchio. Every time he or his campaign talks about Vietnam, his nose grows just that much bigger.

But considering how much damage he's managed to do to his own campaign with all of his own outlandish statements about his service in Vietnam, doesn't that make John Kerry a Republican Attack Dog?
4 Comments
 
Pittsburgh's New No Tolerance Policy Towards Crime... Victims, That Is
08.18.04 (9:16 am)
A Pittsburgh carjacking victim was relieved when police found his vehicle undamaged — and angry when the city made him pay to get it back.

Burton Nord, 60, was dropping off his girlfriend at her home on the night of Saturday, Aug. 7, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

After she got out to see why her dog was barking, a man stepped up to the driver's window of Nord's 2003 Toyota Avalon, put a gun to his head and demanded cash and his car.

"He said, 'Give me your keys and your money, step out of the car and stand over there so you don't get hurt,'" Nord told the newspaper.

Nord handed over $100 and his car keys. As the carjacker pulled away, two other men stepped out of the bushes and got in before the car took off.

Within an hour, police had spotted the car, arrested three men and driven Nord down to identify both the vehicle and the alleged perpetrators.

That was only the beginning.

The police officers handling the case told Nord that since the car had to be examined for fingerprints and other evidence, the earliest he could get it back would be at 4 p.m. the following day, when they'd be back on duty.

So Nord called at 4 p.m. Sunday. The cops weren't there yet. He called again at 7, when he learned the car had been taken down to the city pound.

Nord got to the pound at 9:30 p.m. and discovered he had to pay $145 to get back behind the wheel.

"Once it gets to the pound, there will be a charge," Sgt. George DeVault, who runs the pound, told the Post-Gazette.

After a heated argument, during which Nord threatened to just hop into his car — the keys were still in the ignition — he paid the fee "under protest" with a credit card.

"I was a little out of line, I agree," Nord told the newspaper.

The next day, Nord found out he could have gotten it out for free had he been able to reach the chief of police, who was on military duty over the weekend.

Police Chief Robert W. McNeilly Jr. admitted there had been some "miscommunication" about the options available to Nord. But he defended his department's actions.

"I can understand someone being upset," he said, "but I would think there should be some consideration given to the fact that we recovered this man's car with no damage."

But when a former police commander was carjacked a week earlier, Pittsburgh cops dusted her recovered vehicle for fingerprints immediately and let her drive it away from the scene.

McNeilly promised the city's policy of towing cars involved in crimes would be reviewed, but offered no timetable.

Nord plans to go to traffic court to get his $145 back.

"A robber took all my money," he told the Post-Gazette. "Luckily, he didn't take my wallet, or the car would still be there."

If I were Mayor Tom Murphy or even Police Chief Robert W. McNeilly Jr, I'd refund this man's money out of my own pocket if necessary. If this story is already a national news story then it might already be too late to save yourself the terrible press this is bound to generate, but this will undoubtedly (and perhaps deservedly) cost the city of Pittsburgh a lot more than the $145 that the city is going to get from this poor guy.

He's been traumatized enough already. Ok, granted he should be thankful to get his car back, and yes our hard working men and women in blue are almost never appreciated the way they should be by the general public. But the guy pay's his taxes and in doing so to a certain extent the salaries of all those involved. He's already been billed once for your services in recovering his car, it's just not right that he should be billed twice.

But hey, if nothing else this should serve as a primary example of how government, even when it is meant to help those in need, often falls short of the mark.
0 Comments
 
Tijuana or Bust
08.18.04 (8:39 am)
LOS ANGELES — It's been a rough month for hotel heiress Paris Hilton. First, her Hollywood Hills home was burglarized and now her pet Chihuahua, Tinkerbell, has disappeared.

Hilton, star of the Fox reality show "The Simple Life 2: Road Trip," is offering a $5,000 reward for her dog, missing since last Wednesday, Hilton's spokeswoman, Tracy Shaffer, confirmed Tuesday.

It's unclear how the dog managed to get away.

Tinkerbell -- decked out in pink coats or puppy-sized sneakers -- has made regular appearances on Hilton's reality show.

Posters for the pampered pet were displayed all over the West Hollywood area.

It might be unclear how the dog escaped, but I don't think why he did it could possibly be in doubt. Pink coats? Sneakers? Given a name like Tinkerbell?

Nope, no question as to why this dog headed for the hills the first chance he got. But if you happen to spot a little dog in a pink coat and sneakers out on the interstate with a cardboard sign that says Tijuana or Bust, you might want to consider giving Paris a call, assuming of course Tinkerbell doesn't make you a better counter offer than 5 grand.
8)
0 Comments
 
Hurray for Hazem
08.18.04 (8:11 am)
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to withdraw fighters from the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf Wednesday shortly after Iraqi officials gave him and his militia an ultimatum to lay down their arms before they stormed the mosque where about 3,000 fighters are holed up.

On Wednesday evening, Safiya al-Suhail, an independent Shiite delegate at the conference, said she had received a letter from al-Sadr's Baghdad office saying he accepted the proposal.

"Muqtada al-Sadr has agreed on the conditions set by the National Conference," she said, reading the letter to the conference.

"We call on the Iraqi government and the National Conference to participate in implementing what is proposed by Muqtada al-Sadr, otherwise everybody will bear the responsibility," the letter said.

Amazing isn't it, how quickly a bully like al-Sadr backs down when actually confronted...

Our heartfelt congratulations to the interim Iraqi government, and a big round of applause for Hazem Shaalan.

I rather enjoyed this bit as well from the same article:

While never referring to al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia by name, Shaalan referred to those who occupied the shrine as a "gang dressed in the clothes of religion."

State Minister Qassim Dawoud said the planned raid on the shrine would send a message to insurgents throughout Iraq.

"This will be a civilized lesson for those in Fallujah, Samarra, Mosul, Yusufiyah or Basra. There is no lenience ... with those people," he said.

In a statement released Wednesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi accused al-Sadr's militia of planting bombs around the mosque but he made no mention of an impending Iraqi attack.

Conference delegates suggested they were fed up with the anti-American al-Sadr, believed to also be in the shrine, after their eight-man delegation met with his aides Tuesday but never saw the cleric himself.

"If there were anyone sympathizing with him in the past, there will be none from now on because of this stand," delegate Abdul-Halim al-Ruhaimi said Wednesday.

But wait a minute.. I thought Americans were the big evil bad guys here. I thought we were responsible for all the worlds ills. The way these guys talk you'd get the impression that they are fed up with al-Sadr and his ilk, and they actually want to form a peaceful democratic government. It's almost as if they are viewing these insurgents as the enemy, and not Americans.

Astounding. Makes one wonder just how some people define the word Quagmire, doesn't it?
0 Comments
 
Open Mouth, Insert Foot
08.18.04 (7:49 am)
CINCINNATI - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Wednesday that President Bush might hinder the war on terror and other aspects of national security with his proposal to recall as many as 70,000 troops from Cold War-era bases in Europe and Asia.

In a speech prepared for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Kerry contended that Bush's policy would dangerously reduce forces at a time when the nation is fighting the al-Qaida terrorist network in 60 countries across the globe, according to a campaign statement.

Ok, Senator, not to nit pick here or anything but does your campaign actually stop and think about these statements for a minute or do they just jot down whatever idiotic criticism they can think of and hand it to you to say the next time your in front of a microphone?

Stop and think about this one for just a moment. How are our troops in Germany, for example, going to combat terror?

Are there Al-Qaida cells in Germany? Probably. Now, the big leap in logic here is what are our combat troops supposed to do about that? Can they go out and kill these guys? Oh, wait, once they step of the base they are no longer in American territory, they are now on German soil.

Are you suggesting we violate Germany's sovereignty by conducting military operations on their soil without there consent? That wouldn't be very "sensitive" of us, now would it Senator?

Furthermore, isn't it a bit of overkill to use a full flight of F-15 strike fighters to go after 5 guys in a hotel room in Bonn? Don't you think that might tick of just a few Germans, if we started lobbing AGM's through the hotel windows?

This statement merely goes to emphasize that you and your staff have absolutely no grasp of the type of enemy we face or how to combat them effectively. Your so busy trying to criticize the current administration for anything, no matter how ridiculous, you've managed to insert your foot into your mouth, yet again.

Not to worry though Senator, again the mainstream press will probably give you a pass on this one as well.
6 Comments
 
My Hero Hazem
08.18.04 (6:56 am)
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraqi forces are giving loyalists of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr (search) hours to lay down their arms before they storm the holy shrine where about 3,000 of al-Sadr's men are holed up.

The impending battle comes as Iraq's National Conference refused Wednesday to send a second delegation to Najaf to try to end the clashes between al-Sadr loyalists and U.S. troops after al-Sadr rebuffed the group.

Iraqi Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan said Iraqi forces were fully trained for a potential mission to oust the militants.

"Today is a day to set this compound free from its imprisonment and its vile occupation," Shaalan told the Arab-language television station Al-Arabiya.

Since peace talks have failed, "we have to turn to what's stronger and greater in order to teach them a lesson that they won't forget, and to teach others a lesson as well," Shaalan said. "In the next few hours, they have to surrender themselves and their weapons."

Good for you Hazem. Once these folks realize that they can't hide in mosques anymore about 1/2 your troubles will be over. Then all you'll have to do is find a way to seal the Iraq/Iran border to keep all of these so called "insurgents" from being sent in by Iran. Sadly however I think you'll have to find a solution to that problem without U.S. assistance, you could get a troop of blind drunken elephants across our own border with ease.
0 Comments
 
When All Else Fails, Try a Bribe
08.18.04 (6:42 am)
So, apparently, New York City officials are offering discounts on hotels, food, and even Broadway shows for protesters expected to be present during the Republican convention. The perks are being offered in an attempt to appease them into protesting non-violently. They're even going to give them little buttons to show that they're a non-violent protester... isn't that cute?

[url=] http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,129294,00.html [/url]

When did it become a request, and not an expectation, that protests were to be conducted peacefully?

Tonya Mayo, the "national organizer" of "Not in Our Name", one of the organizations involved in the planned protests, was interviewed within the past few days on the Sean Hannity show (There is currently a link at the upper right of hannity.com to the interview). When asked directly if she would ask her membership to conduct their protest without violence, she refused, and equivocated about the diverse people that would be protesting and what they might do. How hard is it for the [b]organizers[/b] of a protest to take the [i]official[/i] position that they wish their protest to be nonviolent?

The Constitution guarantees "the right of the people [b]peaceably[/b] to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Note that word, peaceably. You are allowed to assemble and protest. You are allowed to do so peaceably. If the protest turns violent, you are violating the law.

Catering to these people to try to appease them into being nonviolent is really not far removed from trying to appease the terrorists into not attacking us anymore.

The correct response to this is not to offer perks to protestors that behave [b]as they should be expected to[/b], but to remind those with a predilection to turn violent that the appropriate response to someone acting like a violent thug is to react with commensurate force (which usually involves nightsticks and teargas), put them in jail and prosecute them. If the protest gets out of hand, and the organizers have taken no steps to ensure that it doesn't, they should also be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They can lead by example, or they can be an example. Their choice.

If they want to be criminals, treat them like criminals. If they wish to peaceably protest, then NYC should make appropriate accommodations and allow them to peaceably make their views heard.

But to offer them perks to persuade them to act like civilized human beings is just silly.

Posted by: Redneck Bob
0 Comments
 
Its About The Future
08.17.04 (12:45 pm)
From the AP: RIDLEY PARK, Pa. - President Bush promoted his administration's plans to build an anti-missile system Tuesday, suggesting that the program's opponents are jeopardizing the country's safety.

Bush did not refer to Democratic rival John Kerry, who would rein in spending on the project.

"I think those who oppose this ballistic missile system don't understand the threats of the 21st century," the president told applauding workers at defense contractor Boeing in Pennsylvania, a crucial state in Bush's bid for re-election.

"We say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world: 'You fire, we're going to shoot it down,'" Bush said.

The president said that Boeing engineers have loaded the first ballistic missile interceptor into a silo in Alaska, characterizing it as "the beginning of a missile defense system that was envisioned by Ronald Reagan."

Bush said opponents of the system are "living in the past. We're living in the future. We're going to do what's necessary to protect this country.

I know there are a lot of critics of the anti-ballistic missle system. The system itself has been difficult and costly to develop, but when you stop and consider the technical difficulties involved in this kind of thing that just makes sense. You are in essence attempting to hit a bullet in mid flight with another bullet.

But with both China and North Korea developing nuclear missles capable of hitting the USA mainland, the system itself is absolutely crucial for a variety of reasons.

The reason we won the Cold War against the Soviet Union was by forcing them to keep up with us in technological development. It bankrupted their socialist economy and they were forced to abandon their communist regime for a more usable form of government.

If a successful missle defense system is developed, China and North Korea's nuclear missles are no longer a threat to the United States. This would require them to spend huge amounts of capital, capital that they do not have, on further development in the hopes that they could develop missles capable of penetrating the missle defense system. This spending would eventually bankrupt them just as it did the old Soviet Union.

In the meantime we have rogue states such as Iran that are also trying to develop nuclear missile capability, and eventually ICBM's.

It's doubtful that a nation like China or North Korea would launch an ICBM at the United States. The threat of retalliation is simply too great a threat to justify a launch.

However, if Iran or some other rogue state were to develop the technology, or purchase it from the former Soviet Union or another less than scrupulous nation like North Korea, then it's a brand new ball game. All it takes is one terrorist take over of a missile silo in Iran, and you could have an ICBM headed for Washington D.C., Tel Aviv or perhaps even both.

The technology for such missile defense is indispensable, and to not fund it would be quite frankly criminal. I understand that the critics of such a system cite the high cost of research and development, but what they apparenlty do not understand is that while that money is spent by our government today, it comes back and adds to our economy tommorow.

Look at all of the other technologies that were originally funded and researched using tax dollars that are now paying for themselves a thousand fold and adding back money into our economy. The Internet would be a prime example of this (Gosh thanks Al Gore!) type of economic return. Other examples would include such things as GPS systems. Those are two hi profile examples, but the list is literally endless.

So we spend a million or even a billion now, and it comes back to us 10 or even 100 fold a few years from now. It just makes sense.
12 Comments
 
The League Of Extraordinary Weasels
08.17.04 (9:44 am)
It's like some scene out of a horror movie. We thought we killed this maniac at least twice now, and here he comes again to wreck havoc. Yup.. the idiotic notion of Global Taxation is back again:

In July, Inter Presse news service reported that a top U.N. official was preparing a new study that will outline numerous global tax proposals to be considered by the General Assembly at its September meeting. The proposals will likely include everything from global taxes on e-mails and Internet use to a global gas tax and levies on airline travel. If adopted, American taxpayers could wind up paying hundreds of billions of dollars each year to the United Nations.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is among those leading the charge, having stated that he "strongly supports finding new sources of funding" for the U.N. through global taxes, according to Inter Presse. In fact, Annan made very clear his support for the imposition of global taxes in a 2001 Technical Note that he authored for a U.N. conference. "The need to finance the provision of global public goods in an increasingly globalized world also adds new urgency to the need for innovative new sources of financing," Annan wrote. The Note goes on to describe and evaluate the merits of several global tax proposals.

What are the "merits" of Global taxation? None. We already pay huge taxes to the UN with all of the financial support the United States forks over to this League of Extraordinary Weasels.

So far the UN has financed terrorism and corruption throughout the world with it's legendary Oil for Food program and has been totally unwilling or unable to stop the wholesale slaughter going on in the Sudan for fear that they might upset some tin plated dictator in the process.

The UN has pretty much proven itself to be a completely useless organization over the last 10-15 years. They haven't been able to keep the peace anywhere, haven't been able to establish stable regimes anywhere, hasn't really been able to do much of anything other than make certain that the petty dictators of the world are given all due deference. What can you say about an organization who's committee on Human Rights is lead by a nation like Libya?

Sorry folks, but I think it’s time to tell Annan and his band of merry bandits to take a very long walk off of a very short plank
2 Comments
 
Kerry Campaign Misrepresents His Record Like "Clockwork"
08.17.04 (8:34 am)
Looks like another embarrassing gaffe for the Kerry Campaign, one that yet again has gone largely unreported and ignored by the mainstream liberal media.

In the Bush campaign's new ad, Clockwork, Kerry is criticized for missing the vast majority of the votes while a member of the Intelligence Committee. In a statement released by the Kerry campaign, they responded to the ad with this:

John Kerry is an Experienced Leader in the Intelligence Field - - John Kerry served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for 6 years and is the former Vice Chairman of the Committee. Kerry joined the Committee in early 1993 and served until early 2001.

Only one small problem here, John Kerry was never the former Vice Chairman of the Committee. That was Bob Kerrey, former Senator from Nebraska.

This is a pretty big snafu from the Kerry campaign. Had the Bush campaign pulled a bone head maneuver like this one it would undoubtedly be front page news and the top story on most of the major media outlets television news reports.

As it is it looks as if Kerry is going to get yet another free pass by his friends in the liberal media.
2 Comments
 
John Kerry Not Quite Ready for the Football Hall of Fame - For Gfak40
08.16.04 (1:19 pm)
Got a question on the picture we used for the Kerry photo caption contest, in one of the entries the poster, Gfak40, asked this question:

Gfak40: The thing I can't tell is, did he just throw the ball, or is he preparing to catch it???

I can assure you that this is indeed a picture of Kerry throwing the football:

[image]stepdad_591916009.jpg[/image]

How can I be so certain? Because this is an image of Kerry catching a football:

[image]stepdad_203760068.jpg[/image]

As you can see Kerry is not exactly a talented football player. But then we don't recommend you base your vote on Kerry's lack of football ability, we recommend you consider instead his voting record in the Senate.

Which from our standpoint is even worse than his football catching ability.
2 Comments
 
Kerry Gets Bounce from Over 30 And Still In Mom's Basement Crowd
08.16.04 (9:08 am)
From the AP: ATHENS, Ohio - A group of anarchists is taking an unusual step to make its political voice heard — going to the polls.

Anarchists generally pride themselves on their rejection of government and its authority. But a faction of them fed up with the war in Iraq (news - web sites) say they plan to cast anti-Bush votes this fall.

The voting debate was just one of the topics explored at the three-day North American Anarchist Convergence, which brought about 175 participants to Ohio University.

Some attendees rejected the voting proposal.

"Ultimately, those who are voting are either bad anarchists or not anarchists at all," said Lawrence, a "Californian in his mid-40s" who declined to give his last name. "No one can represent my interests. We reject political professionals."

Others said they are embracing their right to engage in the political process, and plan to vote for John Kerry, Ralph Nader or anyone who can underscore their opposition to the Bush administration.

Susan Heitker, 32, of Athens, believes that the U.S. government is neither legitimate nor democratic, but she still plans to vote.

"To me, at least, it's important to vote," she said. "There was a time when I was not going to vote, but I really dislike Bush."

Howard Ehrlich, of Baltimore, also embraces his right to "engage the political system."

"I will certainly vote against George Bush because he is leading the nation to further violence and eroding civil liberties," said Ehrlich, who is editor of Social Anarchism, a 3,000-circulation magazine.

What can we say folks, other than it's easy to be an anarchist when your living in your parents basement and letting them pay most of your bills. It gets a bit harder to stick to your anarchist principles when you have to go out in the real world and make a living for yourself.

But that does lead to an interesting question, who is in charge of an anarchist convention, and how is such a person chosen in the first place?
0 Comments
 
A Boy Named Sue
08.16.04 (8:57 am)
Perhaps one of the most troubling political issues of our day is not one that recieves a lot of attention from either the national media or from political parties, the issue of tort reform.

Sure we've all heard about the lady that sued Mcdonald's and won millions because her coffee was served hot rather than luke warm. This of course would have been the exact same lady at the counter complaining her coffee was too cold if they had served it to her that way before she spilled it in her lap.

But few of us ever really stop and think about how much outrageous lawsuits end up costing us all. The last study I read indicated that such lawsuits cost the American taxpayer on average 233 billion dollars per year. That's right, billion with a b.

Thats about $809 dollars per individual per year. But all of that money is going to the victims right?

Not even close. The vast majority of that money is going to the trial lawyers, not the victims. In a case against Blockbuster video the lawyers took home 9 million dollars. The "victims" each recieved a coupon for a 1 dollar off there next video rental. In a case against Cheerios the lawyers netted 2 million dollars in legal fees. The "victims" each got a coupon for a free box of cereal.

So is the problem getting better? Hardly. In the last 10 years class action filings in State courts have increased over 1000 percent.

The price of such litigation is pretty high, and it adds to the prices of so many goods and services you can't even imagine it's overall impact. In just a few examples, the cost of litigation accounts for one-third of the price of an 8-foot aluminum ladder. It doubles the price of a football helmet, it adds $500 to the sticker price of a new car, and it increases the cost of a pacemaker by $3,000.

It is this type of litigation that makes health care costs zoom out of control. The type of litigation, I might add, with which John Edwards made his fortune.

But with the vast amounts of money trial lawyers give to political campaigns, Democrats in particular, reforming the system has been an uphill battle to say the least. So if you really want affordable healthcare, think about that when you go to the polls. Before you vote for Kerry-Edwards think about the fact that they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
11 Comments
 
Those Who Can't Do Teach, Those Who Can't Even Teach Run For Office
08.16.04 (7:31 am)
WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) -- Congress must pass legislation to protect the nation's electricity grid if it wants to avoid repeats of the devastating outages that rolled across eight states last year, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, said Saturday.

"America is not a third-world country that can't guarantee power to its citizens. We are not a country without resources, technology or ingenuity," Cantwell said in the weekly Democratic radio address.

"But we are a country without mandatory rules for performance and coordination of our electricity grid, because Washington Republicans and their special interests refuse to do what's right for the country by passing new electricity rules that hold violators accountable."

I suggest that Senator Maria Cantwell might educate herself on how the power grid actually works before she starts making such statements about how easy it would be to fix problems such as cascade failures.

The essential problem with a power grid is time. You don't have any. The grid itself runs on the concept that supply is always perfectly balanced with the load. The load is the amount of electricity required to run every electrical appliance connected to the grid. That means every time someone turns a light on or off, every time some ones air conditioner turns on or off the load on the grid changes. As the load changes, the system must constantly compensate by increasing or decreasing the supply.

When a power line fails, the power that line was carrying is instantly redistributed to nearby lines in the grid. Depending on how much power that represents it can wreck havoc with the system, causing additional lines in the system to overload and also shutdown. This is what causes a cascading failure in the power grid.

It's not quite as easy to stop as one might think, because electricity travels at near the speed of light, making it's transmission almost instantaneous. So while this legislation to "punish" utility companies for their inability to stop this type of failure from occurring might make Senator Cantwell and a few other people feel better because the evil power company must now pay the price for a blackout, the truth is all it will do is drive utility prices through the roof.

If the utility companies will suddenly be penalized for power failures, then they will have to not only take outrageous and costly steps to prevent such failures but they must also find a way to compensate themselves for the penalties that will have to pay when such power failures happen. The only way they can do this and stay in business is to pass these costs along to us, the consumer.

So while the thought of "sticking it" to the power companies be appealing to some, the truth is it won't be the power companies that will end up footing the bill. It will be us, the end consumer, that will ultimately pay the price for Senator Cantwell's ignorance.

But sadly this is what happens almost every time you get government involved in regulating business. The price of government interference is passed on to the end consumer.
3 Comments
 
The Politically Correct Way to Guzzle A Beer
08.16.04 (6:57 am)
Picked this up from CNN Today : MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin (AP) -- Miller Brewing is celebrating the "50th Anniversary of Rock 'n' Roll" with eight commemorative beer cans that feature Rolling Stone cover shots of Elvis Presley, Blondie and others.

What's missing, some say, is a black artist.

Robert Thompson, a professor of pop culture at Syracuse University, called the absence "beyond conspicuous," because black artists often are credited with inventing rock 'n' roll.

"It would be like doing a set of cans of six great Impressionist painters and not including any French people on it," he said. "It leaves out an enormous amount."

The promotion, which ties rock's anniversary to Presley's debut at Sun Studios, also depicts Alice Cooper, Bon Jovi, Def Leppard and Willie Nelson, as well as the guitars of Eric Clapton and Joe Walsh, on cans being issued this summer by the brewer and the magazine.

I can see the critics point here, black artists have had a tremendous influence on Rock and Roll, particularly in it's very early days.

But take a step back for a moment and think about this. The Miller company's motivation for this ad campaign isn't to salute rock and roll, it's to sell more beer. That is there motivation, pure and simple. There selection of artists is probably aimed at the people they see as most likely to be their consumers.

Come on here folks, lets try and maintain a little perspective. This isn't a statement on racial equality, it's a gimmick used to sell beer. Perhaps the critics should take a moment and think about that before getting all up in arms about the fact that Chubby Checker and Fats Domino didn't get their face plastered all over a Miller beer can.

But if you are a diehard Prince fan and feel as if this is a total affront, by all means feel free to switch to Coors.
0 Comments
 
Kerry's Cambodian Christmas
08.15.04 (6:28 pm)
From Fox News: In an Oct. 14, 1979, letter to the editor of the Boston Herald, Kerry wrote: "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, also talked about his experience during a speech on the Senate floor on March 27, 1986.

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia," Kerry said.


Kerry was an officer in the Navy and served four months in Vietnam. His official biography says he earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V and three Purple Hearts, but critics have challenged whether he deserved some of his medals.

The Kerry campaign first asserted that the Massachusetts senator never said that he was in Cambodia, only that he was near the country. But when presented with a copy of the Congressional Record and asked about Kerry's letter in the Boston Herald, the campaign said it would come up with an explanation. After repeated phone calls, there was still no clarification.

Kerry and his campaign staff haven't really been able to deal with this issue at all just yet. Kerry can't seem to decide who was shooting at him, whether it was our South Vietnamese allies or the Khmer Rouge, but of course it's very doubtful that it was the latter because the Khmer Rouge didn't launch a major offensive against the Cambodian government until 2 years later in 1970.

So first his story was he was being shot at by drunken South Vietnamese troops in Cambodia. Then he was actually in Cambodia on patrol being shot at by Vietcong and Khmer Rouge. But it seems the story changes yet again, when we read what Senator Kerry told the Rhode Islander Magazine about his Cambodian Christmas Holiday:

Some relief came from home. "I got a great package around Christmas," he says. "Filled with stale brownies. Broken, stale brownies. It was great - they were homemade. Came back in from a five-day patrol. Christmas Eve I was up getting shot at somewhere near Cambodia. Stupid Vietnamese were celebrating Christmas by shooting tracers, fifty-caliber, right up into the air, and the goddamned things were coming right over our head. That was a wild night. That was a night like right out of Apocalypse Now. It was just surreal. Mortars going off. Tracers piercing the sky. People crazy. Flares."

Ok, so now were back to drunken Vietnamese solders and were no longer in Cambodia, just near it. So what was the truth? Was Kerry in Cambodia or near Cambodia? Was he being shot at by Khmer Rouge or by drunken South Vietnamese solders?

Lets take a look at and entry in Kerry's own diary from the time, perhaps it can shed some light on the subject at hand:

December 24 1968: "Visions of sugarplums really do dance through your head and you think of stockings and snow and roast chestnuts and fires with birch logs and all that is good and warm and real. It's Christmas Eve."

This particular entry was made by Kerry was supposedly at Sa Dec, well inside Vietnam and over 55 miles away from the Cambodian border. So according to his diary not only was he quite a distance away from the Cambodian border he was watching sugar plums dance through his head. Ask any combat vet and they will tell you this is not an image one normally gets while under fire, and that when you are under fire, friendly or otherwise, your normally not taking some quality time to write in your diary.

It would appear that in his diary entry the good Senator was waxing nostalgic about sugarplums dancing, not about 50 caliber tracer rounds being fired by drunken idiots. He wasn’t anywhere near Cambodia at the time, and no firefight with South Vietnamese or Khmer Rouge was taking place at all.

I think Senator Kerry has some explaining to do about his apparently ever changing story about the Christmas of 1968. You’ve been using the event for political points for years Senator, and you made it a primary focus of your campaign. So which of these four versions is true, and which are lies? And if three of these four stories are lies, what possessed you to lie about the event in the first place?

Come on Senator, Inquiring minds want to know….
0 Comments
 
Please Return To Your Seats, The Fat Lady Has Not Yet Sung
08.14.04 (6:59 pm)
Fox News: TRENTON, N.J. — The man at the center of James E. McGreevey's (search) decision to resign called himself the frequent victim of a "manipulative person" on Friday, as New Jersey's Republican party chair issued calls for the governor to "do the right thing" and step down immediately.

Golan Cipel, who himself resigned two years ago from the state's top homeland security post, answered rumors that he was McGreevey's former lover with charges that the one-time rising Democratic star had sexually harassed him.

"While employed by one of the most powerful politicians in the country, New Jersey Governor McGreevey, I was the victim of repeated sexual advances by him," said attorney Allen Lowy, reading a statement from Cipel.

"Such conduct and behavior caused me emotional distress and turmoil," Lowy read. "I was a victim whose oppressor was one of the most powerful politicians ... who made sure I knew my future was in his hands."

McGreevey's spokesman, Micah Rasmussen, vehemently denied the accusations, calling them "completely and totally false allegations from a person trying to exploit his relationship with the governor. The matter has been referred to federal authorities for investigation."

I'd love to give Mr. Cipel the benefit of the doubt here, but if there was no relationship between him and the Governor to begin with then how on earth did he get hired for an incredibly high paying job which he is totally unqualified? Wouldn't that have raised a few warning flags if it had happened to you?

Needless to say it will be interesting to see how all of this sorts out. I do hope that Mcgreevy's resignation will not deter those looking into his many alleged abuses from continuing their investigation. I also hope that if Mr Cipel is indeed telling the truth that he gets some small measure of vindication in this, even if his previous job was completely unwarranted it's not going to be easy for him to find a new job by any stretch of the imagination. Being the former boy toy of a corrupt politician probably isn't the best thing one can put on a resume.
2 Comments
 
Look No Further Than California
08.14.04 (6:36 pm)
Like to see what out of control liberal social programs will do to an economy? One need look no further than California:

Top Stories - Los Angeles Times

State Loses Jobs in July

Sat Aug 14, 7:55 AM ET Add Top Stories - Los Angeles Times to My Yahoo!

By Bill Sing Times Staff Writer

California's employers went into a hiring funk in July, cutting a net 17,300 jobs and raising concerns that the state's economic recovery has lost steam along with the nation's.

The state's first decline since February in seasonally adjusted nonfarm payrolls followed revised gains of 19,100 in June and 33,200 in May, the state Economic Development Department reported Friday. The tumble came as the nation added only 32,000 net jobs in July, far below expectations.

"We have our own soft patch, except ours in July looks a little softer than the nation's," said Howard Roth, chief economist at the state Department of Finance, citing a phrase used by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to describe the nation's recent economic doldrums.

On the bright side, California's unemployment rate fell to 6.1% in July, down from a revised 6.3% in June and the lowest mark since October 2001. The state's jobless rate stood at 6.9% a year ago.

The nation's jobless rate was 5.5% in July, down from 5.6% the previous month.

The Golden State's economy has been jolted by some of the same factors weakening the nation's, analysts said. Higher gasoline prices have stifled consumer spending. President Bush's tax cuts have lost some of their stimulative effect. And employers, facing stiff healthcare and benefit costs along with higher prices for steel and other basic commodities, have been cautious about hiring.

The economy in California is a total mess at the moment, thanks to the rather liberal spending policies of it's extremely liberal previous administration under Gray Davis.

There is some hope for California since the recall election, it seems to be getting back on track though the recovery efforts are going to be slow and at times painful.

Sadly the state itself was nearly in bankruptcy after years of liberal spending and out of control taxation. Many businesses fled California as the cost of doing business became simply too high. Unemployment soared, and a lot of middle class people suffered terribly as a result. Many of them are still suffering the effects of liberal policies and the effects of the class warfare the liberal politicians used to get elected in the first place.

So remember California the next time someone trys to play the class warfare card, and tries to convince you that the rich should be punished for their success. Remember what happens when you do "punish" the rich with outrageous tax hikes and unreasonable regulations on business. It's the poor working class Americans, like you and me, that suffer the consequences.

Don't believe me? Look no further than California.
5 Comments
 
Last Weeks Photo Caption Contest Winners
08.13.04 (1:40 pm)
[image]stepdad_988737813.jpg[/image]

It was a real uphill battle trying to decide on our winners for this weeks Photo Caption Contest, there were some really hillarious entries.

Our third place entry was actually a tie, we couldn't decide on just one so we picked two. The first of these two great entries comes from Deshanews:

You know, you look surprisingly like Tom Daschle.

And with an equally funny entry our tie for third place goes to Larry Conley for this rib tickler:

Edwards:Now THIS is a smile John, just let your inner clown out.

Since it was a tie we'll be awarding 10 tbucks to both of these great entries.

Our second place entry from last weeks contest went to Noguru, for this awesome Austin Powers reference:

"Yes Mini Me, of course, you can ride the bus"

Our Grand prize entry and winner of a whopping 25 tbucks goes to Brogonzo, for what is sure to be a new Kerry campaign ad:

"Look here, folks... this is a clear example of a Child who's been Left Behind."

Thanks again to all who entered, this weeks contest is posted and can be reached just by clicking on the image in the right hand margin.


4 Comments
 
This Weeks Photo Caption Contest
08.13.04 (1:19 pm)
[image]stepdad_591916009.jpg[/image]

Third Place Entry : a100wwe

[b]"I'm John Kerry, and I support the mentally challenged!"[/b]

Second Place Entry: averse

[b]The magic is in his limp wristed throwing style! OMG! Revenge of the Nerds part 4![/b]

Grand Prize Winner: gfak40

[b]"Oh, never mind my congressional record...lookee what I can do!"[/b]

Thanks for all the great entries, next weeks contest has been posted already.
.
10 Comments
 
I Will Fight To The Death! No Wait, Lets Negotiate...
08.13.04 (10:33 am)
Looks like Najaf's favorite wacky cleric Moqtada Sadr is at it again. Last time around he assembled a militia, got handed a serious comeuppance by the U.S. military and then entered into negotiations with the Coalition government.

He managed to get a new militia, and if reports are accurate a lot of his new militia were actually Iranians, not Iraqi's, and started talking tough again, proclaiming that he would fight to the death.

From the BBC News: In Najaf, a truce has been agreed so that some of the casualties can be brought out of the city.

Eight wounded Iraqis were taken out of the shrine after ambulances were allowed to enter the area.

"We are allowed to engage the enemy only in self defence and long enough to break contact," Maj Bob Pizzateli, from the 1st Cavalry Division, was quoted by AP news agency as saying. "That was a blanket order for everybody."

Some 2,000 US marines and 1,800 Iraqi troops are involved in the latest operation in Najaf, which was launched on Thursday after seven days of fighting with tank, infantry and helicopter assaults.

They are now maintaining a cordon around the shrine, the cemetery and the old city while government officials hold talks with aides of the cleric in the hope of putting an end to the standoff.

Iraq's interior minister said the cleric was in negotiations with the interim government to leave the shrine, where he is believed to be holed up with his followers.

Falah al-Naqib told the Reuters news agency the cleric would "not be touched" if he left the shrine peacefully.

"We will go after the criminal elements which have penetrated the Sadr movement, but not Moqtada," he said.

Sorry Falah, but I think the criminal element here is Moqtada. The coward hides in one of Iraq's most holy of sites, putting it at risk to save his own miserable hide and prevent himself from being killed. Every time he gets his hindquarters severely kicked he switches from his "fight to the death" proclamations to sweet talking whatever authority is in charge once he is no longer surrounded by an army of terrorists.

If you let this guy keep going he's bound to do the same thing all over again, and this is just not what Iraq needs. I realize it will probably present a PR problem for you, but your going to have to deal with this idiot decisively if you ever truly want Iraq to be a free and stable democratic nation.

So do yourself and all of Iraq a favor, get a really good team together and go in and get him. Arrest him and put him on trial, expose him for the fraud that he is in front of the world.

Otherwise in about another 6 months, provided Iran can assemble enough militants and ship them over in time, this idiot will be back doing the same thing all over again.

Iraq is still to young of a democracy to be considering a three strikes and your out law. You'd be better of dealing with him now.
4 Comments
 
Has Kerry's SwiftBoat Story Sprung A Leak?
08.13.04 (9:06 am)
Senator Kerry and many other Democrats have been making a pretty big deal over the fact that some of the men that supposedly served with John Kerry aboard his swiftboat in Vietnam support his presidential bid.

Their has also been a lot of rather nasty commentary directed toward the organization "Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth" for questioning Kerry's service in Vietnam. It seems one of the major objections raised by many pundints that favor Kerry is that these vets supposedly didn't serve in the same boat as Kerry.

Well it seems that some pretty interesting evidence has come to light, that another vet who has been speaking out on this matter apparently didn't serve on the same boat as Kerry either.

Rev. David Alston has been making a lot over the fact that he and Kerry supposedly served together on PCF-94 and that he fought in combat actions with Senator Kerry.

It would seem however that the Good Reverend might have some explaining to do, as From December 14 to January 29, 1969 Sen. Kerry commanded the PCF-44 while David Alston was the Gunner onboard the PCF-94 under Lt.(jg) Peck.

Alston has made a lot of statements about how he engaged in various battles at Kerry's side, but it would seem from this evidence that not only was he not on Kerry's boat but they couldn't have taken part in any combat actions such as Alston describes together.

Some pretty interesting stuff indeed. You can read the original posting with the evidence presented [url=http://idexer.com/articles/al...] here.[/url]

It shall be interesting to see what, if anything the mainstream media will do to uncover the truth of these allegations. It will also be interesting to see just how the Kerry campaign responds.
10 Comments
 
Gay, Proud, And Unemployed..
08.13.04 (6:17 am)
From the AP: TRENTON, N.J. — Gov. James E. McGreevey, a one-time rising Democratic star and twice-married Roman Catholic, announced his resignation with the startling disclosure that he is gay and had an extramarital affair with a man that he said threatened to undermine his "ability to govern."

"My truth is that I am a gay American," McGreevey said Thursday at a news conference with his second wife by his side. He described decades of sexual confusion that dogged him through two marriages and ultimately led him to an act he called "wrong, foolish and inexcusable."

"Given the circumstances surrounding the affair and its likely impact upon my family and my ability to govern, I have decided the right course of action is to resign," he said, without elaborating on what the circumstances were.

McGreevey, 47, refused to answer questions. He said "it makes little difference that as governor I am gay," but added that staying in office and keeping the affair and his sexual orientation secret will leave the governor's office "vulnerable to rumors, false allegations and threats of disclosure."

It seems Governor McGreevey left out a few important points in his resignation speech. The man he was having an affair with, Golan Cipel, was apparently hired by the Governor as an advisor on Homeland Security and given a pretty outlandish salary, with no background check or any sort of vetting by the legislature or any other government officials. It would also seem that Mr. Cipel doesn't seem to have a single qualification that would warrant such a post.

Predictably the gay rights crowd is already expressing sympathy for the Governor and trying to spin this into a situation where he is being forced to resign because he is gay.

The truth is the man appointed his gay "lover" to a position that he obviously didn't warrant and put him on the public pay roll so that New Jersey's tax payers could foot the bill for the Governor's ... mistress? Or under the circumstances would that more properly be mister?

I don't think lover is really the right term here, hard to describe a relationship that centered on sexual gratification and blackmail as "love".
14 Comments
 
This Weeks Hippo Award
08.12.04 (8:58 am)
Well time again for our awarding of the weekly hippo, an award for the most hypocritical statement or viewpoint.

Under normal circumstances this award is generally awarded to an individual or group that appears in the news. However this week the award is actually going to a fellow tblogger, an individual who has taken hypocrisy to a brand new level.

In his inspiring commentary "Is There A Neo-Conservative on Tblog Who Doesn't Attack Liberals When Argument on Issues Fails?", UsefulIdiot attempts to make the point that Conservatives do not discuss issues but rather resort to personal attacks. Now UsefulIdiot has a rather bad track record himself in this regard, in fact he was one of the individuals that first accused me of sexually abusing my own children based soley on the fact that I disagreed with his assessment about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

But his hypocrisy is so over the top that it doesn't even require a knowledge of his long history of making such nasty personal attacks on other posters, indeed all one has to do is read through his post about how evil conservatives always resort to personal attacks until you get to the bottom of the posting itself, where you see this little gem:

I JUST WANTED TO LET deshanews, Noguru, Reducto, stepdad, RedTigress, brogonzo and all of the other Tblog neo-con fascists know that Rocky, the Tblog administrator says it's okay [link] for everybody (I guess that includes you guys too) to be posting blogs using different Tblog identities!!! He says "a lot of people do it"! ... So go guys go-- keep on posting under different Tblog identities!!! I don't care!!! I really don't!!! It's pretty obvious that many (if not all) of you guys are spawned from each other and stand-in for each other and that there are alot of clones and spawns of clones out there among you...!!!

Also you neo-con crazies go on attacking other Tbloggers when your flacid, indefensible screed is exposed as bullshit!!! ... IT'S YOUR USUAL DIVERSIONARY TACTIC!!!

He couldn't even make it all the way through his own posting accusing conservatives of making personal attacks without resorting to some rather nasty and personal attacks of his own. He begins by calling all conservatives fascist, the goes on to accuse me and some of my fellow conservatives of being clones of each other. Truth be told I found rather amusing, as most of the conservative posters here hold varying opinions and have radically different posting styles. Then he continues by referring to our conservative views as B.S. and depicting all of us as crazy.

I encourage those that are interested to read some of the postings and commentary left by UsefulIdiot as well as some of the other individuals that support liberal viewpoints such as Checkitout and experience for yourselves the level of vitriol contained in almost all of them. I'm sure when you do you'll understand why we got such a huge chuckle out of his assertion that conservatives resorted to personal attacks and that he and his compadres were above reproach in this regard. So congratulations UsefulIdiot, for being this weeks winner of our Hippo of the week award.

Editors Note: It should be noted for the record that not all of the posters on tblog that support a liberal viewpoint resort to personal attacks on a regular basis. I can think of several that make very honest, good faith attempts at discussing issues rather than resorting to such childish tactics. So while Usefulidiot might maintain that all Conservatives on this board are horrible evil crazed clones, we do not judge all liberals by the actions of Usefulidiot or some of his likeminded posters such as Checkitout.
45 Comments
 
Judicial Responsibility
08.12.04 (8:00 am)
SAN FRANCISCO - Exactly six months ago, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom sparked equal parts elation and outrage when he allowed same-sex couples to get married in the famously gay-friendly city — even taking part by officiating at some unions.

On Thursday, the California Supreme Court was set to decide if Newsom exceeded his authority.

Legal experts — and even the Democratic mayor — assume the court will rule Thursday that Newsom's actions violated state laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. What's less clear is how the seven justices will treat the thousands of same-sex marriages that were sanctioned before the court intervened in March.

"It appears quite obvious the court is going to rule against the mayor," Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said Wednesday. "We think that's unfortunate and it's wrong, but of course the more human question is what to do with 4,037 marriage licenses that belong to couples in relationships and with families."

So what is so unfortunate or wrong about expecting an elected official to follow the law? If Mayor Newsom and Kate Kendell think it's a bad law then by all means have them address these problems with the legislature in California, that is the legislatures job after all. If they can get enough people to agree with them then California's law will change and Gay marriage will become legal, if they can't then it won't.

The Mayor knew what he was doing was illegal when he did it. All of the participants, all of the couples that took part in that ceremony knew it as well. So to try and paint this as some sort of tragedy, that these poor couples thought they were being legally married and actually weren't, is simply intellectually dishonest.

The majority of these couples took part in this shindig as a political statement. This was a manufactured PR event designed to foster sympathy for your political views, nothing more, and the participants knew that full well in advance.

Larry Levine, a professor at the McGeorge School of Law at the University of the Pacific, said while it was doubtful the justices would declare the marriages valid, they have another option besides ruling them invalid.

If the Justices don't rule these marriages invalid then they shouldn't be Justices. There job is to uphold the law and interpret it, not to rewrite it. The law here is crystal clear, these "marriages" are not valid and not recognized under California law.

The Justices should'nt rewrite that law, or ignore it anymore than the Mayor should have. The proper venue for this is the California legislature, it is up to them to change the law provided that is the will of the people.

Of course if Gay marriage really were the will of the people gay rights advocates would'nt have to pull stunts like this to get the issue into the courts, where they know they can often get a few activist judges to legislate their agenda from the bench.

Folks this kind of judicial tyranny really has to stop. Even if you support gay marriage you should still oppose judicial tyrants from enforcing their views on the rest of us without any real form of representation at all. Just imagine if a few judges got together and decided that the right to free speech should only apply to judges, and not to anyone else. Then were would we be?

These judges were never meant to decide what our laws should be. They were there to enforce them and to make judgements based on the law as it was written, not to rewrite the laws to suit their own political agendas.

Leave the law making to the legislature, that's their job.

7 Comments
 
Why Socialism Doesn't Work, Revisited
08.12.04 (6:36 am)
I read an article today on another blog that I thought was absolutely excellent, entitled "Why Socialism Doesn't Work" by Sixth Sense. I really enjoyed the article; it was well thought out, well written and made some excellent points on the pitfalls of socialism.

You can read the original article here:
[url]http://www.tblog.com/template...[/url]

I've often had this same discussion with people, about the problem of instituting a socialist system of government. Sure, the utopian ideal sounds wonderful. Everybody gets and equal share of everything and no one wants for anything, but in practice it never works. Why? Well I developed this simple parable to explain it and thought others might enjoy it as well.

Let’s say we have two farmers, Farmer Smith and Farmer Jones. Both of them grow corn. Now Farmer Smith is a very industrious man, takes a lot of pride in his work and works very hard. Farmer Jones on the other hand is not so industrious; he generally doesn't put much work into his farm over and above what he absolutely needs to get by.

Farmer Smith produces on average 30 bushels of corn per year. Farmer Jones produces on average 10 bushels of corn per year.

Under a capitalist system Farmer Smith can sell his additional corn for profit, and then use those profits to purchase more land, better equipment, etc.. This allows Farmer Smith to increase his production and produce even more corn. Farmer Smith is rewarded for his hard work and for his efforts. Farmer Jones is not as wealthy as Farmer Smith, and his own farm isn't as successful, but this isn't Farmer Smith's fault. If Farmer Jones wants to succeed he either has to become a better farmer or find a field of endeavor in which he can succeed.

Under a socialist system, however, all production is divided equally. So under a socialist system the government steps in and takes 10 bushels of corn from Farmer Smith and gives them to Farmer Jones. That way both Farmer Smith and Farmer Jones have an equal amount of corn, 20 bushels. That is, after all, the utopian ideal.

This goes on for a few years. Farmer Smith works his fingers to the bone and at the end of year he ends up with 20 bushels of corn. Farmer Jones does little to no work at all and he also ends up with 20 bushels of corn at the end of the year.

It doesn't take long for Farmer Smith to realize that there simply is no incentive for him to continue working himself half to death to produce extra corn, any additional work he does provides him and his family with nothing extra. He watches Farmer Jones do almost nothing and yet at the end of the year Jones has just as much corn as he does.

So Farmer Smith wises up and stops working so hard. He kicks back and waits for the government to take the corn from someone else who is breaking his back so they can give it to Farmer Smith, just like they used to take it from him to give to Farmer Jones.

Pretty soon corn production falls off all across the country, as all of the corn farmers come to the same realization that Farmer Smith has, all of their extra efforts are going to reward someone other than themselves.

So the government has to step in and do something to motivate these farmers. It takes the only step it really can, and sets a quota. It requires all farmers to produce at least 20 bushels of corn per year. But in order to make this quota system work you need to be able to enforce the quota. There has to be a penalty if you don't make quota, otherwise it simply won't work. You can't really penalize them monetarily, so you threaten them with the only thing you really can threaten them with, prison.

So it is now a crime to produce less than 20 bushels of corn per year. So what is the response from the farmers? Some will continue to farm and produce 20 bushels per year, but a lot of them will simply decide to give up farming all together. After all, even if they are not farmers they'll still get corn at the end of the year. In a utopian society everyone shares equally in production no matter who does the actual producing.

So the number of farmers decreases drastically, and now the government has to step in again. With fewer farmers you have much less corn being produced. You still need a minimum amount of corn to feed people and livestock. So you have two choices, either raise the quota on the farmers you have, or force people who are not farmers to take up farming.

This is how a socialist society works. Without incentives the government must use force in order to keep production going. It has to force people to take jobs that then don't really like, and force them to produce a minimum amount of product each year. It's the only way you can keep production going under a socialist system.

But of course if you have to force people to work and force them to produce to do so you also need a very strong central government with broad reaching powers. You have to have people to watch your workers, to keep tabs on their production and if their production fails to meet quota you have to punish them for it.

So the Marxist ideal of a society in which no real government exists is simply unattainable. The more socialistic your society becomes the larger and more intrusive your government must be, not only to enforce production quotas but also to handle the job of redistribution.

As a result Socialism is simply doomed to failure. Eventually no matter what you do production dwindles to the point where basic needs are no longer being met. The larger your population, the longer you can forestall this eventuality, but it is inevitable.
4 Comments
 
If Your Liberal, Why Aren't You Proud?
08.11.04 (11:32 am)
I've had a few people who are liberals tell me that they prefer the term progressive, or perhaps another term to describe them since liberal is often used "as a pejorative".

Ok, if it floats your boat to be called a progressive that's fine, I have no problem with that at all. But I guess my question is this, if you are indeed a liberal (or a progressive, or whatever your favorite term happens to be), then why aren't you proud of it? And why are you supporting someone for President who isn't proud of the views you hold either?

Take a look at John Kerry's campaign. One of the major focuses of his campaign is the fact that he is a Vietnam War Veteran. Ok, fair enough. But when he got back from the war he took an anti-war stance. He testified in front of congress that Vietnam was an illegal and immoral war, a view held by many other liberals and still held by many liberals today. So why isn't he proud of that stance? Why doesn't he mention his anti-war activities? Why doesn't he proclaim himself to be ashamed of his service in Vietnam now, as he did then?

His stance on our current war in Iraq suffers from many of the same problems. He voted for the war, then he said he was against it during the primaries, now he's saying that if he were President he would have gone to war with Iraq too, just like Bush did although he would have "tried harder" to get more "allies" on board. Ok, if Kerry truly is against the war, as his vote against the funding for troops in Iraq would suggest that's fine, certainly he's entitled to his opinion. There are a lot of folks that oppose the war in Iraq. But why isn't he proud of his anti-war stance? Why not make it a focus of his campaign?

How about his long career in the senate? He's been rated as one of the most liberal senators in the senate by both conservative and liberal organizations alike. If he really believes in the liberal causes and liberal ideas that he votes for, why isn't he campaigning on them? Why isn't he bragging about his liberal voting record, instead of trying to hide from it?

The truth is Kerry is attempting to portray himself as a conservative on a lot of issues, even though his track record is rather liberal. He wants people to see him as a hawk on defense issues, he wants people to think he’s strong on supporting the military; he wants people to believe that he is fiscally conservative, the list goes on and on. He even tried to reach across the aisle to pro lifers by saying he believes life begins at conception. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not so cynical that I don’t believe that it’s possible that people change their minds and their political views.

But Kerry spent his entire time in the Senate voting against most of what he is now claiming to be for, and voting for what he is now claiming to be against. If he really is proud of his liberal ideals, why isn't he campaigning on them? Why isn't he defending them? Why isn't he stepping forward and trying to convince others that his liberal ideas are right and that they will work?

No, instead like so many other liberal politicians Kerry chooses instead to masquerade as a conservative to get himself elected. So I guess the question really becomes, if liberalism (or progressivism if you prefer) really is a good political philosophy then why the masquerade? Why not state publicly and for the record, yes I'm liberal and I'm proud of it?
7 Comments
 
You've Heard of a Truck Bomb, How About a Bunny Bomb?
08.11.04 (8:02 am)
This Just in from the San Francisco Chronicle: Lucky the rabbit is living up to her name, no thanks to her college- bound owner, who with his friends is accused of taping her to a powerful explosive and tossing her into a Castro Valley lake.

Luckily for Lucky, nothing blew up and her owner fished her out of the water because, he told The Chronicle, he didn't want her to drown.

But that didn't impress Alameda County prosecutors, who charged Nick Sigmon, an 18-year-old lifeguard at Lake Don Castro, and fellow lifeguard Paul Collins, 20, of Castro Valley with misdemeanor animal cruelty on Wednesday. Two other people present during the July 13 incident may also face charges.

"I think that a lot of people are judging us without knowing us at all," Sigmon said. "It's really bothering me."

Collins declined to comment Wednesday.

Sigmon said he adopted Lucky after he nearly ran over her with his Acura Integra as she hopped across a San Leandro street just after Easter. He's headed to UC Santa Barbara this fall -- to study biology -- and said he simply can't care for Lucky anymore.

Asked why the group decided to tape an illegal M-1000 -- a huge firecracker equivalent to a quarter of a stick of dynamite -- to the animal, Sigmon replied, "Um, that's a real tough question to answer."

Not so tough a question I think, Mr. Sigmon. The answer is pretty obvious, your a self absorbed individual who couldn't be bothered to take 10 minutes out of your busy day and contact the Humane Society or some other local organization that cares for misplaced animals.

So you decide instead to kill the animal. Ok, lets give Mr. Sigmon every benefit of the doubt and assume that he lived in a bubble most of his life and didn't realize that there are a lot of organizations out there that could have taken Lucky in and found him a new home.

Can you honestly tell me, Mr. Sigmon, that you felt taping a quarter of a stick of dynamite to Lucky was the most humane way of dealing with the situation? Didn't it occur to you that a single gunshot would probably be far more humane that blowing your bunny to kingdom come? Sorry Mr. Sigmon, but I think the truth of the matter is fairly evident here. You and your buddy thought it would be fun to see what would happen. Your morbid curiousity got the better of you, and you decided Lucky was expendable now that your going off to college.

Well, with any luck your college will feature a course or two on responsible pet ownership, or better yet a course or two in morality. Better yet, maybe the judge in this case will sentence you to community service and force you to spend a year or two working at your local Humane Society. At least that way the next time you and one of your genius friends has a rabbit or some other pet you feel you can no longer care for, you'll know the number you'll need to call to find him a new home.

As it is I think I finally realized the reason the rabbit in Monty Python's the Holy Grail was so nasty, he must have once had an owner much like Mr. Sigmon.
3 Comments
 
Where Is That Blasted Remote?
08.11.04 (7:22 am)
From Reuters: WASHINGTON - A high-profile political assassination, triggered by a new message from Osama bin Laden, will lead off the next major al-Qaida attack, The Washington Times reported in Wednesday editions, citing U.S. intelligence officials.

U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports, speaking on condition of anonymity, disclosed that the assassination plan was among new details of al-Qaida plots and would target a U.S. or foreign leader either in the United States or abroad, according to the newspaper.

Planning for the attacks to follow involves “multiple targets in multiple venues” across the United States, one official was quoted as saying.

“The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the U.S. economy and to undermine the U.S. election,” the official told the newspaper.

The officials said there are intelligence reports, some of them sketchy, that a new tape from bin Laden would surface soon, the newspaper reported.

“The message likely will be the signal for the attack to be launched,” one official said.


Say, here is a wacky idea, why not just have our own press agree not to run this tape when it does surface. After all, no tape, no attack, right? Or is the public's "right to know" so important that it's worth getting people killed over?

We've seen a lot of irresponsible journalism over the years, in fact if it were not for the irresponsiblity of the mainstream media blogs would probably not be anywhere near as popular or as prevalent as they are today.

I certainly wouldn't know who Juanita Broderick was, or who Jesse Dirkhising was if it were not for blogs and other websites that reported these stories, stories that were all but ignored by the mainstream media.

So maybe it's time that we started expecting a bit more from our media outlets. Maybe when they air these video tapes of our enemies, or ignore important stories because it doesn't fit with their political agenda, or slant what they do report to favor one ideology over another perhaps we should do the one thing we can do as consumers to put them back in line.

Just change the channel. It's already starting, Fox news has already become the #1 source for cable news because of the abuses of the other mainstream media outlets in this regard.

Maybe it's time to take control of the airwaves back, using the most potent weapon we have available, the mighty dollar. If enough of you stop watching these news outlets, stop reading their papers eventually they will listen, because they need you far more than you need them.
0 Comments
 
All You Need Is Mugged...
08.11.04 (6:37 am)
From CBS News: Anti-war activists on Tuesday broke a recent agreement with the city and reapplied for a permit to demonstrate in Central Park on the eve of the Republican National Convention.

The reversal comes just weeks after the group, United for Peace and Justice, abandoned a lengthy fight over the park and agreed to hold a permitted rally on the West Side Highway on Aug. 29. Police offered the highway location after the parks department denied the group's request for Central Park, citing possible damage to the Great Lawn.

Leaders said they reluctantly agreed last month to use the highway so they could finalize plans, and had hoped to continue discussions with city officials over access to drinking water, sound projection and crowd flow on the shadeless road.

Leslie Cagan, head of United for Peace and Justice, said Tuesday that city officials have ignored these issues, forcing the group to reapply for the park, which has more space. The Parks Department turned down its original application in April, saying crowds of activists, estimated at about 250,000, would trample and damage the Great Lawn.


Personally I think the city should grant a permit for these folks to be in the Central Park, in fact if I were running the Republican Convention I'd go down to City Hall and lobby for the United for Peace and Justice organizaitons permit, begging the city to grant them one.

What would possess me to do such a thing? Just ask any New Yorker the difference between a liberal and a conservative. They'll tell you that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.

:D
6 Comments
 
How Long Did It Take To Book Mike Wallace? Over 60 Minutes...
08.11.04 (6:19 am)

NEW YORK - Veteran "60 Minutes" correspondent Mike Wallace was handcuffed and driven to a police station Tuesday night after arguing with city inspectors over where his driver had parked.

The dispute began at about 8:30 p.m., as Wallace was leaving a Manhattan restaurant, WCBS-TV reported. Wallace, 86, saw two inspectors interviewing his driver, who they said was double-parked.

The Taxi and Limousine Commission said Wallace became "overly assertive and disrespectful" and interfered with the inspectors, according to WCBS.

At one point, Wallace lunged at one of the inspectors, according to the commission. The other inspector then handcuffed Wallace and drove him to a police station, where he was issued a summons for disorderly conduct. He was later released.

Luigi Militello, the restaurant manager, told WCBS that the inspectors "manhandled" Wallace during the dispute.

CBS said in a statement Tuesday that Wallace was at home and that more information would be released if it became available.


Geez Mikey, your riding around in a Limo, it's not like you couldn't afford the parking ticket.
0 Comments
 
Just Imagine
08.11.04 (5:25 am)
KALANDIA CHECKPOINT, West Bank — A car bomb exploded Wednesday near a busy Israeli military checkpoint in the West Bank, wounding three people, Israeli officials said.

The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades (search), a violent group with ties to Yasser Arafat's (search) ruling Fatah movement, claimed responsibility for the attack.

An Israeli rescue service initially reported a second blast, but officials later said there was only one explosion.

Israel Radio said Israeli security forces went on high alert about an hour before the explosion at the Kalandia checkpoint (search), located between Jerusalem and the Palestinian commercial center of Ramallah.

Palestinian security services said the car exploded as it approached the checkpoint, where Israeli soldiers check the identity cards of thousands of Palestinians crossing every day on foot or in cars. Five other vehicles were damaged in the blast.

Paramedics said three people were wounded, one moderately and two lightly.

Stop an think about this for just a moment folks. Imagine that car was headed for your town, for your neighborhood. Just imagine what it would be like to live with that kind of uncertainity, that kind of terror ever day. Never knowing if when your kids left home that morning if you would ever see them again, because some crazed nutcase that hates you even though he has never met you was going to detonate a car bomb later that day while they just happened to be passing by on the street.

Imagine never knowing if the next time you stop for coffee or grab something to eat at a cafe might be the last thing you ever do, again because some fanatic trying to make a point was going to set of some improvised explosive device and end your life.

Imagine if your government had finally put up a wall between you and these fanatics in an attempt to stop this insanity, so that the people with all of these bombs were having a much harder time getting into your town, your neighborhood.

Now imagine the UN and the World Court trying to preach from you on high about how this was wrong, and about how you should feel ashamed of yourself for supporting this wall that is designed to keep you and your family safe. They wish you to believe the wall is wrong, and that you and your family should trust the corrupt government of Palestine that has done nothing in over 20 years to stop this insanity rather than supporting your own governments steps to try and stop you from being a target.

Try living that for just one day. Then come and tell me about the supposed moral authority of the UN, or the much vaunted World Court.
4 Comments
 
Photo Caption Contest Archive
08.10.04 (1:45 pm)
Our Photo Caption Contest Archive

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Photo Caption Contest 9.04.04[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Photo Caption Contest 8.27.04[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Photo Caption Contest 8.20.04[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Photo Caption Contest 8.13.04[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Photo Caption Contest 8.9.04[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Photo Caption Contest 8.3.04[/url]

To see the entries for our current Photo Caption Contest click on the Photo Caption Contest link in the right hand margin of the page.
0 Comments
 
Kerry's Credibility Problem
08.10.04 (12:47 pm)
Kerry's Credibility Problem

GRAND CANYON, Ariz. — Responding to President Bush's question with several of his own, Sen. John Kerry said Monday he would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq knowing what he does now, but added that he would have used the power more effectively than the current commander in chief.

Ok, so we now know where Kerry supposedly stands on the War in Iraq, well at least this week at any rate. He now says that he too would have invaded Iraq, he just would have done a better job of it.

Apparently Kerry's contention now is that if he were President, he could have built a stronger coalition of nations and that he would have done a better job of dealing with the rebuilding efforts in the aftermath of the war.

Ok, fair enough. But there are a couple of serious problems here. The first contention, that he could have built a stronger coalition, is simply a stunning display of naiveté on Kerry's part. Nations like France, Germany and Russia who all opposed any action in Iraq were doing so because they were making billions from Saddam as a result of kickbacks and payouts generated by the UN's criminally mismanaged Oil for Food program.

There is no way that these nations would ever support a War in Iraq, no matter who was President. They were looking at their pocket books. They didn't care if Saddam was a brutal dictator or that he was a threat to every civilized nation on earth, all they cared about was the huge amount of illegal money he was funneling into their economies. For anyone to claim that they could have convinced these nations to support our war in Iraq is ludicrous at best.

The second point of Mr. Kerry's assertion is equally naive. The Islamofacists that are responsible for all of the bombings, abductions and murders in Iraq don't really give two hoots about whether our President is a Democrat or a Republican. They hate all of us, and no amount of "sensitivity" on Kerry's part is going to change that.

"Winning the Peace" basically amounts to rounding up all of these murdering scumbags and either putting them in prison or killing them. Nothing else is going to work. They can't be reasoned with, or negotiated with, and any attempts to do so just lead to more violence and more problems. All you have to do is look at the Israel - Palestine situation and you begin to understand just what I'm talking about.

Everyone from the United States to the UN to the EU has tried to find a successful, peaceful resolution to the Palestinian - Israeli problem. They have all failed, and every time some well intentioned "peace accord" is signed more innocent civilians end up getting killed on both sides because the militants in this case see "peace accords" and "negotiations" as a sign of weakness and a lack of resolve by the Israeli’s and it's supporters.

We are dealing with people who are willing to die just for the opportunity to kill others that they consider infidels. No amount of negotiation, no amount of sensitivity is going to change that. The more you capitulate to these monsters the weaker and more vulnerable you appear, and the more you inspire them to attack.
11 Comments
 
It's a Bird, It's a Plane.. It's ... Carl Cameron?
08.10.04 (9:24 am)
Carl Cameron is my hero.

On Fox News last night, reporter Carl Cameron presented a brilliant piece on John Kerry and his assertions that he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 during the Vietnam War. (There is a link to the video at Foxnews.com, under the “Fox News 24/7” header. The story is called “Missing in Action?”) The “Christmas in Cambodia” story, he notes is refuted by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and the new book “Unfit for Command”.

Mr. Cameron presents March 27 1986 Senate Record reports of Kerry’s assertions that he was [i]“sitting on a gunboat”[/i] in Cambodia while being [i]“shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.”[/i]

Cameron then further sites an October 14, 1979 letter to the editor of the Boston Herald, written by Kerry, that claims he spent [i]“Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese Allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas.”[/i] While, Kerry says, President Nixon claimed that there were no troops in the country. (Incidentally, Nixon did not take office as President until 1969.)

Cameron goes on to say that the Kerry campaign originally denied that Kerry ever said that he was in Cambodia, only that he was nearby, but when presented with the documentation, the campaign said [i]“It would come up with an explanation”[/i], which Mr. Cameron than stated had not been forthcoming by the time he filed the report, after [i]“repeated phone calls”[/i]. But that now the assertion is that he was “near” the Cambodian border, even though they have provided no clarification for why the story has changed.

Cameron’s report handily demonstrates that ease with which Kerry has a different story for all occasions, and does not mind just plain lying to fulfill his political needs. Even the two accounts of his presence in Cambodia do not match up (was he being shot at by enemies, or allies?), and they easily said “he never said that” until confronted with evidence, after which they basically begged for time to make up a story for why things are different all of a sudden, and then won’t return phone calls.

This is the Democrat presidential candidate. He wants you to believe he is a war hero and lover of the military who will strongly defend our country. He’s made this the focal point of his campaign, and yet when it suited his political purposes, he was willing to fabricate a story of being in Cambodia in order to cast doubts upon the war. He was willing to sell American troops down the river and claim that they were conducting atrocities and illegal activities in order to gain fame and political capital for an eventual run for the Senate. On one hand he’s participating in these atrocities and he’s ashamed of what he did, and now in 2004 his service is heroic. On one occasion he’s throwing his medals over the fence… now they were someone else’s medals and he’s displaying his in his office.

This sounds an awful lot like his shifting positions on Iraq, where he claims we were “misled” into war, and yet now says he probably “might have” done the same thing.

Who is this masked man? Why should I trust him to run my country? I can’t even trust him to tell me the same thing from one moment to the next. Carl Cameron caught Kerry in his own web, and boy did the campaign squirm.

Nice work, Carl.

-Submitted by: RedneckBob
0 Comments
 
When Tolerance Rears It's Ugly Head
08.09.04 (1:16 pm)
I'm not sure about anyone else, but I think I've had about all the tolerance I can stand from certain quarters. Have you ever noticed how those that demand tolerance also seem to be the ones who practice it the least?

Take for example our good friends over at the GLAAD. Apparently Joan Garry, their Executive Director, got herself into quite an uproar about an advertisement that ran in the Los Angeles Times, and sent them a bit of a nasty gram about the subject.

The Ad was purchased by a group called Exodus, and was apparently either written by or with the approval of a man named Randy Thomas, who stated in the ad that at one point in his life he thought he was gay but he is now living a straight life style and no longer considers himself to be gay. The ad apparently was meant to encourage other gay men and women who might feel similarly to Randy that they too could get help from the same organization that helped him. You can read the ad, in it's entirety here.

[url=http://www.exodus.to/pdf/Rand...]Click here to view The full text of Randy's Ad[/url]

This was then sent to the Los Angeles times and published in their editorial section. Apparently no mention is made of the irony that a group like Exodus had to pay for their advertsiment while folks like GLAAD can spout off for free, but here is the text of the editorial:

AD ON GAYS PROMOTES HARMFUL FALSEHOODS

Kudos to Steve Lopez, not only for raising the issue of bisexuality in his July 28 column ("Randy Is Just Dandy - or Is He?"), but also for discussing The Times' lack of transparency around its decision to publish a full-page Exodus International ad promoting myths and falsehoods about gay Americans.

Sexual orientation, like so many biological traits, falls on a continuum. So when a person like Exodus' Randy Thomas - whose experience strongly suggests a bisexual orientation - claims that he "wasn't born homosexual," he's attempting to deceive the reader by putting the emphasis on the wrong word.

The anti-gay right clings desperately to a myth that gay people are somehow emotionally and psychologically disordered and thus undeserving of fundamental rights and protections for ourselves and our families. But what we know about sexual orientation tells us that the truth is far different from the fictions that Thomas is using to advance his group's political agenda. And for The Times to allow its pages to be used to propagate such harmful falsehoods without disclosing its own advertising standards or accepting responsibility for its actions does a tremendous disservice to its readers.

Joan M. Garry
Executive Director
Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation


Ok, lets examine some of the statement she has made here.. "Sexual orientation, like so many biological traits, falls on a continuum." Falls on a continuum? Ok, well in order to understand this statement we must first attempt to translate it into usable English. A continuum is defined as " a continuous nonspatial whole or extent or succession in which no part or portion is distinct of distinguishable from adjacent parts "

I think I know what Ms. Garry meant to say here, but I don't wish to be accused of putting words in her mouth, but it is interesting to note that her choice of wording is extremely unclear at best. I'll leave it up to the gentle reader to decide if this obfuscation was intentional or unintentional. I find it rather telling though that she cannot say what she apparently means because she realizes just how controversial a statement it would be to state that homosexuality is something your born with rather than a choice of some sort, be it concious or unconcious.

We move onto her next statement "So when a person like Exodus' Randy Thomas - whose experience strongly suggests a bisexual orientation - claims that he "wasn't born homosexual," he's attempting to deceive the reader by putting the emphasis on the wrong word."

Ok, so Randy is a liar because he doesn't agree with your opinion that people are born homosexuals? Interesting. Do you perhaps have scientific data that proves your assertion? Or could it be more fairly and accurately stated that you feel homosexuality is innate, whereas Randy views it as an unconcious choice he made in his life, based on environmental factors?

Of course our model for tolerance and compassion doesn't stop there, she continues: "But what we know about sexual orientation tells us that the truth is far different from the fictions that Thomas is using to advance his group's political agenda."

Actually what you think you know about sexual orientation is entirely different about what is actually known about sexual orientation. The science on this issue is hardly definitive, most studies I've seen tend to start with a pretty bad bias one way or the other and thus their outcomes can hardly be considered either trustworthy or scientific. The truth is there is no hard, scientific data to support the notion that homosexuality is either innate or environmental, though the second opinion is gaining ground in the scientific community as the notion of a gay gene has been pretty much discredited.

Now I don't think it would be fair to say that one can entirely rule out the notion of innate or "inborn" homosexuality just yet, at least not from a scientific standpoint, but I'd say it is fair to say that thus far science does seem to be leaning in the opposite direction, that homosexuality is probably a result of environmental factors rather than an inborn trait.

As far as Mr. Thomas having a "political" agenda, I see nothing political about his advertisement at all. Again I'll allow the reader to judge for themselves, but it read to me like a man that was miserable with his current life and situation, that felt unloved and unwanted who finally took some steps in his life that made him feel loved, wanted and whole. This same man then wanted to reach out to others in his situation and possible help them the way he feels someone helped him. As a result his branded as a liar and and intolerant. Amazing.

Most amazing I think is her summation:

"And for The Times to allow its pages to be used to propagate such harmful falsehoods without disclosing its own advertising standards or accepting responsibility for its actions does a tremendous disservice to its readers."

Apparently it is a disservice to one's readers to present any viewpoint other than those held by GLAAD and it's backers. Any alternative viewpoint, even when it has nothing to do with politics apparently is so terrible that it should not be given a voice, even when someone is paying for it as an ad. It would seem that the any alternate viewpoint is so unthinkable and untenable that it must never be uttered at all, even when someone pays the adverstising rates to do so since there is no way it could ever get posted for free as Ms. Garry's viewpoint has been and often is not only in the Los Angeles Times but in Newspapers across the country.

Sorry Ms. Garry, but I guess if this is your idea of tolerance then I really wish you'd go be tolerant to someone else. I don't believe Mr. Thomas ever meant you or your group any harm, nor do I get the impression that his ad was some sort of political statement. It struck me as a geniune plea from someone that has found meaning and happiness in his life reaching out to others who might be lost in an attempt to help them.

But hey, I'll present both sides and let the readers judge for themselves Ms. Garry, something it would seem you would wish to deny the readers of the LA Times.
4 Comments
 
Take The Liberal Media Challenge!
08.09.04 (12:10 pm)
This was posted today as one of the "top stories" by the AP (Associated Press):

By MARY DALRYMPLE, Associated Press Writer

WINSLOW, Ariz. - At this small town on a rail track, supporters brought John Kerry's train to a halt with a homemade sign made of white bedsheets asking for just a few minutes of his time.

The train should have slowly rolled through and allowed the Democratic presidential candidate just enough time to wave and thank supporters, but Kerry ordered it stopped when he saw the plea.

Late for his next stop, a rally in Flagstaff, Ariz., Kerry apologized to the crowd.

"Somebody put up a sign, and it said 'Give us 10 minutes, just 10 minutes.' And another sign said 'Give us 8 minutes and we'll give you 8 years,'" Kerry said. "So just for an insurance policy, I gave them 15 or 20, and that's why we're late."

On a 3,500-mile trek from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the Democratic senators running to be the country's next president and vice president can't afford to spend much time in any one place.

But some supporters hope to grab their attention with personalized messages.

"We dined at Wendy's in Columbus on our wedding night," said a sign in the crowd at a stop in Springfield, Ohio, seeking the attention of vice presidential candidate John Edwards.

Edwards also took his new bride to the fast-food restaurant on their wedding day 27 years ago, but he never made it around the corner to see the sign.

Sometimes the candidates pick the signs out of the crowd.

"I love that sign! 'Republicans for Kerry and Edwards,'" Kerry said after seeing it in the crowd in Wheeling, W.Va.

Rallies along the two-week tour have been filled with signs and T-shirts that proclaim "Firefighters for Kerry," "Carpenters for Kerry," or "Sheet metal workers for Kerry," among others.

In Scranton, Pa., Kerry noticed, "We've got 'Insulators for Kerry.' Now there's a new one. Thank you!"

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, said a personalized sign may the only way for voters to communicate with a future president.

"You don't have any way to talk to the candidate. It becomes a way of sending a message," she said.

Kurt Ellefson, a gym teacher and football coach in Monroe, Wis., said he flattened a cardboard box and made a sign to tell Kerry he believed the Massachusetts Democrat can bring health care and blue-collar jobs to needy communities.

"I just want to let him know I saw his speech," he said. "Let him know we support him."

Not all roadside signs offer support.

At a ballpark in Taylor, Mich., Kerry's caravan of buses rolled past a group of Bush supporters and two men protesting Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War who held a big, red sign that said, "Hanoi John — Traitor."

As Kerry headed toward a high speed ferry docked in Muskegon, Mich., a young woman in a black T-shirt with a white W on the front held up a sign — "Why the long face?" — a reference to Kerry's long, slim visage and Republican arguments that he's pessimistic about the economy and the nation.

Kerry's campaign also knows the value of a handmade sign — and makes its own.

Teresa Fadden, of Wauwatosa, Wis., got one at a rally in Milwaukee and decided to keep it. It says, in red and blue paint on a white background, "Milwaukee loves Teresa." She shares a first name with Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Ok seriously folks, can anybody tell me why this puff piece is even considered news, much less a top story? Other than trying to represent the Democratic nominees in a postive light, what actual news did this story contain?

Even the part about "We dined at Wendy's in Columbus on our wedding night" contains no mention of the fact that Kerry & Edwards actually had an extremely expensive catered dinner from the local yacht club served aboard their bus, and the stop at Wendy's was nothing more than a PR stunt.

After reading this fluffy feel good piece that is not only passed off as "news" but supposedly is one of today's top stories, can anyone even begin to question why so many of us believe that the mainstream press is liberally biased?

But I'm willing to put it to a challenge. Can anyone find me a single "news" story by a mainstream media outlet (such as the AP) that is really little more than a free political advertisement for the Bush Administration?

Come one progressives, here is your big chance to prove to us all that the press is not liberally biased, or as some of you have maintained that it has a conservative bias. Find me one non-news story (not an editorial mind you, a supposed news story) that is as worthless as this one with a conservative slant, reported by one of the major networks or news outfits like the AP. Just one free political advertisement written to support the current administration, masqueraded as a news story.

Is there anyone out there willing to take the Liberal Media Challenge?
1 Comments
 
Winners of last weeks Photo Caption Contest
08.09.04 (8:35 am)
[image]stepdad_484124945.jpg[/image]

We had a real tough time picking our winners this week, there were so many really great entries. We actually ended up with a tie for Third place, so we decided to reward each of our 3rd place entries with 10 tbucks each.

Our first 3rd place entry was from Deshanews, for this stunning revelation:

You know, you look surprisingly like Tom Daschle.
"

Our tie for third place went to Larry Conley, with John Edwards giving a little friendly advice to his running mate:

"Edwards:Now THIS is a smile John, just let your inner clown out.

Our second place entry went to noguru, for this absolutely hilarious Austion Powers reference:

"Yes Mini Me, of course, you can ride the bus"

And our Grand Prize of 25 tbucks goes to brogonzo, for this unforgetable Kerry Campaign ad:

"Look here, folks... this is a clear example of a Child who's been Left Behind"

Thanks again to all that entered, if your interested in entering this weeks contest and the possiblity of winning some fabulous prizes just click on the photo in the right hand margin, and add your witty comment to the photo contest.
1 Comments
 
Photo Caption Contest
08.09.04 (6:46 am)

[image]stepdad_988737813.jpg[/image]


It was a real uphill battle trying to decide on our winners for this weeks Photo Caption Contest, there were some really hillarious entries. 


Our third place entry was actually a tie, we couldn't decide on just one so we picked two.  The first of these two great entries comes from Deshanews:


You know, you look surprisingly like Tom Daschle.


And with an equally funny entry our tie for third place goes to Larry Conley for this rib tickler:


Edwards:Now THIS is a smile John, just let your inner clown out.


Since it was a tie we'll be awarding 10 tbucks to both of these great entries.


Our second place entry from last weeks contest went to  Noguru, for this awesome Austin Powers reference:


"Yes Mini Me, of course, you can ride the bus"


Our Grand prize entry and winner of a whopping 25 tbucks goes to Brogonzo, for what is sure to be a new Kerry campaign ad:


"Look here, folks... this is a clear example of a Child who's been Left Behind."


Thanks again to all who entered, this weeks contest is posted and can be reached just by clicking on the image in the right hand margin. 

10 Comments
 
When Reason is Abandoned
08.09.04 (6:34 am)
CAIRO, Egypt — Militants who said they belong to a group that has claimed responsibility for kidnappings and killings in Iraq beheaded a man identified only as a Bulgarian in a video posted on the Internet Monday.

The images were indistinct, making it difficult to identify the victim. The militants in the video said they were from the Tawhid and Jihad (search) group, which had claimed to have kidnapped two Bulgarian truck drivers June 29 and demanded Iraqi detainees be released in exchange for their lives.

The beheaded body of one of the drivers, Georgi Lazov, was found in the Tigris River in Iraq in mid July and a tape was released showing his death. An announcement late last month of the discovery of a second decapitated body in an orange jumpsuit and a head in a bag near the Tigris River had prompted fears Kepov too had been killed, but there was no video of his slaying.

This is the face of our enemy folks. This is the true face of Islamofacism. You see it in Isreal, when militants explode a car bomb and kill innocent civilians, including children. You see it in Iraq, when they take hostages and behead them if their demands are not met.

I realize that there are those that feel that we should negotiate with these people, that by giving them what they want their anger will be appeased and they will stop hating us. Guess again folks, these people are not going to stop hating us, no matter how much we give into their demands.

Think about it folks, do you think the KKK would have stopped hating minorities back in the sixties if the minority groups would have said, "That's ok, we really don't want the right to vote anyway." Do you think that would have stopped the hatred, or the violence? Of course not, if anything it would have made matters worse. The KKK would have realized that it's violent tactics were working and they would have escalated matters in the hopes of getting everything they wanted, most specifically the total elimination of the minority groups they hated so much.

That is what we are dealing with here people, with Islamofacists. Their not "freedom fighters" or "insurgents", they are thugs, killers and murderers. Nothing more.

This also bring us to an interesting point. One of John Kerry's key talking points during this campaign (other than his promise to be more sensitive to such terrorist groups) is that he would make sure to strengthen our alliances with nations like France, Germany and Russia to help deal with the problem.

Sounds great, but I guess my question would be why? France, Germany and Russia were taking billions in payouts from the extremely corrupt UN Oil for Food program, and they valued that money more highly than they valued our friendship as a nation.

So my question to Mr. Kerry is, what good will it do to have France, Germany and Russia saying they our are friends again? They never really were to begin with, and having them just say so publicly now means nothing. It will do nothing to aid our war on terror, nothing to keep Americans safe.

All it will do is maybe make some folks here in America feel a little better about themselves because we won't seem quite so "brutish" to the international community. Of course these are the same people that were willing to take huge payouts of illegal money from a dictator like Hussien and would look the other way while he murdered millions of his own people, but somehow we are supposed to value their opinion of us?

Sorry, but this all seems a bit ridiculous to me personally. I don't really care what France's opinion of us might be, they don't have the moral authority to judge anyone as far as I'm concerned, and neither does the UN.

My worry is that innocent American lives will be protected, and quite frankly a policy of appeasing terrorists and haughty foreign powers isn't going to help much in this regard. We went down that road once before under the Clinton Administration, and it was a dead end.

The bottom line folks? You can't reason with unreasonable people. Our enemies cannot be reasoned with, negotiated with or bargained with. They have no intention of ever stopping until we are all dead. So we either kill all of them, or we allow them to kill all of us.

It really is just that simple. Sad, but true. Don't believe me, just ask Georgi Lazov.
4 Comments
 
Land Of The Free And The Home of the Lawsuit
08.06.04 (12:45 pm)
As I reported yesterday, Lawyers for the DNC and Kerry's campaign are threatening TV stations, and attempting to intimidate them into not running the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVFT) advertisement. The fax being sent to TV stations is duplicated at this link.

[url=] http://humaneventsonline.com.... [/url]

Apparently this ad must really be a threat, 'cuz this tactic smells like a campaign on the run. As I expected, the Kerry crowd are trying to silence and smear the SBVFT before they even get a chance to be heard. If the allegations that they are making are not true, I expect John Kerry should be able to answer them without a great deal of trouble. But trying to squash this ad in the cradle seems, to be charitable, suspicious. Furthermore, the memo mischaracterizes the arguments presented by the Veterans, and calls them "phony", singling out Louis Letson in particular, saying he is "pretending to be [Kerry's] doctor" and at another point using the word "doctor" in quotes, insinuating that he is lying about even being a doctor.

John Kerry chose to make the issue of his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign for President, claiming it will make him a better Commander in Chief. He has absolutely hammered it in every speech he makes, every appearance he makes, that "I served in Vietnam". Now, a group of veterans, purportedly including [/i] everyone in his chain of command [/i] are calling this record into question. These men have nothing to gain from this, save heartache. In the coming weeks they will be tarred and feathered, their names dragged through the mud as they are called "right-wing" operatives and liars, phonys and frauds. Their character will be smeared and their every blemish probably exposed by the Kerry destruction machine. They have absolutely nothing to gain, other than, in their minds, telling the truth. Kerry, on the other hand, has everything to lose if his "war hero" persona is shown to be a sham.

Once again, the Democrats, Michael Moore, and their celebrity mouthpieces are allowed to holler from the mountaintops that "Bush lied about Iraq"... "He was AWOL from the TANG!", and insult and demean and attack to their heart's content, and when questioned or called on it, they yell "Censorship! You are trying to take away my Free Speech rights!", and yet when this organization decides to speak up, they are shouted at to be silent. That their charges are "libelous" and should not be heard. These men, too, served in Vietnam, Mr Kerry. They were there longer than you were, as a matter of fact. They have earned their right to be heard, and if you can refute them, then you rightly should. But to attempt to silence them with threats from your legal teams shows nothing short of cowardice.

Posted by: Redneck Bob
3 Comments
 
CNN? On Journalistic Ethics?
08.06.04 (12:17 pm)

Parsons Takes Shot at Fox

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 8/6/2004 2:22:00 PM

Time Warner Inc. chairman Dick Parsons Friday described Fox News Channel as "crazy people exchanging views," telling a group of minority journalists in Washington he felt that the channel and his own Cable News Network are two different services.

When asked by Univision Anchor Jorge Ramos why CNN was losing the ratings battle with Fox, he was not ready to concede that. He said that Fox was more like talk radio on TV, which meant that its viewers stayed longer because people tended to "come and sit down for an hour or two and listen to crazy people exchange views." CNN actually draws more viewers, he said, but said they were grazers who didn't stay long.

Parsons said he did not feel CNN was liberal, but instead has a bias for the truth. He conceded that journalists are often perceived as liberal because they tend to challenge the establishment. He did not make an overt comparison with Fox, but he did say that his news operation "does not give a corporate slant to its journalism. We don't tell them how to report."


I think this one deserves at the least an honorable mention for this weeks Hippo award. So, Mr. Parsons, since your own network apparently is the very epitome of journalistic ethics, would you care to comment on how your network was knowingly broadcasting only stories favorable to Saddams regime before the war, not reporting any of the atrocities you knew were occuring because you didn't want to loose "access"?

Care to comment on the story you were forced to retract, you know the one where you accused U.S. troops of using nerve gas on deserters during the Vietnam War? What ever happened to the reporter that filed that story, Peter Arnett , wasn't it? He wasn't fired over this incident, though you did can a couple of middle managers. So what ever happened to old Petie anyway?

Didn't he eventually end up over at NBC and then get canned from NBC for being a partisan hack of the worst sort during the Iraqi War?

Aren't you also the folks that got caught red handed after a memo leaked that advised your staff to not report a new book that was very critical of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, a former CNN host?

Didn't the contents of that memo demonize the author of the book, Ken Timmerman, and telling your staff not to mention the book at all on the air, despite the fact that it was #1 on the Amazon.com best sellers list?

Were you aware that there are entire websites devoted to nothing but pointing out the blatent bias of CNN's reporting, and the almost daily omissions and blatent errors made by your network?

Sorry Mr. Parson, but for all of your much vaunted "anaylsis" of Fox News the truth is your getting your butt kicked in the ratings because a lot of people realize that you are attempting to slant the news in a certain direction. You, your reporters and your talking heads highlight any stories that agree with your agenda and bury any stories that don't.

Curiously enough I still haven't seen a CNN story on the Kerry Edwards campaign's eating gourmet food catered from a local yacht club while touting their man of the people yah we eat at Wendy's campaign photo op. I'm just one blogger with a full time job and three kids and I got ahold of that story within days of it breaking. Your a major news organization with a huge full time staff and you still haven't managed to report it yet, it is almost like it never happened.

Oh, and while were on the subject, care to discuss your reporting of say, the Juanita Broderick story? You know, the woman who accused then President Bill Clinton of rape? Hmm.. thought not. Guess her story just wasn't "newsworthy", after all that sort of thing happens every day. So much for your "anti-establishment" spiel.. No, your bias is both obvious and evident.

That's why your loosing viewers to Fox, Mr. Parson, both Liberal and Conservative alike. As a liberal friend of mine put it Mr. Parson, "I may not agree with the outlook of Fox news overall, but at least I can count on them to give me both sides of the story".

You and your organization have no room to criticize anyone else in regards to journalistic ethics or anything else for that matter. I suggest you clean up your own act and start trying to get your network to actually report the news Mr. Parson, rather than having them spend the vast majority of their time trying to spin it to fit with their liberal world view.
0 Comments
 
Hippo of The Week Archive
08.06.04 (10:23 am)
Current Winner : [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Newsweek's Howard Fineman[/url]

Previous Winner: [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Fellow Tblogger UsefulIdiot[/url]

Previous Winner : [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Iranian President Mohammad Khatami[/url]

Previous Winner : [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Americans United For The Seperation of Church And State [/url]
0 Comments
 
President Mohammad Khatami, A Hungry Hungry Hippo
08.06.04 (10:16 am)
Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said the United States was using double standards in its war in Iraq and accused it of sparking interethnic conflict.

Addressing the Azeri parliament on the second day of his visit to the former Soviet republic, Khatami defended both Iraq and Palestinian territories against the West.

"Unilateral international policies followed by double standards create difficulties among people, and this can be seen in Iraq and Palestine," Khatami said.

"The Islamic religion allows for peace and security in the region and a true dialogue for between the world's civilizations," he said.

True dialogue between the world's civilizations? Do I understand you correctly President Khatami, that you are suggesting that when a Palestinian suicide bomber kills dozens of innocent Israeli citizens, that should be considered a true dialog?

Your governments continued quest to create nuclear weapons is only because your a peaceful nation interested in dialogue? Interesting. Ok, so all of the dissidents that you torture and silence in your country doesn't spark any interethnic conflict?

And how about all the Iranian intelligence agents in Iraq, you know the ones, the guys you sent there with orders to sponsor terrorism, to kill, maim and destroy to make certain that the Iraqi people, fellow Muslims, would never be given the opportunity to govern themselves. What do you call these guys Mohammad, "Ambassadors of Good Will"?

Seriously Mohammad, your going to lecture us about peace and good will? What's next, a lecture from Charlie Manson on kindness?

We have to congratulate Khatami though, his blatant hypocrisy was so stunning that he has been awarded the hippo of the week award a few days ahead of schedule.
0 Comments
 
Apocalypse Then, John Wayne Movie Now
08.06.04 (7:56 am)
A lot of discussion has been prompted by an article written by redneck bob concerning the allegations made by a group of swift boat veterans that oppose John Kerry's bid for President.

This particular commentary is not really meant to address the allegations levelled by the swift boat veteran's themselves. Obviously they dislike Senator Kerry and don't want him to be elected president, and considering that they did serve with him in Vietnam that should be a source of concern in and of itself.

However I think perhaps a bigger issue has been overlooked here, and that is the fact that John Kerry has not been honest about his service in Vietnam. How can I refer to this as a fact? Simple really, when you examine John Kerry's statements about the matter.

When Kerry first returned after his 4 months in Vietnam he spent a great deal of time protesting against the war and was very active in a group called Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a pretty radical anti-war group.

Kerry testified before Congress and also later publicly admitted that he had not only witnessed and did nothing to stop atrocities committed by other soldiers in Vietnam, that he committed such atrocities himself. He layed out scenes reminiscent of movies like Apocalypse Now, secret and illegal forays into Cambodia, wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians and of course the ever popular burning of villages.

This is how John Kerry himself characterized his own service in Vietnam, at least back then. Now however we are getting a different story, a story of an honorable man and war hero. This is far reminiscent of a John Wayne film like Green Berets than the story he was telling about his service immediately after returning from Vietnam. "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty..."

So which is it Senator? Did you lie 30 years ago right after you got back from Vietnam, accusing your fellow veterans of every horrible atrocity imaginable even though it wasn't true and you had actually served heroically in Vietnam? Or are you lying now about your service, proclaiming yourself to have served honorably and heroically even though you were back there 30 years ago burning down villages, secretly invading Cambodia and killing civilians for kicks?

Who are you Senator? John Wayne? Martin Sheen? Or just a political opportunist who will masquerade as either when given the chance just so you can garner some votes?
15 Comments
 
Blind In The USA
08.05.04 (12:47 pm)
I find it ironic to the point of being sad that Bruce Springsteen, whose most well known song is "Born in the USA", an anthem describes the hardships of Vietnam veterans returning to a country hostile to them, would support John Kerry, whose first series of acts when he returned was to accuse our vets of war crimes and fuel the hatred that Bruce writes about.

Guess that doesn't matter though, what with the "high stakes" of needing to get a liberal back in power.

-Submitted by: RedneckBob
56 Comments
 
Thank you for protecting our right to free speech, now sit down and shut up.
08.05.04 (12:05 pm)
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the organization responsible for the book Unfit for Command, a chapter of which you can obtain here [url=] http://www.humaneventsonline.... [/url] is stating, loudly, their disagreement with John Kerry's version of his Vietnam service. (Did you know John Kerry served in Vietnam?)

In addition to the book they have bought advertising in an effort to be heard. The smear campaign has begun, as they are being called Republican operatives, and there are even reports beginning to emerge that there lawyers involved with or friendly to the Kerry campaign threatening TV and radio stations in an effort to stop them from running the ad, stating the content is "libelous". So, saying that Kerry lied about his Vietnam service is "libelous", but screaming that Bush "lied about Iraq" is "Free Speech".

Huh....

Submitted by: Redneck Bob
3 Comments
 
Growing Up Gaudy
08.05.04 (12:03 pm)
From the New York Posts Alisha Berger:

Italian-American groups are threatening to boycott the sponsors of "Growing Up Gotti," the new reality-TV series about mob daughter Victoria Gotti's family, because it gives Italians a bad name.

Gotti, daughter of the late mob boss John Gotti, and her three teen sons are stars of the A&E show, whose debut this week drew 3.5 million viewers.

"Enough is enough," said Stephen R. Aiello of the National Italian American Foundation. "This show reinforces a commonly held belief that most Italian-Americans are either bums, bigots, buffoons or barely literate."

Dona De Sanctis of the Order Sons of Italy in America agreed that the show unfairly portrays Italian-Americans and said her group and Aiello's, along with the United Italian Community Organization, have been inundated with e-mails and phone calls decrying the show.

"The only reason A&E decided to make Victoria Gotti the star of a reality program is because she's a daughter of a man who has disgraced his family name and ethnic heritage," De Sanctis said.

"But Hollywood and TV have typecast us and keep turning mobsters into mythical figures. Tony Soprano and Victoria Gotti are not role models."

A representative of A&E Networks called the show a responsible portrayal of a single working mother who is raising three teenage sons.

Nice that A&E can find the exaltation of a mobster's family to be prime material for entertainment, considering that the vast riches this family has came from organized crime. What I'd like to see is for the Gotti family to be presented with and given the opportunity to apologize to the slew of victims that their father/husband left in his wake so that they could be living in an expensive house and driving all of these expensive cars.

As for the Gotti Family Maybe instead of exalting this type of vulgarity and presenting themselves as people worthy of celebrity they should have had the common decency to say no to A&E outright. At least that would have displayed some decorum.

Instead they apparently expect us to watch this awful show and celebrate this vulgar display. I just wish Mrs. Gotti had taken even a brief instant to consider that her and her children's new television show is like a slap in the face to the families of every victim of her now deceased mobster father, and from all accounts that's a pretty long list. To bad Mrs. Gotti, A&E or the viewers of this gangster offspring self love fest didn't consider that before hand.
11 Comments
 
Photo Caption Contest Update
08.05.04 (10:59 am)
Just a quick update on the photo caption contest, in order to make things interesting I thought it might be nice to give folks a little more of an incentive to enter, so we've decided to award the winner with Tbucks by taking advantage of the send tbucks ability of tblog.

So, if you are the proud winner of our caption contest you will receive 25 tbucks, second runner up will get 10, third runner up will receive 5. I may end up adjusting the reward amounts up or down based on contest participation, the more people that participate regularly the higher I can make the award, but for now we'll start with the basic reward structure of 25, 10 and 5.

If you haven't already you can entered our Photo Caption Contest by clicking on the link in the right hand column for the Photo Caption Contest. Naturally if you are not a tblog user then I won't be able to reward you with tbucks, but if such is the case I'll hang onto the tbucks and spilt them up over next weeks winners as the need arises. So even if your not a tblog user feel free to enter, the more the merrier, just be advised that I can't send you tbucks if your not a registered user of tblog, so you'll have to enter just for the fun of it instead
:)
0 Comments
 
A Few Minor Changes
08.05.04 (8:09 am)
Just making a few minor changes to the blog folks, hopefully it will make it a bit more user-friendly. On the right hand side you'll notice I've added a few images to serve as links, the first is to our latest photo caption contest and the second is to another new feature, our weekly hippo award.

Our photo contest will normally run for about a week and gives you the opportunity to use your comedic talents in a fun way. Even if you choose not to participate by leaving a funny remark or two I highly recommend you drop by and read the comments left by others, some of them are real side splitters. The winning comments and their author’s names will be posted at the end of the contest. Hopefully we can find enough amusing photos in the news to make this an ongoing, weekly event. The link to the right will provide an easy method for accessing the current photo caption contest, and I’m looking at some ideas to help easily index an archive of previous contests.

Also new is our Hippo award. Each week will attempt to find an individual or group that displays an outlandish level of hypocrisy, and give them our coveted hippo award for their efforts. If you'd care to nominate an individual or group, leave a comment on this week’s hippo winner or if you prefer send us some tmail.

So what do we have in mind for the future? Were currently working on a banner, so be on the look out for that soon, and with luck we’ll start being able to add some other features as well. Any suggestions for improvements are always welcome.
4 Comments
 
I Thought That Was Seperation of Church & State...
08.05.04 (7:12 am)
Americans United for Separation of Church and State has shown their true colors, filing a complaint with the IRS about a sermon given by Pastor Ronnie Floyd of the First Baptist Church of Springdale, Arkansas.

Seems the good Pastor had the temerity to speak from the pulpit concerning moral issues that face Christians in the context of the upcoming election.

As a result our friends at the Americans United for Separation of Church and State have attempted to revoke the First Baptist Church's tax exempt status and have them classified as a political action group.

Funny isn't it, how supposedly these people are in favor of a separation of church and state and yet think nothing of invoking the powers of the government to punish a religious leader who dares to speak out about politics and morality. Strange how these folks who say they are fighting to keep our freedom of religion sacred are not at all interested in the freedoms of Pastor Floyd, after all he is apparently supporting a political canidate that they dislike. I guess your religious and political freedom should only be granted to you if you happen to hold the same political viewpoints as the liberals that run the "Americans United for Separation of Church and State". I'm quite certain that they would never have filed anything against the good Pastor if he had spoken out in favor of John Kerry.

So what is your vision for America folks? Do you really want a group like this being able to strong arm your churches and its leaders into silence using the Government as their leverage? Or would you prefer a nation in which folks like Pastor Ronnie Floyd and others like him are able to speak their minds about any topic, even politics and how it relates to his religious beliefs, without fear of reprisals?

Congrats to the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, for being the hands down winner of this weeks Hypocrite of the Week Award.
4 Comments
 
And These Are Your Pants On Drugs..
08.05.04 (6:53 am)
LaFAYETTE, Ga. (AP) -- A Walker County man was charged with manufacturing methamphetamine after his pants exploded while he was talking to social services workers outside his home.

Daniel Gabriel Doyle, 39, met the social workers at his front door Tuesday, walked to their car and sat down to fill out some forms, said Patrick Stanfield, commander of the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit Drug Task Force.

"Finally, while he was sitting in the back seat, the front of his pants exploded," Stanfield said Friday.

He said Doyle apparently had mixed red phosphorous and iodine in a film canister and stuck it in his pocket.

The chemical reaction caused second- and third degree burns to Doyle's testicles and leg, Sheriff's Maj. Hill Morrison said. He was treated at Erlanger Medical Center in Chattanooga, Tenn., before being jailed.

I guess this is yet another clear example of good being triumphant because evil is just stupid. I suppose this guy's pants weren't the only thing on drugs.
8)
0 Comments
 
Say It Isn't So
08.05.04 (5:47 am)
Just finished reading a rather depressing bit of news from the AP.

Fulfilling Roger Waters' desire to put another brick in "The Wall," Miramax Films' Harvey and Bob Weinstein are teaming with music mogul Tommy Mottola to develop, produce and back a Broadway musical based on the Pink Floyd opus.

Great, so we get to see Pink Floyd's classic done by the same folks that did Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. I wasn't really sure how to react to this story, until a thought occured to me.

I'm now left in a rather unenviable position, as are most Pink Floyd fans, we can either destroy all of our copies of The Wall and never listen to them again, or we will be placed in the rather embarrasing position of having to admit that we like show tunes.

All in all it's just another brick upside the head, I guess. :P
0 Comments
 
Old Intelligence Leading to New Arrests?
08.05.04 (5:30 am)

A lot has been made over the fact that the latest rise in the terror alert level was made over "old" intelligence.  But for all of the nay saying being done by many pundits over this, I would suggest that those who are all up in arms over this latest supposed "mistake" in the war on terror might want to stop and consider what has been happening ever since this information was made public. 


Arrests have been made in both Afghanistan and here in the United States of terrorists.  Stop and consider the big picture, for just a moment.  These terrorist watch the news, just like we do.  They see this information on the news that our Government has all of this intel on their plans - but nothing specific really as to what intel it might have or whether or not their cell might be implicated, or how much information the Government might have concerning their plans.


As a result they must either sit and wait, hoping that they are not implicated by this intelligence, or they must take some sort of action.  An action such as moving from one location to another (like the gentleman trying to board the plane in Pakistan) or by taking a risk so they can accelerate their time table, such as the two individuals caught attempting to purchase shoulder fired missiles. 


Think about it, prior to releasing this intel it had been a while since our last major arrest.  Now we have at least 7 new terrorists in custody and have rooted out at least one mole in Pakistan that was helping these criminals.  I'd say that was a pretty good success rate for intel that was several years old.


All kooky conspiracy theories aside folks, you can't argue with results.  Who knows how much intel we'll get from these 7 new captives, or what else that might lead us to in the long run.
0 Comments
 
Our First Ever Photo Caption Contest : Results Are In!
08.03.04 (11:48 am)

[image]stepdad_484124945.jpg[/image]



Third place entry and winner of 10 tbucks was Defensor, for this rather witty caption:

Edwards: "No, I still don't see it. Are you sure your smiling?"

Our second place winner and recipient of 15 tbucks was brogonzo, for this reference to the classic romance films:

"Kiss me you fool!"

And our Grand Prize of 25 tbucks goes to aniTina for this one, that literally had us laughing so hard we fell out of our chairs:

"John, hang in there, it will be ok... I was able to get you in for a botox treatment at the spa around the corner."

Thanks again to all that entered, if your interested in entering this weeks contest and the possiblity of winning some fabulous prizes just click on the photo in the right hand margin, and add your witty comment to the photo contest.
8 Comments
 
Rob From The Poor, Pay For The Rich
08.03.04 (11:17 am)
It really amazes me how often people seem to support the notion that we should raise taxes on the "rich". But stop and think about this for just a moment, what makes the "rich" rich?

Who are the rich? For the most part your looking Corporate CEO's, business owners and major stock market investors.

So what happens when you raise these peoples taxes? Are you striking a blow for the little guy by making these "fat cats" fork over their hard earned cash?

Not at all. It's basic economics. Lets take a hypothetical example here, lets say Mr. Smith is one of the dreaded "rich". He owns a company that makes widgets. The government raises the taxes that Mr. Smith has to pay this year, so what do you think Mr. Smith is going to do in response? Do you think he'll cut back on using the corporate jet? Maybe allow the tax hike to cut into his own salary?

Nope. Mr. Smith is going to increase the price of his widgets to make up the difference. Now, Mr. Smith's widgets are used in a lot of different items, things like toasters, hair dryers and lawn mowers. That means all of these products are raised in price as well, since the widgets used to make them are now more expensive.

So who finally ends up paying for the tax hike on the rich? We do, your common everyday working class stiff's. Every time you raise taxes on the rich we end up footing the bill, either through increased prices for products or from a loss of pay raises at our jobs.

That's right, your raise Mr. Smith's taxes high enough and he'll start reducing or even eliminating the raises he gives his employees, those people who work 9-5 everyday making widgets.

Now Mr. Smith isn't all by his lonesome here, the rest of the "evil" rich are getting pinched too. You raise the taxes on capital gains and instead of investing their additional income in other companies (Like the Smith Widget Company), they start putting their money in other investments like bonds to avoid the taxes. Pretty soon investment in the Smith Widget Company slows or even stops, and Mr. Smith no longer has additional capitol.

This means he can't hire new employees, or expand or grow his business. He has to wait until things improve and he starts getting some additional investments. Worse yet, his sale of widgets is decreasing because the prices of lawn mowers, hair dryers and other such commodities have gone up to the point where their sales are starting to slump, thus lessening the demand for his widgets.

Squeeze the "rich" hard enough and pretty soon Mr. Smith and a lot of others like him end up laying off employees, because they can no longer afford to keep them all on staff. Of course as Mr. Smith lays off employees things just get worse, because other companies are doing the same, unemployment goes up and as a result the demand for his widgets drops even further, since most unemployed people are buying just the essentials, not the type of items that Mr. Smith's widgets are used to create.

So while raising the taxes on the rich might give you an emotional warm and fuzzy the truth is all you end up doing is hurting the working middle class.

So the next time a politician starts taking about raising the taxes on the rich, check your own wallet. If you really think you have more than enough money in their and can afford to loose some of it, just offer it to him outright and cut out the middle man.

If you really think you don't already pay far too much in taxes and you support the notion that the government should be redistributing this wealth, then next time you pay income taxes double the amount on the check you write. Give the government your own money for a change to support these huge government entiltement programs. If you truly are "progressive" in this regard then put *your* money where your mouth is, stop trying to use mine.

Just my 2 cents worth.
8 Comments
 
Nancy Reagan Supports Bush Despite Liberal Claims
08.03.04 (10:50 am)
Democrats have been crowing about reports from an unnamed "source close to the Reagan family" that Nancy Reagan would not be supporting George W Bush in the upcoming elections.

Me, I'll take a named source over unnamed sources any day. According to this article [url=] http://www.newsmax.com/archiv... [/url], Joanne Drake, chief of staff for the former President's office in Los Angeles, has stated that the former First Lady supports the President's reelection "150 percent", and further stated [i]"I think everyone would understand that while she may not agree with the president on every issue, this campaign is more than just one issue – it’s about leadership, and she believes that President Bush is the right man for the job.”[/i]

Although I was unable to find a staff list or anything verifying Joanne Drake's identity, she is listed as the Reagan's chief of staff on a multitude of news stories and press releases from all manner of media sites in a Google search.

Sorry, Dems. Your attempted theft of the Reagan legacy appears to have been foiled. (During the convention, I heard at least one news reporter referring to Ron Reagan as "crossing party lines" to support the Dems. Anyone who has been paying attention knows he was always opposed to his father's politics.) We'll see how this develops. NewsMax could be wrong. But a named staffer for the Reagans versus an unnamed "source" holds much more water with me.

-Submitted by: RedneckBob
4 Comments
 
Death & Taxes, at least in Death they cut you some slack
08.02.04 (7:47 pm)
There is an article posted on the OpinionJournal page today by Democrat Senator Zell Miller, the well-known maverick who is publicly supporting President Bush in the November elections. He lays out in detail his views on the current state of the Democrat party, and who they have become. The link is here.

[url=] http://www.opinionjournal.com... [/url]

Some important points to note: Some of you may not know something that Senator Miller points out. When John Kerry discusses tax increases for those who "make over $200,000.00", that's not a single income, as you might imagine. If you and your spouse combine to make $200,000.00 a year, pony up. many of the taxpayers in this bracket would be small business owners, whose business income is reported not on a corporate tax form, but on their personal taxes. This "personal income" would normally be money they might use to grow their business, resulting in more jobs created and business expenditures made, which (gasp!) creates more jobs to meet demand for more products and services. Instead they would be giving it to the government to spend.

The major problem with liberal (progressive, whatever) social(ist) policy is that it assumes no responsiblity. People who are rich, according to "progressives" didn't do anything to get that way, they are reffered to as having "won life's lottery"... they are referred to as "the fortunate", or "lucky". Nevermind the fact that they often used their knowledge and skills to create a commodity that was needed or desired, and often at great personal financial risk began a business to fulfill that need, or simply used hard work and intelligence to reach the upper echelons of a corporation, made smart financial decisions to secure their future, or otherwise did the footwork neccessary to get there. There are, of course, those who have won a lottery or gambled their way to millions, but you'll find those examples to be few and far between, and often lottery winners and others who actually -did- luck into wealth often piddle it away as fast as they got it.

By the same token, those who are not on the upper end of the economic ladder are referred to as the "less fortunate", and absolved of any responsibility for their state. Whether they ignored their education or dropped out, whether bad personal choices (alcoholism, drug use, early/unwed pregnancies, etc.) affected their lives, or whether they made poor economic choices (got too deep in debt, had no insurance when a loss occured, made a bad investment decision, gambled their life savings), they are simply "less fortunate/downtrodden/vic tims of "the man".

Making these assumptions allows one to also assume that those who are wealthy have no more valid claim to their wealth than the poorest among us, and therefore it is justifiable to force the wealthy man to give a substantial portion of his wealth to a government body, who will ensure it's "just" distribution to "the poor". Liberals like John Kerry use this assumption... this "class warfare" to buy votes, promising tax cuts for the "poor and middle class" and promising to make the wealthy pay their "fair share", meanwhile he and his Vice Presidential candidate use every tax loophole they can find to avoid paying self-same taxes. George Bush, on the other hand, accused of giving tax cuts to the wealthy, in fact gave a tax cut to everyone who pays taxes. He has also supported the repeal of the estate tax, sometimes called the "death tax", which takes all the property you managed to accumulate in your life (using income that had been taxed, and for which you probably paid sales taxes, property taxes, and other assorted taxes on while you were living), and taxes it again. This tax has resulted in dissolutions of family farms and small family owned businesses in order to pay these taxes.

Class warfare is an effective political tactic. It feeds on envy and greed. Those who have not made the type of decisions that have lead to wealth are jealous of those who have, and covet that wealth. Politicians who use this tactic offer, on behalf of these people, to "get" the rich guy and give them his money. This is not the way a free society operates. Not only is this not "fair" despite the lib's protests, but it's not good financial policy, penalizing those who actually produce wealth, and granting largesse to those who don't. Zell Miller recognizes this, and also sees an overall disingenuousness of his party on the issues. Read the article and tell me what you think. It's hard to discount his honesty, as he has no dog in the hunt. He's retiring. As always, look for yourself. Get the facts, and think.

-Submitted by: RedneckBob


0 Comments
 
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
08.02.04 (11:08 am)
Got a few emails today about the proposed "blueprint" that Kerry is planning on publishing on his internet website with some specific proposals about how to deal with some of the problems we face as a nation.

I've been fairly hard on Kerry to start providing some specifics, and I think rightly so - it's very easy to criticize that someone else isn't doing enough to fix a problem if you never present an actual solution yourself. So I'll be interested in reading his proposed "blueprint".

However, in one of the quotes I read from Kerry talking about his "blueprint" he mentioned how we had to modernize our military. The reporter said nothing, just threw him another softball question. Now folks, I've never been to journalism school but the very first quesiton that I would have asked I think is one that most people would like to know,

"Senator, how can you say that now after spending 20 years in the Senate voting against almost every new weapon system or military budget increase?"

Ok, maybe Kerry had a change of heart after 9/11, I'm not so cynical to believe that people cannot change. But if Kerry is going to play the "hawk" on National Defense then he needs to explain his abysmal voting record in the Senate on this issue over the last 20 years. Much like if he is going to give speeches about "bake sales for body armor" then he needs to explain why he wanted to deny our troops the 87 million dollars they needed to continue combat operations in Iraq.

Thus far Kerry has been able to play both sides of nearly every issue and no one seems to be willing to call him on it, at least no one in the national media has put forth any type of serious questions in this regard. They spend days talking about him and Edwards supposedly "eating" at Wendy's. The image is a clear one, look folks, Kerry and Edwards are regular folks, just like you.

But they forget to mention the rather expensive luncheon the Kerry Edwards ticket actually ate on board the bus in lieu of Wendy's, an expensive gourmet affair catered by a nearby Yacht Club.

So beware what your read in the newspapers, and what you see on TV. Educate yourself, because sadly our own national media is far to busy promoting the Kerry-Edwards agenda to ever stop and ask them the tough questions.
0 Comments
 
Shrimp Vindallo Not On The Wendy's 99 Cent Value Menu
08.02.04 (9:21 am)
Caught an article today on MidHudsonNews.com about the Kerry-Edwards campaign and the much touted stop at Wendy's restaurant for the Edward's anniversary. Seems that the fare at Wendy's was not really on the menu for the day, the campaign staff had actually ordered some rather upscale meals from Nikola’s Restaurant at the Newburgh Yacht Club.

The actual lunch menu was gourmet meals to go that included shrimp vindallo, grilled diver sea scallops, prosciutto, wrapped stuffed chicken, and steak salad. Now honestly folks, I have no problem with Kerry or Edwards partaking of some fine dining on the campaign trail, I just think it's a bit disingenuous to pull this "man of the people" routine by supposedly eating at a restaurant like Wendy's when you are in fact having a gourmet lunch catered in rather than actually eating the food at Wendy's.

The sad part about this affair is that I didn't get any of this from the National news media, as usual they seemed to have dropped the ball. It's really gotten to the point where you have to take anything the big media outlets tell you with a huge grain of salt. They obviously have a preferred candidate in this election and they will overlook or ignore anything uncomplimentary about that candidate no matter how true it might be, while reporting every allegation or negative statement about his opposition even if they know for a fact it isn't true.

Quite frankly these people should be ashamed of themselves. The media is supposed to be a watchdog, not a lapdog of one particular political party. This, like so many other stories that do not put the Democrats in positive light, are generally ignored by the mainstream media, and when your national media becomes really little more than press agents for a particular political party you really have to be careful in assuming anything they say is accurate, especially when you begin to find, as I have, that they generally leave out facts or kill stories based solely on their own political views.

I guess I find it humorous as to why so many in the National Media simply cannot understand why Fox News continues to be #1 in the ratings, with a greater share of liberal viewers than even CNN. It makes a big difference when your willing to give your audience both sides of the story, rather than just one. Even if they disagree with your own political views, at least they can come to trust your news reports to be accurate and balanced. Sadly one can no longer say that of most print media and national mainstream media outlets. They have a definite agenda and are willing to kill stories or try and spin them to fit with that agenda.

I don't think anyone questions the fact that if Bush Cheney had pulled a gaffe like this one it would have been all over the front page and a featured story in the National media for weeks on end. Kerry and Edwards, it would seem, are going to get another pass.
2 Comments
 
Ali and the Termite.. Not a Disney Movie - it's a Boxing Story
08.02.04 (7:03 am)
From the NPR :

Najah Ali, 24, will be among a dozen or so Iraqi athletes participating in this year's Olympic summer games in Athens. He is a boxer in the "light flyweight" class. His trainer and mentor is a Houston man named Maurice "Termite" Watkins.

[image]stepdad_1273536574 .jpg[/image]

I don't know about anybody else, but I'll definately be rooting for Ali. I saw an interview they did with the kid and he has got a lot of heart.

So Ali if word every gets back to you in Iraq rest assured you've got some fans here in America that are rooting for you. Just remember to keep your hands up and keep moving.
0 Comments
 

 

Blog Calendar
 

Photo Contest

Contest Archives