The Right Wing Troll

South Park 9/11 Truth

2006-10-13T23:10:00.000-04:00

Here is proof about the 9/11 conspiracy...or...lack thereof. Seriously however, if you believe that there was some conspiracy I suggest you kill yourself now in the interest of natural selection.

Long time no see...

2006-10-05T21:59:00.000-04:00

I think it has been a long enough absence. Welcome back me...

Detroit Most Liberal City

2005-08-11T21:37:00.000-04:00

Detroit is the most liberal U.S. city while Provo, Utah, is the most conservative, a study of voting patterns indicates.

The list was compiled by the Bay Area Center for Voting Research in California through an examination of voting in 237 U.S. cities with populations of more than 100,000.

"Detroit and Provo epitomize America's political, economic and racial polarization," BACVR Director Jason Alderman said in a release Thursday. "As the most conservative city in America, Provo is overwhelmingly white and solidly middle class. This is in stark contrast to Detroit, which is impoverished, black and the most liberal."

Gary, Ind., was found to be the second-most liberal followed by Berkeley, Calif.; Washington; and Oakland, Calif. The group that did the ranking is based in Berkeley, not far from Oakland.

Texas, home to President George Bush, has three of the five most conservative cities, as determined by BACVR, including Lubbock and Abilene in the Nos. 2 and 3 spots and Plano in the fifth spot. Hialeah, Fla., was ranked fourth.

BACVR offered no detailed breakdown of its methodology.

Perhaps interesting to some, although not too much of a surprise to me since I live in the Metro Detroit Area. The last week or so, I've been working downtown on the "Super Bowl XL Cleanup Project" which had me going around the city looking for anything that was undesirable - be it graffiti, broken windows, overgrown vegetation, rundown buildings or anything else of that nature. For each object found, we were required to indicate its presence on a map, and then take a picture. Throughout a standard 8-hour day, we accumulated approximately 200 pictures. There were almost thirty different "sections" throughout the city around Ford Field which needed cleanup. Each section took between 1/2 to 1 1/2 days to complete.

The state that the city of Detroit is in is a sad one. A corrupt mayor - Kwame Kilpatrick - who will most likely be voted out after one term is partially to blame, but the recent history of Detroit is what is more disturbing. In all reality, the majority of white people in the area are racist towards blacks and vice versa. Those within the inner city appear to have no will to accomplish anything. Throughout my whole life, going to Detroit almost always guaranteed one thing - being asked for change by a bum. Walking through the city to help restore it was no different. The bums usually migrate out around 10-11 in the morning and stay out until it gets too hot, with the exception of events downtown such as a Tigers' game, where they can ask more people. The problem wasn't with someone "down on hard luck just struggling to get some food" but rather blatant dependency on others. Here are a couple random things said to me while downtown in Detroit working on the cleanup project:

"Give me some money so I can buy some cigarettes and a beer...I'm an alcoholic."
"People like you are ruining the city. This area used to be all black and then you whites came in and fucked it up." (After telling the guy we were CLEANING up the city)

I firmly believe that Detroit is liberal, but I don't believe for a second that it is the most liberal in the whole country. I don't even feel it is the most liberal in the state. That distinction belongs to the hellhole known as Ann Arbor, Michigan - Population 115,213. Imagine a place where everyone is better than you. A place where you can smoke weed and if caught, only face a fine of $5. Imagine a place where the liberalism is so blatant, that there is only one viewpoint. A place where diversity is applauded, unless it comes to political diversity. I play a game when I go to Ann Arbor, which I still haven't completed. The game involves looking for a George W. Bush bumper sticker. The first person in the car with me who spots a Bush sticker wins the game. I've been to Ann Arbor numerous times, and still haven't seen one. I have however seen possibly every Kerry sticker or Anti-Bush sticker known to man.

Toon of the Moment

2005-08-08T21:44:00.000-04:00

Media Bias Paper Coming Soon

2005-07-25T23:32:00.000-04:00

Stay tuned...

Final Exam Weekend

2005-07-23T08:14:00.000-04:00

I've got some studying to do, so enjoy the weekend and be safe.

Abortion Main Cause for Drop in Crime Rate?

2005-07-21T16:41:00.000-04:00

I saw this post while surfing through BlogExplosion and thought it was well written and very interesting, therefore I'm passing it along here.

By Benjamin Copeland
http://benjaminacopeland.blogspot.com/

While on my business trip this week, I finished the book Freakonomics by Dr. Steven D. Levitt, (Economist), and Stephen Dubner (Writer). I posted an article on this blog earlier that explained Dr. Levitt’s opinion on the relationship between money and elections. I actually tend to agree that money has less of an impact on elections then the “conventional wisdom” would have you believe. My years studying politics at the University of Arkansas led me to believe that money was the single most important factor in winning an election. I have since revised my opinion and now feel that Dr. Levitt is correct. Money, while important, is not the single most important factor in getting elected.

Another study that Dr. Levitt conducted is a bit more controversial, as are many of his positions in the book. He believes that abortion is the single greatest cause for the wholesale crime reduction in America over the last 10-15 years. Admittedly, I have not done any independent research on this topic. I will take Dr. Levitt’s word on the sources he quotes in the book. Apparently, crime all across America (including homicides, robbery, rape, theft and assault) is down more then 30%. In many big cities like New York homicides are down a full 70%.

Many criminologists and other experts have pontificated as to the cause of such a decrease in the crime rate. They cite various factors such increased hiring of police officers, new and innovative policing policies, harder and longer jail sentences, improved economy in the 1990s, and an ageing population in America, among other things. Dr. Levitt says that many of these factors had a negligible impact on crime rates. However, longer jail sentences and increased hiring of police did have a 1/3rd impact on the reduction of the crime rate—although he never explains fully how he came to a 1/3rd figure.

What about the other 2/3rds? Dr. Levitt credits nationwide abortion as the reason. This initially was very disturbing to me. As a conservative and pro-life supporter, I have a hard time admitting that anything good comes from abortion. However, the more I thought about Dr. Levitt’s position I had to agree with him. Does this mean I’m no longer a pro-life supporter? Absolutely not. Abortion is still a repulsive policy that this country’s past leadership embraced, and it should be overturned at the earliest possible opportunity. Nevertheless, Dr. Levitt sets out an interesting, if not compelling argument that abortion reduces the overall crime rate.

Dr. Levitt professes that he is non-partisan and does not really have time for politics in his field of study. However, reading his book I get the distinct impression that he is liberal. This does not bother me, but I felt that readers of his book should take that into account when/if they read his book. Many of his studies outlined in the book are not at all political in nature and provide intriguing food for thought. Although, I also get the distinct impression that Dr. Levitt (a professor at the University of Chicago) and Mr. Dubner (former writer and still contributing writer for The New York Times) finds the South to be objectionable and possibly less enlightened then the Northern states. Or, perhaps I just perceived it that way. That, however, is a separate discussion.

The main thesis of Dr. Levitt’s argument, that abortion is the greatest single factor in the reduction of the overall nationwide crime rate, is that abortion has diminish the potential criminal pool. In other words, the women most likely to get an abortion were those that lived in poverty, bad neighborhoods, not a part of a typical nuclear family, and under or poorly educated. Thus, less babies are being born into situations that leads a person to commit crimes. Think of it this way. If you could follow a baby from birth that was born into poverty, single family home and lived in downtown Chicago or Los Angeles, and a baby born into a well-to-do, intact, suburban family with adequate education, which do you think has the greater potential to commit crimes when they are in their teens and early twenties? Dr. Levitt’s position is that women will always know better whether they want to raise a child or not.

As I mentioned earlier, the more I think about it the more Dr. Levitt has a point. This is very disturbing to me. Abortion advocates will use this information to support the legalization of abortion. But new questions will be raised such as, is the wholesale killing of 1.6 million babies per year (Dr. Levitt’s numbers not mine) worth a reduced crime rate? Could crime be reduced just as effectively by other means? The problem here is really how to improve the lives of newborn children, the solution of which is not to simply eliminate them.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Plame Memo Discovered!

2005-07-21T12:55:00.000-04:00

As usual, click on the image for the larger version. Another tip - deciphering when something is a joke or serious is pretty important. Make sure you have that ability...

Toon of the Moment

2005-07-21T12:44:00.000-04:00

Democrats Try to Keep Rove in Headlines

2005-07-21T12:41:00.000-04:00

The left is up to childish games again. With all the news focusing on the nomination of Roberts, they are trying to bring back the attention to Karl Rove. For those of you who subscribe to Roll Call, the link above will take you to the story. For the majority who don't, the full story is listed below with the main points in the story bolded for emphasis:

July 21, 2005
By Mark Preston,
Roll Call Staff

Less than 15 hours after President Bush announced that John Roberts would be his nominee for the Supreme Court, leading Democrats stood before a bank of television cameras Wednesday and criticized the president.
But their ire had nothing to do with Roberts.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) assailed the president for failing to punish Karl Rove for his alleged involvement in disclosing the name of a CIA operative.

Even though Roberts is considered too conservative by many Democrats to succeed Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the court, the nominee does not stir the same partisan passions as Rove does. And while Democrats vow to vigorously question Roberts during his confirmation hearings, they appear to be saving their fury for Rove, Bush’s top political adviser and White House deputy chief of staff.

“We will continue to look for some answers to what role Mr. Rove takes and whether there is a presidential endorsement of his role,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), a frequent critic of the Bush administration. “We are not going to settle for a dismissal. We will keep looking.”

The hunt continued this week even as Washington turned its attention towards Roberts, who began meetings on Capitol Hill with key Senators involved in his confirmation hearings.

In a set of talking points issued Wednesday morning, the Senate Democratic leadership urged rank-and-file Senators to continue spotlighting Rove’s involvement in the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.

“A Supreme Court nominee will not distract the country from the growing credibility problem at the White House,” Democrats were told to echo, according to a copy of the leadership memo obtained by Roll Call. “If Bush wants to know what Karl Rove and Scooter Libby did or did not do, he should call them into his office and ask them. It’s time for President Bush to show some leadership.”

Libby is Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff and is suspected by some people of also being involved in the Plame matter.

Plame is the wife of Joe Wilson, a former diplomat who disputed the Bush administration’s claim that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapons program.

On Wednesday, Boxer specifically called on Bush to fire Rove, who has acknowledged speaking to Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper about Wilson’s relationship to Plame.

“Well, the American people want and deserve to know that their top officials in the White House are held to the highest ethical standards, not to the lowest,” Boxer said. “And under the standard that was first stated by the president and reiterated by his top spokesman, Karl Rove should not be in this administration.”

Harman, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, would not go as far as to say that Bush should fire Rove, but she added that he “should have his security clearances suspended.”

“I think he might be better suited to serve in some political arm in government than as the number two person in the White House, responsible for critical national security functions of this government,” Harmon said.

Democrats claim that Rove broke the law by disclosing CIA agent Plame’s identity.

Republicans dismissed the Democratic efforts to keep the heat on Rove as a political tactic and predicted that the strategy will fail.

“I think they are wasting their time,” said Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah). “Virtually everybody agrees that Karl didn’t break any law, except the Democrats, who keep saying it is a violation of law. I think it is going to peter out on their side [because] I think they are screaming at an increasingly empty hall.”

Still, Democrats plan to move forward with their strategy of questioning Rove’s credibility and Bush’s decision so far not to fire him.

“Karl Rove did something the president said he would fire him for, and the president hasn’t kept his word,” Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said in a brief interview Wednesday, as he shuffled between meetings on Capitol Hill. “The issue isn’t what Karl Rove did. The issue is, is this president’s word good?”

On Friday, Senate and House Democrats will hold a joint hearing “to examine the national security implications of disclosing the identity of a covert intelligence officer.”

The hearing is not an official Congressional proceeding since Democrats are not in the majority and are not empowered to call hearings.

But Senate Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Byron Dorgan (N.D.), who is co-chairing the proceeding, said it is still important for Congress to look into the matter even as special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald conducts his own investigation.

“People think this is a political game of gotcha,” Dorgan said. “It is not that at all. These issues are life and death.”

However, Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) questioned the Democrat’s vigor to continue pursing the matter and noted that the news of Roberts’ nomination smothered the Rove matter.
“The Roberts nomination took Karl Rove off the front page,” Craig said. “They will do everything they can, including failing to tell the truth, to keep Karl Rove on the front page. The issue deserves to be vetted, but it has been vetted for three years.”

Evil Conservative Poster of the Moment

2005-07-20T23:04:00.000-04:00

Click the pic for the full image. Those without a sense of humor - get one - its a joke.

How American Are You?

2005-07-20T21:53:00.000-04:00

You Are 82% American

You're as American as red meat and shooting ranges. Tough and independent, you think big. You love everything about the US, wrong or right. And anyone who criticizes your home better not do it in front of you!

Interesting. Check it out if bored.

Conservative Companies cont...

2005-07-20T17:10:00.000-04:00

Earlier I posted about conservative companies based on campaign donations. A couple people I know asked me:

"Why don't you show the liberal companies so we know who NOT to buy from?"

To which leads me into this post. No, I'm not going to list of the numerous left leaning companies. The point of listing the conservative companies earlier is to show support for them and the higher ups who donate to conservative causes. To post against companies who are blue would be idiotic, which is partly why I posted about the conservative companies in the first place.

There's a pretty good chance that the companies who are left leaning don't have a 100% workforce of liberals. Just as the conservative companies don't only hire right wingers. Showing extra support for companies on your side is fine. Trying to influence a company's politics by refusing to purchase from them is silly because the only people you would be hurting are the blue collar workers - many of which may hold the same beliefs you do. Not purchasing something from a multi-million dollar company isn't going to change the lifestyle led by the high up executives.

So, before you boycott a company for its politics, make sure you think of the bigger picture and the other people who work there.

Boxer Doesn't Understand "Facts"

2005-07-20T13:55:00.000-04:00

What do I mean? Senator Barbara Boxer of California doesn't get it because she politicizes abortion "facts" which simply aren't true. She made the following asinine statement earlier this month referring to the consequences of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner retiring:

"It means a minimum of 5,000 women a year will die. So all options are on the table."

Wow - 5,000 women will die? For those unaware, the Senator is referring to back-alley abortions, which would be much less safe and therefore cause the death of more women.

Here's the facts however. The only time that 5,000 deaths were proved to be somewhat accurate were in 1933 - IN GERMANY!

In 1941, before penicillin was available, the number was still much lower at 1,400 deaths. With the introduction of penicillin, the average amount of deaths were 250 per year throughout the 1950s.

Abortion was still illegal in 1966. However more advances in medicine lowered the number of deaths to 120! By the time of Roe v. Wade in 1972, the number of deaths for illegal abortions was...*gasp*...TWENTY FOUR!

So Barbara Boxer feels that our health care is so bad that given every advance in modern medicine, the number would skyrocket to Pre-WWII rates. Interesting. Even more interesting is the fact that she's so concerned with the life of someone who would in essence be committing a crime (given the notion that abortion would be illegal in this scenario) but not concerned about the life which has no chance to even begin because of it.

Learn the facts Senator Boxer! Quit lying to the uneducated who will believe any numbers you just happen to spew out!

John G. Roberts Quotes on Roe vs. Wade

2005-07-20T13:15:00.000-04:00

The San Francisco Chronicle posted these earlier and I thought I would share them. Regardless of what you feel on abortion, you should be able to clearly see the facts, rather than propoganda from either side trying to influence the
nomination one way or another. On with the quotes:

"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." — Roberts, in a 1991 Supreme Court brief he co-wrote for the first Bush administration, while he was principal deputy solicitor general.

"The statement in the brief was my position as an advocate for a client." — Roberts, explaining the brief during his 2003 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination to a federal appeals court.

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. It's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it's the settled law of the land. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey." — Roberts, during the confirmation hearing, when asked for his own views on Roe v. Wade.

"I don't think it's appropriate for me to criticize it as judicial activism. ... My definition of judicial activism is when the court departs from applying the rule of law and undertakes legislative or executive decisions." — Roberts, during the confirmation hearing, on whether Roe v. Wade was judicial activism.

Take the quotes for what you will, but don't comment on something until you look into the situation.

Bush to Make Nomination Tonight

2005-07-19T19:50:00.000-04:00

Drudge claims it is John G. Roberts Jr. right now, but only time will tell. Roberts is quoted as saying "No support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution' for legal reasoning in Roe vs Wade..." so it will be interesting to see if this is who Bush actually nominates, and if there is any battle on issues.

Edit: It IS Roberts. The hearing apparantely won't be until late August. With the exception of the abortion issue, Roberts is pretty low key and should most likely be confirmed with ease, unless the left decides to play the "lets fight Bush on anything" game.

People don't know how to drive...

2005-07-16T22:09:00.000-04:00

I don't really understand it to be quite honest. Timed traffic lights. They're timed so that if you go the speed limit, you'll hit each one consecutively. But for whatever reason, people like to go 10-15 mph over the speed limit, then slam on their brakes at the next traffic light. They then repeat this process over for miles and miles, while you drive by them going the speed limit (or something close to it.)

Does anyone else have a similar driving experience? I sometimes wonder if people are so impatient that they don't understand the basic principles of driving, or if they just have a two-digit IQ and can't comprehend basic things. Let me know what you think! If you can't think of anything like this, keep an eye out next time you're on the road and I'm sure you'll see something.

I always thought the George Carlin joke about driving was pretty funny and may imply in this case:

Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?

Oh well, thats it for now, have a wonderful night everyone - I'm out.

Wilson Says Statements Taken Out of Context

2005-07-16T15:34:00.000-04:00

There are two ways to look at this. Either he made a mistake and now he is trying to cover his ass, or his comment was taken out of context like he says. From an UNBIASED perspective, the right will feel he is covering his ass, and the left will feel he was just misunderstood. With this new information, I will not speculate any further on this issue until it is finalized. Either side can twist the facts and most likely is. Once more information is released where we can make a more educated guess, then we can comment more on this. Until then, I encourage all bloggers on both the left and right to not speak up too loudly about this, lest you get egg on your face later.

I will note a couple comments from WikiPedia's coverage of this (A wonderful timeline with very low if any bias):

Novak stated on CNN Crossfire that "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this"

Finally listed is the transcript from Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife [in the January 2004 Vanity Fair magazine], who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you?

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

You've got to be kidding me...

2005-07-16T12:25:00.000-04:00

The following unrelated stories can be filed under the "WTF" category.

T-Ball Coach Offers $25 to anyone who will hit their mentally challenged teammate in the head with a baseball...

How heartless can you be? Mark Reed Downs Jr. - You sir are the jackass of the week. But barely, because I can't give a jackass award to someone who is deceased. Which leads me into my next story...

Seattle Man dies during sex with horse

Is there anything else to say about this? It appears you've already won an "award" so no need to give you another.

Now here's where I'll throw in the standard Michael Medved comment, which consequently is why I enjoy his show so much: Do you think Mark Reed Downs Jr. was right to put a bounty on a handicapped child? Or do you feel that the Seattle man who died during intercourse with a horse got a raw deal? If you disagree with my logic on either situation, leave me a comment.

Support Conservative Companies!

2005-07-16T10:17:00.000-04:00

While surfing through other blogs, I ran across an ad on one site which caught my eye. The ad was for a site called BuyBlue.com, which shows the contributions to politicians from each side of the aisle. Directly from their website, they write:

"In today's America, there is a more powerful act than voting blue...and that's BUYING BLUE"

Anyone want to take a wild guess as to where I'm heading with this one? You guessed it - time to turn the tables around using their own research and data!

Listed below are companies which support conservatives according to the site along with the percentage of contributions going to conservatives:

Ace Hardware Corporation 100%
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. 100%
Best Buy Co., Inc. 100%
California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. 100%
Cintas Corporation 100%
Citgo (Petroleos de Venezuela S.A.) 100%
CSS Industries, Inc. 100%
Curves International Inc 100%
Dollar General Corporation 100%
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. 100%
Domino's Pizza, Inc. 100%
Fruit of the Loom 100%
In-N-Out Burgers, Inc 100%
Kohl's Corporation 100%
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. 100%
Lowe's Companies, Inc. 100%
Michaels Stores, Inc. 100%
Nordstrom, Inc. 100%
PETsMART, Inc. 100%
RE/MAX International, Inc. 100%
Russell Stover Candies Inc. 100%
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. 100%
WinCo Foods, Inc 100%
Bob Evans Farms, Inc. 99%
Chick-fil-A, Inc 99%
Huffy Corporation 99%
Pier 1 Imports, Inc. 99%
Raley's Inc. 99%
Gold's Gym International, Inc 98%
Outback Steakhouse, Inc. 98%
Kelly Services, Inc. 97%
Williams-Sonoma, Inc 97%
CBRL Group, Inc. 96%
McDonald's Corporation 96%
Exxon Mobil Corporation 95%
Geico 95%
Hershey Foods Corporation 95%
TJX Companies Inc., The 95%
Applebee's International, Inc. 94%
AutoNation, Inc. 94%
Urban Outfitters, Inc. 94%
Wendy's International, Inc. 94%
24 Hour Fitness Worldwide, Inc. 93%
Darden Restaurants, Inc. 91%
PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc 91%
AirTran Holdings, Inc 90%
Circuit City Stores, Inc. 90%
International House of Pancakes (IHOP Corp.) 90%
Panda Restaurant Group, Inc 90%
Chevron Corporation 89%
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, The 89%
Saks Incorporated 89%
Activision, Inc. 88%
Dell Inc. 88%
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. 88%
Kroger Co. 88%
Meijer, Inc. 88%
Office Depot, Inc. 88%
OfficeMax Incorporated 88%
Publix Super Markets, Inc. 88%
Zale Corporation 88%
Ahold USA, Inc. 87%
ConocoPhillips 87%
TIAA-CREF 87%
Hallmark Cards, Inc. 86%
America West Holdings Corporation 85%
American Greetings Corporation 85%
Oracle Corporation 85%
Brinker International, Inc. 84%
EarthLink, Inc. 84%
Helzberg Diamonds 84%
Limited Brands, Inc. 84%
Molson Coors Brewing Company 84%
Papa John's International, Inc 84%
Staples, Inc. 84%
USAA 84%
Marriott International, Inc. 83%
Menard, Inc. 83%
Shell Oil Company 83%
Target Corporation 83%
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. 83%
Home Depot, Inc. 82%
Southwest Airlines Co. 82%
SUPERVALU INC 82%
Campbell Soup Company 80%
YUM! Brands, Inc. 79%
Longs Drug Stores Corporation 78%
May Department Stores Company 78%
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 78%
Heineken N.V. 77%
Procter & Gamble Company 77%
Weyerhaeuser Company 76%
Albertson's, Inc. 75%
Continental Airlines, Inc. 75%
Intel Corporation 75%
InterContinental Hotels Group PLC 75%
Nestle S.A. 75%
General Motors Corporation 74%
Georgia-Pacific Corporation 73%
Guess?, Inc 73%
MBNA Corporation 73%
US Airways Group, Inc 73%
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. 72%
Ford Motor Company 72%
Harley-Davidson, Inc. 72%
Motorola, Inc. 72%
T-Mobile International AG & Co. KG 72%
United Parcel Service, Inc 72%
Allstate Corporation, The 70%
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. 70%
Safeway Inc. 70%
Qwest Communications International Inc. 69%
Covad Communications Group, Inc 68%
Federated Department Stores, Inc. 68%
Northwest Airlines Corporation 68%
Bank of New York Company Inc., The 67%
Sears, Roebuck and Co. 66%
Verizon Communications Inc. 66%
Burger King Corporation 65%
SBC Communications Inc. 65%
Sprint Corporation 65%
Walgreen Co. 65%
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. 64%
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company 64%
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. 64%
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 64%
Books-A-Million, Inc. 63%
BP PLC 62%
Coca-Cola Company, The 62%
Goldman Sachs Group Inc, The 62%
Bank of America Corporation 61%
Capital One Financial Corporation 61%
Constellation Brands, Inc. 61%
Rite Aid Corporation 61%
Xerox Corporation 61%
Blockbuster Inc. 60%
Amazon.com, Inc. 59%
Hewlett-Packard Company 59%
Sirius Satellite Radio Inc 59%
International Business Machines Corporation 58%
Jones Apparel Group, Inc 58%
MetLife, Inc. 58%
Wells Fargo & Company 58%
Carnival Corporation 57%
Countrywide Financial Corporation 57%
Delta Air Lines, Inc. 57%
Microsoft Corporation 57%
Wet Seal Inc, The 57%
AT&T Corp. 56%

The Innocence of Karl Rove - Continued

2005-07-15T14:42:00.000-04:00

There's a reason that they say hatred will never succeed. The latest attacks on Karl Rove are a perfect example. As each day goes on, more information seems to leak out to dispel the charges leveled against him. As hard as it is for some on the extreme left to believe, Rove is innocent and this becomes more and more obvious each day. Take for instance the following articles:

From the AP - "Rove learned CIA Agent's name from Novak" and quoting Joseph Wilson directly saying "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity"

From the Washington Times (admittedly a right leaning paper) - "Most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee" Interesting indeed, how Wilson himself went out and said that she wasn't an undercover agent.

For those of you unaware, here is the definition of clandestine over at Dictionary.com -

Kept or done in secret, often in order to conceal an illicit or improper purpose. See Synonyms at secret.

Much of this information is available over at Drudge, so if I'm accused of "not having an original thought" again, well too bad. In the same fashion as Drudge, I'm not making news up, but rather, I'm reporting it directly.

Have a nice day, a wonderful weekend, and I thank you for visiting my blog, intentionally or not. Feel free to comment, be it agreement or not!

No Torture at Gitmo

2005-07-14T20:37:00.000-04:00

The only quote that matters from the whole article:

"As the bottom line, though, we found no torture. Detention and interrogation operations were safe, secure and humane,"

Any guesses as to if the media will give the showing of no torture as much press as the accusations? I think we all know...

Rove Is Innocent, And Here's Why

2005-07-14T20:22:00.000-04:00

Many reasons can be given as to why Karl Rove, although perhaps with poor judgment, is not guilty of any crime in the latest so called "scandal." To convict Rove of anything, ALL of the following need to apply:

1. The suspect had to have had access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, or resulted in the suspect learning the identity of a covert agent.
2. The suspect had to have intentionally disclosed the identity, or information that disclosed the identity, of the covert agent.
3. The person to whom the suspect disclosed the identity was not authorized to receive the information.
4. The suspect knew that the information he disclosed identified the covert agent.
5. The suspect knew that the government was actively trying to conceal the covert agent's relationship with the government.

In specifics to Karl Rove, the following must be true:

1. Mr. Rove learned Ms. Plame was a covert agent through his access to classified information.
2. Mr. Rove intentionally disclosed Ms. Plame's covert identity.
3. Mr. Cooper and the NYT's Judith Miller were not authorized to receive the information.
4. Mr. Rove knew that the information he gave to Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller would expose Ms. Plame as a covert agent.
5. Mr. Rove knew the US government was trying to keep Ms. Plame's affiliation with the CIA a secret.

However, if even ONE of these is proved to be false, then Rove is innocent of the charges leveled against him.

First of all, Plame had a desk job, and never was a secret agent:

"In a Washington Post editorial last January, they argued that Plame had been assigned to a desk job at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., well before Novak's disclosure, indicating she was far from deep cover."

Second, and perhaps more important, her identity was widely known and never considered a secret. For instance, her name was listed in Joseph Wilson's own biography. Even more damning, she was inside the magazine Vanity Fair with Joseph Wilson as seen below:

For someone who is such a secret agent, why would she be posing in Vanity Fair? Wouldn't she want to keep her secret identity...well...secret?

USA Today wrote that they both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Furthermore, Robert Novak revealed Plame's name six years later in July 2003. This is quite interesting however and eliminates ANY chance of Rove being implicated. This is because, to be classified as a covert agent, an agent must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." In addition, the assignment must have been long term. Being that Plame wasn't on assignment overseas for over five years, revealing her identity is neither illegal or unethical.

Not only has it been proven that Plame wasn't undercover recently, but she was also photographed posing for national magazines. Either of these would exonerate Rove from any charges.

Karl Rove is not only innocent of any crime, but is the victim of the biased media reaching for anything at all to hurt this Administration. The same media which happened to forgive Sandy Berger for "accidentally" stuffing security documents down his socks. Revealing the name of a CIA employee with a desk job or stealing national security documents...I wonder which is the bigger threat to National Security. I don't however wonder which one is getting more media coverage.

They Just Don't Get It...

2005-07-12T21:29:00.000-04:00

Perhaps someday they will though. I really don't understand what drives the left to think the way they do sometimes. Sure, I understand how one can disagree with a President or policies, but this is completely different. On some of the left-thinking blogs (I do read the opposition, rather than spew the party line, contrary to what some might believe) there is a new "fad" going around known as Operation Yellow Elephant. The whole basis of OYE, as I will refer to it, is that Young Republicans and College Republicans who support the war should put their money where their mouth is per se, and enlist.

While I support the troops, and all who enlist, the idea that someone can't support the war if they don't enlist is complete horseshit! The whole basis of OYE goes against the first amendment that has made this country so great! If I voice my opinion on something, that means I have to join up with whatever that is? On that logic, all environmentalists should give up their cars and anything that pollutes the Earth. Return to a primitive time where there you don't drive to Starbucks in your Volvo each day.

Does supporting the war and the troops make me a hypocrite since I'm not over in Iraq? Are those who are enlisted and not stationed in Iraq hypocrites since they aren't at the forefront of the fighting? Give me a break.

The right of American Citizens to express their views is not dependant on their willingness to participate in they policy they support. Being pro-war or antiwar is a socio-political position, one that can be held by anyone regardless of whether they wear a uniform or not. Regardless of the situation, war or otherwise, nobody is required to be apart of something to support it! And that is why I am against OYE. I would feel the same way in other situations, and you can quote me on that one later on may it come up.

Quote of the Day

2005-07-12T17:44:00.000-04:00

Thank you Senator McCain for speaking the truth. Bush was voted in by the American public, and therefore has the authority to nominate who he chooses. He even talked about who he would nominate should the situation arise during the campaign. If the American public felt differently about this, they could have voted for Senator Kerry. If the Democrats filibuster an appointment simply because they dislike Bush and the person he stands for, it will show how childish they really are.

"During the campaign, President Bush said he will appoint judges who will strictly interpret the constitution... thinking anything else is either amnesia or ignorance... elections have consequences... whomever he nominates deserves an up or down vote and no filibuster... and an up or down vote is what we will have" - Senator John McCain

100,000 Iraqi Civilian Deaths? Only if you failed 8th grade math

2005-07-08T14:12:00.000-04:00

Special Thanks to Conservative Grapevine for pointing out this story on IMAO.

GlobalSecurity, a defense analysis firm based in Alexandria, VA, completely discredited the phony 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualty number as early as Fall 2003:

"The study was published in the October 29, 2004, online edition of The Lancet. 'We estimate that there were 98000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000 - 194000) during the post-war period…' from March 2003 through September 2004. CI refers to confidence interval.

But they did not find 98,000 additional deaths, but a range from 8,000 to 194,000 -- a range is so broad as to be nearly meaningless. And of the 61 actual violent deaths attributed to Coalition forces, three were blamed on ground forces, while 58 deaths were attributed to 'helicopter gunships, rockets, or other forms of aerial weaponry' (p. 7). This might suggest that the air war had been infinitely more intense than previously believed, which is difficult to believe. For the 'about 100,000 killed' to be correct, almost all of these deaths would have been women and children killed by American air power, at a rate of nearly 200 a day. At least some of these deaths may have been due to the insurgency, since at least some Iraqis interpret insurgent car bombs as American cruise missile attacks.

These numbers would suggest that the US is fighting two wars: a well-publicized ground campaign in which US ground forces have killed over 5,000 enemy combatants this year [at an average rate of maybe 20 per day], and an invisible air campaign in which American helicopters are killing nearly 200 women and children every day. This is difficult to believe."

If the "reality-based" community ever took some frickin' remedial math courses rather than waiting to hear the numbers some intern at NPR came up with for Morning Edition, they would've realized that killing 100,000 people is the equivalent of killing every man, woman, and child in the city of Green Bay, WI. Ask a muckadoo the question: "How could Coalition Forces hide that fact from dozens of embedded reporters from diverse news agencies in 20+ nations?"

Picture of the day

2005-07-08T14:05:00.000-04:00

Feel Free to use this image I created on any site!

Unemployment at Lowest Level Since September 2001

2005-07-08T13:16:00.000-04:00

Good to know the economy is IMPROVING. The amount of jobs added is lower than was expected, but anytime the unemployment goes down, you've gotta be pretty happy. Unless of course you WANT the economy to be bad. For a Bush/Clinton comparison, these statistics are from the first June of the second term in office. In both June 1997 and now in June 2005, the unemployment rate is 5.0 percent according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In fact many of the statistics for the economy are very comparable between Bush and Clinton. Anyone on the extreme left or right who would like to tell you how bad the economy was then or is now should do some research before spewing their respective party line.

Here are the key points from the article:

"...the unemployment rate fell to its lowest point since September 2001 as few people joined the labor force, a government report showed on Friday."

"The Labor Department revised up job growth in April and May to 292,000 and 104,000, respectively - boosting the two-month count by 44,000 payroll jobs."

"While 18,000 workers were hired in the construction industry last month, most of June's employment growth came in the service sector. Professional and business services jobs rose 56,000, education and health services were up 38,000 and leisure and hospitality payrolls grew 19,000."

Quote of the Day

2005-07-08T07:57:00.000-04:00

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reagan

The Right Wing Troll Shop is now open!

2005-07-07T21:23:00.000-04:00

Nothing too spectacular as of now, but I've got three shirts and three stickers available for purchase that will hopefully amuse some of you. Enjoy, and as always, comments are welcome!

Here's the store: http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingtroll

New Site Theme

2005-07-07T20:23:00.000-04:00

I've decided that with the new layout and some recent events that have taken place, the theme for the site should be modified slightly as well. The old theme still applies, but I feel that the new one will fit as well. Either way, Winston Churchill remains!

Old Quote:

"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no head". - Winston Churchill

New Quote:

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill

I hope you enjoy the site and all of the changes that have been made as of late!

An Early Reaction to the London Bombings From Some People at the Democratic Underground

2005-07-07T14:06:00.000-04:00

Simply disgusting. How anyone can believe the extreme left (or right in other cases) is beyond me. Cooky conspiracy theories and attacks on those trying to prevent attacks like this will only divide this great nation even further. Thanks to Conservative Grapevine for the link to Right Wing News' report on this. Shame on the DU posters who say and feel this way.

Support our allies in Britain through this difficult time

2005-07-07T13:56:00.000-04:00

I was on my way to work this morning pretty early around 6AM EST and heard about the London attack today on the radio. I immediately thought of the attacks on us here in the states, then tried to think of what motive there could be for attacking London. First, which all the liberals will use as talking points, is the Iraq war and the Bush/Blair connection. Next was the fact that security would be pretty low in England now, with most of the world focused on the G8 Summit, therefore being the time which the Brits least expected an attack. Finally, as a "far out" theory, was the fact that someone was upset that London is getting the 2012 Olympics. I will almost disregard this theory as it would seem at least some preparation would have gone into planning this attack. With the recent news stories claiming that Al Qaeda is claiming responsibility for the attacks, most would point to the support that the Brits have for the War on Terror, or the close connection that Prime Minister Blair has to President Bush. Perhaps it goes even deeper than this however. Instead of politicizing this issue as an attack on Bush (which the left no doubt salivates for constantly,) we should look at the heart of who was attacked. The cowards didn't attack the British troops, or the government. They attacked normal citizens who were commuting to work and other places. Only a coward attacks innocents like that. And as many of my Middle Eastern friends will point out to me - Only a nut can twist around the teachings of the Koran to interpret the attacking of others. The Koran, like many other religious books focuses on respecting life. So instead of blaming others for attacks which have already happened, we need to be unified and stand together with our brothers and sisters in London who experienced these savage attacks. Try to think of how we can move forward from this using a positive point of view. If you need any sort of motivation, then I suggest you look at the following pictures:

Better for Iraq

2005-07-06T17:10:00.002-04:00

The following is an editorial in the July 5th edition of the Detroit Free Press which shows the support the Iraqi people show for the President and for the liberation of the Iraqi people:

Your June 27 article "Iraqi-American support for war drops sharply" did not reflect accuracy in the opinion of the Iraqi-American majority, which should be separated from the opinions of the Arab Americans regarding Iraq. The two communities differed on every topic regarding this multi-dimensional and complex issue relating to the liberation/occupation of Iraq.
The Bush administration and the Iraqi-American administration comitted multiple mistakes, culminating in making Iraq the center of terrorism activity. On the positive side, the Iraqis have gained freedom, a democratic election and self-respect all over the world. Things can only get better as the Iraqi government and its new army gain public support after 30 years of tyranny.
The Iraqi-American Endowment Center conducts various non-scientific polls with a more positive feeling toward a better future. We want to thank President George W. Bush and America for their continuous support for Iraq and its people.

Ramsay F. Dass, MD
Director, Iraqi-American Endowment Center
Oak Park

Lets see if THIS makes the mainstream news!

2005-07-06T14:36:00.000-04:00

The main info you need from the article:

Pentagon officials say that after several months of shortfalls, Army recruitment goals for the month of June were not only met, but exceeded.

Of course I can see those who won't find the Pentagon to be a credible source, but thats another story entirely.

Rasmussen Poll of the Moment

2005-07-06T14:19:00.000-04:00

Just 15% of voters believe the U.S. would be safer today if we had avoided the War with Iraq and left Saddam Hussein in power. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 49% take the opposite view and say that such a strategy would have made life in the U.S. more dangerous. Twenty-nine-percent (29%) think it would be about the same either way.

Interesting huh?

A disturbing thought

2005-07-06T14:02:00.000-04:00

I was listening to the local FM rock morning show here in Detroit, and they were doing a Harris poll. However, the way they do it, they poll people with the last name of Harris to see what they know about issues in a comical way. Today they called people in both Philadelphia and London and asked them if they knew what the G8 was. With the exception of one individual from Philadelphia, not a single person had heard of the G8. To make matters worse, when asked if they had then heard of the Live8 Concert which each town hosted this past weekend, the majority once again said no they hadn't. A couple more did, but didn't even realize what the concert was for. Very sad if you ask me. The radio hosts summed it up perfectly by saying that:

I guess the Live8 concerts didn't bring the issues to the mainstream as they had hoped for

Why is there such a Supreme Controversy?

2005-07-06T13:17:00.000-04:00

Many reading this will probably drop their mouths while reading the title, but please hear me out on this one.

Of all the current Supreme Court Justices, three of the nine are considered conservative, four are considered liberal, and the remaining two moderate.

The three conservatives - Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas were appointed by Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41. The four liberals - Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by Ford, Bush 41, Clinton and Clinton. The two moderates - O'Conner and Kennedy were appointed by Reagan.

So, looking strictly from Partisan lines, seven of nine justices were appointed by Republicans. However, only three of those nine are considered to be conservative. Both moderates and two of the liberals were appointed by Republicans as well.

Nobody knows who President Bush will pick. Some just fear that he will pick a conservative judge. However, from the list above, the Republicans aren't too good at picking the conservative judges. Since most on the left feel Bush is stupid, why do they believe he wouldn't mess this up and give them another liberal like "his daddy" and President Ford did.

For those who "question" my calling certain judges as liberal or conservative, I'm simply following the guide over at WikiPedia

Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are generally considered to be the conservative wing of the court. Justices Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens are generally considered to the liberal wing. Justices Kennedy and O'Connor are typically seen as moderates, and hence are the swing votes who often determine the outcome of close cases.

If you feel differently about the outcome, then so be it. But wait until everything is said and done before preparing a doomsday scenario.

Layout Change

2005-07-05T22:47:00.000-04:00

Stay tuned as I work on the layout to update it. Over one year and I think its time for a change of pace and a fresh look...

Update:
The new layout is up, let me know what you think of the overall design!

A Quiz To Determine If Karl Rove Meant You

2005-07-01T18:00:00.000-04:00

When Karl Rove spoke these words:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of the Sept. 11 attacks and the prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the Sept. 11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers"

Were you not sure if he meant you when he referred to liberals? Here's a simple quiz that will assist you in answering this question. Grab a pen and paper and keep track of your answers. I've even included lots of pictures so it's that much easier.

Okay, let's begin:

1. Look at the picture below, was this a result of America's evil imperialist policies overseas?

Yes or No

2. Is the man pictured below more evil and worse for America than Osama bin-Laden?

Yes or No

3. Should this man have been left in power even though many mass graves have been found containing the remains of his victims, including children?

Yes or No

4. Do you agree that the picture below should never be shown again, especially on TV?

Yes or No

5. Did President Bill Clinton respond correctly to the events portrayed below?

Yes or No

African Embassy Bombings

USS Cole Bombing

Somalia

6. Do you believe that the US has no right to invade a country whose leader commits atrocities such as the one shown below and depose that leader?

Yes or No

7. I agree with the following statement: The war in Iraq is not a part of the greater war on terror, it is a war concocted by the Bush Administration to benefit "Big Oil", Halliburton and the Defense Industry (This may be a little tougher because it contains no pictures).

Yes, I agree with the above statementNo, it sounds like something Michael Moore would spew in between bites of a turkey leg.

8. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a truthful rendering of the events that occurred on 9/11 and the run-up to the war in Iraq?

Yes or No

That's the quiz. If you answered "yes" to any of the questions, you can rest assured that Karl Rove was most likely referring to you.

How'd you do?

Dependence on Mideast Oil?

2005-06-30T20:03:00.000-04:00

In my politics class, we go current events projects. One of the students did his presentation on the high prices of gas. This led me to look into the whole Middle Eastern Oil theory. Now, I'm not stating that we aren't dependent, but rather, not as dependent as we thought.

Here are some quick facts on oil imports to the United States updated last Friday - June 24, 2005:

Top 5 countries of Crude Oil Imports (in thousands of barrels per day)

1. Canada 1,676
2. Mexico 1,541
3. Saudi Arabia 1,449
4. Venezuela 1,391
5. Nigeria 1,130

Top 5 countries of Petroleum Imports (in thousands of barrels per day)

1. Canada 2,190
2. Mexico 1,632
3. Venezuela 1,567
4. Saudi Arabia 1,494
5. Nigeria 1,243

Interesting to note that only ONE country in the Middle East is in the top five of each, that being Saudi Arabia. To expand on the data to show that I'm not distorting it, the only two other Middle Eastern countries in the top fifteen are Iraq (#6 and #7 respectively) and Kuwait (#13 and #15 respectively)

Looking at the total import percentages, we have a total of 9,857,000 barrels of crude oil imported each day. Of that amount, 2,155,000 barrels are from the Middle East. That amounts to roughly 21.8 percent.

Petroleum import percentages are very similar. 11,809,000 barrels of petroleum importaded each day. Of that amount, 2,200,000 barrels are from the Middle East. This amounts to roughly 18.6 percent.

Summarizing this data, around 20% of our total crude oil and petroleum imports from the top fifteen importers are from the Middle East. Thats 1/5. Not as horrible sounding as the media would like us to think.

So while I'd like to see us not only reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and find alternative sources, its not nearly as bad as we're led to believe.

No connections between Iraq and 9/11?

2005-06-29T23:37:00.000-04:00

Andrew McCarthy had a GREAT article over at NRO. He listed nineteen, I repeat NINETEEN reasons why Iraq had connections to 9/11 and Al Qaeda

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?
Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?
Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?
The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?
Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?
Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?
Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?
Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?
The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?
Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)
Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?
Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?
Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted: Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

With that being said, how can anyone believe that there is no connection? Of course, they either

a) Hate Bush, so anything that makes him look good is a no-no or

b) Believe everything the mainstream media tells them without doing any research themselves

For even more in depth coverage, McCarthy recommends the book The Connection by Stephen Hayes.

Economy's Growth Is Better Than Expected

2005-06-29T12:49:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy logged a solid 3.8 percent growth rate in the first quarter of 2005, a performance that was better than previously thought and a fresh sign the expansion is on firm footing.

See the full story here: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050629/D8B19LJ80.html

If only the liberals would report the optimistic news, then we'd be all set...

How Embarassing?

2005-06-29T07:54:00.000-04:00

Last Week, I was driving to see my fiancée and was stopped by another motorist at a traffic light. I rolled down my window to see what he wanted and to some surprise, he simply held up a bumper sticker which said:

You Voted for Bush? How Embarrassing

So I looked at him a bit befuddled for a second, and simply responded:

What's more embarrassing? Voting for someone who I support, or going around showing Bush supporters a bumper sticker at traffic lights?

Which leads me to think, how sad must your life be if you have an Anti-Bush bumper sticker ready next to you with the sole intention of showing it to other drivers? If you want to make a point, how about placing the sticker on your car, rather than holding it up for other drivers to see. Perhaps he was afraid to express his opinions for others to see unless it was a moment where he wanted them to see it?

Embarrassed? Nah, I'm proud to have voted for someone I believe in. Showing me a bumper sticker doesn't change my mind, but it is amusing nonetheless.

The Real Reason For the Left's Anger at Rove's Remarks

2005-06-28T13:42:00.000-04:00

He's right, and kudos to Betsy for the quote.

Why are liberals incensed by Rove's remarks? Because it forces them to confront an issue they'd been hoping to avoid-- the split between America-hating leftists and America-tolerating liberals. They've got to keep this alliance intact for political reasons... but ideologically, it's a muddle:

In the liberal narrative, the Democratic Party selflessly supported George W. Bush until he unwisely decided to make war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And indeed many of them supported that: Schumer and Clinton voted for the Iraq war resolution in October 2002.

Reading the initial press accounts of Rove's speech, I wished that he had been more specific about which liberals he was denouncing -- except that, as those press accounts failed to mention, he was. "I'm not joking," he went on immediately after the words quoted above. "Submitting a petition was precisely what Moveon.org, then known as 9-11peace.org did. You may have seen it in The New York Times or The Washington Post, the San Francisco Examiner or the L.A. Times. (Funny, I didn't see it in the Amarillo Globe News.) It was a petition that 'implored the powers that be' to 'use moderation and restraint in responding to the terrorist attacks against the United States.'"

One reason that the Democrats are squawking so much about Rove's attack on "liberals" is that he has put the focus on a fundamental split in the Democratic Party -- a split among its politicians and its voters.

On the one hand, there are those who believe that this is a fundamentally good country and want to see success in Iraq. On the other hand, there are those who believe this is a fundamentally bad country and want more than anything else to see George W. Bush fail.

Those who do not think this split is real should consult the responses to pollster Scott Rasmussen's question last year. About two-thirds of Americans agreed that the United States is a fair and decent country. Virtually all Bush voters agreed. Kerry voters were split down the middle.

As Betsy notes, either liberals have to confront the America-haters they are tactically allied with or suffer the political consequences themselves.

Let me put it in terms liberals can understand:

Would you ever in a million years allow conservatives to wink-wink nudge-nudge kinda-sorta ally themselves with racists without noting that fact, and without ripping into them for being sympathetic to racists?

Of course you wouldn't. And you don't. You're real bears on ripping conservatives whenever they use "racist code-words" to signal covert support for racism and to curry political favor from racists (whether those racist code-words are real or largely in your imagination).

So please explain to me why we conservatives should just ignore the fact that you are in a political marriage with those who actively root for American casualties and American defeat.

Mainstream conservatives have done a good, if imperfect, job, of rooting out and repudiating the racists in our midst. Don't forget-- it was largely conservatives who brought down Trent Lott.

Liberals cannot continue their wink-wink nudge-nudge flirtations with the hardcore anti-American left and then express shock when their commitment to winning the war or their love of country is questioned.

The alliance of the hard left and more reasonable liberals has persisted because 1) they try to blur their differences in order to keep the political alliance alive and 2) they paper over these differences by emphasizing the One Big Thing they agree on-- the Unholy Trinity of Bush, Rove, and Cheney must be brought low.

Rove is stirring the pot now, and forcing you to take sides. And you don't like that-- because this is a wedge issue, and if you disavow the America-hatin' left, you lose votes.

Well, sometimes you have to give up the votes of moral monsters (like, for example, racists) in order to do the right thing and keep politically clean.

Free XBOX 360!

2005-06-27T16:16:00.000-04:00

The company Gratis has all of these offers for different things from Ipods, Digital Cameras, Flat Screen Monitors, etc...and now are giving away the XBOX 360. The premise is very simple - complete one of their offers, then refer others to do the same. For me personally, I opted for the 3 year subscription to the Official XBOX Magazine (which I already subscribe to btw) at the cost of $1 per issue for a total of $36. You can sign up for the following deals however:

Columbia House DVD Club
Blockbuster Online
Audiobooks from Audible
XBOX Magazine
Worldpoints Platinum Plus Mastercard
Citi Platinum Select Card for College Students
Citi Platinum Select Card
Orchard Bank Mastercard
BMG Music Service
eBay Mastercard
Consumer Info Free Credit Report
Video Professor Computer Training
Cheap Trips Airline Tickets
InkBlvd Printer Ink Discounts
Simple Escapes Membership with free $25 KMART Gift Card
Ultraslim Weight Loss Patch
eFAX Plus
Power Rewards Visa Platinum
WinAnyLotto.Com Lotto Secrets Guide
Connections Entertainment Service with free $25 WAL-MART Gift Card

If you are interested in any of those offers, or simply would like to get an XBOX 360, I would appreciate it very much if you could help me out.

The link to sign up is here: http://www.free360xbox.com/

The company has been proven to be legit. Sign up now to increase the chances to get all referrals by the time the XBOX 360 is released towards the end of this year!

Thanks in advance,

Troll

Some thoughts

2005-06-19T09:50:00.000-04:00

1. If you have a lot of tension and you get a headache, do what it says on the aspirin bottle: Take two and keep away from children.

2. It's a very strange name they picked for "Social Security." For what they actually send you, you can't afford to be "social" nor can you really feel "secure."

3. Short skirts have a tendency to make men polite. Have you ever seen a man get on a bus ahead of one?

4. It is hard to understand how a cemetery raised its burial cost and blamed it on the cost of living.

5. We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

6. The 50-50-90 rule: Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there's a 90% probability you'll get it wrong.

7. It is said that if you line up all the cars in the world end to end, someone would be stupid enough to try and pass them.

8. If the shoe fits, get another one just like it.

9. The things that come to those who wait may be the things left by those who got there first.

10. Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will sit in a boat drinking beer all day.

11. When you're swimming in the creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a moray!

12. A fine is tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.

13. The only cure for insomnia is to get more sleep.

14. Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens.

15. I wished the buck stopped here. I could use a few.

16. When you go into court you are putting yourself in the hands of 12 people that weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.

The Return of the Troll

2005-06-06T21:29:00.000-04:00

I've been quite busy with school and work, but hopefully I'll be able to get back to blogging. This summer, I'm taking a politics course at school, and for my semester paper, I'll be writing about the "Media Bias."

The professor, as expected, is a liberal. However, he seems very fair so far and is open to all viewpoints regardless of how it compares to his own. Time will tell if his grading follows this format.

As for the paper, I welcome any ideas/info anyone may have regarding the topic. I plan on publishing the paper here as well once completed.

Almost a month...

2004-12-14T21:17:00.000-05:00

...Since my last update. Wow I've been bombarded by stuff. I don't see myself posting much more, at least frequently. I will however point you to some

Tony runs a nice site called Leaning Right News

Jeff has some very insightful thoughts at his site, Louisiana Conservative

I've always thought that John ran a nice blog too. Go pay him a visit if you can

Since I came across the "blog explosion" website, I've come across a couple of other nice reads with Lets Try Freedom and Commonwealth Conservative

Last, but definitely not least, is the sole opposing political viewpoint here. I may not agree on some of the issues, but the man has earned my respect time and time again with his thought provoking articles. Regardless of how you feel, his blog will make you think. Its apparantely caught on as well, as his server is being overloaded.

You can catch Brad's Blog or view the secondary source of his site, Brad Blog Too

<>
Good luck to all of the other bloggers out there. I wish you all a wonderful holiday season. Feel free to contact me at any time. The email is now rightwingtroll at gmail dot com

A Short Break

2004-11-17T20:20:00.000-05:00

After all the election stuff and with everything going on, I'm worn out. I'm not sure how many people even visit the site anymore, but for those of you who do, drop me an email at rightwingtroll@gmail.com and if you have a blog you run, I'll make a post with those links, regardless of your political leanings. Hopefully the barrage of tests and the strains of work will end soon. Until then, be safe, and God bless.

Quote of the Day and Some Thoughts.

2004-11-11T14:17:00.000-05:00

With all the buzz about a possible scandal in the vote totals in Ohio and/or Florida, I thought this quote would fit quite nicely. Its from a new PC Game, "Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War" and is one of the lines I've heard over and over by one of the units within the game:

"Hope is the first step on the path to disappointment"

Just because a theory is thrown out, doesn't make it factual. Now, all of the left-wing bloggers and Bush-haters and conspiracy theory people out there can say all they want - It doesn't make it credible, until a credible source decides to do a nice investigation, and then something is said. I should note that Dan Rather/CBS are not credible sources and that nothing will be said.

For my fellow football fans out there, think of this as the coach challenging the call made on the field. When the outcome is done, and they look at the replay AFTER the game, the decision isn't reversed.

Some people can't stand Bush - fair enough. Some people out there refuse to call him President Bush, such as local Detroit TV Station WXYZ-ABC Channel 7, and refer to him only as "Mr. Bush." Some people, will also refuse to believe that Bush was elected this time. Some of those people who liked using the term "selected, not elected" fail to realize that with a 7-2 Supreme Court ruling, the two conservative justices appointed under "Daddy Bush" didn't really affect the outcome.

Continuing, some people feel that comparing Bush to Hitler is pretty good. Ironically, those people are hailing Yasser Arafat for winning a Nobel Peace prize and calling him a good statesman, instead of a terrorist.

Interesting, to say the least.

Lack of Posts

2004-11-10T17:03:00.000-05:00

Sorry about it. I was of course, out of town, and have been busy with lots of tests at school this week.

I'll try to get back to my usual posting soon.

Another Early Weekend

2004-11-05T13:37:00.000-05:00

I'll be out of town again. Enjoy the weekend, be safe, and God Bless.

Another Liberal, Refusing to Admit Defeat

2004-11-04T23:30:00.000-05:00

Just getting home, I happened upon one of those "progressive" sites through an ad on BlogShares. The ad caught my attention immediately - Kerry Won. So I'm thinking, what sort of crackpot conspiracy theory do we have now.

Well, in all fairness, it wasn't so much a conspiracy theory, but rather unwillingness to accept the facts. Basically, the theory behind it is, Bush only won Ohio by so many votes. They went on to say that there were more provisional ballots in Ohio than the Bush lead (there wasn't, I pointed this out at the Ohio Secretary of State earlier) and also went on to say that roughly 3% of the votes in each election aren't tallied, therefore, giving Kerry a win in Ohio. Here's the quote:

Bush won Ohio by 136,483 votes. Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of votes cast are voided—known as “spoilage” in election jargon—because the ballots cast are inconclusive. Palast’s investigation suggests that if Ohio’s discarded ballots were counted, Kerry would have won the state. Today, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports there are a total of 247,672 votes not counted in Ohio, if you add the 92,672 discarded votes plus the 155,000 provisional ballots.

He goes on to state:

So we can call Ohio and New Mexico for John Kerry—if we count all the votes.

Its actually quite comical if you read the entire article. Simply a Bush hater (who at the end gives me the impression he left the country after Bush won in 2000) who simply can't accept that Bush won, and won big. 3.5 millon votes big. 27 or 34 Electoral votes big, depending on if you count Iowa.

Basically, Palast did something than anyone with common sense wouldn't do - especially a professional writer. I'll give you a little hint -

Assume: take to be the case or to be true; accept without verification or proof.

The think about assumptions here is that the writer only looks at one side of the issue. He doesn't look at states Kerry barely won in relation to Ohio, such as Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. He simply assumes every provisional ballot and discarded vote will go to Kerry. He gets his facts wrong about provisional ballots, although I doubt he'd believe the Ohio Secretary of State based on comments in his editorial.

By taking this viewpoint, not only is it insulting to anyone knowing the FACTS, but insulting to those on the left to try and make them think somehow this election went to Kerry. You'd have to assume that EVERY provisional ballot was counted, and that EVERY ballot went to Kerry, and that EVERY discarded ballot should have counted and went to Kerry.

It simply doesn't add up. If Palast wants to leave the country again, he can email me, and perhaps I'll help him pack. The last thing we need in this country is more division and bickering. Grasping at air for things that aren't there because the ~~guy you wanted to win lost~~ guy you wanted to lose won isn't going to change anything.

Media Bias in Election Results

2004-11-03T21:10:00.000-05:00

Are you aware that the Pennsylvania race was closer (Kerry gets 51.08%) than the Ohio race (Bush gets 51.2%) or Nevada race (Bush gets 51.4%)? Think about this fact. Did the networks have any problem calling Pennsylvania for Kerry? None whatsoever. I believe one network had Pennsylvania in the Kerry column within an hour of the polls closing. And when one considers that absentee ballots always break in the direction of conservatives, the Pennsylvania race will further tighten while the Ohio race widens.

Are you aware that New Hampshire has 99% of the vote in with 50.7245% for Kerry to 49.2755% for Bush and has been called for Kerry?
Are you aware that Wisconsin has 99% of the vote in with 50.2255% for Kerry to 49.7745% for Bush and has been called for Kerry?

Absentee ballots would only make these races tighter.

Are you aware that Iowa has 99% of the vote in with 50.5325% for Bush to 49.4675% for Kerry and has NOT been called for Bush?
Are you aware that New Mexico has 99% of the vote in with 50.8816% for Bush to 49.1184% for Kerry and has NOT been called for Bush?
Are you aware that Nevada has 99% of the vote in with 51.3536% for Bush to 48.6464% for Kerry and has NOT been called for Bush (except for one network)?

Absentee ballots would only make these races wider.

I could write a commentary here, but why bother? The election is over, but the bias of the mainstream media is not.

Best Election Day Quote

2004-11-03T21:03:00.000-05:00

Dan Rather gets the nod for top quote on Election Day. Around 2:30AM EST, Rather stated:

"Well some of the other "outfits" have already called Ohio for Bush, but we are ACCURACY CENTRAL here at CBS and we're not going to call it."

Accuracy central indeed Mr. Rather.

The failings of John Zogby

2004-11-03T13:08:00.000-05:00

John Zogby in my opinion, let partisan feelings get in the way of his polling. Highly applauded for his close call last time, he went off the deep end this time. First, he made the prediction that Kerry would receive 311 Electoral Votes.

At first, this worried me, because I bought into the Zogby hype, and was seeing Bush down in some of the waves of exit polls. However, the fact that Zogby was so far off and the timing of his prediction irked me. Why make a final prediction at 5PM on election day?

In many states the polls have already been open for ten hours. Exit polls have already been leaked. So Zogby just went along with the (as we now know false) exit polls when making his prediction.

He released the following apology? regarding his slanted results:

“We feel strongly that our pre-election polls were accurate on virtually every state. Our predictions on many of the key battleground states like Ohio and Florida were within the margin of error. I thought we captured a trend, but apparently that result didn’t materialize.

“We always saw a close race, and a close race is what we’ve got. I’ve called this the Armageddon Election for some time—a closely-divided electorate with high partisan intensity on each side."

John Zogby has a brother named James. James Zogby just so happens to write anti-Bush essays. Perhaps John was influenced by his brother and bought into his own hype, thinking he would be accurate in his results.

Zogby continues to dig himself a hole with his quote about a "close race." We did NOT have a close race. Bush had the highest amount of popular votes ever, with the greatest margin of victory to boot.

John Zogby: Wrong in 2002; Wrong in 2004.

Bush Lead Greater Than Number of Provisional Ballots Cast

2004-11-03T13:04:00.000-05:00

Great news out of Ohio - The number of provisional ballots, according to the Ohio Secretary of State are LESS than that of the lead George W. Bush holds.

The number of provisional ballots issued are 135,149.

The lead Bush holds is 136,483.

Perhaps this is what is causing Kerry to concede gracefully? I applaud him for doing so, rather than only dividing our country over another election mess.

Just in Case You Forgot

2004-11-03T10:20:00.000-05:00

Final Electoral College Map

2004-11-03T09:20:00.000-05:00

Election 2004 by the Numbers

2004-11-03T09:08:00.000-05:00

3,549,991 - The amount of votes President Bush had greater than Senator Kerry, with 99% of the votes in.
136,221 - The amount of votes President Bush won by in Ohio, with 100% of the votes in.
1 - The rank, in history, of the amount of popular votes for President Bush.
4 - The number of years liberals will be in a guaranteed pissy mood.
51 - The percentage of votes recieved by President Bush, the first majority since before Bill Clinton.
60 - The percentage of 'new' voters who supported Senator Kerry, according to the NYT
140-200 - The number, in thousands, of provisional ballots in Ohio, depending on what source you use.
70 - The percentage of all provisional ballots Kerry would need to win in a best case scenario.

God Bless our President, and God Bless America.

Michigan IS still in play

2004-11-03T01:28:00.000-05:00

I expect it to go to Kerry, but his five percent lead will dwindle. Wayne county, where I live, and also where Detroit is, has almost been counted, giving Kerry his big boost. All the remaining counties are pretty even between the two, except for Oakland County, where Bush support is huge.

Don't count Michigan out yet! A quick look at all the counties shows Bush coming back with all the major counties for Kerry being done. Cross your fingers people. This can negate any factor that the Dems would hope to have in Ohio with their lawyers.

UPDATE: Well, we lost the battle, but won the war. As predicted, the lead dwindled down a couple percent, but unfortunately my home state went to Kerry.

Ohio Update

2004-11-03T01:08:00.000-05:00

The Democrats are ragging on FOX News again. Seems like Fox ran the numbers (as I did also, by each county) and determined that Kerry couldn't mathematically win. Watch for more complaints as to how the fifteen minutes between Ohio being called and the closing of the polls being used to again, stop Democrats from voting!

Similar to the Florida situation in 2000, simply stating that people weren't allowed to vote doesn't cut it. Show some proof, rather than just accusations.

UPDATE: I wanted to PROVE that Kerry couldn't possibly win, so I did some simple math.

Here are some simple mathematical calculations straight from the Ohio results by county.

87.12% of votes have been cast for a total of 4,867,086
President Bush has a 128,513 vote lead.
12.88% of votes are remaining for a total of 719,560 votes.
To win, John Kerry would need to get 128,514 more votes out of 719,560.
Not impossible, but very improbable from anyone knowing anything about statistics.
This would mean Kerry could be required to get 424,037 votes at a minimum to 295,524 for Bush.

58.9% of the remaining votes to 41.1% would be the margin needed for Kerry to win.

In a state that is almost 50/50, and one that Bush has a large lead in, the odds are stacked against Kerry BIG TIME.

Democrats getting ready to call foul on Ohio

2004-11-03T00:26:00.000-05:00

Expect more of the same from the last election from the party of sore losers. Ohio, at this point is a pretty comfortable lead for Bush. However, Democrat poster boy Josh Marshall has already thrown out there that Republicans are trying to suppress the vote!

In the past, Marshall has shown at least SOME unbiased reporting. Not tonight though, he's going all out saying whatever he can.

Just in case, he's thrown out the idea that Republican lawyers are causing delays in heavily populated Democratic areas, which in turn forces the voters to get tired of waiting and therefore go home. Here's his "strategy."

Across the board the story is the same in Ohio, a lawsuit strategy from Republicans is causing delays and shutdowns in precincts that remained open to allow people who were already in line to vote. Lawsuits create delays; folks leave.

This way, when Kerry loses Ohio, they can complain and whine much more. Looking at Ohio county by county and the percentages, I don't see Bush losing or even being close to Kerry. Can you say disenfranchised?

Off topic, I just heard how the Kerry campaign is refusing to let the cameras tape them watching the results. Running a bit scared perhaps?

Picture of the Day

2004-11-02T09:23:00.000-05:00

My electoral College Prediction

2004-11-01T21:32:00.000-05:00

Comment on what you think the Final Electoral Vote will be.

Updated: Alan pointed out that I had DC going to Bush. It has been fixed

Troll's Official Endorsement for President

2004-11-01T16:20:00.000-05:00

Here it is - My official endorsement for President.

Not to anyone's surprise, I'm supporting GEORGE W. BUSH.

At first, I was open to either candidate. However, when I researched each candidate in deeper detail, I agree with the policies of President Bush much more than Senator Kerry. Using sources from the Associated Press, The Detroit Free Press, Channel3000, CNN and PresidentMatch, I looked over the issues and where each candidate stood to therefore justify where I agree or disagree.

On ABORTION, President Bush is for a ban on partial-birth abortion, parental consent laws and legal rights for the unborn. He also claims to have no litmus test on abortion for his supreme court appointees. His stance that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape, incest or one which threatens the life of the mother is the exact view I hold on this. Senator Kerry however, is against a partial-birth abortion ban, against parental consent and against legal rights for the unborn. Senator Kerry also says he'd appoint only abortion-rights advocates to the Supreme Court.

On CIVIL RIGHTS, I once again agree with President Bush. He supports affirmative action - but opposes quotas. Senator Kerry has pledged his support for affirmative action, with no change based on quotas (such as the University of Michigan enrolling more African-American students to receive more funding.)

On GAY RIGHTS, I am split 50/50 on both candidates. In regards to the military, I agree with Senator Kerry that gays should be able to serve openly. President Bush supports the Clinton policy of "don't ask don't tell." However, I agree with President Bush on the issue of gay adoption, in my opposition to it. Senator Kerry does not oppose gay adoption. I'm also against gay marriage.

On CRIME, GUNS, DRUGS, I agree partly with both candidates. I'm fully supportive, like President Bush of the death penalty. However, the President's stance on not having safety devices on all new guns bothers me, but I haven't looked into it as to why you wouldn't want safety devices. Both candidates are for an assault weapons ban. As for medical marijuana, I'm against it. If someone can show medical facts that its better than other drugs in relieving pain, then perhaps I'd consider it. But as of now, I am against it.

On NATIONAL DEFENSE, I agree with both candidates as to not immediately pull the troops from Iraq. I'm not so keen on having the UN involved with the rebuilding process as Kerry would like, but I'm not too keen on the UN involved in anything. I support our President on a missile defense system, to which Senator Kerry opposes. Also, both candidates are against a military draft, but only Senator Kerry has proposed increasing the Army by 40,000 troops. Where will he get these additional troops from?

On the ECONOMY, I agree with both candidates. I believe the President's permanent tax cuts will speed economic recovery and job creation. I also agree that by giving business relief on health costs, the incentives for job creation would be greater as Kerry has stated. However, I foresee tax increases with Kerry and not with Bush.

On EDUCATION, I support "No Child Left Behind." However, like President Bush, I fully support school vouchers. I believe people should be allowed to choose where their children can go to school. The private schools perform much better than the public schools and spend much less per child. Money doesn't guarantee a better education. Going to a private school gave me discipline that I wouldn't have had otherwise.

On the ENVIRONMENT, I support both candidates plans for greater fuel efficiency. I also stand by the President in his proposal for Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWAR) drilling. From a Michigan standpoint, both candidates are opposed to Great Lakes water diversion, which is good for Michigan.

On FARMING, both candidates are in favor of subsidies, which I have no real opinion on.

On HEALTH CARE, I oppose a National health care system and drug importation. If the FDA can guarantee drugs from Canada are safe, rather than just having people claim they are safe by speculating, I'll be for drug importation. I also fully support the President in his Medicare reform.

On HOMELAND SECURITY, I support the renewal of the Patriot Act. President Bush also does, while Senator Kerry wants it to expire without congressional approval.

On RELIGION, both candidates, like myself, are not opposed to school prayer and federal funding for religious charities.

On SOCIAL SECURITY, I support the President's plan to allow Americans to invest some Social Security taxes in stocks. Senator Kerry opposes this plan. I'm all for letting individuals be responsible for their own money.

On SCIENCE, I support President Bush fully, and Senator Kerry partially. Both candidates want to better the space exploration program of NASA. President Bush wants the United States to return to the moon by 2020 and eventually launch a manned mission to Mars. Senator Kerry would consider space exploration against the other demands of our nation's finances. As for stem-cell research, I support the President's decision to limit federal research money to embryonic stem-cell lines currently in existence.

There you go. Whatever you believe, vote tomorrow, November 2nd.

The Return of Bin Laden

2004-11-01T14:33:00.000-05:00

Ah, the weekend is over, and Politics are back on my mind again. First - Bin Laden is back. So the Kerry campaign and those on the left will point to the fact that Bush failed to kill Bin Laden, possibly using a reference to the debunked Tora Bora theory, and then make some more inane ramblings.

Those of us on the right will point to the successful war on terror Bush has waged and how Kerry's policies on terror are flawed, possibly pointing to the fact that after hearing about the Bin Laden tape, Kerry's people took a poll on it before saying anything, going along with a popular theory in Massachusetts about Kerry going with the trade winds of the polls just following the popular opinion.

Or perhaps you've seen Michael Moore's 'documentary' Fahrenheit 9/11 or heard some Democratic talking points and noticed the strikingly similar tone to that of Bin Laden's speech. For instance, the associated press has a comment by Kerry's spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter -

"Mr. McClellan needs to understand that John Kerry is not the type of leader who will sit and read 'My Pet Goat' to a group of second graders while America is under attack," she said.

Then of course you can compare that with the what was said in Bin Laden's new tape -

"It appeared to him (Bush) that a little girl's talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers.

Michael Moore. Terry McAuliffe. John Kerry. Osama Bin Laden. All talking about Bush reading a book to children.

So I said to myself, how will the media spin this somehow against Bush. Of course, not too much later, I see the headline "CRONKITE: KARL ROVE BEHIND BIN LADEN TAPE?"

Supposedly, the comment was made in an interview on CNN.

I'm sure Bush is also behind the latest Bin Laden warning that essentially says "Vote for Kerry and we won't attack you." Perhaps Bush and Rove and Cheney put Bin Laden up to this so that it would look like Kerry is bad and hey, another scare tactic! Or perhaps Bin Laden is trying to make us vote for Bush so he'll try to fool us into thinking he wants Kerry! Or perhaps Bin Laden thinks we'll all think he's trying to trick us and they really he does want us to vote for Kerry, so he'll just try to confuse us!

...interpreted the key passage of bin Laden's diatribe to mean that any U.S. state that votes to elect Bush on Tuesday will be considered an "enemy" and any state that votes for Kerry has "chosen to make peace with us."

Bottom Line - Who do you want to be Commander in Chief? A man with a proven record who is steady and consistent, or one who will change his mind, based on the public mindset.

Out of Town...Again

2004-10-29T15:59:00.000-04:00

Just a quick post now before I leave for the weekend. I'll be out of town again. Have a safe weekend everyone. God Bless.

Thoughts and Prayers for Arafat

2004-10-28T15:44:00.000-04:00

Even though I'm not a fan of the man, when hearing he was in a state of failing health, I offer my prayers to him and everyone else in the world to get better. People are imporatant - even if you disagree with someone, you should never wish ill will towards them. Have a nice day everyone...

The Ultimate John Kerry Ad

2004-10-28T01:28:00.000-04:00

I was wrong all along! Kerry agrees with me, how was I so stupid...View his latest ad here. (note, a sound-only clip)

You load 380 tons, and what do you get?

2004-10-28T01:11:00.000-04:00

The more I hear about it, the more convinced I am that the 380 tons of HDX and RDX that disappeared went missing prior to our even arriving at al-Qaqaa, and that the release of the story now has nothing more than political calculation as the reason.

The DoD has announced that they have satellite images of heavy truck traffic moving around in the al-Qaqaa site just prior to the invasion, and during the opening days of the war. During that time, the Iraqi government was dispersing tens of thousands of tons of ordnance, ammunition, etc. to schools and mosques all over Iraq. In addition, we don’t even know if the RDX was even there when the IAEA inspectors were there in March of 2003. The HDX was apparently there, but according to Jim Miklaszewski’s NBC report, the inspectors were unable to inspect the RDX stockpile for some reason, so they can’t even verify the RDX was there when they last inspected.

On top of that, there is the logistical problem I mentioned previously. I was reading the Marine Corps Gazette (the professional journal of the USMC) this morning and there was an interesting article about the deployment of artillery during the operation. One of the problems we faced was the logistics difficulty that the lack of suitable roads imposed on our troops. In order to ensure that line commanders had instant access to artillery, they had to set up a priority system on the roads where all the vehicles on the road had to pull over so that artillery movements could take place.

Now, this caused me to wonder how, on roads so jammed that Abramses, Bradleys and Humvees had to pull off onto the shoulder so that M-198 crews could get their guns to the right place at the right time, insurgents were tooling around in a convoy of 40 semi tractor-trailers without being seen. The obvious answer is, of course, they couldn’t. Not only were the roads jammed, but the sky was full of Apaches, F-15s, F16s, and missile-armed predator drones just looking for stuff to shoot at.

So this idea that sometime in late April or early May that insurgents just spirited this stuff away is preposterous. It didn’t happen. Any movement of that size would’ve turned into an instant turkey shoot.

So, we move on to an interesting statement made by Mr. Kerry’s big foreign policy guy, Hal Holbrook. Oops, no, I’m sorry, that would be Richard Holbrooke. Hal Holbrook was the Bad Lieutenant in "Magnum Force" who never learned "to know his limitations".

Anyway, Holbrooke--the foreign policy guy, not the one Clint Eastwood blew up--goes on national TV, and says the following:

Pressed on Tuesday afternoon about the accuracy of the allegations on Fox’s Big Story with John Gibson, Richard Holbrooke, a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign, said: "You don’t know the truth and I don’t know the truth." He later underscored this point: "I don’t know the truth."

Not knowing the truth, of course, was no bar to the Kerry Campaign, who, as soon as the New York Times "broke" the story made a particularly disgusting commercial about the affair.

The obligation of a Commander in Chief is to keep our country safe. In Iraq, George Bush has overextended our troops and now failed to secure 380 tons of deadly explosives. The kind used for attacks in Iraq, and for terrorist bombings. His Iraq misjudgments put our soldiers at risk, and make our country less secure. And all he offers is more of the same. As President, I’ll bring a fresh start to protect our troops and our nation. I’m John Kerry and I approved this message.

So, even though his own campaign big shots admit that they don’t know whether the ordnance was even at al-Qaqaa, that didn’t stop them from putting out a commercial making a claim that not finding it was all Bush’s fault.

So, chalk this up as another Christmas in Cambodia/Magic Hat/Secret UN Security Council meeting story on Kerry’s part.

Even more irritating is that this shows us much about Mr. Kerry’s foreign policy inclinations. He is willing to take the word of a UN bureaucrat over the accounts of US troop commanders from the 3ID and the Screaming Eagles. Mr. ElBaradei is not a wholly disinterested observer, after all. The US has been all over him, and is dead set against his having a second term as the head of the IAEA. And there are questions as to why Iraq had the stuff in the first place. The IAEA was, after all, supposed to remove all nuclear weapons components from Iraq, and one presumes the RDX and HDX, whose purpose is to implode nuclear material to set off an A-Bomb would fall under that authority. So, Mr. ElBaradei is not an innocent bystander in all this. Indeed, as Clifford May reports today:

It gets worse: The U.N. weapons inspectors led by Rolf Ekeus asked the IAEA to dispose of these explosives back in 1995. The IAEA did not do so--and between 1998, when Saddam forced the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq, and late 2002 when U.S. pressure caused him to allow inspectors to return, 35 tons of HMX went missing. Saddam claimed he used it in Iraq’s cement industry. Evidently, ElBaradei saw no reason to doubt Saddam who--as noted--was working hand-in-globe with the U.N. on the Food for Oil program, an enterprise which, we now know, stole billions of dollars from the Iraqi people.

There are questions now about whether a good part of the stockpile was even there when his people last "inspected" the facility, and I’d be very interested to learn why the inspectors were "unable" to get a look at the RDX stockpile that was supposedly under IAEA seal at the time, and why the IAEA hadn’t gotten rid of the materials in the first place.

It seems to me that, more than anything, this serves as a perfect example of the price that Mr. Kerry’s "global test" would impose. We did, after all, make a fair attempt to pass the global test by going to the UN, dithering for several months on the issue, and telegraphing very publicly to Mr. Hussein that US troops were coming for him. What we got was the worst of both worlds. We failed to pass the global test in Mr. Kerry’s estimation, while at the same time giving Mr. Hussein ample time to shift around his rather huge stockpile of ordnance in preparation for our invasion.

Not that it did Mr. Hussein any good, of course, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions about where a significant percentage of Iraq’s weapons actually got to in that last three weeks before the regime collapsed. We know that a fairly large amount of something was shipped off to Syria in those final days, and frankly, there hasn’t been much of an attempt to pressure the Syrians to find out what it was.

Finally, the timing is suspicious. "It is no coincidence", as our Soviet friends used to say, that this came out this week. The IAEA knew this stuff was missing for two weeks before leaking it to the NYT. Why is that, I wonder?

Oh, and let’s not forget the guys over at CBS, who were planning on making this story the centerpiece of Sunday night’s "60 minutes" broadcast. I suspect the fact that the NYT has moved the story back to page A-17 today is an indication the Sunday’s "60 minutes" will be somewhat less explosive that originally planned.

It’s hard to escape the suspicion that this is nothing more than a put-up job to stack the deck a little more for Mr. Kerry close to the election. What’s even more bothersome is that the indications are that UN officials are complicit in this attempt. Quite apart from Mr. ElBaradei’s personal stake, Kofi Annan and his cronies are apparently extremely unhappy at the way the whole Oil-for-~~Military Equipment~~ Food revelations have turned out. I’m not sure I want Kofi and Co. trying to influence US presidential elections.

Actually, that last bit is untrue. I am sure I don’t.

October, but not so surprising

2004-10-28T00:13:00.000-04:00

From Drudge:

In the last week before the election, ABCNEWS is holding a videotaped message from a purported al Qaeda terrorist warning of a new attack on America, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The terrorist claims on tape the next attack will dwarf 9/11. "The streets will run with blood," and "America will mourn in silence" because they will be unable to count the number of the dead. Further claims: America has brought this on itself for electing George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war on Al Qaeda.

Observations:

1: Let’s please not assume that they’re "holding back the tape" for political purposes. After criticizing CBS, the NY Times and....er, CBS again....for not doing due diligence on some other stories, I hardly think it’s unreasonable to await the verdict of the CIA on this tape. The last thing a major media outlet wants right now is to be duped. Again.

And it’s not this "videotaping" technology is completely alien to Western Civilization. So, I’m assuming that they are exercising due diligence.

2: I wonder if the Democrats will claim this is a Rove-arranged October Surprise? Well, wonder no more! The Objective and Fair Journalist Josh Marshall--operating on behalf of the Democratic Party--is wondering "since when do we even hear about ’terror warning tapes’ when they don’t come from the likes of bin Laden or al Zawahiri?"

But, since ABC is the one that acquired the tape and is "working 24 hours a day trying to authenticate [the tape]", I’m having trouble working out what Marshall’s objection might be. Is he suggesting that ABC is in the pocket of the Bush/Cheney campaign? That they should have ignored this? That the Bush administration is being irresponsible by.....well, they haven’t actually issued a terror warning or released the tape, have they? Damn that ABC for getting a tape from Pakistan at an inconvenient time for Josh Marshall!

3: I don’t think we can really draw conclusions from endorsements and/or criticisms done by terrorists. Presumably, they’re familiar with the concept of "reverse psychology", if not the actual term. Plus, I’m thinking that Al Qaeda is getting more mileage out of scaring the US, rather than the risks associated with actually doing anything.

4: Say, why isn’t Bin Laden making these tapes anymore?

5: We’re going to hear the term "October Surprise" a lot. Suffice it to say that, after a few years worth of these threats, it would hardly be a surprise to get another terror threat leading up to the Election.

It is, however, October. So, there’s that.

Bias in the media? No way

2004-10-27T13:45:00.000-04:00

Who would have thought? The media? No way...that's just a conspiracy. If anything, there's a 'right wing' media conspiracy. Please spare me. I'll give you the conservative talk show hosts and Fox News as being conservative - that's it.

A recent study, similar to the Pew Research Study back in may, this one doesn't speak too highly of the 'fairness and balance' of the leftwing mainstream media. Back in May, the media was found to be 34% liberal to 7% conservative. The latest study, which correlates with the Pew study, and is from the non-partisan group 'Project for Excellence' shows how John Kerry is receiving much more favorable news stories than that of President Bush. By a two to one margin, more stories for Bush are negative than negative stories for Kerry.

This is roughly backwards of the last election, when Al Gore was receiving bad coverage. The difference perhaps is that Al Gore performed terribly at the debates. After the first debate, Bush did alright, but not horrible. This stems from hatred of Bush, pure and simple. Hearing that it doesn't from someone who hates Bush will be a bit...ironic to say the least.

With the 'ultra conservative' Fox News, you'd think that it'd be a bit less negative for Bush. Of course since Drudge reported the study, it has to be biased. There is no left wing media. Its not like MSNBC's Slate is biased. In their endorsements for this year, Slate's staff is voting for Kerry by a 47-4 margin, with one refusing to vote, another voting Green and yet another voting Libertarian. I can't see myself trusting Slate again, not because of how they voted, but because of what one of their staff members gave as his long, thought out reason for voting for Kerry:

He's a long way from being the Messiah, but at least he's not the anti-Christ.

A 'true' reporter would have some thought behind his answer, rather than simply calling our President the anti-Christ.

To no surprise though, the same people who will write off the two separate studies of media bias and the bias of Slate will also not believe the next story, simply because its from another ultra conservative rig - The Washington Times. Their latest story shows what I've said a while back, and seems to be common sense - The terrorists hope to defeat Bush through the violence in Iraq. As I've stated, the key to beating Bush is attacking us in Iraq. If you attack us here, support for the incumbent will swell, and the American people will rally around the President. Here's a quote from one of the insurgents, trying to force Bush out:

Abu Jalal, answering questions submitted to him through the Iraqi journalist, devised a simple formula for how his group's attacks on American soldiers draw votes from Mr. Bush. "They say there are 1,100 dead soldiers. That means 1,100 families hold grudges against Bush and hate him. There are 6,000 families whose sons were injured who hate Bush and will not re-elect him."

I can't say I know any soldiers personally who have died. But I do know some who were injured. As another recent study showed, the military is overwhelmingly supporting President Bush. I have yet to see any military family show any disdain for the President. I have yet to see any military family put a sign on their lawn saying "Support our Troops, Defeat Bush" although I've seen a crazy guy who has twenty or so signs on his lawn from Kerry, MoveOn, and other anti-Bush signs, while also spray painting his large trees to say 'no war.' You think he's against the war?

Lets recap:

The media was shown to be biased back in May towards the left

The media is shown to be more favorable to John Kerry now.

One of Slate's commentators called Bush the anti-Christ.

Many terrorists are hoping to use the Iraq Violence to influence our elections against Bush.

I think that about covers it.

The Nader Factor

2004-10-25T23:55:00.000-04:00

Lately I've been wondering about Ralph Nader. Will he affect this election? Will he be blamed for causing Kerry to lose, if that is indeed the outcome? What are his purposes?

As was reported and touched upon by some other 'political rumor mills' Nader may *want* Kerry to lose to prove a point. Perhaps revenge for the Democratic Party vigorously trying to keep his name off of the ballots.

However, thats not really the point I'm trying to make. As an avid reader of Real Clear Politics, I've noticed something - Nader isn't hurting Kerry. Actually, Nader is hurting President Bush. Looking at the averages from the three-way race between Bush/Kerry/Nader and just the two-way race between Bush/Kerry, simple math can conclude this.

Without Nader in the race, Bush gain 0.2 percentage points. However, without Nader, John Kerry *loses* 0.4 percentage points.

Head to Head, Bush has a 3.4 percent lead. Including Nader however drops the lead to 2.8 percent.

It should be noted that the Real Clear Politics poll is an average of all major polls. This doesn't have much of a factor electorally, since Nader won't win any states, but perhaps he could be a spoiler in certain states.

Aren't statistics fun?

A better Iraq/Vietnam Analogy

2004-10-24T22:50:00.000-04:00

Peter Brown over at the Orlando Sentinel made perhaps, the most logical comparison of the Iraq war and the Vietnam war I've seen so far. In a nutshell, he compared the tactics by the terrorists in Iraq to that of General Vo Nguyen Giap of the North Vietnamese and his highly successful 'Tet Offensive.' The idea is basically to defeat a much superior opponent by the use of politics. In the case of Vietnam, and now in Iraq as Mr. Brown states, the terrorists are playing on our emotions to show us the horrors of war.

You've got to hand it to them though - it works. Anti-Bush and Anti-War ideals are pretty high right now, although the country is roughly 50/50, thats still a low backing for a President in a wartime situation. The terrorists know the only way to defeat us is to turn public opinion against our troops and this war and therefore have us pull out of Iraq.

This is perhaps why I don't spend too much time looking into how many soldiers have paid the ultimate sacrifice for this country. The ratio of them to us doesn't make it seem that bad. However, the terrorists don't hold the same regard for life that our society does. They are using this to their advantage. Regardless of how many thousands of them die or how many of our troops die, the only measurement of success is driving the American and Coalition forces out of Iraq.

A nice read, one that can make you think outside the box a little, here's the full story for non-registered members to the Orlando Sentinel website:

It is reasonable to assume that someone in the al-Qaeda hierarchy has been reading books other than the Quran.

The last time I checked, the Muslim holy book didn't have a chapter on the Tet offensive.

Nor does it contain a verse on how suicidal violence can play to TV's obsession with pictures and deliver a political message aimed at influencing voters before an election.

Yet someone pulling strings in al-Qaeda central clearly understands those matters, and how they shaped America's Vietnam experience. Most important, they understand the lesson of Tet -- that a military defeat can be more than worth the cost if its violence produces enough dissatisfaction to damage the enemy's political will.

That's evident in the recent effort by al-Qaeda and its allies to emulate the tactics of anti-U.S. forces in Vietnam that helped push Lyndon B. Johnson into retirement and the subsequent election of a president who wound down the American presence there.

One can only assume they are trying to do the same thing to George W. Bush.

In Vietnam, the enemy took advantage of the the world's first televised war to maximize violence before the Democratic presidential primaries in 1968.

They understood that the casualties inflicted on U.S. troops -- even if far fewer than their own -- and the pictures it provided to the news media made many millions of Americans question the wisdom of fighting a war thousands of miles from home.

The North Vietnamese were willing to suffer a military defeat in hopes of achieving their desired result -- the withdrawal of U.S. troops -- by political means.

Their strategy worked.

Tet marked the turning of U.S. public opinion against the Vietnam War that led to the American withdrawal in 1975.

The analogy between Vietnam and today's conflict in Iraq has been overused this election season.

To opponents of the American effort, Iraq is another case of U.S. forces becoming entangled in a civil war between various domestic factions.

War supporters see the Iraq campaign as an important effort to combat terrorism and create a shining example of democracy in a crucial but unstable part of the globe.

Curiously, little has been made of the al-Qaeda adoption of the Tet strategy.

The increased level of violence in Iraq in the past month is a transparent effort to copy the tactics of Tet, aimed at political, rather than military, victory.

These attacks are actually often suicide bombings as opposed to the Viet Cong efforts against larger forces in1968.

It is more than coincidental that the recent increase in attacks are occurring during the period when Americans, through the presidential election, are deciding the thrust of their policy toward terrorism and the Middle East.

The "Tet offensive," named for the Buddhist holiday during which it occurred, was launched in early 1968, just before the Democratic presidential primaries.

Johnson had been heavily favored for both renomination and election. But the public furor here at home over Vietnam, fed by the Tet attacks and pictures beamed into America's living rooms, led him to withdraw from the race.

The Republicans had been in shambles after their disastrous 1964 nomination of Barry Goldwater, and LBJ's landslide re-election. They entered that campaign as underdogs, but they were fueled by an anti-war sentiment that was probably stronger than that view is today.

Richard Nixon, who won that election, promised a "secret plan" to extricate the United States from Vietnam, not a hugely different approach than John Kerry's often contradictory comments about the war and vague plan about how he would do things differently than Bush.

Be clear about this: Al-Qaeda & Co. are campaigning for votes, just as Bush and Kerry are.

Regardless of what the American people decide, the terrorists want to pressure the next president into withdrawing U.S. forces.

They think the best way to do that is by convincing U.S. voters through suicide attacks that the benefits of remaining in Iraq are not worth the price in men and money.

That being the case, it is important to remember that Tet was a clear military victory for U.S. forces and their Vietnamese allies. If a democratic Iraq is worth pursuing, then bloody pictures should not make it any less so.

Consider the long-term ramifications of your vote. Don't just react emotionally to what you are seeing on your television screen.

Lack of Updates

2004-10-24T22:27:00.001-04:00

Sorry about the lack of content this weekend. I've been busy building and repairing multiple computers. Non-politically, I'll recommend Newegg to everyone wanting great service and prices for computer parts.

John Kerry: Another Democrat Blatantly Lying to Scare Seniors

2004-10-19T19:24:00.001-04:00

John Kerry released a new advertisement attacking President Bush on Social Security. Checking FactCheck.org as I usually do, their latest headline states:

"Kerry Falsely Claims Bush Plans To Cut Social Security Benefits"

Could it be? Another scare tactic for seniors? *sarcasm* Wow, didn't see that one coming *sarcasm*

As shown on FactCheck, not only will benefits not be cut, but the plan Kerry refers to isn't even that of President Bush!

Same story, different Democrat:

It's a familiar campaign ploy, similar to the tactic used by Bill Clinton in 1996, when his ads accused Bob Dole of supporting a $270 billion "cut" in Medicare. In fact, what Dole supported was a slowdown in the projected growth of Medicare spending, at a time when Clinton himself was proposing a $124-billion reduction (without, of course, calling his own plan a "cut.")

Here are some *facts* that the Kerry Campaign seems to have such trouble with:

Bush hasn't proposed ANY specific plan
The plan which Kerry refers to doesn't affect benefits for CURRENT retirees
Even for future retirees, benefits will GROW

The Kerry campaign cited a study that looked at three possible "reform models." Ironically, the study cited by the Kerry campaign found that ALL THREE of the possible models would allow for increases paid to future retirees.

Bush hasn't specified how he will reform Social Security specifically. However, he is willing to reform it. Senator Kerry on the other hand, appears to be opposed to change - at least to the fact that he is content with the current system.

Ashley's Story

2004-10-19T18:16:00.000-04:00

If there is any question about President Bush's compassion, this video will hopefully end all of that. I'll let you visit the site at - http://www.ashleysstory.com/ - and see for yourself.

Some points that should be made however: This will be *huge* among women voters. That is, the undecided women voters. The Anybody but Bush women might be swayed a bit, but the whole "Anybody but Bush" crowd is such a joke that it probably wouldn't sway them if Bush was a genie in a bottle and granted them three wishes. Someone besides Bush would grant them four. The interesting thing about this, which wasn't mentioned in the video, is that President Bush waved off reporters when they tried to take a picture. The picture of him comforting the teenager was taken by her father.

People are guided by emotions - If this ad could almost bring me to tears, I'm sure it can influence others.

Kerry / Edwards - Accomplishments Galore in the Senate

2004-10-19T16:55:00.000-04:00

FactCheck.org has a nice article about Kerry and Edwards' voting records. It goes into detail on how many bills Kerry actually can take credit for. Bush claims five bills. Kerry claims fifty six. Neither are accurate, but Bush is one hell of a lot closer. The actual number according to FactCheck - Eleven. Doing simple math, that's about one-half bill per year in the senate. More important perhaps, is *what* the bills consisted of -

S.791: Authorizes $53 million over four years to provide grants to woman-owned small businesses. (1999)

S.1206: Names a federal building in Waltham, Massachusetts after Frederick C. Murphy, who was killed in action during World War II and awarded (posthumously) the Medal of Honor. (1994)

S.1636: A save-the-dolphins measure aiming "to improve the program to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations." (1994)

S.1563: Funding the National Sea Grant College Program, which supports university-based research, public education, and other projects "to promote better understanding, conservation and use of America’s coastal resources." (1991)

S.423: Granting a visa and admission to the U.S. as a permanent resident to Kil Joon Yu Callahan. (1987)

H.R.1900 (S.300): Awarded a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson (posthumously), and called for a national day of recognition. (2003)

H.R.1860 (S.856): Increased the maximum research grants for small businesses from $500,000 to $750,000 under the Small Business Technology Transfer Program. (2001)

S.J.Res.158: To make the week of Oct. 22 – Oct. 28, 1989 "World Population Awareness Week." (1989)

S.J.Res.160: To renew "World Population Awareness Week" for 1991. (1991)

S.J.Res.318: To make Nov. 13, 1992 "Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day." (1992)

S.J.Res.337: To make Sept. 18, 1992 "National POW/MIA Recognition Day." (1992)

So lets do a quick rundown as to what Kerry's accomplished: Granting a Visa to a Korean immigrant; funding a college grant program; saving some dolphins; naming a building; providing grants to women owned small businesses; awarding a congressional gold medal; increasing research grants for small businesses; coming up with world population awareness week; renewing the world population awareness week; making a Vietnam Veterans Memorial Day and finally, making National POW/MIA Recognition Day.

All that in twenty years! Holy shit, lets give this guy a promotion, he's a real go getter!

John Edwards isn't much better though. Someone with only five years of political experience, two of which are running for Presidential Nominee or Vice Presidential Candidate, for starters is a bit scary. But he has 'accomplished' some things. They don't call him "Senator Gone" for no reason:

74 bills, NONE of which has emerged from Committee for a floor vote.

78 amendments, 23 of which passed the Senate.

6 resolutions, 4 of which passed the Senate.

No legislation Edwards has been lead sponsor on has become law.

Team America World Police

2004-10-18T21:40:00.000-04:00

Funniest movie I've seen in a long time. Go check it out. This just supports the theory of "South Park Republicans" which I proudly will claim to be one of.

Law Enforcement Officials for Kerry?

2004-10-18T21:22:00.000-04:00

Kerry's ~~lying to us~~ misleading again. Not too big of a surprise, the majority of police officers in America don't support him! Here's the full story -

Today Chuck Canterbury, the President of the nation's largest police labor organization, called on John Kerry to stop making misleading statements regarding his support from the law enforcement community. Both on the campaign trail and in Wednesday night's debate in Tempe, AZ, Senator Kerry has alluded that he has the support of the majority of these brave men and women.

"As the elected leader of the largest organization representing America's Federal, State and local law enforcement officers, I believe it's important to point out yet again that we do not support his candidacy for President," Canterbury said. "And to be perfectly frank, the groups which do support him actually share the same membership rolls and, taken together, probably comprise less than one-quarter of our nation's police officers."

Canterbury further noted that unlike the organizations which Senator Kerry touts, F.O.P. members as a whole decided that the Fraternal Order of Police would endorse the reelection of President George W. Bush. They based their decision, he said, on the record of the Bush Administration in supporting America's first responders-including helping to secure passage earlier this year of H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, the organization's top legislative priority. Bush also successfully fought to greatly enhance the benefits for the families of officers killed in the line of duty.

"While Kerry was flying around the country campaigning and leaving the actual work of the nation to his colleagues in the Senate, the President was out there working on our behalf," Canterbury said. "Senators Kerry and Edwards have missed so many crucial votes this Congress that I was beginning to believe there were only 98 members of the U.S. Senate."

Canterbury also said it was the height of irony that Kerry would use his position on the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban as a reflection of his support from police.

"First, if a police officer is killed by an AK-47, Kerry would oppose the death penalty for the killer," Canterbury said. "In addition, where was he when this issue was being discussed in the 108th Congress? Where was he when we were working to pass H.R. 218? When it came time to help push for final passage of legislation important to law enforcement, Senator Kerry was regrettably A.W.O.L."

"Given the facts, I would greatly appreciate it if Senator Kerry would refrain from making similar whimsical assertions regarding his support from the law enforcement community," Canterbury said. "The real majority of my fellow officers are standing behind President Bush, because he has been there for us."

The Fraternal Order of Police is the nation's largest law enforcement labor organization, with more than 318,000 members.

However, here's what Kerry said earlier in the debates -

I'm … a former law enforcement officer. I ran one of the largest district attorney's offices in America, one of the ten largest. I put people behind bars for the rest of their life. I've broken up organized crime. I know something about prosecuting.

And most of the law enforcement agencies in America wanted that assault weapons ban. They don't want to go into a drug bust and be facing an AK-47.

I was hunting in Iowa last year with a sheriff from one of the counties there, and he pointed to a house in back of us, and said, "See the house over there? We just did a drug bust a week earlier, and the guy we arrested had an AK-47 lying on the bed right beside him."

Because of the president's decision today, law enforcement officers will walk into a place that will be more dangerous.

Who to believe? The guy running for President willing to say anything and everything to be elected? Or the guy in charge of the "Nation's largest police labor organization." I'll place my chips with the law enforcement official.

Kerry's Hail Mary

2004-10-18T21:13:00.000-04:00

James Taranto has a nice column over at Opinion Journal. It goes into many different things, however, I'll focus on the main story below.

First, Taranto made note that the Kerry Campaign seems to be getting desperate. Some of the things they've said as a campaign are a little out there. As mentioned, fellow blogger Rodger Morrow compared the desperation moves by the Kerry Campaign to that of a 'Hail Mary' play in football which is defined as "A long pass thrown in desperation, especially near the end of a game." Pretty good analogy if you ask me. Here are some of the Hail Mary passes thrown by the Kerry Campaign lately:

Accused the Bush administration of planning to reinstitute a military draft.

Recycled the "no blood for oil" canard of the looney left.

Alleged that the Bush administration is somehow in the pocket of the Saudi royal family.

Told voters that, if they elect John Kerry, "people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

Suggested that President Bush was planning a "January surprise" to privatize Social Security.

Advised Democratic campaign workers to launch a "pre-emptive strike" charging voter "intimidation" on election day even if no evidence exists.

Warned Florida voters that Republicans are "trying to keep people from voting."

Blamed the flu vaccine shortage on President Bush.

Twice called attention to the fact that Mary Cheney is a lesbian.

Interesting. As the story continued, it pointed out that with all Hail Mary passes, the risk and reward are both greater. So while the opportunity arises to score the big play touchdown to win the game, you can also throw an interception and lose the game - in this case, the election. Here's a wonderful explanation that counters many of the arguments made in comments here and other blogs which I visit regarding the Mary Cheney situation:

The problem for Kerry is that a lot more Americans have children than have strong feelings about homosexuality one way or the other. People tend to be very protective of their own families and sympathetic to the protective instincts of others. It was the invasion of the Cheney family's privacy, not anything having to do with homosexuality per se, that got Kerry in trouble.

Now, it's true that Miss Cheney's sexual orientation was not a secret, and that her father had talked about it--but there's a big difference between talking about your own family (whether for political gain or not) and talking about someone else's in order to harm him politically. The Clintons understood this very well and made good use of Hillary in defending Bill from his scandals--from "60 Minutes" in 1992 to the "vast right-wing conspiracy" interview in 1998.

In our view, Hillary's own political ambitions made the Clinton marriage "fair game" to a much greater degree than Mary Cheney is, but we'd venture to say most Americans were more sympathetic to Hillary's privacy than we were. Tellingly, Robert Novak reports that "the only Kerry aide on the [campaign] plane who wanted the senator to quickly issue an apology for any perceived insult was senior adviser Mike McCurry, the former Clinton spokesman who is a calm, cool voice among the overheated Kerryites." In any case, it's hard to imagine Bill Clinton ever being graceless enough to say such a thing in the first place, let alone to insist he was right to do so.

Furthermore, a recent statistic showed that "By a 2-1 margin, likely voters found Kerry's comment inappropriate, according to an ABC News poll out Friday."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Seriously...I tried.

Last post for most of the weekend

2004-10-15T13:59:00.000-04:00

Again, I'll be out of town this weekend with no computer. Have a fun and safe weekend!

From Oil to Stem Cells

2004-10-15T13:35:00.000-04:00

Wow...lots of stuff going on today. I'll try to consolidate it into one post if I can. First up, the oil prices. Although they are approaching $55 per barrel, Alan Greenspan, appears to not be worried about the rising energy costs.

Greenspan, however, noted that even with the recent jump, energy prices are still only three-fifths as high, after adjusting for inflation, as they were at their all-time peak in February 1981.

He said this means that the overall impact on the economy should be lower this time around than during that period, when the oil shocks of the 1970s and early 1980s were enough to push the country into a series of recessions.

Greenspan said that so far this year, the rise in energy has probably trimmed the gross domestic product by about 0.75 percentage point, far less than the shocks of two decades ago.

Next, we've got the recent poll released by the National Annenberg Election Survey. The headline is "Service men and women upbeat on Bush, War on Iraq, Economy and intend to vote, Annenberg Data Show."

As reported by probably every conservative talk show host today, and a fact widely known for awhile. The full document released today is located here (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader). The poll surveyed adults who either served on active duty between February and October, or family members of those unavailable to be questioned. A key point is that this survey didn't ask the question of whom they intend to vote for. As it continues, sixty nine percent of those surveyed had a favorable opinion of George W. Bush, whereas only twenty nine percent had a favorable view of John Kerry. The differences between Bush's optimism and Kerry's pessimism towards the war and the events occurring no doubt have an effect on it.

As for the trust, sixty nine to twenty four percent would be more likely to trust George W. Bush as Commander in Chief. Go figure - they trust the guy who praises the work they do, instead of the guy who claims it was the "wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place." The facts happen to go on and on. I could rehash them all, but I'll let you take a look at the document for yourself.

Third, Teresa Heinz-Kerry has some insightful wisdom about health care. Personally I disagree, but I'll let you form your own opinion.

Finally, a writer who I've been having more respect for over the course of the last year - Charles Krauthammer - has another nice piece over at Jewish World Review.

Krauthammer, as the editor notes, is confined to a wheelchair. He's *extremely* offended by the comments by John Edwards about paralysis. Krauthammer, it should be noted, is a conservative, but the messenger doesn't affect the message in this instance. I can't speak for those in a wheelchair, nor will I try to. I was only confined to a wheelchair once in my life years ago when I broke my ankle as a child. However, as someone with a disability such as Mr. Krauthammer has every right in the world to speak out against this. Here's the article -

After the second presidential debate, in which John Kerry used the word "plan" 24 times, I said on television that Kerry has a plan for everything except curing psoriasis. I should have known there is no parodying Kerry's pandering. It turned out days later that the Kerry campaign has a plan — nay, a promise — to cure paralysis. What is the plan? Vote for Kerry.

This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery. Hope is good. False hope is bad. Deliberately, for personal gain, raising false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable.

Where does one begin to deconstruct this outrage?

First, the inability of the human spinal cord to regenerate is one of the great mysteries of biology. The answer is not remotely around the corner. It could take a generation to unravel. To imply, as Edwards did, that it is imminent if only you elect the right politicians is scandalous.

Second, if the cure for spinal cord injury comes, we have no idea where it will come from. There are many lines of inquiry. Stem cell research is just one of many possibilities, and a very speculative one at that. For 30 years I have heard promises of miracle cures for paralysis (including my own, suffered as a medical student). The last fad, fetal tissue transplants, was thought to be a sure thing. Nothing came of it.

As a doctor by training, I've known better than to believe the hype — and have tried in my own counseling of people with new spinal cord injuries to place the possibility of cure in abeyance. I advise instead to concentrate on making a life (and a very good life it can be) with the hand one is dealt. The greatest enemies of this advice have been the snake-oil salesmen promising a miracle around the corner. I never expected a candidate for vice president to be one of them.

Third, the implication that Christopher Reeve was prevented from getting out of his wheelchair by the Bush stem cell policies is a travesty.

George Bush is the first president to approve federal funding for stem cell research. There are 22 lines of stem cells now available, up from one just two years ago. As Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics, has written, there are 3,500 shipments of stem cells waiting for anybody who wants them.

Edwards and Kerry constantly talk of a Bush "ban" on stem cell research. This is false. There is no ban. You want to study stem cells? You get them from the companies that have the cells and apply to the National Institutes of Health for the federal funding.

In his Aug. 7 radio address to the nation, Kerry referred not once but four times to the "ban" on stem cell research instituted by Bush. At the time, Reeve was alive, so not available for posthumous exploitation. But Ronald Reagan was available, having recently died of Alzheimer's. So what does Kerry do? He begins his radio address with the disgraceful claim that the stem cell "ban" is standing in the way of an Alzheimer's cure.

This is an outright lie. The President's Council on Bioethics, on which I sit, had one of the world's foremost experts on Alzheimer's, Dennis Selkoe from Harvard, give us a lecture on the newest and most promising approaches to solving the Alzheimer's mystery. Selkoe reported remarkable progress in using biochemicals to clear the "plaque" deposits in the brain that lead to Alzheimer's. He ended his presentation without the phrase "stem cells" having passed his lips.

So much for the miracle cure. Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at NIH, has admitted publicly that stem cells as an Alzheimer's cure are a fiction, but that "people need a fairy tale." Kerry and Edwards certainly do. They are shamelessly exploiting this fairy tale, having no doubt been told by their pollsters that stem cells play well politically for them.

Politicians have long promised a chicken in every pot. It is part of the game. It is one thing to promise ethanol subsidies here, dairy price controls there. But to exploit the desperate hopes of desperate people with the promise of Christ-like cures is beyond the pale.

There is no apologizing for Edwards's remark. It is too revealing. There is absolutely nothing the man will not say to get elected.

The Poll Internals Need to be Consistent

2004-10-15T09:41:00.000-04:00

A while back, I posted what *appeared* to be media bias, from looking at the internals of two Newsweek Polls. Well, ABC is doing the same thing - except in the opposite direction (which doesn't look too good for Bush - higher Republican samples, Kerry and Bush practically even). While Newsweek polled a higher sample of Democrats than Republicans in their different polls, ABC polled a higher sample of Republicans than Democrats. For instance, in the Newsweek samples, Republicans lost five percentage points, and Democrats gained six. In the ABC poll, Democrats lost five percentage points and Republicans gained six - the exact opposite. The ABC poll from the 2nd Presidential Debate can be found here and the one from the 3rd Presidential Debate here.

There are some differences and questions that could be asked. For starters, the Newsweek poll was just a presidential tracking poll. The ABC polls were those of who won the debates. The key that needs to be seen is how, if at all, will voters minds be changed by this? For instance, coming off of the Republican National Convention, Bush had a nice lead over Kerry. However this lead had vanished after the first debate. Since the first debate, its been pretty even.

However, as both the Newsweek and ABC polls have shown me, you can't rely on the polls. There's no guarantee that Zogby or Gallup will be as accurate as they were in the past. After haphazardly looking at polls for the longest time, gauging how the candidates are doing, I can't trust the polls anymore. I'll rule out ANY internet poll for starters, and the other polls will need to be examined by looking closely at the internals.

I will be more apt to trust the rolling averages from RealClearPolitics - which is taking the average of every major poll and making a composite of them all.

Bottom Line: The only poll that matters is the final one from November 2nd.

My take on the whole Mary Cheney thing

2004-10-14T16:01:00.000-04:00

First off, it didn't bother me, although it was distasteful and disrespectful. Just because she is a homosexual, doesn't mean she is "fair game." Mary Beth Cahill feels that being the Vice President's daughter that makes her fair game. It was ackward and disrespectful, and now Kerry probably wishes he didn't say it. That and the comment about marrying up at the end. I think we all need to relax and ponder why the Bush/Cheney team didn't look into the following bumper sticker -

Picture of the Day

2004-10-13T20:19:00.000-04:00

What the other conservative blogs won't report

2004-10-12T23:48:00.000-04:00

Honestly, I can't believe I'm reading this. Lets start off by saying that I am EXTREMELY against this, regardless of which side is doing it. So far we've got people registering multiple times in Colorado, a town in Ohio with more registered voters than voting age adults, hundreds of late voter applicants being accepted in Florida from an anti-Bush group, and now this -

Employees of a private voter registration company allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters who may think they are registered will be rudely surprised on election day. The company claims hundreds of registration forms were thrown in the trash.

Anyone who has recently registered or re-registered to vote outside a mall or grocery store or even government building may be affected.

The I-Team has obtained information about an alleged widespread pattern of potential registration fraud aimed at democrats. Thee focus of the story is a private registration company called Voters Outreach of America, AKA America Votes.

The out-of-state firm has been in Las Vegas for the past few months, registering voters. It employed up to 300 part-time workers and collected hundreds of registrations per day, but former employees of the company say that Voters Outreach of America only wanted Republican registrations.

Two former workers say they personally witnessed company supervisors rip up and trash registration forms signed by Democrats.

"We caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant and he ripped them up right in front of us. I grabbed some of them out of the garbage and she tells her assistant to get those from me," said Eric Russell, former Voters Outreach employee.

Eric Russell managed to retrieve a pile of shredded paperwork including signed voter registration forms, all from Democrats. We took them to the Clark County Election Department and confirmed that they had not, in fact, been filed with the county as required by law.

So the people on those forms who think they will be able to vote on Election Day are sadly mistaken. We attempted to speak to Voters Outreach but found that its office has been rented out to someone else.

The landlord says Voters Outreach was evicted for non-payment of rent. Another source said the company has now moved on to Oregon where it is once again registering voters. It's unknown how many registrations may have been tossed out, but another ex-employee told Eyewitness News she had the same suspicions when she worked there.

It's going to take a while to sort all of this out, but the immediate concern for voters is to make sure you really are registered

Now the part which I can't verify, the company is supposedly funded by the GOP. I'm sure the left of the blogosphere will run wild with this story, speaking about disenfranchising voters and bringing up Florida in 2000, even though none of them probably covered the vandalism and thefts of Bush Headquarters nationwide, or the stories I mentioned at the start...oh well, hopefully we can all agree that voter fraud and prevention is wrong.

The Myth of Zogby

2004-10-12T22:09:00.000-04:00

Looking back at the 2000 election, how close were all the pollsters? For starters, the race was as follows:

Bush 48%, Gore 48%, Other 4%. Now, on to the 2000 poll margins of error -

Zogby: Bush -2 Gore Accurate

Washington Post: Bush Accurate, Gore -3

Pew: Bush -2, Gore -5

Newsweek: Bush -3, Gore -5

NBC / Wall Street Journal: Bush -1, Gore -4

Marist: Bush +1, Gore -4

Harris: Bush -1, Gore -1

Gallup: Bush Accurate, Gore -2

Fox News: Bush -5, Gore -5

CBS News: Bush -4, Gore -3

Battleground: Bush +2, Gore -3

The reason I post this is because I've had many people commenting to me that Zogby is the "de facto standard" in polling. Looking at the 2000 election, the common theory that Zogby was the most accurate isn't really that accurate. Harris and Gallup were within the same margin, being two points off total. Now, the blog Daily Thoughts points out some interesting info - In the 2002 Senate and Gubernatorial races, a certain pollster was wrong 29% of the time, whereas the other polls were only wrong an average of 13% of the time. You guessed it, its Zogby. Interestingly enough, there was only one pollster who polled more 2002 races than Zogby. The pollster was Mason Dixon - They only got 1 wrong out of 24 predictions (Zogby predicted 23 races).

A disturbing post

2004-10-12T17:35:00.000-04:00

When Christopher Reeve passed away, I commented that we had lost a great man who stood for a worthy cause. Speaking to some friends, I hoped that his death wouldn't be politicized. Unfortunately, like many deaths of notable people, and in a time like this, that isn't the case. As most have seen or heard on the radio or TV, Vice Presidential Candidate, Senator John Edwards, made the following comment earlier about Mr. Reeve...

When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.

It bothers me that the death of a man would be exploited for political gain. I'll note that some on the right did the same thing when former President Reagan passed away earlier this year. To take someone, when their family is still in mourning, and basically say "Vote for me, and I'll fix that so it doesn't happen again" I think of the typical politician that promises the sun and the moon - anything to get elected. I can't see this comment helping the Kerry campaign - if anything, I can see it hurting them, at least from the viewpoint that the average American will feel the same way I have about them saying anything they can to be elected. Talking to some coworkers and my fiancée, none of which are political to say the least, they've all basically told me it was pretty cold and as one of them told me - "Another asshole politician."

The stem-cell issue has been overplayed and spun more than most can imagine. The picture painted is that President Bush single-handedly stopped embryonic stem-cell research and because of which people like Mr. Reeve are dying. The fact is that President Bush is the first President to allow federal funding for this research, and just limited it to the existing lines. This doesn't apply to any private funding, which I feel is key. If someday embryonic stem-cells are shown to cure ailments, then we can dive into the moral and ethical issues about allowing federal funding.

Rest in peace Mr. Reeve - Someday the ideals you had will be met by modern technology.

Update: Today on WJR 760AM Detroit, myself, and a couple of other people close to me, heard Terry McAuliffe say something very close to "Christopher Reeve died because George Bush didn't properly fund stem cell research." All I can say is...wow...

As with most quotes on the Radio, there's no real way to verify them unless you have the audio. Unfortunately, I forgot my handy dandy tape recorder while I was driving to school this morning to hear it, oh drat.

Also, Charles Krauthammer has a "real" take on this issue, himself being in a wheelchair. Here's what Mr. Krauthammer said last night on 'Special Report with Brit Hume.'

Well, no one really knows, one of the great mysteries in medicine is why the spinal cord does not regenerate, and no one has any idea of the answers, no one is in any way sure that we're going to learn the answer from stem cell research. We might, but I've heard a lot of hype over the last 30 years about the keys to the kingdom here in this issue and all of that have proved false. For Edwards to make the claim he did is the worst demagoguery I've heard in Washington in a quarter century. To imply that Christopher Reeve was kept in the wheelchair because of the policies of the Bush administration on stem cells is ridiculous and insulting.

Another voice for bigger tax cuts

2004-10-12T16:58:00.000-04:00

Before work this morning, I caught an interesting article from the AFP over on Yahoo. Basically, the Nobel Peace Prize winner for Economics - Edward Prescott - called for bigger tax cuts in the United States. Many of the faithful readers here and people close to me know that I'm very big for larger tax cuts, and therefore am tickled pink to hear this. Mr. Prescott even claimed that the tax cuts we've received were pretty small and should have been larger - to which I agree. Here are a few quotes from that article...

"What Bush has done has been not very big, it's pretty small," Prescott told CNBC financial news television.

"Tax rates were not cut enough," he said.

Lower tax rates provided an incentive to work, Prescott said.

He went on to say that a large tax cut in 1986 had lowered rates, while at the same time collecting the same revenue. However, he went on to say, during the 1990s the tax increases hurt the economy by about four percent - the level its at right now. Personally, I can't think of anyone who is in favor of greater taxes.

Senator Kerry will supposedly roll back the tax cut on those making over $200,000 - which he has mentioned on multiple occasions as the top two tax brackets. An interesting note however is that, according to how the tax brackets work, if you are a single person making eighty thousand, you are considered in the top two tax brackets. The way the taxes are paid, with the top ten percent paying roughly fifty percent of all taxes, I can't see how someone could try to fool us by rolling back the tax cuts for the people who pay the most in taxes. I'm sure there's differing opinion.

Also: I'm playing with the layouts now and fonts, so bear with me.

Non-Political question about this blog

2004-10-11T15:30:00.000-04:00

What do you think of the minor new layout with the light blue background for the quotes? Easier or harder to read? Any comments are appreciated.

Terrorism and Prostitution?

2004-10-11T15:27:00.000-04:00

I haven't commented much on the over blogged quotes of Kerry claiming the terrorists are nuisances. However, upon further depth, I've wondered how Kerry could, in the Times article, compare terrorism to prostitution and illegal. I for one, don't want to take the same approach against terrorist that we do against prostitutes and other undesirable elements.

The way law enforcement has dealt with prostitution and illegal gambling is by occasionally trying to shut down the most visible and obvious instances, tolerating what is likely millions of violations of the law per year, de jure legalizing many sorts of gambling and de jure legalizing one sort of prostitution in Nevada, and de facto legalizing many sorts of prostitution almost everywhere; as best I can tell, "escort services" are very rarely prosecuted to the point that they are listed in the Yellow Pages.

When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance," Kerry said. "As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."

Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA had an interesting take on it over at :

I see Kerry's point: Terrorists, unlike Nazi Germany or the USSR, can't be entirely defeated, because there'll always be the possibility that some more springing up. We can end the war on some particular terrorists by killing them all or getting them to stop, but we can't end the war on terrorism generally that way. The best we can hope for is that there'll be a lot fewer terrorist attacks. That's certainly an important point, and it's worth keeping in mind.

These are examples of practical surrender, or at least a cease-fire punctuated by occasional but largely half-hearted and ineffectual sorties. It's true that illegal gambling and prostitution aren't "threatening the fabric of [American] life," but that's because they never threatened it that much in the first place. One can live in a nation with millions of acts of prostitution or illegal gambling per year or per day. There are good reasons for simply calling off those wars altogether. Surely the strategy for dealing with terrorism must be very different, in nearly every conceivable way, from the strategy for dealing with prostitution or illegal gambling. (Maybe if Kerry had simply compared terrorism to organized crime, the analogy might have been a bit closer. But even there, it would be pretty distant, and in any event "organized crime" seemed in his quote to be a way of characterizing certain kinds of prostitution or illegal gambling offenses — he didn't even refer to the more harmful forms of organized crime.)

I realize that quotes in newspaper articles (yes, even in the New York Times) can be taken out of context. Still, this was a pretty long and self-contained quote, which suggests that Kerry was indeed making this analogy, and making it deliberately. And it strikes me as a singularly inapt analogy to make, an analogy that ought to make one question its user's underlying thinking about the problem.

He then added the following:

Let's say that in response to a sharp increase in the number of rapes, or of racist anti-black violence, or anti-Semitic violence, a President John Kerry had declared War on Rape / War on Racism / War on Anti-Semitism (a somewhat more metaphorical war than the War on Terrorism, but still close enough).

Let's also say that Governor George W. Bush, who was challenging President Kerry in the presidential election wanted to argue that this is a different sort of war, one in which we can't expect total victory. He certainly wasn't arguing that nothing should be done about racism, anti-black violence, or anti-Semitic violence. He had his own proposals, though ones that Kerry's supporters thought weren't tough enough, and were otherwise misguided. But he wanted to point out that we should be realistic about this: We shouldn't talk the rhetoric of total victory, where we had to realize that some background level of rape, anti-black violence, or anti-Semitic violence was inevitable. And let's say that this is how he made this point:

"We have to get back to the place we were, where [rapists / Klansmen / anti-Semitic attackers] are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."

The letter of this argument is quite correct: Indeed, even the best strategy could at best just reduce the incidence of rape, anti-black violence, and anti-Semitic violence to a level that, while regrettable, is in some sense tolerable.

But would we be happy with Governor Bush's use of the analogy to prostitution or illegal gambling (for more details, see below)? Or would we think that, though the letter is accurate, the use of such an analogy seems inconsistent with the spirit that we're looking for in someone who can effectively fight the very serious evils that need to be fought?

So it heeds the question - Is terrorism just like prostitution and illegal gambling to Kerry where he doesn't think it really affects us? And if the roles were reversed, can anyone argue that the liberal media would run away with this story?

Kerry Kerry quite contrary

2004-10-11T13:43:00.000-04:00

John Kerry’s newest talking point claims that President Bush took his "eye off the ball" by raising the Iraq issue after September 11th, the "ball" being the exclusive hunt for Osama bin Laden and the elements of Al Qaeda that remained in Afghanistan. So then tell me - why, in his October 9, 2002 speech just prior to his vote affirming the authorization for the use of force, did John Kerry criticize the Bush Administration for not moving sooner against Iraq, after September 11th?

But the administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago and particularly a year ago after September 11. They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now. The administration’s decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case.

A nice summary of Friday's debate

2004-10-11T09:35:00.000-04:00

Being out of town for the weekend, I thought of how I could summarize Friday's debate into something interesting and original. It would appear that I can't. There's nothing I can really touch on from the debate that hasn't been touched on. There are however, some quotes and points of interest I'd like to make. Many of these come from today's not-so-liberal New York Times column from William Safire.

On the war, Kerry almost eagerly made Bush's point, at first saying, "I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat," and moments later denouncing Bush for being "preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat."

When Kerry complained again of "going it alone," Bush was ready with a powerful counterpunch: "Tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Silvio Berlusconi we're going alone. Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski we're going alone."

This not only showed that Bush knew these allies personally, but could also pronounce Kwasniewski's name, which reminded Polish-Americans that Poland's president had responded angrily to Kerry's brushoff of his country's sacrifices in the first debate. (Next day, Australians re-elected John Howard, a staunch coalition member, who trounced a cut-and-run opponent - good news for coalition leaders.)

Asked about high damage awards gained by trial lawyers that drive up everybody's insurance premiums, he replied that John Edwards and he "support tort reform," even to limitations on punitive awards. Bush delivered a body blow: "You're now for capping punitive damages. That's odd. You should have shown up on the floor in the Senate and voted for it then."

In an anguishing moment, Kerry said he was against partial-birth abortion (as are most voters, including many pro-choice) and then explained why he voted against the ban that is now law. Countered Bush: "He was given a chance to vote and he voted no. . . . It's clear for everybody to see. And as I said, you can run, but you can't hide."

Not to mention, John Kerry mentioned the phrase "I have a plan" roughly 34-38 times, depending on which count you believe. However, the number of times he explained that plan was 0. In defense of Senator Kerry however, he did direct us all to his website - http://www.johnkerry.com - instead of wasting the valuable time of viewers by going over details. Is giving websites, by both Dick Cheney and John Kerry, on national television a byproduct of our country living in a technological age, or just laziness? Or perhaps does it have to do with only having a short amount of time, up to two minutes depending, for each question. If I'm not mistaken, previous "debates" had a larger window for speaking and rebutting information. The joys of a culture without an ability to stay focused...

A quick and easily overlooked fact about the oil prices

2004-10-10T23:55:00.000-04:00

First, I'm not going to say that oil prices aren't high. However, at $53 per barrel, although a record, it could be alot worse. The oil prices, while 70 percent higher than that of a year ago, are roughly $27 below the peak inflation-adjusted price reached in 1981.

I can't help but wonder what many, including Senator Kerry said about a so called Bush/Saudi conspiracy to lower oil prices before the election. When I asked a couple people at work about it, they claimed either one of two things -

It isn't election day yet.
The prices being higher are proof of a conspiracy to give Halliburton and Bush more money.

Not very surprisingly, I haven't heard much about drilling in ANWAR (which I strongly support). I hear the candidates flapping their gums about how we should lower our dependence on foreign oil, but here's what I find interesting. A recent study I read (sorry I don't have the source) showed that only one middle eastern country was in the top five for importers of oil to America. The first two were Canada and Mexico, with the lone middle eastern country being Saudi Arabia at number three. I can't recall too much, but I think the last two were Nigeria and I believe a country from South America.

Another nice article, which I commented on a while ago here on the blog, was that saying that it wasn't that we had a shortage of oil, but rather a shortage of refineries to produce the oil.

Build more refineries, get more jobs.
Drill in ANWAR, get more jobs.

From what I've seen, the majority of Alaskans support the drilling of ANWAR. Why should others from out of state tell them they can't do something which is in relation to their state?

Does anyone have any other theories on the inflation price of oil, drilling in ANWAR, or a Bush/Saudi conspiracy for lowering the price of oil? All intelligent comments are welcome.

Why the 2nd Debate was important

2004-10-10T23:29:00.000-04:00

Personally, I think President Bush beat Kerry pretty good. It wasn't as bad as Kerry beat Bush in the first debate, but I think the format was suited for him, and that he performed very well.

However, I think the tide has turned once again. It seemed that Kerry would run away with it until the RNC, when Bush took over and had a commanding lead until the first debate, which pushed Kerry above Bush or even with him, which then eroded towards the second debate, and now it seems that Bush is back in front again.

I think that there was a turning point, and it was when Kerry was asked the question about abortion. Kerry, to put it nicely, basically avoided the question about funding abortions with taxpayers money, but the look on the face of the woman who asked the question was priceless.

To me, Kerry's avoidance of the question by trying to play both sides and be "political" about it was seen all to evident by the undecideds. Lets face it, the right will see Bush as doing well regardless from now, and left will see the opposite. So you could argue that Kerry or Bush performed better overall - I'll argue that Bush did better with the undecided voters though. He had the "joke" of the night when talking about his so called logging company. So where Kerry can claim he owned part of it, that doesn't apply anymore, and the people who are undecided won't look at the blogs online to see all the spin from both sides.

Unless Bush looks clueless and Kerry looks flawless in the last debate, I see Bush pulling away. Bush just has to do well enough to let voters keep him. Kerry has to do very well where the majority of voters feel that Bush has to go. As of this post, I don't see the majority of voters feeling that way...

Last post for most of the weekend

2004-10-08T13:59:00.000-04:00

As usual, I'll be out of town at the fiancee's house. I'll hear the debate at work tonight, but I won't have any comments on it, or on Brad's live debate comment. I look forward to it however, and I wish you all a wonderful weekend.

Troll

Political concerts driving away younger voters

2004-10-08T13:22:00.000-04:00

I just saw this article from Knight Ridder, speaking about how the anti-Bush concerts are turning away younger voters. As a young person myself, albeit conservative, I couldn't agree more. When college kids my age go to a concert or listen to music, it isn't to get a political view. This isn't Vietnam, no matter what the musicians want to try and turn this into. We go to listen to music FOR the music. This is why artists like Linda Rhondstadt are booed for voicing their views. We don't want to hear political views at concerts or in songs. As many students say, the artists are just anti-Bush, which doesn't help at all. Instead of saying how to be better, its just "We need to get rid of Bush." Here's the article:

As big-name bands storm the country with an anti-Bush, pro-voting vigor this fall, young adults in this musical hot spot have a message for the lefty crooners:
Cool it on the hatin' - and serve up some hopeful vision instead of just knocking Republicans.
"A lot of musicians bash the current administration rather than forwarding a specific agenda," said Shawn Wilson, 19, an English major at the University of North Carolina who calls himself socially liberal but fiscally conservative.
"I find it slightly offensive that they're going out of their way to influence young people's politics."
Today's political tunes may not be as inspired or as impassioned as the anti-war lyrics of the Vietnam War era, UNC students said. But even in this Democratic bastion in a Bush-leaning state, some Generation Y'ers are concerned that current "political" music centers on ripping apart Republicans and lacks any John Lennon-like utopian goals.
The MoveOn.org-sponsored "Vote for Change" tour is taking 40 left-leaning shows nationwide before Election Day, touting appearances by Bruce Springsteen, Bonnie Raitt, Pearl Jam, the Dixie Chicks, Dave Matthews Band, Kenny "Babyface" Edmonds and James Taylor.
At the same time, punk rockers promoted through PunkVoter.com are pushing Bush-knocking sentiments through cyberspace. Hip-hop artists have boarded the train as well, with Mary J. Blige, Chingy, Ashanti and others joining forces for a redo of the 1970s hit "Wake Up, Everybody." That song is billed online as a get-out-the-vote effort, but proceeds from sales are supporting America Coming Together, an anti-Bush group.
Many of the musicians exhort young people to become more politically aware, and they call repeatedly for change - a not-so-subtle slap at the Bush administration.
That's leaving young people in Chapel Hill, N.C., long an incubator for musical talent, weary and a little wary, even as the Vote for Change tour has bypassed their area.
Political music now, they say, is less formative and more reactionary.
"I don't think it's as defined as it was in the `60s," said Southey Blanton, 21, who's studying communications at UNC. He said political rhetoric in popular music is more subliminal and that his peers "search for music that relates to their political views."
Even then, he guessed that only about half of his generation looks to music for political substance. Others said even politically driven listeners are skeptical of lyrical political messages.
"Top 100 (songs) are big on campus, but nobody probably pays attention to politics in them," said Courtney Richardson, 20, a geography major. She said the underground music scene in Chapel Hill is far more politically charged than mass-produced recordings and offers a more global perspective.
At its core, though, popular music's place as an outpost of unconventional ideas has been constant across the last 70 years, said an expert at the University of Southern California.
"I doubt that there's all that much change at all in terms of the underlying fundamental role," said Matthew Baum, 39, an associate professor of political science and communication studies. "Popular music is the same as it was in the 1930s, `40s, `50s. It got harder over time."
But setting this election cycle apart, he said, is a centralization of politicization. That is, where politically groundbreaking anti-war bands in the 1960s trekked across the country in a jumble of activism, the MoveOn.org concerts today are choreographed on a national level. Such concerts with a common political thread got started in the `80s, Baum said.
"What's arguably happening on a larger scale now is endorsement of a partisan position or a candidate," he said. The proliferating endorsements are a relatively new plane for music - well removed from the social commentary of earlier artists, including Bob Dylan, who didn't endorse particular candidates but instead advanced ideas, Baum said.
"I don't think any contemporary artist has anything on Dylan in terms of social commentary," he said.
Back at Chapel Hill, musician Stephen Levitin, 28, said most college students are so liberal that political "preaching to the choir" isn't terribly effective.
The musical response during Vietnam was more vigorous and effective "partly because the war then was drafting young people," said Levitin, who bills himself as the Apple Juice Kid. "I think people would respond if someone came out in a serious way with a statement against the war."
But there could be a credibility problem in that, too, some twentysomethings suggested. Trouble is, faced with political music that consistently skews to the left, young people tend to gloss over lyrics and aren't especially inspired to shake up the government, said Christiana Johnson, 20.
"I don't feel comfortable playing only liberal stuff," said Richard Cross, 23, an aerospace student at Georgia Tech who works at a student radio station there. "If we're going to play only liberal stuff. ... I think it's better to err on the side of caution and be apolitical."
Which isn't to say that his station, WREK, has many current political tunes in its library. Of 250 albums that it's received in the past several weeks - all of them jockeying for airtime - only 10 are politically charged, Cross said. And all 10 of those, he said, lean left.
It echoes a political diversity problem, young North Carolinians said, adding that the only musical places they can find conservative perspectives are Ted Nugent songs, country music and Christian rock.
"I don't think it's wrong for them (musicians) to tell people who they've chosen, who they support and campaign for," said Christopher Dickson, 22, a psychology major at UNC.
Still, he said, young people "need to do our own homework."