save the debate!

First Name* Last Name* Email* Address City State select AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY ZIP Yes, I'd like to receive updates about staying involved. I'm a blogger and I'd like to help. Blog URL: I support: select Sam Brownback Rudy Giuliani Mike Huckabee Duncan Hunter John McCain Ron Paul Mitt Romney Tom Tancredo Fred Thompson Tommy Thompson

To: Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson

We've read the news reports that only two of your fellow candidates have agreed to attend the Republican Party of Florida/YouTube debate, and there are major candidates considering snubbing the event.

As Republicans, we believe this is a serious mistake. Every Democratic candidate eagerly accepted the opportunity to answer questions from the American people via YouTube, even Hillary Clinton, the most cautious and calculating of the bunch.

Attend the YouTube debate, and you may get a tough question or two. Don't attend, and millions of Americans will wonder if you were too afraid to answer questions from the Internet, just as Democrats were afraid to go on Fox News. None of you could have gotten to where you are now without showing real political courage. Is that really how you'd like to be known?

Republicans cannot write off the Internet. Thus far, the Democratic candidates have dramatically outperformed Republicans online, most alarmingly in online fundraising. We believe this is a direct result of failing to effectively engage the medium and seize the tremendous opportunity of bottom-up grassroots activism. If you approach the Internet from a position of paralyzing fear, you will be out-gunned, out-manned, and out-raised at every turn. It is fundamentally unacceptable to surrender to the Democrats on one of the most important battlefronts of this election.

And Republicans cannot write off the youth vote. A recent poll showed Democrats with a staggering 24-point advantage among 18 to 29 year old voters. Once a generation of voters is lost like this (just think of the New Deal or Reagan Generations) they are extremely difficult to get back. We are under no illusions that a YouTube debate alone can change that, but denigrating the way millions of young Americans live and communicate does not help.

We sincerely hope you will reconsider any decision to snub the critical January 29th primary state of Florida and 51 million unique YouTube users. The Republican Party is about freedom. A free and open debate that includes the American people could be just what the doctor ordered to break the stanglehold of the liberal media.

Embed this petition on your blog. Cut and paste below:
'>

Willard flip flops again!

April 2007:

"Why is it that the Democrats wouldn't even go on Fox, but we Republicans are happy to sit there and have Chris Matthews of the Carter administration, former chief of staff to (ex-House speaker) Tip O'Neill?" asked Romney

July 2007:

In an interview Wednesday with the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader, Romney said he's not a fan of the CNN/YouTube format. Referring to the video of a snowman asking the Democratic candidates about global warming, Romney quipped, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."

Grow a spine pal.

P.S. I did not know telling a citizen to "lighten up" in a town hall meeting was a subset of a "higher level".

McCain is awesome

McCain pwns General Pace and some other general on Iraq.

In other news McCain is 3 points off Giuliani nationally:

Rudy Giuliani 20%
Fred Thompson 19%
John McCain 17%
Mitt Romney 8%

McCain Hatchet job by CNN

I nice piece of fair an balanced journalism with an extremely flattering picture to boot.

"McCain loses key South Carolina supporter" the title reads.

Who is she? Cyndi Mosteller. Cyndia who? She doesn't even have an article on wikipedia. I'm not sure how "key" such a person is.

However, McCain did receive an endorsement from Buddy Roemer who fetches 14,000 Google hits. 20 times more than Cyndia. Click here for The Smackdown.

Bush aligns with McCain.

Bush continues to align himself with McCain.

On (possibly) closing Guantanamo Bay
On CIA interrigation methods
On the troop surge

Has Bush tipped his had for a McCain endorsement?

Rudy's Leadership

I ready Rudy's book Leadership back in 2002/2003. The book was ok, but I never forgot when he touted his mad attorney skills:

Banishing the squeegee operators was something I suspected we could accomplish fairly easily - and that would have an immediate and measurable impact. I called Police Commissioner Bill Bratton and Denny Young, who played in important role in all equality-of-life-initiatives. Bratton, who shared my belief in treating small crimes as a way to establish lawful, civil behavior and a feeling of safety, came back in a couple of days and told me that the Police Department said that getting rid of the squeegee men couldn't be done. He wanted to do it, but had been told that so long as they were not physically threatening drivers or "demanding" money, we lacked a legal basis to move the operations along or arrest them if they refused.

This is an example of how being a lawyer and former prosecutor could be helpful. I said, "How about the fact that they're jaywalking?" I told him to forget about whether they were asking for money or not. When they stepped off the curb and walked out onto the street they had just violated the law. You could give every single one of them a ticket immediately. Then, in giving them a ticket, you could investigate who they were, whether there were outstanding warrants, and so on. If they became intimidating you could arrest them.

Get them on jaywalking? That's the secret to dismantling New York's world famous squeegee problem? I could have figured that one out on my own. However, I'm not disillusioned enough to think that's a platform from whence I can run for President.

McCain and the media

Why did McCain's relation with the media turn south?

McCain is at odds with the mainstream media for because of his stance on the war. Plain and simple. While he once enjoyed Jon Stewart/Daily show cred, it is now all but gone.

Compare "Sen. John McCain Pt. 2" from April 2007 to "Senator John McCain" from July 2006. Also Marty McFl... er. George Stephanopoulos' headline poaching provocation where he bounced the question, "are you a dead man walking?" Not exactly your finest moment George.

Then there's the immigration. There are a handful of pundits who are stuck in 2000 somewhere between New Hampshire and South Carolina and are still hellbent on a McCain defeat. These talking heads had enough influence to convince enough people to crash Washington's swithboard. Polls however show they only made up 15% of the population who thought the bill didn't go far enough. Then they patted these calling zombies on the back telling them anything Ted Kennedy was involved with was the spawn of Satan. They coveniently left out several parts:
1) Kennedy was involved with the no child left behind which most of the GOP supports
2) In voting against Kennedy, they were also voting WITH Barbara Boxer.
3) They wanted debate while the bill was on the floor, but became enraged when they voted to reopen debate. (Why didn't these guys just honestly call for a fillibuster of the bill. I'm talking to Sean Hannity.)
4) In killing the bill, any serious legislation on immigration will have been delayed thru the election year of 2008. Our immigration system has been broken for over 3 decades. Why would our current laws spontaneously heal itself now? That's directed to your Laura Ingraham.
EDIT: and 5) Every tier 1 GOP candidate has historically been just as soft on immigration as McCain, but McCain was the only one to stick to his guns. All the hawkish immigration candidates haven't got a prayer of being elected. (Hunter, Tancredo).

Anyway that's what happened to McCain. He got flogged by the mainstream media by supporting the war and the far right had a war flashback to the 2000 Republican primaries. It's pretty hard to listen to an entire segment on right wing radio and now hear McCain bashing. McCain seemed to be a pretty popular guy when he bashed Donald Rumsfeld for being the worst Secretary of Defense's of all time. But when he was replaced with Gates and David Petraeus replaced George Casey with new stratagies to boot, the mainstream wanted nothing to do. Here's a tip: McCain was calling for a new strategy. Bashing Rumsfeld for the sake of bashing Rumsfeld gets us nowhere pretty frekin fast. Now the mainstream media has accused McCain for aligning himself with Bush. Wise up dimwitts. McCain called for a new strategy within months of Bush's so called mission accomplished speech. There was an alligning BUSH ALIGNED HIMSELF WITH MCCAIN.

McCain the strongest round 2

According to the latest Foxnews poll, McCain is still the strongest GOPer vs the Dems. Also, he's tied for second with Fred Thompson.

McCain fares best against the Dems

After getting crushed by the main stream media and getting flogged by the Right Wing media. McCain fares BEST against all the Dems.

Rudy vs IAFF

Everyone+Dog knows the IAFF has a scathing video attacking Rudy Giuliani. What I want to know is why Rudy's rebuttal merely attacked the organization for being left-leaning. Who cares? The most partisan hacks can have valid points. Take, for example, Larry Flint's smack down on Senator David Vitter. How much sympathy would Vitter get from voters if he merely said Flint was liberal? If these allogations are unfounded prove it!

BTW, Vitter just so happens to be Giuliani's sole endorsement from the Senate for President. Ouch.

Also noteworthy is that McCain leads all Republicans and Democrats with 9. And as a Colorado resident I'm desparately trying to get Allard to reconsider on Romney. I wrote him an email and instantly got an automated email said I'd get information in the mail on Allard's position on the war in Iraq (WTF?). That was about two months ago, and not a single letter from my Senator. Figures.

The latest (?) Romney Flip-Flop

Far be it from me to conclude that this is Romney's latest flip-flop as the flop in question is at least 72 hours old. That's more than enough time for old Willard to stick his finger in the air and have a new conviction. But here it is:

Romney said in a June 5 Republican debate that "we ought to double Guantanamo" but didn't mean it literally, spokesman Kevin Madden says.

Not literally, hu? I wonder if we should take your pro-life stance literally Mitt. What say you?

Tough break Willard

White House to close Gitmo. If you feel so strongly about your crusade to "double Guantanamo Bay" now is the time to actually DO something about it. Of course by now if you don't know that Romney is all talk, chances are you'll never know. In the mean time, here's some advice: Don't comment on things you know nothing about.

P.S. I cannot wait to hear this charlatan on Meet the Press. I may actially pitty him.

McCain a RINO?

Hardly. He's not on the top 10 list. Opportunist Mitt makes a strong showing however at number 8. Way to go Willard!

On earmarks and pork spending, McCain is among the most tax payer friendly Senators. Show me a person that's surprised, and I'll show someone who's sold out on right wing talk radio. Clever Rush, really clever.

Romney supporter defects to the McCain Camp

Utah Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble defects to McCain. Defectors from Romney's own back yard. Nice.

Question of the Day for Mitt Romney 6-11-07

Willard,
Judges rule that enemy combatant cant be held without trial. This flies in the face of your call to double Guantanamo. Will you issue a sylable or rebuke or will you simply fold (agian) like wet cardboard?

Romney losing fundraising momentum?

That's what this site says:

Rebublican strategist Holly Robichaud said the ploy gives reason to believe that the dapper candidate is battling a financing slump.

“It kind of confirms what I’ve been hearing, that they’re getting a little desperate on the fund raising,” she said. “They’re spending faster than anyone because everyone’s holding on to it until the end.”

In April, the Romney campaign announced it had raised $21 million in the first quarter of 2007, far surpassing GOP opponents. But the cash flow slowed amid the rumblings that actor and former Republican Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson would announce his candidacy, Robichaud said.

Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera offered criticism with as much bite as a Curt Schilling splitter.

“Mitt Romney can swing for the fences to meet his fund-raising targets, but a guy from left field with nine positions on every issue will keep striking out on the campaign trail unless he starts offering the American people clear plans and ideas for the America’s future.”
Romney’s campaign did not step up to the plate yesterday despite repeated requests for comment.

I'd just like to point out that Curt Schilling endorsed McCain for 2008.

Debate 3 Recap

This Michael Goodwin fellow posted a very positive review on the third debate.

Exerpts:

McCain won the night with a show-stopping performance that was straight from
the heart....

The big loser of the night was Mitt Romney...Asked about his opposition to
the immigration bill while he was simultaneously running ads in Spanish, Romney
came off as too slick by half. He ducked the question and launched into a series
of platitudes about American values and ended by saying we have to sell more
things to Asia.

Well put. Well put indeed.

Rudy, why must you cozy up with Bernard Kerik?

This blog by Kirsten Powers highlights some pretty poor judgement on the part of America's Mayor.

link

Question of the Day for Mitt Romney 6-9-07

Willard,
Do you claim any responsibility for judges legalizing gay marriage when you were governor of the state?

Amnesty or Banana?

Call it amnesty, call it a banana if you want to, but it’s earned
citizenship.
-John McCain

How is this amnesty? It includes that the borders be secured before a guest worker program or legalization process begins. And I especially like the part about having to "acknowledge that they broke the law" when illegals begin the legalization process.

Amnesty summary.

Time to throw in with McCain for 2008

Lots of garbage is being said about McCain. Must start pro-McCain blog!

Lets start by linking to the impartial, non-partison factcheck.com for the first three GOP debates:

Debate 1

Romney’s praise, [on Massachusetts healthcare] however, is a bit premature
— and while the plan is not government-administered health insurance, it
includes mandates for individuals and employers, minimum coverage requirements, subsidized insurance and government-enforced fines for noncompliance.... [b]ut the total estimate of uninsured Massachusetts residents is 372,000. The state has a long way to go.

If only someone asked Romney why the Big Dig wasn't on his website.

Debate 2

Romney: I want to make it very clear that I'm not going to raise taxes. As
governor of Massachusetts, I made it very clear there, and I did not raise
taxes.

Technically, this is true, but it's also misleading. Romney did not
raise anything called a tax during his tenure as governor, but he did increase
state revenues by raising various types of fees. In 2003, Romney doubled fees for court filings (which include marriage licensing fees), professional registrations and firearm licenses. Romney also quintupled the per gallon delivery fee for gasoline (money that is supposed to be for cleaning up any leaks from underground fuel tanks). All told, the fees raised more than $400 million in their first year.

Debate 3

"..Mitt Romney committed the biggest factual fouls... Romney Rewrites
History..."

"The Massachusetts plan is clearly not a complete government
takeover; it builds on the private insurance industry – as do
the proposals of Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, and the health
care initiative spearheaded by Hillary Clinton in the early
’90s."

Did that get much press? Hardly. Of the top 3 candidates (McCain, Romney, and Giuliani), by far the most truthful content of the 3 debates came from McCain.

Bush to nuke Iran?

Does this worry you? If it does, it's probably because you have lack the knowledge or mental capacity to put this story into historical context. If you have this problem, here's whatcha do:

1. Google "scenario 5027". Currently there's 484 hits.

2. Find out who was President when the plan was concocted (hint: he was a dove).

3. Go back to bed.

Hillary Clinton PRE-acts to Bush

Senator Clinton reacting be Bush's state of the union speech before he actually delivers it:

"From homeland security to Social Security, from health care to a healthy economy, the message can be summed up in three words - on your own,"

There's lots of ways a political blow-hard can react to the President's speech:
There's a sincere reaction,
There's a calculated reaction,
And there's a knee jerk reaction.

But now Senator Clinton has invented a new form of reacting -a pre knee jerk reaction. That's right, Senator Clinton has reacted to a speech that hasn't even happened. This reminds me of the time Bill Clinton tried to react to the Republican Convention in '04 when he said the Republican party was going to put on a compassionate face and then shed it once the elections were over. President Clinton was wrong. Talks of compassion were non-existent. Instead the GOP Convention was dominated with talks of terrorism and national security.

Will Hillary make the same mistake? It doesn't matter. Even if the public disagrees with her, she'd never admit it.

I Have A Dream Nightmare

Sad to say, but I had never heard the entire "I Have A Dream" speech until this year on MLK Day -42 years after the speech was delivered. It's probably the greatest speech I've ever heard. Why hasn't Washington erected an enormous memorial to the man?

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. MLK spoke a message that was rooted in love and admiration for the principles on which the United States was founded. This says it all:

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

...

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

Martin Luther King had so much faith in his country that he believed that by appealing to the core principles on which the United States was founded he would help to create the "greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation."

Now Hillary Clinton comes out this week trivialize slavery by saying the congress runs like a plantation. Why? Because as far as I'm concerned, she doesn't love her country and she has to resort to race baiting to get the country back on a path that she feels is appropriate.

Then you've got Ray Nagin saying New Orleans needs to be a black city. Obviously he missed this:

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

...

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

To me, it's clear Senator Clinton and Nagin don't love their country.

Steve Ballmer contradicts himself

Steve Ballmer throws out a blatant contradiction

Steve Ballmer reminds me of my self when I used to have computer debates back in high school.

NO! Microsoft will always rule the world!
NO! Linux will destroy them
Netscape rules.

My friends and I would make computer predictions. One common thread in all the debates is that we’d all act like we knew everything. The tone in our voices said it all.

Then I went to college and grew up. Steve Ballmer didn’t. It’s pretty easy to pick up on his arrogant tone when he talks. Here’s the link.

Then Steve throws out a blatant contradiction. The old do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do. Grr.

STEVE SHEPARD: What was the best, wisest advice Bill Gates ever gave you professionally and personally? He got you to work there.

STEVE BALLMER: The best advice. I say probably the best advice he ever gave me was to drop out of school. (Laughter.) And that was a huge deal. I mean, my dad didn't go to college, as you mentioned, and the notion that I was going to drop out of business school was just loony to him, I mean, beyond insane. And if it hadn't been kind of for Bill's persistence and encouragement and advice, I'd probably be selling auto insurance right now.

STEVE SHEPARD: What we all tell our kids, you know, you look around and you see Bill Gates dropped out of college, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, all these people didn't go to college, who didn't finish college, "Hey, dad, I don't have to go to college either," what do you say to your kids?

STEVE BALLMER: I think if your kid comes to you with an idea that's compelling, as Michael Dell, Larry Ellison and Bill Gates, give 'em some money and tell 'em to drop out. (Laughter.) And in the 99.9999999 percent case tell them to get back to work, which is what I'd tell my kids..

Then not more than 2 minutes later....

STEVE SHEPARD: Why aren't there more women at the top levels of Microsoft?

STEVE BALLMER: I just finished a set of reviews of all of our businesses, the people, where all we did was talk for basically a day with each of our business leaders about people issues, who, what, where, when. We talked about diversity, we talked about how we broaden diversity, we talked about our talent pool. And in a sense I'm proud because we've made progress over the last few years in terms of the number of women vice president, executives at Microsoft. This was a year of again progress. I think we're up to 14 vice presidents in our ranks out of about 100, up from 10 roughly 18 months ago, so progress.

You could say, OK, that's still a small number and I think that's right. I think one of the key issues is if you look at our employee population, our employee population is about 65 percent people with technical background, and if you look at the graduation rates for women in technical fields, particularly in computer science, we are not disproportionately below or above the number of women who get into technical fields, and I think we more reflect the fact that we're looking for technical people.

What can we do, what can society do to encourage more women to get in the technical field? That's a very good and important question where a lot of ideas are being experimented with. I don't think there's any one breakthrough though yet we can point to.

Air America's Ratings Suck!

With all the talk and hype surrounding Air America Radio, I thought they’d at least have decent ratings. So I did some googleing today. I was wrong. So very very wrong. I’ve compiled a fairly rough list from 3 websites that rank radio shows by popularity. Here’s the websites:

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/373426p-317475c.html
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2005/05/annual-talk-host-rankings-revealed.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/1/14399/2475

Here’s a list that I kinda slapped together based on the above links:

Rank Talkshow Host Listeners (In Millions)
1 Rush Limbaugh 14.75
2 Sean Hannity 13
3 Michael Savage 8.75
4 Dr. Laura Schlessinger 7.5
4 Howard Stern 8.5
6 Laura Ingraham 5
7 Neal Boortz 3.5
8 Mike Gallagher 3.5
8 Jim Bohannon 3.75
10 Clark Howard 3.25
10 Bill O’Reilly 3.25
10 Doug Stephen 3.25
13 Glenn Beck 3
14 Dr. Joy Browne 2.75
14 Don Imus 2.75
14 George Noory 2.75
17 Jerry Doyle 1.5
18 Kim Komando 2
18 Michael Medved 2
18 Dave Ramsey 2
21 Bill Bennett 1.25
21 Jim Rome 2
23 Bob Brinker 1.75
23 Ed Schultz 1.5
25 Tom Leykis 1.25
26 G. Gordon Liddy 1
26 Jim Cramer 1
28 Al Franken 1
28 Tony Snow 1
30 Alan Colmes 1
31 Dr. Dean Edell 1
31 Phil Hendrie 1
31 Rusty Humphreys 1
31 Stephanie Miller 1

The ONLY two Air America pundits (out of 16) to crack the top 34 are Al Franken and Ed Schultz. They’re 2 for 34! Put another way, they’re batting .059. The Houston Texans have a better record. That’s terrible. What’s worse, if you factor the total percentage of listeners at Air America to the number of listeners on the above list, AAR listeners make up between 2 and 3% of the total. My gosh! Let there be no more doubt of AAR’s financial status.

UPDATE: I made a mistake. It turns out that Ed Schultz isn't actually an Air America Radio host. So even though I painted a dismal picture for the liberal station, it wasn't bad enough. Just one of the top 34 radio stations in the country is an Air America program -roughly 1% or the listeners in the top 34.

Howard Dean doesn't know what he's talking about

Meet the press 11-13-05:

MR. RUSSERT: Should Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and others say, "Based on what I know today, I would not have voted for the war"?

DR. DEAN: John--my impression was that John Kerry did say that.

Washington Post 8-10-04:

On Friday, Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there.

In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

Maybe Dean is right and Kerry just flip-flopped again. But could Dean be any more of an annoying blowhard? It would appear the answer is yes:

DR. DEAN: [Judge Alito] condones a strip-search of a 10-year-old when the police had no such warrant or indication to do so. He condoned the crafting of an all-white jury to hear a black defendant's case by a prosecutor. He condoned the states not having to listen to the Family Medical Leave Act. He condoned government interference in private family matters and family decision- making. This is well outside the mainstream of where Americans are. I think the Democrats are going to have to think long and hard as the hearings progress about whether we should support him. There's some grave questions about him, and I do hope that they will stick together.

MR. RUSSERT: If you were a senator, you would vote no?

DR. DEAN: I'm not going to make that--if I were a senator, I would not tell you that now, because I believe in listening to all the evidence first.

Can you say blowhard? Dean attacks Alito by grossly misrepresenting him, but is too afraid to speculate how he'd vote on Alito.

MR. RUSSERT: But is it enough for you to say to the country, "Trust us, the other guy's no good. We'll do better, but we're not going to tell you specifically how we're going to deal with Iraq."

DR. DEAN: We will. When the time comes, we will do that.

Dean, did I hear this right? The Democrats don't know how to deal with Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: When's the time going to come?

DR. DEAN: The time is fast-approaching. And I outlined the broad outlines of our agenda. We're going to have specific plans in all of these areas.

MR. RUSSERT: This year?

DR. DEAN: In 2006.

So if I get this straight, Dean admits the Democrats don't have a solution on getting Iraq under control, AND the American public will have to wait at least 1 and a half months to hear what their plan is?

How can people stand this guy?

California Removes its Feeding Tube

I can't believe it. California has chosen to void their Constitutional right to bear arms and bow down to far left special interest groups and blatant pro-choice ideology.

I'm not a fan of special interest groups --any of them. In the past I've never felt the need to join one, and the NRA is no exception. I've never seen the NRA be against ownership or promotion of any type of "arm" be it automatic or even nuclear. That's how special interest groups work -know no limits, know no compromise (just ask Peter Drucker). Today however, when I see San Francisco waive their Constitutional right to bear arms, it angered me so much I actually decided to join the organization. An organizatioin I don't even care for.

So anyway, I just signed up as a member of the NRA. It took two minutes and was only $35 dollars. I'm going to get a subscription to America's First Freedom --hopefully it doesn't suck. Words cannot express how much I want the NRA to overturn this measure made by idiots in San Fran. I'll try to keep an eye on the NRA's site to see if they'll get a bump in traffic after today.

In other bone-headed moves in California, they've chosen to let minors have an abortion without requiring them to tell their parents. Never mind the fact that kids can't even go on a field trip without parental permission. California has forsaken parental guardianship for the freedom to have access to an abortion. To all who voted against Proposition 73, never again do I want to hear you claim to have a legal, parental right to authorize --or even know about-- anything your child does, especially if it's health related.

The media is wondering if Arnold Schwarzenegger is the big loser in California since none of his propositions passed. I can only pray that public outrage across the country is so intense that the losers will undeniably be the voters that outlawed a piece of parental authority and the constitution.

The French Riots - President Jacques Chirac Fiddles while Paris burns

France has been rioting for a whopping 11 days (from October 27 until November 6). I'm not saying that riots generally have a good reason to start, but these rioters are especially dumb. A couple of kids ran from cops and ended up killing themselves. How devoid of civil behavior does a society have to be to allow this to happen?!

So President Chirac tries to save the day by promising France that his government will get everything under control --on the 11th day! Keep in mind these riots should have never happened if the country had any control over it's people.

Words cannot express how glad I am that things operate a little differently in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Just three days after 9-11, President Bush stood on Ground Zero and said the US was going to kick some terrorist ass. And just hours after hurricane Katrina, the American public was demanding more accountability and action from the Federal and state governments.

Next time Chirac criticizes how the United States operates, I've got a message for him. GET YOUR OWN SUPERPOWER.

Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, and all the other left-wing asshole pundits

www.urbandictionary.com:

2. Asshole
someone being arrogant, rude, obnoxious, or just a total dickhead....Sean is the biggest f*cking asshole I've ever met in my life!
Source: Jenna Tools, Nov 30, 2002

That's what Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, and some of the other far-left wing nuts out there are. They piss me off.

We all know the analogy of the blind men trying to describe an elephant. One feels the elephant's trunk and says it's a snake, another feels its leg and says an elephant is a tree trunk. Still another feels its ear and says an elephant is a leathery fan. The moral is that they're all right from their own limited point of view.

When Rush Limbaugh pioneered nationally syndicated talk radio in the 90's, different groups reacted in different ways. Some saw Rush as the sole voice of America that had been stifled by a left-wing media. Others saw Rush as a flash in the pan. Still others saw him as an off the chart right-winger who merely speaks to his ideological choir. But what did the left wing nuts think?

Enter Al Franken and Randi Rhodes... When these people examined Rush in their phenomenally limited perspective, they did so by sticking their arms up the proverbial elephant's butt. Instantly they "realized" Rush was nothing more than a giant asshole. But they didn't stop there. With their narrow view or Rush and their pathetic ignorance of the America's public opinion, they inadvertently epitomized two clichés: 1) the person they hated controlled them, and 2) they became the person they hated. This is evidenced by their respective talk radio programs: The Al Franken Show, and the Randi Rhodes Show.

But since they mistook Rush for the asshole instead of the entire elephant, their syndication service, Air America Radio, is a financial disaster. The free market allowed Rush to sign a $285 million contract. In contrast, Air America bounces checks even though they are funded by billionaire George Soros. To make matters oh-so-much more worse, they're actually asking for donations from listeners. If they weren't oozing with so much vitriol, I might actually feel sorry for them.

Al Franken and Randi Rhodes haven't got a clue what drives talk radio. That's because they're one-dimensional assholes.

Should the US cut and run from Iraq?

Lots of people out here think so. They should be informed that that's exactly what al-Zawahri, Al-Qaeda's number two guy, wants. Here's the script.
link

The Harried Miers Precedence

I think Bush did a disservice to the United States by nominating Harried Miers for the Supreme Court. Bush basically told the country that he knows her well enough to say she’ll uphold the constitution and that she’ll be a good conservative.

Sorry dubya, that’s not enough. Even if you’re right about her, you’re setting some pretty shameful precedence.

The first bad precedence being set is that Miers is a very private person with no judicial experience. Perhaps the best indicator of what kind of judge she’ll be is when Bush flippantly said “trust me.” Maybe that’s enough for some nearsighted conservatives out there. What happens though if Hillary Clinton is elected in 2008 and nominates her personal Whitewater attorney using the same “trust me” argument? Isn’t a certain level of trust already vested into a nominee? Should we trust a nominee more just because a President asks us to? Should public cheerleading by a President substitute for a severe lack of a transparent, public work history? The hearings will probably gain no valuable insight to where Miers stands. Years ago, another unfortunate precedence there has already been set for judicial nominees: Don’t comment on controversial issues.

The second precedence Bush set is that he’s nominated someone with probably the worst credentials in the history of the Supreme Court. She didn’t go to an outstanding college, she didn’t graduate with honors (that I know of), she doesn’t have any judicial experience, she hasn’t done pro bono, and she has done very little in the public arena. Believe it or not, some people actually criticized Bush for nominating John Roberts to the Supreme Court because some women were supposedly as qualified. Roberts was easily one of the most qualified human beings for the Supreme Court –male of female. Imagine the outcry if Bush nominated a man of Miers’ credentials. The second precedence Bush is setting here is that if you’re a woman, your qualifications can be far below the average Supreme Court Justice.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert

"It doesn't make sense to me," [to spend Federal money to rebuild New Orleans], said Hastert during an interview with the Daily Herald editorial board. "And it's a question that certainly we should ask. link

I'm sure that statement will require an apology. I'm hopeful it will cost him his seat as House Speaker. And I'm thinking his statement should cost him his political career.

Amnesty International Receives the first ever headline poacher award!

“Guantanamo has become the gulag of our time.” Eight words; that’s all it takes to see right through Amnesty International’s report.

Putting things into perspective, Gulag was a series of Russian concentration camps. An estimated 1.4 to 2.8 million people died there. 800,000 were executed there. More people died at Gulag than at Auschwitz.

In contrast, Guantanamo is only holding 540.

Enter Camp 22, North Korea. According to The Guardian: Now, it is claimed, it is also where thousands die each year and where prison guards stamp on the necks of babies born to prisoners to kill them… [C]hilling evidence has emerged that the walls of Camp 22 hide an even more evil secret: gas chambers where horrific chemical experiments are conducted on human beings. Witnesses have described watching entire families being put in glass chambers and gassed. They are left to an agonising death while scientists take notes.

Now, the obvious angle to take is to ask Amnesty International why they seem bent on blaming the United States when there’s worse stuff going on over in North Korea.

But I won’t go there. Connect the dots; Amnesty International just called Guamtanamo the worst violation of human rights today, and equated it with one of the biggest violations of human rights ever. Meanwhile over in North Korea’s Camp 22, stomping on a babies neck is merely a political dispute.

Amnesty International, feel free to excuse yourself from the table of rational dialogue.

Dean Meets the Press Tomorrow

In an email, I asked Tim Russert to ask Howard Dean why the country should trust the Democratic party whenever they tout fiscal responsibility.

Hey Dean!

Is running for President the only reason to conduct yourself with dignity?

John R. Bolton

Granted, I had never heard the name before Bush nominated him as ambassador to the U.N. So everything bad I've heard about him is from people who are preventing him from getting the job. I don't think that's a good way to judge a person, but still, I hope Bolton doesn't get the blessing of congress.

Only the blind can't see the anti-American sentiments that have consumed a massive portion of the globe. Only the retarded can't tell that it's yahoos like this that fan those flames. People like Bolton have their places in the United States, but a seat at the U.N. is not one of them. We need to send the U.N. a dove, not a hawk.

I hope the Democrats are able to stop Bolton from getting the job. If they don't, it's because they cried, "Wolf!" one too many times.

Terri Schiavo: The good, the bad, and the ugly

The media: They've been extremely hard on the the Legislature and the President because they're basically wasting time by micromanaging the country, be it with Terri or Major League Baseball. Maybe it's a valid point, but where were these people when Barbara Boxer started her little cat fight against Condoleezza Rice. Even Rice's most vocal opponents to her being Secretary of State readily admitted that Rice would easily get the Senate's blessing. Yet all legislative progress was put on hold so people like John Kerry and Barbara Boxer throw little hissey fits. What the heck was that?!

Senator John McCain, do you have any insight into this nonsense?
Dr. Rice has the confidence of the President of the United States. Dr. Rice has the confidence of the majority of this Senate. We know, as many of her critics have admitted on this floor, she will be easily confirmed.

So I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a debate about a foregone conclusion. It cannot be for a lack of priorities because we surely have enough on our legislative plate this year. It can't be because Dr. Rice has suggested she has some flaw so fundamental that the Senate must block the President's choice. I can only conclude we are doing this for no other reason than because of lingering bitterness at the outcome of the elections.

McCain 2008. Woot! Woot!

Ehem, anyway, what McCain is trying to say (or what I'd like to pretend to say on behalf of him) is that you should pay no attention to anyone that is criticizing the Federal Government for getting involved in the Schiavo case if they also weren't critical of the delay tactics the Democrats employed because of their "lingering bitterness".

Yes, Jon Stewart, that goes for you. Now knock it off!

Ok, now the media rant is over with. Now onto congress. I can't but feel pandered to by Bill Frist who says the following: ONCE AGAIN IN THE VIDEO FOOTAGE, WHICH YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEASON (sic?) A WEB SITE TODAY, BUT IN THE VIDEO FOOTAGE, SHE CERTAINLY SEEMS TO RESPOND TO VISUAL STIMULI. THAT THE NEUROLOGIST PUTS FORTH.

Maybe a layman can make these claims, but Frist is a medical doctor. And not just "any" medical doctor, a freggin cardiac surgeon! What doctor makes a diagnosis based on a videotape? What doctor would neglect their knowledge of medicine to engage in shameless pandering? What Bill Frist did is simply inexcusable.

Last year, when Frist was asked if AIDS can be spread by tears and sweat he said "I don't know." Connect the dots. Frist is an ideologue first and a doctor second -a very distant second. Americans deserve politicians that level straight with them. Frist has shown he's a guy that will contort his own vast knowledge of medicine so egregiously that even a layman can easily recognize it.

Now onto the Schiavo family: Whether it's fair or not, Terri's husband Michael looks like an ass. Check out this timeline:

1990 - Terri falls and is brain damaged

1993 - Terri is awarded $750,000 in a malpractice suit (also $300,000 is awarded to Michael)

1998 - 8 YEARS after she was injured, Michael starts lobbying to have his wife's feeding tube removed. Presumably because he remembered some 13 years ago that Terri told him she wanted to die if she was ever in a vegetative state. Apparently, Michael's memory gets better when two things happen. 1) Time goes by, and 2) as things become more financially beneficial for him.

1990 to Now - Terri's family has tenaciously fought to have Terri live. It's pretty clear they would have no objections if Michael wanted to completely turn Terri over to the rest of her family. Yet in spite of the admirable efforts of Terri's family, Michael still wants to pull the plug on her.

I'm sorry Michael, that makes you look like an ass. Tough luck. Circumstantial evidence made Scott Peterson look like an ass and that greatly contributed to him getting the death penalty. I didn't shed a tear over him, and I'm not going to over you.

My take: Anyway you look at this story, it's inevitably tragic. What makes it worse people like Bill Frist who forsake any kind of medical logic for pandering, and liberals who have no problems saying Michael should exercise his right to kill his wife, like a farmer would shoot his horse. I find both extremes completely unnecessary and offensive.

On the MACRO level, this is what I think needs to happen is this: Congress should stop micromanaging these types of cases and they should somehow tie in patients with vegetative conditions to missing persons. In the eyes of the law, after seven(?) years a missing is as dead as George Washington. After that time, the spouse is widowed, even if they're the healthiest person on earth. Congress should pass a law allowing for the spouse of a vegetative patient to be widowed after a certain period of time. A year? I don't know.

Is there a legal can of worms there? Yes, but not anywhere as big as the following scenario: A husband disappears for seven years, then he meets up with his wife who's married to someone else. In the eyes of the law, the husband is dead, and his widowed wife simply remarries. In actuality, his wife is now a polygamist. Now THAT'S a can of worms.

If congress can take a shotgun approach to solving the missing persons problem, surely they can do the same for people with a vegetative spouse. Unfortunately, Frist lowered the congressional dialogue to calling his critics pooh-pooh heads, so expecting them to adopt my plan is just a waste of time.

On the MICRO level here's what I think should happen: Michael should give his wife over to the rest of her family. I'm not sure I'd want to claim the responsibility to care for someone in Terri's condition, and the fact that they are willing to 1) care for her and 2) fight this fierce legal battle, is a testament to Terri's family's generosity and character.

Here's what I think should NOT happen: I find it very disturbing that someone would "pull the plug" on any human being who, 1) Is not in pain, 2) has survived 15 years after their injury, and 3) has not made it emphatically clear they wish to die. How people can "just pull the plug" on such a person is beyond me. If people who side with Michael are so gung-ho to have Terri killed, then why don't they put her to sleep like they would a dog? As sick as that sounds, it's unequivocally more humane. Should dogs get more humane treatment than human beings? Of course not! Then why does Terri have to suffer a worse death than a dog being put to sleep? Because all those willing to let her starve to death are too cowardly to put Terri to sleep.

Now I'm all pissed.

P.S. If I find the the name of the guy that actually pulled the plug on Schiavo to kill her, I will post it. If I find trash on that person, I may actually relish it.

Cronkite

So the drudgereport.com says "Cronkite: Dan should have stepped down long time ago."

I feel sorry for people who get all their news from Matt. That's just a flat out lie. Go to the source people!

CRONKITE: Well, I think it's going to be hard to find anybody who is going to be as much liked and appreciated and does such a job as Bob Schieffer. I think he's one of the great television journalists of our time. And he was a good journalist when he came to television from Fort Worth [Texas].

He is, to my mind, the man who, quite frankly -- although Dan did a fine job -- I would like to have seen him there a long time ago. He would have given the others a real run for their money.

BLITZER: Better than Dan Rather would have done? Because he was perennially in third place in the ratings behind Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings.

CRONKITE: Well, that's certainly true. And it's quite a tribute to him that he -- that CBS held on to him so long under those circumstances. It surprised quite a few people at CBS and elsewhere that, without being able to pull up the ratings beyond third in a three-man field, that they tolerated his being there for so long.

BLITZER: So, you would have been happier if Bob Schieffer would have replaced Dan Rather a while ago?

CRONKITE: I would have thought so, certainly -- if not Bob, someone else.

...later...

BLITZER: Do you sense right now that being the anchor of a major broadcast network is the same as it was when you were the chief anchor at CBS News? In other words, has the situation changed now given the Internet, cable news, all the various ways that people are getting their information?

CRONKITE: Yes, Wolf. It's turned -- it's over on its head. It is vastly different.

When I was there, we -- the three traditional networks, NBC, ABC and CBS -- we shared 100 percent, practically, of the audience. There were just maybe 98 percent or 99 percent of the audience, we had every night. That other half a percentage or 1 percent were the few independent stations in the country. We had no other competition.

Today, of course, we've got all of these other channels that are competing. And, actually, the traditional networks are sharing down around 50 percent of the audience, which is still remarkably high, considering all of the excellent competition they have with such networks as yours.

Maybe it's just me, but why do I feel like Cronkite is making it sound like a bad thing that 3 people no longer control what news everyone in the country sees?

...finally...

BLITZER: What would you do if you had your way? What would you advise all the broadcast news organizations to do right now?

CRONKITE: Give news a little more time and don't request that they also, in their news time, entertain. We're not entertainers. We're journalists. And we need more time to do our job well.

I think he took a shot at Fox News. But even if he didn't, he certainly took a shot at the Daily Show. Funny too because I feel like i can watch 20 minutes of the Daily Show and know more of what's going on in the world than if I watch an hour of Larry King. So I guess you can come to two conclusions: A) Cronkite is wrong --entertainment and news DO go together, or B) the news media is so bad that they actually make Comedy Central's Daily Show look good.

My money is on A).

Bono to head world bank?

There's something different about Bono that separates him from all the other activists out there. Recently it hit me, Bono is one of the precious few activists that doesn't hate people. I guess it's easy to start thinking that hating is a prerequisite to activist-ing, but Bono is living proof that it's unnecessary. How refreshing. I'm not sure of he's cut out for the job, but I think it would serve as a great example for those activists out there that should be spending their energy helping people rather than hating people --who they perceive-- to be standing in their way.

Ward Churchill

I realize this post is late in the game. There's always nuts out there that hate their own, and in the US, some of them even thrive. What makes his case so special?

I think in retrospect, a few things stand out.

1.) People jump to his defense saying he shouldn't be fired because of his right to freedom of speech. I think that's crazy. I could lose my job by saying 2 words. That's the world we live in, deal with it.

2.) I think there's a striking resemblence beteween Ward Churchill and Timothy Mcveigh. One of Ward's initial reactions was to write about how the United States had it coming. Mcveigh also was defiant even after he was captured. Years later, Chrurchill expressed grief for some of the people killed on September 11: bystanders, firefighters, and janitors. Timothy Mcveigh did all he could to remain defiant until his execution, but his lawyers have hinted that Mcveigh had expressed grief for the 19 children that he killed in the Oaklahoma City bombing. Interesting indeed.

If I was to ask Ward Churchill one thing it would be this:
Can you name a single Iraqi that was as as outpoken against Saddam as you are outspoken against the US Government. Did he flourish in his own country like you currently are? Why or why not.

Pandering

So I'm reading this editorial. What a bunch of shameless, blatant pandering. Whoever wrote it took it upon himself to pander no less than 7 times!

Pander Count:
=============
Blacks - 4
South L.A. - 2
African Americans - 1

Total:7

But it doesn't stop there:
Different circumstances, different police agencies, different culprits. But to many, the incidents delivered a single message: Society says that you don't count. The rules of fair treatment by police don't apply to young black males.

-and then-

Now the peacemakers are at it again. Ministers, gang workers, community activists and elected officials are trying to channel anger into activism, to push for better youth services, more cooperation among neighbors and a continuing dialogue with police. Their efforts should be encouraged, not feared or disparaged.

So I guess this means we can derive the formula:
Social injustice -> Anger -> Leaders -> Activism that we should all encourage.

At the risk of oversimplifying things every bit as much as the editorial I'd like to suggest the my formula:
Pandering to specific groups -> perceived injustice -> Angry mobs that are controlled by powerful people and groups. That's hardly something that should be encouraged.

So which formula is right? I don't know, but if the second one is, the editorial is unquestionably part of the problem.

Homo Sapians

A couple archaeologists discover that the human species is several thousand years older than previously thought. According to them, humans are 195,000 years old. Hmm, interesting.

So here it is, the history of the world. 189,000 years go by (that's 97% of the lifespan of the human race), and humans live like a bunch of animals. After almost 189 milleniums go by, a bunch of groups get together on new year's day and say, "Enough of this, let's resolve to make millennium 190 a good one!." So a bunch of PARALLEL societies get together and build some of the most awesome architectural achievements ever: the pyramids of Egypt, the pyramids South America, and Stonehenge. Another thing they decided to do overnight was to invent writing. Then they invent forms of governments that were able to rule over tens of thousands of people. It's these same people that were previously running around touting fire as the pinnacle of human achievement that, almost overnight, were able to buil the pyramids! How the heck could that possibly happen? If humans were able to flaunt these magnificent achievements 6,000 years ago what was preventing them from doing the same thing 50,000, 100,000, or 175,000 years ago? What magically made them decide to make these shocking breakthroughs in architecture, literature, and government, and why did so many societies that were not even in contact with other developing societies somehow do it all at the same time?

Am I the only one who finds this new discovery to be odd?

If a bunch of people were simply dumped in an earth-like lab, how long would it take for them to produce a historically surviving culture? A few generations maybe? Certinaly not 200,000 years! Yet that's supposedly how long it took earth to produce one.

Transsexuals can play in the LPGA?

Are you kidding me?! This is crazy!

I thought transformers were making a come back, but this is just dumb.

Chalk this one up as blogger against transformers in the LPGA.

More on Steam

A couple weeks ago googleing "Steam is having trouble connecting to the steam servers", returned 16 hits, now it's 177. Quite an increase. There's a whole lot more to the controversy over here. Interesting...

Among other things is the question of whether or not the EULA (End User License Agreement) that is required to play Half-Life2 is legal or not.

Gosh, I hope not.

Dean?!

Are you kidding me? Dean makes the short list for DNC head?

Dean is actually one of the person that inspired me start this blog. Why? Because because I think the general public has grossly confused Dean's divisive popularity with his actual popularity.

If you start splitting the population just a couple of times, you can end up with an extremely dangerous sect. If that same sect starts touting someone's popularity, beware.

Dean is the poster child of that. Here's how he divides the population, 1) Are you a Democrat, and 2) Will you vote for the most anti-war candidate on the Democratic ballot? Dean is a hit among the crowd that answers yes to both questions, the only catch is this crowd speaks for about 15% of the American population. Why's that so bad? Well, considering about that many people think Neil Armstrong never set foot on the moon, quite a bit.

So anyhoo, this nut has the unwavering support of a generous 1-in-6 American. However, the majority of Americans have an unfavorable view of the guy.

Is this a person that should head a party that has lost control of the White House and has actually decreased it's presence in the House, and the Senate? If the Republicans had lost control of all three sects of D.C. would they be trying to get Pat Buchanan to head their party? Only if they were suicidal.

Steam sucks.

So I'm trying to play half-life 2 but I can't because the online Steam server is down. Don't ask me why I even need to actually log in to the server as it makes as much sense as logging in to nintendo.com to play tetris on my gameboy. What's more, if you go to steam's webpage it doesn't even make mention of their colossal screwup. Good job boys.

How do I know it's down then? I had to go the slashdot and usenet to find out it was down.

The error message I get when I try to login is "steam is having trouble connecting to the steam servers." At present, googleing that returns exactly 16 hits. I have a feeling it's going to be a lot more than that in a very short amount of time.


I want my money back.

Microsoft Windows

So I'm trying to associate movie files on any program BUT Windows Media Player. Why? Because Media Player is bloatware, none of the buttons make any sense, and I can't even use the hotkeys. What's the point of having hotkeys for media if your.. er. media player doesn't even use them.

Anyway, I do some googleing and find that you flat out CAN'T change the associations of media files to another media player (even mplayer2.exe -which is actually decent). So I think to myself, how on earth can Microsoft get away with this? Wouldn't the makers of Quicktime and Real Player have a good lawsuit on their hands?

Then I install Real Player, another player high on bloat and low on ware. During installation, I'm amused when it asks me if I want to associate movie files with Real Player. I choose yes. Low and behold, It actually worked. Then I wonder if Media Player somehow hacked media files so that I can play them with a different player, but it wasn't. File associations are locked to Real Player.

So then I decide to use the old right click, "open with" function and then check the "always use this program" button and with that, I just associated my movie files with VLC player. (Previously, the "open with" feature would not allow me to de-associate programs with Media Player.)

What did I learn from all this? Microsoft knows they'll run into legal trouble if they stick it to competing companies like they are currently sticking it to their customers. Isn't there something wrong with that picture?

Titan

Maybe I'm just a complete nerd, but for whatever reason, I was really looking forward to the Cassini/Huygens probe landing on Titan. I think I can remember when they launched the mission in the mid to late 90's, but I've definitely been counting the days since the media talked it up last summer. Scientists talked it up like saying stuff like:

We can find out where where we came from. (As if there will be a sign when we get there that reads: "Earthlings came from aliens on planet X").

Maybe we'll see lakes of flowing liquids, not seen on any other body in the solar system. (That would be cool to see.)

Artists rendered these really cool looking images of what they thought me might see:
.




Now I don't want to ruin it for you if you don't already know, but here's what we got:
.

Now, I realize the differences are subtle, but if you'll look closely, you'll notice we've got better quality of pictures of bigfoot. And even if the pics were of better quality, they'd just be clearer pictures of rocks and dust --Hardly something to write home about. Much less travel 2 billion miles for and then transmit messages half way across the solar system.

I guess I'm a bit disappointed. I think some have called Titan the last great mystery of the solar system. Well, if that's the case, the solar system must be pretty boring other than what's here on Earth.

Copy Cat: Cloning 101

So there's this cat that was cloned. Now if my calculation and understanding on DNA and cloning are correct (and I have no reason why they wouldn't be), we have a problem. If the owner that dished out 50 grand to pay for a cloned cat used the DNA from her old cat when it was mature and/or aging, the cloned cat is going to age really quickly.

Because DNA taken from young life has these long tail thingies on the end of the DNA strands. As the animal ages, the tail thingies get short and the DNA starts to get all fudged up and then you get old and stuff. So if you use this old DNA, you'd be starting off with fudged up DNA and pet would seem old before it actually was old. Get it? Supposedly that's what happened to Dolly. I haven't seen anyone address this. What's the deal?

Merry Christmas!

I've been saying that a lot lately, and whenever I do it makes me happy. Maybe it's because it's the most wonderful time of the year. Or maybe it's because anyone that does is labled a culturally insensitive yahoo by a handful of agenda-controlling journalists out there.

Whatever the reason, Christmas totally rocks and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it from rocking.

Players Unions in Pro Sports

This rant is in response to the NHL which is very likely to strike this year:

I have no doubt that the most egregious abuses caused by workers unions (and believe me, they're definitely out there) are professional athletes. Workers unions were a necessary counter to over-demanding, under-paying, and dangerous work environments imposed by "the man". There's a slough of incompetent and overly-selfserving "mans" out there and the ability to strike is just about the only way most blue collar workers can "stick it to him".

Enter professional sports. Home of the most cushy and high paying jobs on the planet. The revenues professional sports generate are enormous so obviously the players have salaries to match. But that's not enough, and as Dr. Evil once said, why make billions when you can make millions (er, or something to that effect). Professional athletes got together and figured let's "stick it to the FAN" and demand more money by threatening to strike for a season or two.

It makes me sick to think that professional athletes can threaten to strike if "management" does not raise the league "minimum wage" of a six-digit salary the exact same way that a blue collar worker would threaten to strike if he wanted to raise his pay by a few cents per hour. The power that worker's unions give pro-athletes is the most abusive and insulting implementation of union laws in the country (and that's saying a lot). When will fans wake up and demand that this blatant loophole be closed?!

There is absolutely no valid reason that professional athletes, namely in the NHL, NFL, MLB, and the NBA should be given the right to strike. PERIOD

Kyoto Protocol

Stuff that divides the world is often dumb, real dumb. Take the Kyoto Protocol for example. Even advocates for it agree that it will prevent global warming by .15 degrees Celsius over the next 96 years! That's .0015625 degrees per year!

How many jobs is that worth sacrificing? How much hardship is that worth imposing on the economy? How much higher are we willing to see gas prices go?

Advocates for it say it's a good "first step." Er, not really. We barely have enough fossil fuels to make it thru the first half of this century. Sounds an awful lot like a "last step" if you ask me.

Meanwhile this is a real hot button issue in the world. The biggest impact it will ever have is in making the United States look bad just because they won't bow to a completely worthless agreement.

And how does that make you feel, Mr Saddam?

"As a result, I have asked the International Red Cross to send urgently Western medical experts to file an independent report on the current situation and to see if Mr. Saddam is on a hunger strike or not — and what the motives are," Ludot said.

here

Since when did a rational person give a care what Saddam's motives were? Who cares?! And why am I not surprised this Ludot guy is French?

Hey Ludot, no one cares. If Saddam wants to die in his cell by his own hand, I don't care. I'd prefer that over another B.S. Milosevic trial.

Putin weighs in on the Ukraine

A few days ago I said that Powell's excessive support for Viktor Yushchenko would invite ire from the international community. Thanks to Putin, we can now put a face on that angst. According to him, the United States is a dictatorship.

"Even if dictatorship is packaged in beautiful pseudo-democratic phraseology, it will not be able to solve systemic problems," Putin said. "It may even make them worse."

I guess there's several points I'd like to make. 1) See, I told you so. 2) Putin, don't be lecturing the U.S. on making the world safe. Last time I checked, it was your country that was having serious problems with preventing terrorism in the past 3 years -NOT OURS. 3) I can't even remember the last time Bush took a cheap shot at Schroeder or Chirac who perpetually spew anti-American garbage from all their bodily orifices. How is it that Putin can get away with such strong words directed at the United States? Conclusion: Many of the anti-American sentiment going around isn't fair, but still, it has to be considered in U.S. foreign poilicy.

Oil for food program

So I decided to try to educate myself over what happened with the oil for food scandal by reading wikipedia's account of it. That's here. It's long and somewhat boring, but I have kind of changed my feelings of the program. I used to think the problem with it was unaccountable elites that ran the U.N. I think the core problem with the oil for food program is that after the first Golf War, unrealistic sanctions were placed on Iraq. The amount of oil the country is sitting on is second only to Saudi Arabia I believe and oil for food program was more like a breeding ground for kickbacks, bribes, and corruption. I hate to say it, but it actually reminds me of post WWI Germany and the unrealistic sanctions that were put on the country led to a revolt by Hitler which climaxed with WW2. Or it's kind of like the "proverb" in Baseketball, "What a terrible thing to happen on dozen egg night."

Oil for food was doomed from it's conception. If I had a lot of time on my hands, I'm confident I could come up with a very strong argument that the "rebuilding" process after the first Golf War was actually more damaging than the one we've got going on now. If the sanctions we imposed after the first war didn't fester so much corruption, I find it very likely that Saddam's perceived threat to the United States would not have provoked us to go to war.

Colin Powell vs. Ukraine

If there's one dove in the Bush administration, it's Colin Powell. His quote regarding Iraq has become quite famous: You break it you own it.

That's why I was really surprised to hear Powell give a speech directed at the Ukraine and say stuff like:
"[The Ukraine needs] to decide whether they are on the side of democracy or not."

-How patronizing...

"If the Ukrainian government does not act immediately and responsibly there will be consequences for our relationship, for Ukraine's hopes for a Euro-Atlantic integration and for individuals responsible for perpetrating fraud,"

-Wait! Weren't criticisms of voters being threatened directed at people within the Ukrainian government?

"We cannot accept this result as legitimate, because it does not meet international standards and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse"

-Powell knows darn well he, along with the entire country, would give the rest of the world the finger if they tried to impose "international standards" on our elections. Nothing says "we defy another country's sovereignty" more than not accepting election results.

Sure the United States would be better off if the Ukrainians opted for Viktor Yushchenko over Viktor Yanukovych.

Questioning your own country's election results are bad enough. What Powel is doing here is giving validity to the argument that United States is this big Evil Empire. It's this type of foreitn policy that, in some areas, gives bin Laden a higher approval rating than Bush.

Please people! LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY!

George W. Bush - The Tyrant

Who are these idiots kidding?

link
.

Behold. The tyrant!

One such idiot who published a story about the *shocking* billboard claims that it is "raising eyebrows among progressives". Right.... This is a site that has banners comparing Arnold Schwarzenegger to Hitler and I'm supposed to believe they know what a "progressive" is? This is just too funny.

Here's what these same idiots were saying in 2000.
-Bush stole the election (ala the Grinch that stole Christmas)
-Bush lost the popular vote
-Bush is a minority president
-Bush will never be re elected
-Gore had more votes than any candidate in US history

These same idiots can't make those claims anymore since
-Bush flat out won this election
-Bush is the first majority president in 16 years
-Bush was re elected
-Bush got more votes than any US candidate

Now that they can't say anything about Bush, they are saying Americans are idiots because they voted for Bush.

Can anyone imagine the gloating these irrational idiots would be doing if Kerry won? It's absolutely terrifying to think about.

Peter Jennings, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and the international community

The Peter Jennings' interview with Bill Clinton seems to be generating a lot of buzz. While I did find the "you don't want to go there Peter" amusing, there's something else that Clinton said in the same breath that caught my attention.

Jennings was challenging Clinton on his moral authority, saying he ranked second to last behind Nixon. Here in part is what Clinton said.

"...And, yes, I failed once. And I sure paid for it. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry for the American people, and I'm sorry for the embarrassment they performed. But they ought to think about the way the rest of the world reacted to it. When I, when I got a standing ovation at the United Nations from the whole world, the American networks were showing my grand jury testimony. Those were decisions you made, not me. I personally believe that the standing ovation I got from the whole world at the United Nations, which was unprecedented for an American President, showed not only support for me, but opposition to the madness that had taken hold of American politics."

The rest of the transcript.

Maybe I wouldn't have thought too much of it if Clinton didn't remind me of something Kerry said earlier this year:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me see if I can clean up a comment that you made in March that created an awful lot of controversy and stir. "I have met more leaders who can't go out and say it publicly but, boy, they look at you and say, `You gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy'--things like that. So there is enormous energy out there. Tell them, wherever they can find an American abroad, they can contribute."
The Washington Times added this: "Although Mr. Kerry indicated that he had met in person with foreign leaders who privately endorsed him, he has made no official trips abroad in the past two years. Within the United States, he has had the chance to meet with only one foreign leader since the beginning of last year, according to a review of his travel schedule."
Specifically, which foreign leaders have you met with who told you that you should beat George Bush?

SEN. KERRY: Tim, first of all, that is an inaccurate assessment of how I might or where I might be able to meet or talk to a foreign leader, number one.

MR. RUSSERT: But you have talked to foreign leaders who told you...

SEN. KERRY: Number--Tim, what I said is true. I mean, you can go to New York City and you can be in a restaurant and you can meet a foreign leader. There are plenty of places to meet people without traveling abroad. Number two, I'm under no obligation--I would be stupid if I were to sit here and start saying, "Well, so-and-so told me this," because they have dealings with this administration. This administration doesn't talk about its private conversations, and nor will I. I invite you, I invite The Washington Times editorial, go to European, go to foreign capitals, travel in the world. Talk to any American businessman who has been abroad, talk to any of our colleagues who've traveled abroad, and the conversations they've had. Never has the United States of America been held in as low a regard internationally--and polls have shown this--as we are today. We're not trusted and this administration is not liked.

MR. RUSSERT: So you stand by your statement, you met with foreign leaders who told you...

SEN. KERRY: I stand by my statement.

The rest of the transcript.

Gosh. Where to begin. I think I can speak for most of America when I say I'm concerned about the amount of "closed door meetings" that Bush is involved with and the lack of time Bush has been available to the folks.

Obviously, Kerry is not one of those people.

I think the privacy Bush has had while in office are not preferable, but certainly understandable. Kerry, on the other hand, basically told Russert, "Bush can have secret meetings involving the security of the United States. So in return, it's only fair that I can meet with anonymous foreign leaders in private who are cheering for me to beat Bush."

Maybe I'm taking his words out of context, but in light of what Kerry said here, how could anyone think they'd be getting a more open and accountable administration under Kerry? It's completely absurd!

In regard to Clinton, I'll say this: As President, your obligation was to the American people. To invoke support by referring people to the UN's ovation is flat out wrong. American demands a level of accountability in its leaders that foreign leaders don't even begin to understand. I think you gravely mistook international support with international defiance to a much higher code of ethics that has been ingrained in American politics.

To both Kerry and Clinton, I'll say this: Congratulations, you just won a foreign popularity contest because foreign leaders who possess a tacit defiance to the United States feel more comfortable in confiding in you.

MPAA hops on the sue-em-all bandwagon

For about a year now the RIAA, which represents recording artists, has launched a sue-em-all campaign against 1 in 5 Americans (that based on the fact that there are an estimated 60 million file swappers and roughly 5 times that many Americans). So the RIAA feels completely justified in seeking a few thousand dollars from each of these awful file swappers. The status quo says that the RIAA can seek up to $150,000 for each copyrighted song a P2Per has on their computer.

Some math: 60 million p2pers X 150,000 per copyrighted song X 500 songs (rough estimate of the number of songs a p2per has) = $4,500,000,000,000,000. Dude! I don't even know how to read that number.

Something like forty-five hundred trillion dollars.

Yes, that's the "damages" the RIAA is justified in seeking in the eyes of the law, and I'm sure they deserve every penny of it.

But in the RIAA's infinite grace and wisdom, they usually offer each individual they sue a merciful out-of-court settlement of a few thousand dollars. Thank goodness for checks and balances! (Hope you caught the sarcasm there).

So far they've managed to shake down 5,000 people.

So anyhoo, the MPAA has hopped on this bandwagon. I guess they have found the wonderful PR benefits of suing your customers. But here's the twist: In a thinking-outside-the-box move which seems woefully rare by industries that are covered by the colossal umbrella of protection that copyright holders are granted, the MPAA has decided to tell our mummies and daddies. How mature.

link

Somehow, the RIAA is planning on installing software on people's computer and that will hunt for copyright software and encourage the user to delete it.

Supposedly Section 512(f) of the DMCA of 1998 forbids intimidating people if the accuser knows the person is not guilty and it also forbids anyone from deleting files in which copyrights have not been infringed. If these rules are violated, the accused person can seek damages.

Lets hope we can sick section 512(f) on the derrieres of the MPAA.

Attack on Fallujah

A few people are questioning the timing of the 2004 elections and the can of whoop A we opened up on Fallujah.

And to them I would say, "Only an ignorant person didn't see this coming. Go easy on the anti-Bush propaganda, and instead, focus more on finding out what's going on in the world."

The Democrats Strike Back

Who knows if the Clarence Thomas thing is legit, but today, the Democrats are tapping Howard Dean to be the chairman of the DNC!

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!

For your listening and viewing pleasure, I give you the Howard Dean Remix.

Is this guy Presidential material? Even the Democrats realized the answer to that was a resounding NO.

So why on earth would anyone in their right mind want Howard Dean to head the currently heavily bruised Democratic party?

It's moderation people want. M-O-D-E-R-A-T-I-O-N.

When Kerry was not bashing Bush (which seems like it took up 90% of his campaigning), he was spending virtually all the remaining time pleading with the folks trying to convince them he wasn't liberal. MODERATION!

The Democrats were supposed to the champions of the middle class. The fact that they're picking Dean means they're clueless when it comes to giving the folks what they want.

Clarence Thomas to become Chief Justice?

That according to the infamous drudge report.

Err. Wasn't Bush supposed to "reach out to Democrats" in his second term?

If true, this will get a lot of people fired up. Namely, the Democrats.

Exit polls show what I talked about in July

It seems that anyone that's politically active runs by the worlds "an enemy of my enemy is my friend." As if to say, "hello stranger, you hate Bush! Great! You're my new best friend."
-Me, July 04

The exit polls show that 36% of Kerry voters were more voting against Bush than voting for Kerry. Only 14% of Bush voters were voting against Kerry. The absolutely enormous spread more than makes up for the inaccuracy of exit polls.

Voting against someone by voting for the "other guy" is very dangerous. What happened to voting for someone because you like what they stand for? Should that not be a prerequisite for voting for the leader of the free world?

Kerry's campaign exposed

I think anyone who was down with Kerry should read this. I'd really like to hear from someone who actually thought Kerry has enough character to be the leader of the free world. Since basically no one reads this blog, I kinda think I'm wasting my time. But still. His first choice for running mate thought Kerry was "out of his mind". What more can you ask for?

Congrats Bush

Finally, it's over. Now Americans can try to get back the hundreds of millions of hours of sleep that they lost over this.

The "anybody but Bush" crowd never knew what hit them. Hint: Next time endorse a candidate that reflects the interests of America as opposed to the most liberal left wingers out there.

Now that the election is over, lets hurry up and flatten Fallujah.

Did Bin Laden Just endorse Kerry?

I'm not sure if Bin Laden endorced Kerry or not. I think a quick look at the buzz that's been created online says the answer is in fact yes. I guess my vote would be yes. Either way, the spawn of Hitler is obviously trying to influence the election.

I absolutely love the fact that up until now OBL has only resorted to pleading to the American people in trying to influence the election. That sure beats his voter-altering methods he successfully employed in Spain.

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your hands. Each state that doesn't mess with our security has automatically secured their security.
--The spawn of Hitler

The world most wanted terrorist is pleading with his sworn enemy -the Americans people. How to respond to such a plea? I think John McCain can answer that one for us Americans:

God may show you mercy. We will not.

Clinton KO's Bush and Kerry

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/september96/clinton2_9-23.html

The link is to Clinton's interview with Jim Lehrer when he ran against Dole in '96.

Reading ease:
61.4

Grade level:
10.1

Clinton wins big. I guess you could make the case that Jim Lehrer gave him a different style interview, but I doubt that would make up for the difference.

I just have to say this, in the interview, Lehrer brought up a stat that said only 30 percent of America thought Clinton was "honest and truthful". I think Bush AND Kerry would beat him on that record, but back then, no one seemed to care.

Ah, such simpler times back in 96.

Bush vs. Kerry

Bad things happen when I have too much free time. When I finally was able to pry myself away from playing Snood, I got this weird idea. Compare the grade level Bush and Kerry's interviews and see if Bush speaks on a lower level. Tim Russert of meet the Press interviewed both guys for quite a while so I chose those two interviews. The Bush transcript, and the Kerry transcript. I tested them using Microsoft Word. It has an analyzer that checks readability and the grade level.

I took out what Russert said and took out the "President Bush:" and the "Sen Kerry:" at the beginning of each paragraph --gotta love the replace feature in Word. Here's what I found.


Readability level (the higher the easier it is to understand)
Bush: 66.1
Kerry: 64.8

Academic grade level
Bush: 7.9
Kerry:7.7

Conclusion: According to the test, Bush was easier to understand and spoke on a higher grade level than Kerry. The difference is ever so slight, but it's certainly measurable. Also, Russert didn't engage Bush on a higher level (grammatically at least) because the scores actually went down when Russert and Bush/Kerry were analyzed together.

What does this mean? Probably nothing, other than I've got too much free time. I guess it could give a black eye to people who feel Bush is this big idiot that can't speak English.

I wonder if Russert interviewed Clinton and how those numbers would pan out....

Letter to Media Matters for America

So I write this letter to Media Matters for America. They seem to get really fired up when anyone in the media suggests terrorists would like to see Kerry get elected because there's no "evidence." I provided them with some evidence, but, to date, they have not provided me a response.


Oct, 22:
Media Matters for America
Your site declares there is “a conspicuous lack of evidence to support the claim” that terrorists prefer Kerry over Bush. However, more than a month before you said that, The Washington Times quoted an anonymous intelligence official that says terrorists do prefer Kerry over Bush. Here's the link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040811-123531-3824r.htm Have you not read it?

Granted, the claim could be politically motivated, so I think you’re justified in saying there’s a lack of obvious evidence. But then you provide, what you call, “evidence” of your own to the contrary.

The evidence you allude to is a video clip of an anonymous, self-proclaimed terrorist saying he’d prefer Bush over Kerry. If these claims are untrue, the evidence you present is hogwash. If they are true, you’d still have to take a terrorist’s political endorsement at face value. That’s unwise in my humble opinion.

Maybe both reports aren’t true, but how on earth could you justify rebutting the claim of an intelligence official with that of a political endorcement from a self-proclaimed terrorist?

Jon Stewart

So I'm surfing (what wannabe hipster coined that term anyway) over at the very impartial site *cough cough* Media Matters for America. The site is a joke, but they've got some video and sound clips of some heated discussions between the talking heads, which is usually coolio. All of media matter's take on things, however, is NOT coolio. Anyway, I see a clip of Jon Stewart on Crossfire. I think Jon is freggin hilarious so I click the link. Seeing the clip only reaffirmed my opinion on Jon.

STEWART: Now, this is theater. It’s obvious. How old are you?
CARLSON: Thirty-five.
STEWART: And you wear a bow tie?
CARLSON: Now, come on.
STEWART: Now, listen, I’m not suggesting that you’re not a smart guy, because those are not easy to tie.
CARLSON: They’re difficult.

I don't care where you're from, that's funny right there! I guess Jon got a little too steamed at the end and called Carlson a dick. I thought it was a little odd when I saw it but didn't think too much of it. Come to find out, that was no small meeting Jon and Carlson had. People can't stop talking about it. Apparently, it's controversial to ask the press to keep the President and Presidential candidate accountable. What's more, Jon even says he plans to vote for Kerry *gasp*!!! Oh my gosh! The humanity! Just like those other 45 million Americans!

Yeesh, people. Go back to sleep. The only thing shocking about Jon is that he wasn't able to come up with something more pithy than "dick" when addressing Carlson, otherwise, Jon was totally ripping into that guy and I think he probably deserved it. To be fair, I never watch Carlson or Crossfire, but Jon does have a point, no one in the press seems to think it's necessary to ask and force and answer to tough questions. Right now Kerry has the simple formula to the White House:

1. Identify the biggest problems in America
2. Blame it all on Bush
3. Say it will be all better when you're President because you have a "PLAN"
4. Sit back while the media reassures everyone of your great plan

An unchallenged plan is worthless. So is a press that propagates one.

Debate Round 3

Sadly, I was turned off by the first 5 minutes of this debate. Every response from the candidates' mouths was a cut-and-paste-responses from the first two. I couldn't put up with it. I did hear that bush finally put Kerry on the defensive by accusing him of being liberal. FINALLY. I don't think people realize how liberal Kerry's record is.

Rasmussen says 55% of the population says Kerry is politically liberal.

However, Americans for Democratic Diversity gives Kerry a liberal rating of 92% for his career. Hillary Clinton barely surpasses him with a 95% rating.

There's no doubt he's an extremely liberal guy, regardless of what he says. I mean, come on! This is the guy that goes in front of a bunch of hippies and says stuff like the Iraq war is the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time" or "no man and woman in uniform should ever be held hostage to America's dependence on oil" then he'll turn right around and speak in front of vets and pledge 40,000 troops to Iraq.

The pandering Kerry has displayed is over the line. The majority of people in California were relieved to recall Davis, but unfortunately, his spirit is now manifesting itself in the Democratic Presidential candidate.

President debate round 2

I don't get it. Most of the country, especially the independent and swing voters, is fed up with the National Guard memos and the Swift boat controversy. They want to have Bush and Kerry meet up so they can finally talk about the "issues." But then a funny thing happens; neither candidate, especially Kerry, seems to be able to directly address any questions. Instead directly answering a question, they simply recite a canned answer regarding the topic the question is addressing. I was pretty turned off by it. I mean, Bush and Kerry basically waste the time of tens of millions of people who tune into the debates by reciting propaganda they could have gotten from their websites. The moderator tried really hard to get them to answer questions they dodged, but that got annoying too because he started sounding like a broken record. How many times can two people dodge the question: "how can you cut the deficit in half by not raising taxes." Bush and Kerry just kept telling us how the other person couldn't do it.

More on CBS Memos

A bunch of execs over at CBS are saying they have no intention of telling the American people why they FUBARed the infamous 60 minutes story on Bush. Grow some stones people.

Quote the Les Moonves (co-president CBS parent company Viacom): Obviously, it should be done probably after the election is over so that it doesn't affect what's going on.

Gee Lester, if you could have only expected the same journalistic standards from 60 Minutes none of this would have happened. You, sir, are a hypocrite for even thinking of suggesting to wait until after the election.

Compound this mess by the fact that there is a lot of evidence suggesting the documents were planted at CBS by people very high up in the Kerry campaign. If these accusations are proven to be valid, and CBS refuses to release the information before the election, Les Moonves and all the yes-men he commands need to lose their jobs.

Link

Cheney won

Cheney won the debate on Monday. There's no question in my mind. He made Edwards look like he was running for vice mayor of Hicks-ville, North Carolina. Cheney was a heavy hitter and Edwards wasn't unable to stand up to him. Additionally, Edwards dodged some very direct questions asked by moderator Gwen Ifill. Of course Cheney did too, but not nearly to the same extent.

Cheney really did surprise me. I don't really care for the guy, but he really game thru Monday night. McCain said the first Kerry-Bush debate was perhaps the biggest highlight of Kerry's campaign. I think Cheney's performance in the debate was actually the highlight of his 4 year administration as VP.

Kerry already failed his own "Global Test"

So Kerry based most of the first debate on trying to convince America that he would form strong alliances with countries in the war on terror. Maybe if Kerry was a quarterback in the Superbowl, and someone asked him how he'd win, he'd say, "I'll just keep throwing touchdown passes."

He seemed to convince a lot of Americans as the polls say Kerry came out on top.

Here's the problem:

Kerrys leading candidate for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, told Germany's Schroeder he'd be the first guest to the White House.

Schroeder's response?

"I was afraid of that."

Looks like Kerry got an "A" for style in the debate, but an "F" on his own "Global Test."

link