Thanks for the Memory to Michelle Malkin.
According to Stars and Stripes, a group of GI's stationed in Iraq has come up with a great way to boost morale: a way for people to buy soldiers beer online.
I can't think of anyone who deserves a frosty one more than the men and women serving our country. GO TO BEER FOR SOLDIERS AND GIVE!
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Kerry: For the Red Sox Before He Was Against Them?
Thanks for the Memory to Blogs for Bush.
Apparently, for Kerry, flip-flopping is not limited to political affairs. The Junior Senator from Massachusetts, a regular attendee of Boston Red Sox games, has now declared his loyalty to the New York Yankees, hated arch foes of the Bosox:
At the fundraiser, Kerry reflected on his reborn self. He praised the triple victories of the Jets, Giants and Yankees and said: "I came here to bask in your glory, came here to grab onto that winning streak."
That's gotta sting, eh Mass.? Especially since two of the wins in that streak have come against the Sox.
Apparently, for Kerry, flip-flopping is not limited to political affairs. The Junior Senator from Massachusetts, a regular attendee of Boston Red Sox games, has now declared his loyalty to the New York Yankees, hated arch foes of the Bosox:
At the fundraiser, Kerry reflected on his reborn self. He praised the triple victories of the Jets, Giants and Yankees and said: "I came here to bask in your glory, came here to grab onto that winning streak."
That's gotta sting, eh Mass.? Especially since two of the wins in that streak have come against the Sox.
Kerry: Building Consensus By Alienating ALL of Our Friends
Thanks for the Memory to Blogs for Bush.
One of the chief claims that the Kerry campaign has made regarding the war on Iraq and the reason Kerry is a better choice for president is that President Bush has alienated the world community by his actions, and that John Kerry will be able to heal these rifts.
Well, he didn't get off to a good start today.
For that matter, he hasn't done such an impressive job even before hand. The dismissive, scornful tone he takes when referring to the coalition is not bound to sit well with nations like Poland, Australia, and Great Britain who are already on our side. Furthermore, the nations most frequently discussed when people bring up these issues aren't exactly helping him any: France is the target of terrorist attacks despite their anti-US stand on the war, and has stated that they will not send troops there regardless of who wins the election. And as a result of the School Massacre, the Russians are now taking an even harder-line stance than Bush, let alone that of Kerry.
But now Kerry has decided to ice that cake and insult the Iraqis as well.
Iyad Illawi, interim Iraqi Prime Minister, addressed a joint session of Congress today, and thanked the United States, saying in part, "We know Americans have made enormous sacrifices.... We promise you your sacrifices are not in vain."
Well, apparently, that's not good enough for John Kerry:
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that Iraq's Ayad Allawi was sent before Congress to put the "best face" on Bush administration policy.
Nice, Senator. You've just told Allawi he's nothing but a mouthpiece for the administration. I know that's a popular view on the left, but how do you thing that sits with Iraq?
Bush "missed a huge opportunity" at the United Nations this week to try to persuade leaders of other nations to join the United States in Iraq and the broader anti-terror war, Kerry said.
How will you do that, senator? By belittling our allies? By kowtowing to countries who had a vested interest in seeing the US fail? By giving the terrorists a timetable so they know exactly how long they have to lay low before Iraq will be left high and dry? By returning to the ways of the administration prior to this one, and reassuring the forces of evil that the US is a blowhard full of empty threats and swagger, without the will to back up our threats with actions?
No thank you.
The Bush campaign's response echos my own:
"Today, John Kerry showed he lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the United States of America to victory in the War on Terror.
"His attacks on the veracity of the Iraqi Prime Minister's historic address to Congress reveal a stunning propensity to take political cheap shots for his own benefit by denigrating our allies in this important struggle against a global terror network. President Bush is proud to stand with Prime Minister Allawi while John Kerry attacks progress and resolve and advocates a policy of retreat and defeat in the face of terror.
"John Kerry said today, 'And when you people judge me and the American people judge me on this, I want you to judge me on the full record.' We're confident the American people will."
Oh, we will, Marc. And I for one will find Senator Kerry wanting.
One of the chief claims that the Kerry campaign has made regarding the war on Iraq and the reason Kerry is a better choice for president is that President Bush has alienated the world community by his actions, and that John Kerry will be able to heal these rifts.
Well, he didn't get off to a good start today.
For that matter, he hasn't done such an impressive job even before hand. The dismissive, scornful tone he takes when referring to the coalition is not bound to sit well with nations like Poland, Australia, and Great Britain who are already on our side. Furthermore, the nations most frequently discussed when people bring up these issues aren't exactly helping him any: France is the target of terrorist attacks despite their anti-US stand on the war, and has stated that they will not send troops there regardless of who wins the election. And as a result of the School Massacre, the Russians are now taking an even harder-line stance than Bush, let alone that of Kerry.
But now Kerry has decided to ice that cake and insult the Iraqis as well.
Iyad Illawi, interim Iraqi Prime Minister, addressed a joint session of Congress today, and thanked the United States, saying in part, "We know Americans have made enormous sacrifices.... We promise you your sacrifices are not in vain."
Well, apparently, that's not good enough for John Kerry:
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that Iraq's Ayad Allawi was sent before Congress to put the "best face" on Bush administration policy.
Nice, Senator. You've just told Allawi he's nothing but a mouthpiece for the administration. I know that's a popular view on the left, but how do you thing that sits with Iraq?
Bush "missed a huge opportunity" at the United Nations this week to try to persuade leaders of other nations to join the United States in Iraq and the broader anti-terror war, Kerry said.
How will you do that, senator? By belittling our allies? By kowtowing to countries who had a vested interest in seeing the US fail? By giving the terrorists a timetable so they know exactly how long they have to lay low before Iraq will be left high and dry? By returning to the ways of the administration prior to this one, and reassuring the forces of evil that the US is a blowhard full of empty threats and swagger, without the will to back up our threats with actions?
No thank you.
The Bush campaign's response echos my own:
"Today, John Kerry showed he lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the United States of America to victory in the War on Terror.
"His attacks on the veracity of the Iraqi Prime Minister's historic address to Congress reveal a stunning propensity to take political cheap shots for his own benefit by denigrating our allies in this important struggle against a global terror network. President Bush is proud to stand with Prime Minister Allawi while John Kerry attacks progress and resolve and advocates a policy of retreat and defeat in the face of terror.
"John Kerry said today, 'And when you people judge me and the American people judge me on this, I want you to judge me on the full record.' We're confident the American people will."
Oh, we will, Marc. And I for one will find Senator Kerry wanting.
Hello Minnesota!
I was just monitoring Traffic to my blog and discovered a reader accessing it from the server of the Minnesota Republican Party.
What a happy coincidence. The Feared Redhead (my wife) is a native of Minnesota, and grew up in the Twin Cities suburb of Plymouth. We were married near Lake Minnetonka, and I think you have the second prettiest state in the Union (I'm biased).
So welcome to Oregon, enjoy, I hope you like what you see. Keep fighting the good fight, it's good to be in a state that's in play again, isn't it?
What a happy coincidence. The Feared Redhead (my wife) is a native of Minnesota, and grew up in the Twin Cities suburb of Plymouth. We were married near Lake Minnetonka, and I think you have the second prettiest state in the Union (I'm biased).
So welcome to Oregon, enjoy, I hope you like what you see. Keep fighting the good fight, it's good to be in a state that's in play again, isn't it?
Offender of the Faith
UPDATE:
Via the Seattle Times
Evangelist Swaggart apologizes for remark about gays.
Original Post, 1:27 PM PDT, 21 September, 2004:Thanks for the Memory to the Twisted Spinster.
Apparently Eugene Volokh over at the Volokh Conspiracy is upset by a comment made by Jimmy Swaggart:
I'm trying to find the correct name for it . . . this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. . . . I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died.
Oh, apparently, Andrew Sullivan weighs in on this too. There's a surprise.
First of all, let me say I'm not a regular visitor to Volokh's blog. I know it's popular, and from what I see, well-written, but it's not on my list of frequents. Nothing against it, I just thought it fair warning.
Apparently what upset Volokh most was not the comment itself, but the lack of outrage from the Christian Community:
But it seems to me that decent Christians ought to condemn this defender of murder, who publicly says that he'd violate the Ten Commandments when someone "looks at [him]" the wrong way, while purporting to preach God's word and lead Christian congregations. Tell us, at least, that this supposed Christian — who was once one of the nation's leading evangelists, until he was tripped up by another of the Commandments — doesn't speak for you.
Trust me, Eugene, he doesn't speak for me -- about a great many things. I'm not at ALL a member of Jimmy Swaggart's regular audience -- nor for that matter, a WILLING member of his audience PERIOD. Setting aside the above quote, the man espouses a doctrine (the Word Faith Movement) I find abhorrent. I believe that most Christians who follow it are merely deceived, and doctrinally in error, but I am also firm in my belief that most pastors teaching it, especially leaders like Swaggart, are espousing Heresy. About that I will not equivocate. For this reason I would discourage ANY Christian from paying heed to ANYTHING being preached by Swaggart.
And that's the reason THIS Christian has not yet denounced Swaggart's comment -- because I do my best to completely avoid or ignore him, I had no idea Swaggart had said something like this. If I had, I would have denounced it, as I do now. I wonder how many other Christians, and even pastors, are in the same boat. While Swaggart is still popular in some circles, I doubt he's as influential as he once was, or as Volokh believes him to be.
Having said that, I do denounce this statement. It is not at all in keeping with Christian Doctrine to speak of killing someone because they look at you with unwanted sexual intent -- nor, for that matter, for sinning at all. That's the Law, we live under Grace. As for the part about "telling God he died", theologically, that's just... What's the word? Oh, yeah -- stupid.
I do hope that any Christian leader who hears of this will vocally step to the plate and agree.
But there was something else about the Volokh blog entry that bothered me. In an update to the post, he linked to a response from another blogger, Sweeny A. of Ipsa Loquitur, who writes in part:
Eugene is certainly right that ethical people should condemn [Swaggart's] words, but one wonder's [sic] about Eugene's implication that this moral stain is automatically conferred to other Christians until they renounce it. One might say that for a Christian who has heard this comment to consciously refuse to renounce it is a tacit endorsement. That may be true, but the very terms in which Volokh has couched the ultimatum is unfair.
Since advocating murder because a gay man looks at you wrong is an obvious violation of the Christian ethic, why should Christians, qua Christians, feel obligated to renounce the remarks any more than people who share the last name of Swaggart?
Volokh has a lengthy response, but this is the part of it that caught my attention:
Christianity is a belief system — not just an involuntary status such as race or ethnicity, but a consciously chosen belief system that is based on certain writings and certain traditions. Historically, Christians have often stressed the importance of those writings, which supposedly provide something of an objective standard of behavior, and of a Christian community, which helps enforce this behavioral standard. In recent decades, many Christians have also tried to downplay denominational differences (say, between Protestants and Catholics), and to stress the common purpose of those who follow Jesus's [sic] teachings.
When someone who is a Christian minister, and still something of a Christian leader, makes a claim about what Christian scriptures mean, it seems to me that those Christians who condemn his views — and condemn them as deeply evil, rather than just subtly or slightly wrong — do have a responsibility to speak out.
and later,
I'm not asking for anything much — I'm simply saying that Christians should be outraged at Swaggart's essentially slandering their religion, and should denounce his views, to make clear that his views (though purportedly Christian) are not mainstream Christian views.
If I interpret Volokh's point correctly, he believes we Christians should not only condemn Swaggart's statement as morally reprehensible, but as doctrinally unorthodox. When he says "Historically, Christians have often stressed the importance of those writings, which supposedly provide something of an objective standard of behavior," that's as close as he's ever going to come to what we say when we acknowledge the inspiration and authority of scripture. In other words, we should reassure him that Swaggart doesn't speak for us because "That's not what our Scriptures teach."
Well, fine, Eugene. If you'll go back to my response to Swaggart's statement, that's exactly what I did. I stated my denouncing of the statement out of adherence to sound doctrine.
And here's the irony. That same adherence to sound doctrine requires that I take stances on many issues that I'm sure Volokh and Sullivan would both find... Distasteful, at best. That includes believing that adherence to certain tenets of the faith is requisite for being acknowledged as a Christian, believing that orthodox Christianity is the exclusive means by which an individual can know and have fellowship with God, and, yes, believing that homosexual behavior is in opposition to the commands of God.
Yet when I make such statements, rest assured that a great many people, both theologically liberal Christians and Non-Christians alike, will denounce me as being too closed-minded, too narrow, too devoted to an ancient book.
I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways. If you want Christians to speak out against Swaggart, and specifically want us to do so based on his violation of some standard of orthodoxy based on our Scriptures, then you are giving us your assent that we are correct in acknowledging the authority of those scriptures in establishing ALL standards of orthodoxy.
Via the Seattle Times
Evangelist Swaggart apologizes for remark about gays.
Original Post, 1:27 PM PDT, 21 September, 2004:Thanks for the Memory to the Twisted Spinster.
Apparently Eugene Volokh over at the Volokh Conspiracy is upset by a comment made by Jimmy Swaggart:
I'm trying to find the correct name for it . . . this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. . . . I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died.
Oh, apparently, Andrew Sullivan weighs in on this too. There's a surprise.
First of all, let me say I'm not a regular visitor to Volokh's blog. I know it's popular, and from what I see, well-written, but it's not on my list of frequents. Nothing against it, I just thought it fair warning.
Apparently what upset Volokh most was not the comment itself, but the lack of outrage from the Christian Community:
But it seems to me that decent Christians ought to condemn this defender of murder, who publicly says that he'd violate the Ten Commandments when someone "looks at [him]" the wrong way, while purporting to preach God's word and lead Christian congregations. Tell us, at least, that this supposed Christian — who was once one of the nation's leading evangelists, until he was tripped up by another of the Commandments — doesn't speak for you.
Trust me, Eugene, he doesn't speak for me -- about a great many things. I'm not at ALL a member of Jimmy Swaggart's regular audience -- nor for that matter, a WILLING member of his audience PERIOD. Setting aside the above quote, the man espouses a doctrine (the Word Faith Movement) I find abhorrent. I believe that most Christians who follow it are merely deceived, and doctrinally in error, but I am also firm in my belief that most pastors teaching it, especially leaders like Swaggart, are espousing Heresy. About that I will not equivocate. For this reason I would discourage ANY Christian from paying heed to ANYTHING being preached by Swaggart.
And that's the reason THIS Christian has not yet denounced Swaggart's comment -- because I do my best to completely avoid or ignore him, I had no idea Swaggart had said something like this. If I had, I would have denounced it, as I do now. I wonder how many other Christians, and even pastors, are in the same boat. While Swaggart is still popular in some circles, I doubt he's as influential as he once was, or as Volokh believes him to be.
Having said that, I do denounce this statement. It is not at all in keeping with Christian Doctrine to speak of killing someone because they look at you with unwanted sexual intent -- nor, for that matter, for sinning at all. That's the Law, we live under Grace. As for the part about "telling God he died", theologically, that's just... What's the word? Oh, yeah -- stupid.
I do hope that any Christian leader who hears of this will vocally step to the plate and agree.
But there was something else about the Volokh blog entry that bothered me. In an update to the post, he linked to a response from another blogger, Sweeny A. of Ipsa Loquitur, who writes in part:
Eugene is certainly right that ethical people should condemn [Swaggart's] words, but one wonder's [sic] about Eugene's implication that this moral stain is automatically conferred to other Christians until they renounce it. One might say that for a Christian who has heard this comment to consciously refuse to renounce it is a tacit endorsement. That may be true, but the very terms in which Volokh has couched the ultimatum is unfair.
Since advocating murder because a gay man looks at you wrong is an obvious violation of the Christian ethic, why should Christians, qua Christians, feel obligated to renounce the remarks any more than people who share the last name of Swaggart?
Volokh has a lengthy response, but this is the part of it that caught my attention:
Christianity is a belief system — not just an involuntary status such as race or ethnicity, but a consciously chosen belief system that is based on certain writings and certain traditions. Historically, Christians have often stressed the importance of those writings, which supposedly provide something of an objective standard of behavior, and of a Christian community, which helps enforce this behavioral standard. In recent decades, many Christians have also tried to downplay denominational differences (say, between Protestants and Catholics), and to stress the common purpose of those who follow Jesus's [sic] teachings.
When someone who is a Christian minister, and still something of a Christian leader, makes a claim about what Christian scriptures mean, it seems to me that those Christians who condemn his views — and condemn them as deeply evil, rather than just subtly or slightly wrong — do have a responsibility to speak out.
and later,
I'm not asking for anything much — I'm simply saying that Christians should be outraged at Swaggart's essentially slandering their religion, and should denounce his views, to make clear that his views (though purportedly Christian) are not mainstream Christian views.
If I interpret Volokh's point correctly, he believes we Christians should not only condemn Swaggart's statement as morally reprehensible, but as doctrinally unorthodox. When he says "Historically, Christians have often stressed the importance of those writings, which supposedly provide something of an objective standard of behavior," that's as close as he's ever going to come to what we say when we acknowledge the inspiration and authority of scripture. In other words, we should reassure him that Swaggart doesn't speak for us because "That's not what our Scriptures teach."
Well, fine, Eugene. If you'll go back to my response to Swaggart's statement, that's exactly what I did. I stated my denouncing of the statement out of adherence to sound doctrine.
And here's the irony. That same adherence to sound doctrine requires that I take stances on many issues that I'm sure Volokh and Sullivan would both find... Distasteful, at best. That includes believing that adherence to certain tenets of the faith is requisite for being acknowledged as a Christian, believing that orthodox Christianity is the exclusive means by which an individual can know and have fellowship with God, and, yes, believing that homosexual behavior is in opposition to the commands of God.
Yet when I make such statements, rest assured that a great many people, both theologically liberal Christians and Non-Christians alike, will denounce me as being too closed-minded, too narrow, too devoted to an ancient book.
I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways. If you want Christians to speak out against Swaggart, and specifically want us to do so based on his violation of some standard of orthodoxy based on our Scriptures, then you are giving us your assent that we are correct in acknowledging the authority of those scriptures in establishing ALL standards of orthodoxy.
RECALL OF KRYPTONITE BIKE LOCKS
Thanks for the Memory to KVAL TV the Feared Redhead.
I hate to link to a CBS affiliate news station, but that's who's covering the story in this area, and being a bicycle rider, this one's important to me -- especially since I own one of said Kryptonite locks.
Bike Lock Recall
By Dana Rebik
Eugene -
Bike theft is becoming more and more of a problem in Eugene and around the country.
The company Kryptonite is now recalling its cylinder lock after finding people can break into it easily with a Bic pen.
Today we visited the owners of Riley and Paul's Bike Shop in Eugene. They demonstrated how to pick the lock and had it open within a matter of seconds.
Students are arriving back and the University of Oregon and many were surprised to hear their locks can be picked so easily.
"It's news to me," says Theron Wells. "I thought my bike was safe. I've had this Kryptonite lock for years and it served me well. I'm surprised all it takes is a Bic pen to unlock it."
Some say it's best to put two locks on your bike to deter thieves. Better locks can help, but some think bike theft could decrease if police are more aggressive in responding.
"Bike theft needs to be taken seriously and there also has to be a law enforcement effort to suppress this activity," says Paul Robertson.
Eugene police say September and October are the peak months for bike theft.
For information on how to return your Kryptonite lock, click on the link below or send an email to: kryptonite@irco.com
I hate to link to a CBS affiliate news station, but that's who's covering the story in this area, and being a bicycle rider, this one's important to me -- especially since I own one of said Kryptonite locks.
Bike Lock Recall
By Dana Rebik
Eugene -
Bike theft is becoming more and more of a problem in Eugene and around the country.
The company Kryptonite is now recalling its cylinder lock after finding people can break into it easily with a Bic pen.
Today we visited the owners of Riley and Paul's Bike Shop in Eugene. They demonstrated how to pick the lock and had it open within a matter of seconds.
Students are arriving back and the University of Oregon and many were surprised to hear their locks can be picked so easily.
"It's news to me," says Theron Wells. "I thought my bike was safe. I've had this Kryptonite lock for years and it served me well. I'm surprised all it takes is a Bic pen to unlock it."
Some say it's best to put two locks on your bike to deter thieves. Better locks can help, but some think bike theft could decrease if police are more aggressive in responding.
"Bike theft needs to be taken seriously and there also has to be a law enforcement effort to suppress this activity," says Paul Robertson.
Eugene police say September and October are the peak months for bike theft.
For information on how to return your Kryptonite lock, click on the link below or send an email to: kryptonite@irco.com
The "Blair" Which Would You "Rather" Believe Project
Thanks for the Memory to Rathergate via No Left Turns.
Now blogs are scooping the MSM with interviews.
Mark Hemingway of Rathergate.com has obtained an exclusive interview with Jayson Blair (yes, THAT Jayson Blair) regarding his thoughts on the Dan Rather memo controversy. He has a very unique and relevant perspective, and his contrition over his own offenses is in refreshing contrast to Rather's bluster. I would highly recommend you read it.
Now blogs are scooping the MSM with interviews.
Mark Hemingway of Rathergate.com has obtained an exclusive interview with Jayson Blair (yes, THAT Jayson Blair) regarding his thoughts on the Dan Rather memo controversy. He has a very unique and relevant perspective, and his contrition over his own offenses is in refreshing contrast to Rather's bluster. I would highly recommend you read it.
Nicea on the Hudson
Thanks for the Memory to reader 51st State for this from the Ashbrook Center.
The Liberals’ Creed
by Robert Alt
We believe in the United Nations, and Kofi Annan, the maker of international legitimacy.
We believe that the UN inspections worked.
We believe that SCUD missiles fired at U.S. troops minutes after the war began don’t change anything;
We believe that 3 liters of sarin gas used against U.S. troops doesn’t change anything;
We believe that finding evidence of mustard gas doesn’t change anything.
We believe that the war in Iraq conducted by a Republican president was unjustified because it lacked UN approval;
We believe that the "military action" in Kosovo conducted by a Democratic president was justified without UN approval.
We believe that the Iraq war was unilateral.
We believe that the participation of Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine does not change the fact that the war was unilateral;
We believe that multilateralism can only be achieved with the participation of France and Germany;
We believe in multilateralism.
We believe that this war was motivated by greed and oil;
We believe that when France, Germany, and Russia opposed the war, they were motivated by principle, and not by sweetheart oil deals or Oil-For-Food kickbacks;
We believe that US oil prices are too high, and that the administration failed in its responsibility to do something about it.
We believe that the U.S. may only legitimately use force for humanitarian ends in one place if it does so in all places where aid might be needed;
We believe that the U.S. may not quell threats in places where the cost is relatively low unless it is willing to use force in places like North Korea, where the cost in lives would likely be very high;
We believe that a humanitarian action is only truly humanitarian if there are no strategic interests to muddle the altruism.
We believe that President Bush lied.
We believe that Prime Minister Blair lied.
We believe that when Hillary Clinton and Dick Gephardt voted for the war based on the same intelligence relied upon by Bush and Blair, they made reasonable decisions based on the intelligence available at the time.
We believe that the administration did not make the case for war;
We believe that the administration offered many different reasons but could not offer a coherent message explaining the need to go to war;
We believe that the administration made perfectly clear that the only reason we were going to war was because of the threat from WMDs.
We believe that there were no WMDs.
We believe that finding sarin gas is 14th page news;
We believe that if the sarin gas is old, then it really isn’t a WMD we were looking for;
We believe that it wasn’t really sarin gas;
We believe that sarin gas isn’t necessarily a WMD.
We believe that there was no terrorist connection to, or threat from, Iraq.
We believe that members of Abu Nidal in Iraq would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that Saddam’s terrorist training camp at Salman Pak—complete with a Boeing 707 plane used for hijacking drills—did not exist or posed no real threat;
We believe that it was merely a coincidence that the pharmaceutical factory bombed by President Clinton in Sudan was using al Qaeda funds and a uniquely Iraqi formula to produce VX gas;
We believe that we are responsible for bringing terror on ourselves.
We believe that the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib is widespread and is probably the tip of the iceberg;
We believe that Abu Ghraib proves that the America’s occupation is no different than Saddam’s tyranny;
We believe that any attempt to suggest that there is a moral difference between a regime which systematically killed 300,000 people and tortured countless others and a regime which punished the acts of Abu Ghraib is illegitimate.
We believe that soldiers deliberately target women and children;
We believe that the soldiers abuse and kill Iraqis because they are racists;
We support our troops.
We believe that no one should question our statement that we "support our troops;"
We believe that the best thing that could happen for this country would be for Bush to lose in November;
We believe that the best way for Bush to lose in November is for the Iraq effort to go poorly, even if that means that more Iraqis and troops will die;
We believe that most of the troops are minorities and the poor;
We believe that when the word "heroes" is used to describe our troops, it should always be enclosed in scare quotes.
We believe in quagmire.
We believe that when fringe Iraqi groups attack hard targets and are soundly defeated with relatively low Coalition casualties, that this is inescapable evidence of crisis;
We believe that Iraq is Bush’s Vietnam.
We believe that Vietnam is the lens through which all wars should be viewed.
We believe that soldiers in Vietnam were baby killers;
We believe that John Kerry is a hero for his service in Vietnam.
We believe that because John Kerry is a hero, he necessarily has the national security expertise necessary to be commander-in-chief.
We believe that any attempt to question his national security expertise based on his voting record, including his decision to vote against a supplemental bill used to buy the soldiers body armor, is an unfair attack on the patriotism of a hero, who by virtue of this honorific has the expertise to be commander-in-chief.
We believe in the trinity: NPR, CNN, and the New York Times. We believe in Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and all the DNC, and we look for President Clinton yet to come. Amen.
The Liberals’ Creed
by Robert Alt
We believe in the United Nations, and Kofi Annan, the maker of international legitimacy.
We believe that the UN inspections worked.
We believe that SCUD missiles fired at U.S. troops minutes after the war began don’t change anything;
We believe that 3 liters of sarin gas used against U.S. troops doesn’t change anything;
We believe that finding evidence of mustard gas doesn’t change anything.
We believe that the war in Iraq conducted by a Republican president was unjustified because it lacked UN approval;
We believe that the "military action" in Kosovo conducted by a Democratic president was justified without UN approval.
We believe that the Iraq war was unilateral.
We believe that the participation of Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine does not change the fact that the war was unilateral;
We believe that multilateralism can only be achieved with the participation of France and Germany;
We believe in multilateralism.
We believe that this war was motivated by greed and oil;
We believe that when France, Germany, and Russia opposed the war, they were motivated by principle, and not by sweetheart oil deals or Oil-For-Food kickbacks;
We believe that US oil prices are too high, and that the administration failed in its responsibility to do something about it.
We believe that the U.S. may only legitimately use force for humanitarian ends in one place if it does so in all places where aid might be needed;
We believe that the U.S. may not quell threats in places where the cost is relatively low unless it is willing to use force in places like North Korea, where the cost in lives would likely be very high;
We believe that a humanitarian action is only truly humanitarian if there are no strategic interests to muddle the altruism.
We believe that President Bush lied.
We believe that Prime Minister Blair lied.
We believe that when Hillary Clinton and Dick Gephardt voted for the war based on the same intelligence relied upon by Bush and Blair, they made reasonable decisions based on the intelligence available at the time.
We believe that the administration did not make the case for war;
We believe that the administration offered many different reasons but could not offer a coherent message explaining the need to go to war;
We believe that the administration made perfectly clear that the only reason we were going to war was because of the threat from WMDs.
We believe that there were no WMDs.
We believe that finding sarin gas is 14th page news;
We believe that if the sarin gas is old, then it really isn’t a WMD we were looking for;
We believe that it wasn’t really sarin gas;
We believe that sarin gas isn’t necessarily a WMD.
We believe that there was no terrorist connection to, or threat from, Iraq.
We believe that members of Abu Nidal in Iraq would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that Saddam’s terrorist training camp at Salman Pak—complete with a Boeing 707 plane used for hijacking drills—did not exist or posed no real threat;
We believe that it was merely a coincidence that the pharmaceutical factory bombed by President Clinton in Sudan was using al Qaeda funds and a uniquely Iraqi formula to produce VX gas;
We believe that we are responsible for bringing terror on ourselves.
We believe that the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib is widespread and is probably the tip of the iceberg;
We believe that Abu Ghraib proves that the America’s occupation is no different than Saddam’s tyranny;
We believe that any attempt to suggest that there is a moral difference between a regime which systematically killed 300,000 people and tortured countless others and a regime which punished the acts of Abu Ghraib is illegitimate.
We believe that soldiers deliberately target women and children;
We believe that the soldiers abuse and kill Iraqis because they are racists;
We support our troops.
We believe that no one should question our statement that we "support our troops;"
We believe that the best thing that could happen for this country would be for Bush to lose in November;
We believe that the best way for Bush to lose in November is for the Iraq effort to go poorly, even if that means that more Iraqis and troops will die;
We believe that most of the troops are minorities and the poor;
We believe that when the word "heroes" is used to describe our troops, it should always be enclosed in scare quotes.
We believe in quagmire.
We believe that when fringe Iraqi groups attack hard targets and are soundly defeated with relatively low Coalition casualties, that this is inescapable evidence of crisis;
We believe that Iraq is Bush’s Vietnam.
We believe that Vietnam is the lens through which all wars should be viewed.
We believe that soldiers in Vietnam were baby killers;
We believe that John Kerry is a hero for his service in Vietnam.
We believe that because John Kerry is a hero, he necessarily has the national security expertise necessary to be commander-in-chief.
We believe that any attempt to question his national security expertise based on his voting record, including his decision to vote against a supplemental bill used to buy the soldiers body armor, is an unfair attack on the patriotism of a hero, who by virtue of this honorific has the expertise to be commander-in-chief.
We believe in the trinity: NPR, CNN, and the New York Times. We believe in Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and all the DNC, and we look for President Clinton yet to come. Amen.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Blue Collar Academia
Thanks for the Memory to Dr. Bauman at In Extremis.
With Sincere Apologies to Jeff Foxworthy: You Might be a Liberal If . . .
By: Dr. Michael Bauman
Even though some liberal politicians don’t like using the "L" word, it’s still possible to know who’s a liberal and who is not.
You might be a liberal if . . .
You think that consenting adults can engage freely in every activity except capitalism.
You think the really alarming violence takes place outside the abortion clinic.
You’ve ever referred to the “root cause” of something.
You pray to “The Woman Upstairs.”
You think we never gave peace a chance.
You had to be told that “Manhattan,” “menopause” and “boycott” were not sexist words
You begin sentences with the words “I feel.”
Your driver’s license has a hyphen because, for you, one last name just isn’t enough.
You think OJ is out looking for the real killers.
You don’t know that you see B.S. when you watch CBS.
You think Fox News is faux news.
You get your economic theory from John Mellencamp and your foreign policy from Sean Penn.
You think it takes a village.
You think higher education is about diversity, not excellence.
You think that the words “to promote the general welfare” in the Constitution mean to promote welfare generally.
You think that conservatives, like preservatives, ought to be federally regulated.
You ever wore earth shoes.
You have ever wondered out loud, “Why can’t we all just get along?”
You think the New York Times prints all the news that’s fit.
You think that Bill O'Reilly is just an entertainer.
You spent Columbus Day reading Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.
You reach the limits of your talent and then complain that you ran into a glass ceiling.
You wear more ribbons on your lapel than in your hair.
You think that the really dangerous McCarthy was Joe, not Eugene.
You blame the Unabomber’s parents.
You fail to see the connection between Lenin and Lennon.
You have ever agreed with Alec Baldwin.
Seriously, if you haven't been to In Extremis, GO NOW!!!!! Bauman and Oren are two of the most underrated bloggers I've read!
With Sincere Apologies to Jeff Foxworthy: You Might be a Liberal If . . .
By: Dr. Michael Bauman
Even though some liberal politicians don’t like using the "L" word, it’s still possible to know who’s a liberal and who is not.
You might be a liberal if . . .
You think that consenting adults can engage freely in every activity except capitalism.
You think the really alarming violence takes place outside the abortion clinic.
You’ve ever referred to the “root cause” of something.
You pray to “The Woman Upstairs.”
You think we never gave peace a chance.
You had to be told that “Manhattan,” “menopause” and “boycott” were not sexist words
You begin sentences with the words “I feel.”
Your driver’s license has a hyphen because, for you, one last name just isn’t enough.
You think OJ is out looking for the real killers.
You don’t know that you see B.S. when you watch CBS.
You think Fox News is faux news.
You get your economic theory from John Mellencamp and your foreign policy from Sean Penn.
You think it takes a village.
You think higher education is about diversity, not excellence.
You think that the words “to promote the general welfare” in the Constitution mean to promote welfare generally.
You think that conservatives, like preservatives, ought to be federally regulated.
You ever wore earth shoes.
You have ever wondered out loud, “Why can’t we all just get along?”
You think the New York Times prints all the news that’s fit.
You think that Bill O'Reilly is just an entertainer.
You spent Columbus Day reading Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.
You reach the limits of your talent and then complain that you ran into a glass ceiling.
You wear more ribbons on your lapel than in your hair.
You think that the really dangerous McCarthy was Joe, not Eugene.
You blame the Unabomber’s parents.
You fail to see the connection between Lenin and Lennon.
You have ever agreed with Alec Baldwin.
Seriously, if you haven't been to In Extremis, GO NOW!!!!! Bauman and Oren are two of the most underrated bloggers I've read!
When They Call it "Last Comic Standing," I Don't Think They Mean the Host
I watched "Last Comic Standing" last night, and only have one piece of advice for host Jay Mohr:
Dude, your guest stars were Carrot Top and Louie Anderson.
That's "Dial Down the Center" Carrot Top and Louie "Just When You Thought Family Feud Couldn't Get More Pathetic" Anderson!
FIRE
YOUR
AGENT
!!!!!
You're this close to Hollywood Squares status!
Dude, your guest stars were Carrot Top and Louie Anderson.
That's "Dial Down the Center" Carrot Top and Louie "Just When You Thought Family Feud Couldn't Get More Pathetic" Anderson!
FIRE
YOUR
AGENT
!!!!!
You're this close to Hollywood Squares status!
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Gore Campaign: More Journalistic Integrity Than CBS?
Thanks for the Memory to Drudge.
Gore campaign rejected allegations similar to CBS report, former campaign chief says
- MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
(09-21) 15:54 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
Former Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign heard but did not pursue allegations about George W. Bush's Air National Guard service, similar to the information in discredited documents aired by CBS News this month, a former campaign official said Tuesday.
Tony Coelho, who ran the campaign for several months in 2000, said he did not follow up on the claims because they were not serious enough to demand further attention.
"Of everyone I talked to, no one had anything that rose to the level that we should get ourselves into," Coelho said.
CBS and anchor Dan Rather apologized Monday for a "60 Minutes" segment that quoted documents purported to be from one of Bush's commanders in the Texas Air National Guard. The documents say the commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, ordered Bush to take a medical exam, which he did not, and felt pressured to sugarcoat an evaluation of then-1st Lt. Bush.
Rather said the network could not determine if the memos were authentic.
White House officials and other Republicans suggested that Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign was behind the CBS report. Kerry campaign officials denied that.
Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart said he spoke with Bill Burkett, who gave CBS the documents, after a network producer suggested it. Lockhart and Burkett said they only discussed how Kerry could respond to a group of Republican veterans who accuse Kerry of exaggerating his Vietnam War record.
Coelho said he remembered taking phone calls in 2000 from several Texans with allegations about Bush's Guard service. He said he did not remember if any were from Burkett, a former Texas Army National Guard officer and longtime Bush critic.
"I never felt there was anything substantive for us to try to deal with or not, so we never pursued it," Coelho said. "We never had any documents given to us. That would have been something different. We would have had to check it out."
I'm not sure I completely believe Coelho -- there's a lot of "CYA" going on in leftist circles these days.
If he's lying (plausible), it's one more example of rats abandoning a sinking swift boat. If he's telling the truth, it speaks volumes that CBS was eager to jump on a story that even the avowed nemesis of the story's target wouldn't touch.
Gore campaign rejected allegations similar to CBS report, former campaign chief says
- MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
(09-21) 15:54 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
Former Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign heard but did not pursue allegations about George W. Bush's Air National Guard service, similar to the information in discredited documents aired by CBS News this month, a former campaign official said Tuesday.
Tony Coelho, who ran the campaign for several months in 2000, said he did not follow up on the claims because they were not serious enough to demand further attention.
"Of everyone I talked to, no one had anything that rose to the level that we should get ourselves into," Coelho said.
CBS and anchor Dan Rather apologized Monday for a "60 Minutes" segment that quoted documents purported to be from one of Bush's commanders in the Texas Air National Guard. The documents say the commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, ordered Bush to take a medical exam, which he did not, and felt pressured to sugarcoat an evaluation of then-1st Lt. Bush.
Rather said the network could not determine if the memos were authentic.
White House officials and other Republicans suggested that Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign was behind the CBS report. Kerry campaign officials denied that.
Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart said he spoke with Bill Burkett, who gave CBS the documents, after a network producer suggested it. Lockhart and Burkett said they only discussed how Kerry could respond to a group of Republican veterans who accuse Kerry of exaggerating his Vietnam War record.
Coelho said he remembered taking phone calls in 2000 from several Texans with allegations about Bush's Guard service. He said he did not remember if any were from Burkett, a former Texas Army National Guard officer and longtime Bush critic.
"I never felt there was anything substantive for us to try to deal with or not, so we never pursued it," Coelho said. "We never had any documents given to us. That would have been something different. We would have had to check it out."
I'm not sure I completely believe Coelho -- there's a lot of "CYA" going on in leftist circles these days.
If he's lying (plausible), it's one more example of rats abandoning a sinking swift boat. If he's telling the truth, it speaks volumes that CBS was eager to jump on a story that even the avowed nemesis of the story's target wouldn't touch.
The Enemy of His Enemy is His... Enemy?
Thanks for the Memory to Drudge.
One of the criticisms of President Bush leveled by the Left is that he's "a Divider, not a Uniter." They are, of course, referring to the current polarization of the electorate, both to the left and the right.
Given that criticism, and the fact that he represents the left, don't you think Kerry should refrain from Dividing the Left Itself?
Nader Blames Kerry for Ballot Access Fight
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader accused his Democratic rival Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday of being responsible for a campaign to try and keep him off the Nov. 2 ballot.
Seen by many Democrats as the "spoiler" in the 2000 election that elected Republican George W. Bush as president, Nader's campaign said it was fighting 21 legal cases in 17 states in a bid to get the consumer advocate on the ballot.
Nader pointed the finger at Kerry and Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe for being behind what his campaign says is a program of harassment, intimidation and phony lawsuits that are costing tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
"The ballot access has drained our time and our resources," Nader told a news conference. "I have to hold Sen. John Kerry and Terry McAuliffe directly responsible."
The Kerry campaign did not immediately return phone calls asking for a response.
Nader's campaign played a tape they said was testimony by the head of the Democratic Party in Maine who is heard saying that the Democratic National Committee is paying for her time and expenses related to trying to keep Nader off the ballot.
The Nader campaign said that kind of coordination appeared to be illegal and should be investigated by the Federal Elections Commission.
His campaign said Nader was on the ballot in 29 states.
Nader called the Democrats "gutless, spineless, clueless and hapless" and said their gamble that people would vote for anyone but Bush was misguided and would make them lose the election.
Democrats around the United States have been challenging Nader's presence on the ballot, fearing he will again boost Bush's re-election chances by drawing votes that would otherwise go to Kerry.
Polls indicate the 2004 election may be as close as the one in 2000 when the Supreme Court ruled on the Florida recount to hand Bush victory over Democrat Al Gore.
Last week, Florida's Supreme Court ordered Nader could be allowed to compete in the state and a judge also ordered that he be included on the ballot in Colorado.
Judges in New Mexico and Arkansas have denied Nader access to the Nov. 2 ballot, but he did win a spot on the ballot in Maryland.,
And in Oregon, I think she meant to say. I've blogged on the whole Nader issue before, specifically because of his influence here in Oregon.
The irony here is delicious. As I've stated, being the Not-Bush has been such a huge part of Kerry's appeal to the left. Yet in the way he's dealt with Nader, he is alienating the extreme left -- the one group of people who most often take up the "Anybody but Bush" battlecry.
One of the criticisms of President Bush leveled by the Left is that he's "a Divider, not a Uniter." They are, of course, referring to the current polarization of the electorate, both to the left and the right.
Given that criticism, and the fact that he represents the left, don't you think Kerry should refrain from Dividing the Left Itself?
Nader Blames Kerry for Ballot Access Fight
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader accused his Democratic rival Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday of being responsible for a campaign to try and keep him off the Nov. 2 ballot.
Seen by many Democrats as the "spoiler" in the 2000 election that elected Republican George W. Bush as president, Nader's campaign said it was fighting 21 legal cases in 17 states in a bid to get the consumer advocate on the ballot.
Nader pointed the finger at Kerry and Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe for being behind what his campaign says is a program of harassment, intimidation and phony lawsuits that are costing tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
"The ballot access has drained our time and our resources," Nader told a news conference. "I have to hold Sen. John Kerry and Terry McAuliffe directly responsible."
The Kerry campaign did not immediately return phone calls asking for a response.
Nader's campaign played a tape they said was testimony by the head of the Democratic Party in Maine who is heard saying that the Democratic National Committee is paying for her time and expenses related to trying to keep Nader off the ballot.
The Nader campaign said that kind of coordination appeared to be illegal and should be investigated by the Federal Elections Commission.
His campaign said Nader was on the ballot in 29 states.
Nader called the Democrats "gutless, spineless, clueless and hapless" and said their gamble that people would vote for anyone but Bush was misguided and would make them lose the election.
Democrats around the United States have been challenging Nader's presence on the ballot, fearing he will again boost Bush's re-election chances by drawing votes that would otherwise go to Kerry.
Polls indicate the 2004 election may be as close as the one in 2000 when the Supreme Court ruled on the Florida recount to hand Bush victory over Democrat Al Gore.
Last week, Florida's Supreme Court ordered Nader could be allowed to compete in the state and a judge also ordered that he be included on the ballot in Colorado.
Judges in New Mexico and Arkansas have denied Nader access to the Nov. 2 ballot, but he did win a spot on the ballot in Maryland.,
And in Oregon, I think she meant to say. I've blogged on the whole Nader issue before, specifically because of his influence here in Oregon.
The irony here is delicious. As I've stated, being the Not-Bush has been such a huge part of Kerry's appeal to the left. Yet in the way he's dealt with Nader, he is alienating the extreme left -- the one group of people who most often take up the "Anybody but Bush" battlecry.
Secret Service Hunting for Man Intending to Assasinate President Bush.
MAJOR UPDATE:
Also credited to Ace.
The suspect has been found and questioned by the Secret Service.
URGENT UPDATE:
Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades HQ:
The latest regarding this story from the Washington Times is that they still haven't caught him: He's completely disappeared!
U.S. law enforcement officials have been unable to locate an upstate New York man wanted for questioning regarding threats to President Bush.
Original Post, 21 September 2004:
Thanks for the Memory to Drudge.
City alert in threat to Bush
BY MICHELE McPHEE and LEO STANDORA
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Lawrence Ward
The Secret Service clamped down on midtown last night to protect President Bush from a possible assassin armed with a hunting rifle.
Lawrence Ward, 59, left his upstate New York home Wednesday with a .30-30 lever-action hunting rifle in the trunk of his car, telling a neighbor, "I'm not coming back."
Inside his house in Bainbridge was a picture of Bush with the words "Dead Man" spray-painted near it, law enforcement authorities said.
Bush was in town for a fund-raiser at the Sheraton New York before speaking today at the UN General Assembly.
The Secret Service deemed Ward, a software engineer, such a "credible threat" that a three-square-block chunk of midtown was cordoned off.
Secret Service agents and city cops patrolled the area looking for anything suspicious.
Ward's ex-wife, Judith Ward, 59, who lives in Connecticut, told the Secret Service she thinks her former husband "is very dangerous and capable of killing someone and/or committing suicide."
She said Ward "is obsessed with weapons, [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh and the book 'The Dead Zone' - a novel about the stalking and attempted assassination of a presidential candidate," according to a Secret Service document.
The document, reviewed by the Daily News, said Ward sent his ex-wife a CD that mentions killing both Bush and Democratic rival John Kerry.
He also was said to be "obsessed" with his 19-year-old daughter, Priscilla Jane.
Judith Ward told The News she divorced her husband four years ago after 18 years of marriage because "he was a wife-beater and other things I don't want to talk about."
Authorities said Ward has a criminal past dating to 1991, including an indecent sexual proposal charge.
The neighbor in Bainbridge, a community about 40miles northeast of Binghamton, told authorities that Ward "frequently spoke of 'fighting the system' and other anti-government topics."
The neighbor said Ward gave him his house keys and told him to help himself. He then drove off in a blue 1997 Toyota sedan with the New York license plate BRF-6546.
Two days later, the neighbor went into the house, found the photo of Bush and called police.
Please pray for the safety of the President, the Secret Service agents, any innocent bystanders, and even this man. He's obviously mentally disturbed, and the ideal outcome would be that he spends a long, long time in a secure facility.
Also credited to Ace.
The suspect has been found and questioned by the Secret Service.
URGENT UPDATE:
Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades HQ:
The latest regarding this story from the Washington Times is that they still haven't caught him: He's completely disappeared!
U.S. law enforcement officials have been unable to locate an upstate New York man wanted for questioning regarding threats to President Bush.
Original Post, 21 September 2004:
Thanks for the Memory to Drudge.
City alert in threat to Bush
BY MICHELE McPHEE and LEO STANDORA
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Lawrence Ward
The Secret Service clamped down on midtown last night to protect President Bush from a possible assassin armed with a hunting rifle.
Lawrence Ward, 59, left his upstate New York home Wednesday with a .30-30 lever-action hunting rifle in the trunk of his car, telling a neighbor, "I'm not coming back."
Inside his house in Bainbridge was a picture of Bush with the words "Dead Man" spray-painted near it, law enforcement authorities said.
Bush was in town for a fund-raiser at the Sheraton New York before speaking today at the UN General Assembly.
The Secret Service deemed Ward, a software engineer, such a "credible threat" that a three-square-block chunk of midtown was cordoned off.
Secret Service agents and city cops patrolled the area looking for anything suspicious.
Ward's ex-wife, Judith Ward, 59, who lives in Connecticut, told the Secret Service she thinks her former husband "is very dangerous and capable of killing someone and/or committing suicide."
She said Ward "is obsessed with weapons, [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh and the book 'The Dead Zone' - a novel about the stalking and attempted assassination of a presidential candidate," according to a Secret Service document.
The document, reviewed by the Daily News, said Ward sent his ex-wife a CD that mentions killing both Bush and Democratic rival John Kerry.
He also was said to be "obsessed" with his 19-year-old daughter, Priscilla Jane.
Judith Ward told The News she divorced her husband four years ago after 18 years of marriage because "he was a wife-beater and other things I don't want to talk about."
Authorities said Ward has a criminal past dating to 1991, including an indecent sexual proposal charge.
The neighbor in Bainbridge, a community about 40miles northeast of Binghamton, told authorities that Ward "frequently spoke of 'fighting the system' and other anti-government topics."
The neighbor said Ward gave him his house keys and told him to help himself. He then drove off in a blue 1997 Toyota sedan with the New York license plate BRF-6546.
Two days later, the neighbor went into the house, found the photo of Bush and called police.
Please pray for the safety of the President, the Secret Service agents, any innocent bystanders, and even this man. He's obviously mentally disturbed, and the ideal outcome would be that he spends a long, long time in a secure facility.
No Moore, No Less
I received the following email, and thought it was a great idea!
PUBLISHER SPONSORING "DVD BUY-BACK" PROGRAM TO KEEP AMERICAN HOMES SAFE FROM MICHAEL MOORE'S DANGEROUS PROPAGANDA
Similar to Gun Buy-Backs, World Ahead Publishing Exchanges "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Copies of THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH
LOS ANGELES, September 17, 2004 - In an effort to ensure the safety of American homes, World Ahead Publishing, publisher of THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH, announces its Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD Buy-Back program for U.S. purchasers of Michael Moore's documentary. In urban areas, city leaders periodically sponsor gun "buy-back" programs to help reduce gun violence. Similarly, the Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD Buy-Back program is designed to protect Americans from harm, especially young children who might accidentally slip this dangerous propaganda into the living room DVD player.
Beginning October 5th, the day Moore's documentary goes on sale, World Ahead Publishing will offer citizens the opportunity to exchange their copies of Fahrenheit 9/11 for THANK YOU PRESIDENT BUSH: REFLECTIONS ON THE WAR ON TERROR, DEFENSE OF THE FAMILY, AND THE REVIVAL OF THE ECONOMY, with no questions asked.
Unlike Moore's film, which deceptively splices film footage to score its points, Thank You, President Bush discusses the facts. This book's all-star list of contributors includes Art Laffer, the father of supply-side economics; George Shultz, former Secretary of State; James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; and Bill Bennett, former Secretary of Education. Vice President Dick Cheney also contributes a chapter on foreign policy, and the President's brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, pens a moving and personal introduction. All 29 writers are experts in their
topics, addressing such important issues as national security, the economy,
and social policy in straightforward language.
"Moore's work isn't a documentary. It's a dangerous weapon that shouldn't be left lying around the house," says Aman Verjee, co-editor of the anthology. "Send us Moore's lies and we'll give you the truth on President Bush's record and policies. We want to give people who unsuspectingly buy Moore's propaganda a chance to trade it in for a book that's positive and insightful," added Verjee. "This book sets the
record straight: George W. Bush deserves more than another term in office; he
deserves our gratitude."
For the mailing address and the terms and conditions of the buy-back program, go to www.worldaheadpublishing.com.
ABOUT WORLD AHEAD PUBLISHING
World Ahead Publishing is a privately-held, California-based corporation with a growing coterie of authors who advocate individual liberty and free markets. World Ahead believes that freedom is the inalienable right of all human beings but the spread of liberty is by no means a foregone conclusion-individual freedom and the institutions that make it possible, including capitalism itself, face risks from
reactionary and powerful interests. To that end, World Ahead Publishing seeks to publish thought-provoking nonfiction books exploring the significant economic, political, and security issues facing the nation and the world. Two other titles will debut in the second half of 2004, and seven new books are planned for 2005-2006.
For more information: www.worldaheadpublishing.com
When I read the gun buyback comparison, I couldn't help but think, DVDs don't deceive people, Michael Moore deceives people!
PUBLISHER SPONSORING "DVD BUY-BACK" PROGRAM TO KEEP AMERICAN HOMES SAFE FROM MICHAEL MOORE'S DANGEROUS PROPAGANDA
Similar to Gun Buy-Backs, World Ahead Publishing Exchanges "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Copies of THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH
LOS ANGELES, September 17, 2004 - In an effort to ensure the safety of American homes, World Ahead Publishing, publisher of THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH, announces its Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD Buy-Back program for U.S. purchasers of Michael Moore's documentary. In urban areas, city leaders periodically sponsor gun "buy-back" programs to help reduce gun violence. Similarly, the Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD Buy-Back program is designed to protect Americans from harm, especially young children who might accidentally slip this dangerous propaganda into the living room DVD player.
Beginning October 5th, the day Moore's documentary goes on sale, World Ahead Publishing will offer citizens the opportunity to exchange their copies of Fahrenheit 9/11 for THANK YOU PRESIDENT BUSH: REFLECTIONS ON THE WAR ON TERROR, DEFENSE OF THE FAMILY, AND THE REVIVAL OF THE ECONOMY, with no questions asked.
Unlike Moore's film, which deceptively splices film footage to score its points, Thank You, President Bush discusses the facts. This book's all-star list of contributors includes Art Laffer, the father of supply-side economics; George Shultz, former Secretary of State; James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; and Bill Bennett, former Secretary of Education. Vice President Dick Cheney also contributes a chapter on foreign policy, and the President's brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, pens a moving and personal introduction. All 29 writers are experts in their
topics, addressing such important issues as national security, the economy,
and social policy in straightforward language.
"Moore's work isn't a documentary. It's a dangerous weapon that shouldn't be left lying around the house," says Aman Verjee, co-editor of the anthology. "Send us Moore's lies and we'll give you the truth on President Bush's record and policies. We want to give people who unsuspectingly buy Moore's propaganda a chance to trade it in for a book that's positive and insightful," added Verjee. "This book sets the
record straight: George W. Bush deserves more than another term in office; he
deserves our gratitude."
For the mailing address and the terms and conditions of the buy-back program, go to www.worldaheadpublishing.com.
ABOUT WORLD AHEAD PUBLISHING
World Ahead Publishing is a privately-held, California-based corporation with a growing coterie of authors who advocate individual liberty and free markets. World Ahead believes that freedom is the inalienable right of all human beings but the spread of liberty is by no means a foregone conclusion-individual freedom and the institutions that make it possible, including capitalism itself, face risks from
reactionary and powerful interests. To that end, World Ahead Publishing seeks to publish thought-provoking nonfiction books exploring the significant economic, political, and security issues facing the nation and the world. Two other titles will debut in the second half of 2004, and seven new books are planned for 2005-2006.
For more information: www.worldaheadpublishing.com
When I read the gun buyback comparison, I couldn't help but think, DVDs don't deceive people, Michael Moore deceives people!
Monday, September 20, 2004
CBS: As Impartial as a Russian Olympic Judge
Thanks for the Memory to Luciane Via Ace of Spades HQ.
Kerry Aid Contacted Burkett on CBS' Advice
Associated Press
NEW YORK - At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released.
Do tell.
Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. (Uh huh. The way things have been going in this case, buddy, you might understand if we view this claim... skeptically.)Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.
It's a good thing the media is so unbiased, or we might think Mapes was trying to help Kerry.
"He had some advice on how to deal with the Vietnam issue and the Swift boat" allegations, Lockhart said Monday, referring to GOP-fueled accusations that Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam War record. "He said these guys play tough and we have to put the Vietnam experience into context and have Kerry talk about it more."
You're sure he didn't saying anything about "fighting fire with fire, even if you have to start the fire yourself?
Lockhart said he thanked Burkett for his advice after a three to four minute call.
Lockhart said he does not recall talking to Burkett about Bush's Guard records. "It's baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this," he said.
Then why are we talking to you? The fact that you called him, on CBS' advice, right in the middle of the whole mess, you don't consider that a bit... suspicious?
CBS News apologized Monday for a "mistake in judgment" in its story questioning Bush's Guard service, claiming it was misled by the source of documents that several experts have dismissed as fakes.
Burkett admitted this weekend to CBS that he lied about obtaining the documents from another former National Guard member, the network said. CBS hasn't been able to conclusively tell how he got them, or even whether they're fakes or not.
Kerry ally Max Cleland, a former Georgia senator, also said he had a brief conversation last month with Burkett, who told him he had information about Bush to counter charges against Kerry's Vietnam War service. Cleland said he gave Burkett's name and phone number to the campaign's research department.
But... but... I thought it was "...baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this"! What is this your telling us?
Kerry spokesman David Ginsberg said nobody in the campaign's research department followed up on Burkett's offer of information.
Again, we're a bit skeptical, given how many times we've been lied to in this whole mess.
Lockhart said Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."
That's the part of this story that galls me to no end. Forget the direct link to a Kerry campaign worker. It's possible, but not likely, that he acted independently, and that they really ARE telling the truth (for once) when they claim a lack of collusion.
But the fact that Mapes, the CBS Producer of the story, called a member of the campaign staff of one of the two candidates, with information she thought would help him defeat the other candidate, nails the lid in the coffin of any claims to impartiality on the part of CBS.
I repeat,
This nails the lid in the coffin of any claims to impartiality on the part of CBS.
Oh, THAT media bias.
UPDATE:
Thanks for the Memory to reader Mark at Ace.
Apparently, even Mapes' own FATHER recognizes her as a DNC Shill.
Ouch.
UPDATE 2:
Thanks for the Memory to Random Birkel via Ace of Spades.
Apparently Joe Lockhart isn't the only member Kerry camp talking about contact with Burkett. In an interview on MSNBC's Hardball (the most poorly named program on TV), Tony Coelho claims that the DNC saw the Burkett documents, but suspected they were fakes.
Which raises a couple of questions in my mind: If you knew they were fakes, why didn't you say so when this story first broke? Hoping that little tidbit wouldn't come out? Hmmmm? And if you knew Burnett was passing fake documents, why didn't you warn Kerry's staff not to take his advice on ANYTHING?????!!!!!
In trying to exhonorate themselves, the DNC just sinks deeper into this. A little bit of advice: When you're up to your neck in quicksand, STOP STRUGGLING!
UPDATE 3:
Again via Ace of Spades.
This Article from USA Today is the most damning yet. It implies that Burkett agreed to give CBS the documents only on condition that they arrange a meeting between him and the Kerry camp!
Dan Rather should quit now. Hey, at least he'll have a job as a press aid to Kerry.
Kerry Aid Contacted Burkett on CBS' Advice
Associated Press
NEW YORK - At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released.
Do tell.
Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. (Uh huh. The way things have been going in this case, buddy, you might understand if we view this claim... skeptically.)Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.
It's a good thing the media is so unbiased, or we might think Mapes was trying to help Kerry.
"He had some advice on how to deal with the Vietnam issue and the Swift boat" allegations, Lockhart said Monday, referring to GOP-fueled accusations that Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam War record. "He said these guys play tough and we have to put the Vietnam experience into context and have Kerry talk about it more."
You're sure he didn't saying anything about "fighting fire with fire, even if you have to start the fire yourself?
Lockhart said he thanked Burkett for his advice after a three to four minute call.
Lockhart said he does not recall talking to Burkett about Bush's Guard records. "It's baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this," he said.
Then why are we talking to you? The fact that you called him, on CBS' advice, right in the middle of the whole mess, you don't consider that a bit... suspicious?
CBS News apologized Monday for a "mistake in judgment" in its story questioning Bush's Guard service, claiming it was misled by the source of documents that several experts have dismissed as fakes.
Burkett admitted this weekend to CBS that he lied about obtaining the documents from another former National Guard member, the network said. CBS hasn't been able to conclusively tell how he got them, or even whether they're fakes or not.
Kerry ally Max Cleland, a former Georgia senator, also said he had a brief conversation last month with Burkett, who told him he had information about Bush to counter charges against Kerry's Vietnam War service. Cleland said he gave Burkett's name and phone number to the campaign's research department.
But... but... I thought it was "...baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this"! What is this your telling us?
Kerry spokesman David Ginsberg said nobody in the campaign's research department followed up on Burkett's offer of information.
Again, we're a bit skeptical, given how many times we've been lied to in this whole mess.
Lockhart said Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."
That's the part of this story that galls me to no end. Forget the direct link to a Kerry campaign worker. It's possible, but not likely, that he acted independently, and that they really ARE telling the truth (for once) when they claim a lack of collusion.
But the fact that Mapes, the CBS Producer of the story, called a member of the campaign staff of one of the two candidates, with information she thought would help him defeat the other candidate, nails the lid in the coffin of any claims to impartiality on the part of CBS.
I repeat,
This nails the lid in the coffin of any claims to impartiality on the part of CBS.
Oh, THAT media bias.
UPDATE:
Thanks for the Memory to reader Mark at Ace.
Apparently, even Mapes' own FATHER recognizes her as a DNC Shill.
Ouch.
UPDATE 2:
Thanks for the Memory to Random Birkel via Ace of Spades.
Apparently Joe Lockhart isn't the only member Kerry camp talking about contact with Burkett. In an interview on MSNBC's Hardball (the most poorly named program on TV), Tony Coelho claims that the DNC saw the Burkett documents, but suspected they were fakes.
Which raises a couple of questions in my mind: If you knew they were fakes, why didn't you say so when this story first broke? Hoping that little tidbit wouldn't come out? Hmmmm? And if you knew Burnett was passing fake documents, why didn't you warn Kerry's staff not to take his advice on ANYTHING?????!!!!!
In trying to exhonorate themselves, the DNC just sinks deeper into this. A little bit of advice: When you're up to your neck in quicksand, STOP STRUGGLING!
UPDATE 3:
Again via Ace of Spades.
This Article from USA Today is the most damning yet. It implies that Burkett agreed to give CBS the documents only on condition that they arrange a meeting between him and the Kerry camp!
Dan Rather should quit now. Hey, at least he'll have a job as a press aid to Kerry.
Rather Ironic
Thanks for the Memory to Little Green Footballs via Ace of Spades HQ.
This is a picture an LGF reader took of a CBS News van in NYC:
The small sign under the CBS News sign reads, "The only bush I trust is my own."
Ha ha ha. How clever. Oh, THAT Liberal Media Bias.
Ironically enough, the only CBS News I trust is... ummm....
This is a picture an LGF reader took of a CBS News van in NYC:
The small sign under the CBS News sign reads, "The only bush I trust is my own."
Ha ha ha. How clever. Oh, THAT Liberal Media Bias.
Ironically enough, the only CBS News I trust is... ummm....
U of O College Republicans Cry "Fowl!" at DeFazio Staffer's Behavior
Thanks for the Memory to to Jim Peterson, local GOP leader, who forwarded this press release from the UofO College Republicans to me:
Media Advisory
September 18,2004
Contact: Matt Lawrence
Chicken Ruffles DeFazio’s Feathers
Albany, OR – Apparently, some people can’t take a joke.
Last month, the Oregon College Republicans began a campaign of sorts against Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio. Upset over DeFazio’s lack of willingness to debate his opponent, Republican challenger Jim Feldkamp, the CRs began using a chicken suit to try and goad the reluctant Democrat into accepting more debates.
To date, the only debates accepted by DeFazio are scheduled for October 20 – five days after ballots are dropped.
“We felt that Mr. DeFazio was deliberately pushing the debate back as far as he could,” College Republicans Co-Chair Matt Lawrence said. “He claimed his Congressional schedule made it too difficult, but we know that they adjourn in early October.”
Thursday, DeFazio made some appearances in Albany. One of the first was a radio interview at KGAL’s downtown studio.
Unfortunately for DeFazio, The Chicken decided to stop in and watch the interview as it was in progress. The Chicken even had signs with questions written on them that DeFazio had previously refused to answer.
Once the interview was over, DeFazio and his staffers literally manhandled the chicken, threatening him and his family, and displaying the type of conduct not normally expected of statesmen and Congressional staffers.
“DeFazio and his staffers totally snapped,” Lawrence said. “I think it’s safe to say we really ruffled their feathers.”
The Chicken has subsequently reported receiving several prank phone calls at his house. He has been severely traumatized by the whole experience, and is currently seeking therapy as a result.
“I don’t know why Mr. DeFazio and his staffers would threaten me and my family. My little chicks have never done anything to hurt him or anybody else,” The Chicken said. “Cluck, cluck, cluck.”
Now, obviously, there is a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor at the end of the article, but some of it makes some serious allegations. So I called Matt for further details. Here's what I found out:
The incident occurred at an ountdoor event held by KGAL NewsTalk Radio 1580 AM in Albany, outside their studios. The interview is with KGAL host Jim Willhight, and is set to air today at 1:00 PM PDT. The public was welcome, and encouraged to come and ask questions of the congressman. So the CR's sent the Chicken and a few other members to the event. Matt said that DeFazio exited the event looking upset, so I'm looking forward to hearing it.
While they were entering the area where the interview was being held, and again when the left, the CR's were confronted by an individual who seemed quite displeased with his presence, and wanted to know what questions they had to ask (Matt's words were that this individual "got in the face" of one of the CR's). This individual then informed the CR that he would find out who he was, who his family was, and where he lived. He then left with DeFazio, leading the CR's to believe he was a DeFazio staffer. The CR in question has since received several "prank" calls, all of which have been recorded.
According to Matt, no mention of this incident has been made by KGAL or any of the local and state news sources they've sent it to. I doubt it will. Unfortunately, unless they got it on tape or video, it's the CR's word against DeFazio's. But while I'm hesitant to make a "post hoc" leap regarding any connection between the incident and the prank calls (at least not unless I have a chance to hear them), I wouldn't be surprised if there is a link.
More info as available.
Media Advisory
September 18,2004
Contact: Matt Lawrence
Chicken Ruffles DeFazio’s Feathers
Albany, OR – Apparently, some people can’t take a joke.
Last month, the Oregon College Republicans began a campaign of sorts against Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio. Upset over DeFazio’s lack of willingness to debate his opponent, Republican challenger Jim Feldkamp, the CRs began using a chicken suit to try and goad the reluctant Democrat into accepting more debates.
To date, the only debates accepted by DeFazio are scheduled for October 20 – five days after ballots are dropped.
“We felt that Mr. DeFazio was deliberately pushing the debate back as far as he could,” College Republicans Co-Chair Matt Lawrence said. “He claimed his Congressional schedule made it too difficult, but we know that they adjourn in early October.”
Thursday, DeFazio made some appearances in Albany. One of the first was a radio interview at KGAL’s downtown studio.
Unfortunately for DeFazio, The Chicken decided to stop in and watch the interview as it was in progress. The Chicken even had signs with questions written on them that DeFazio had previously refused to answer.
Once the interview was over, DeFazio and his staffers literally manhandled the chicken, threatening him and his family, and displaying the type of conduct not normally expected of statesmen and Congressional staffers.
“DeFazio and his staffers totally snapped,” Lawrence said. “I think it’s safe to say we really ruffled their feathers.”
The Chicken has subsequently reported receiving several prank phone calls at his house. He has been severely traumatized by the whole experience, and is currently seeking therapy as a result.
“I don’t know why Mr. DeFazio and his staffers would threaten me and my family. My little chicks have never done anything to hurt him or anybody else,” The Chicken said. “Cluck, cluck, cluck.”
Now, obviously, there is a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor at the end of the article, but some of it makes some serious allegations. So I called Matt for further details. Here's what I found out:
The incident occurred at an ountdoor event held by KGAL NewsTalk Radio 1580 AM in Albany, outside their studios. The interview is with KGAL host Jim Willhight, and is set to air today at 1:00 PM PDT. The public was welcome, and encouraged to come and ask questions of the congressman. So the CR's sent the Chicken and a few other members to the event. Matt said that DeFazio exited the event looking upset, so I'm looking forward to hearing it.
While they were entering the area where the interview was being held, and again when the left, the CR's were confronted by an individual who seemed quite displeased with his presence, and wanted to know what questions they had to ask (Matt's words were that this individual "got in the face" of one of the CR's). This individual then informed the CR that he would find out who he was, who his family was, and where he lived. He then left with DeFazio, leading the CR's to believe he was a DeFazio staffer. The CR in question has since received several "prank" calls, all of which have been recorded.
According to Matt, no mention of this incident has been made by KGAL or any of the local and state news sources they've sent it to. I doubt it will. Unfortunately, unless they got it on tape or video, it's the CR's word against DeFazio's. But while I'm hesitant to make a "post hoc" leap regarding any connection between the incident and the prank calls (at least not unless I have a chance to hear them), I wouldn't be surprised if there is a link.
More info as available.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Another Example of Jackbooted Right Wing Thugs and Their Freedom Loving Leftist Victims
Only, Y'know, Not:
Three-year-old Sophia Parlock cries while seated on the shoulders of her father, Phil Parlock, after having their Bush-Cheney sign torn up by Kerry-Edwards supporters on Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004, at the Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va. Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) made a brief stop at the airport as he concluded his two-day bus tour to locations in West Virginia and Ohio. (AP Photo/Randy Snyder)
Thanks for the Memory to Curtis at a_sdf.
Update:
As Aaron at Free Will points out, the jerk on their right, the one who seems to be holding remnants of the sign, is wearing a Union shirt -- apparently the IUPAT, the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades. I think it reflects well on their trade, don't you?
UPDATE 1:
Thanks for the Memory to reader Kat in Missouri over at the Rottie.
IUPAT Issues Apology.
Does this mean your thug will be turning himself in to the authorities?
As I've discussed before, this isn't the first time the left has acted like this. I doubt it will be the last.
UPDATE 2:
Amazing how quickly I was proven right.
Thanks for the Memory to Mr. Minority.
UPDATE 3:
Emily at It Comes in Pints? has a different conservative reaction to this, as do several readers over at the Rottie. And upon further reflection, I have to concede their point. The gentleman whose sign was torn up is a known conservative agitator, and this is the third presidential election in a row in which he's been involved in an incident like this. And it WAS irresponsible of him to take his 3-year old into the middle of a hostile crowd. And the Union thug is an aberration. Most people, even rabid supporters of one cause or the other, would not intentionally cause a child harm or trauma.
But just because he's not the norm does not mean he's necessarily the only one of his kind out there. Just look at the incidents I catalog in this post from August, or this post from Michelle Malkin today (some overlap occurs), or the link above in update 2. These "isolated incidents" start to snowball after a while.
I guess what irks me most of all is the hypocrisy of the Left, the blatant, unabashed willingness to accuse the Right of the very things they themselves do. Look at all these incidents. I've had one of my own -- admittedly not violent, but it was definitely the action of someone willing to take unethical action in order to deprive me of my freedom of expression -- and yet the daily rhetoric from the Left is about conservative being Nazis, about the threat to personal freedoms, especially freedom of expression. They do this without any sense of self-irony whatsoever, without shame, without batting an eye.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
Three-year-old Sophia Parlock cries while seated on the shoulders of her father, Phil Parlock, after having their Bush-Cheney sign torn up by Kerry-Edwards supporters on Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004, at the Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va. Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) made a brief stop at the airport as he concluded his two-day bus tour to locations in West Virginia and Ohio. (AP Photo/Randy Snyder)
Thanks for the Memory to Curtis at a_sdf.
Update:
As Aaron at Free Will points out, the jerk on their right, the one who seems to be holding remnants of the sign, is wearing a Union shirt -- apparently the IUPAT, the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades. I think it reflects well on their trade, don't you?
UPDATE 1:
Thanks for the Memory to reader Kat in Missouri over at the Rottie.
IUPAT Issues Apology.
Does this mean your thug will be turning himself in to the authorities?
As I've discussed before, this isn't the first time the left has acted like this. I doubt it will be the last.
UPDATE 2:
Amazing how quickly I was proven right.
Thanks for the Memory to Mr. Minority.
UPDATE 3:
Emily at It Comes in Pints? has a different conservative reaction to this, as do several readers over at the Rottie. And upon further reflection, I have to concede their point. The gentleman whose sign was torn up is a known conservative agitator, and this is the third presidential election in a row in which he's been involved in an incident like this. And it WAS irresponsible of him to take his 3-year old into the middle of a hostile crowd. And the Union thug is an aberration. Most people, even rabid supporters of one cause or the other, would not intentionally cause a child harm or trauma.
But just because he's not the norm does not mean he's necessarily the only one of his kind out there. Just look at the incidents I catalog in this post from August, or this post from Michelle Malkin today (some overlap occurs), or the link above in update 2. These "isolated incidents" start to snowball after a while.
I guess what irks me most of all is the hypocrisy of the Left, the blatant, unabashed willingness to accuse the Right of the very things they themselves do. Look at all these incidents. I've had one of my own -- admittedly not violent, but it was definitely the action of someone willing to take unethical action in order to deprive me of my freedom of expression -- and yet the daily rhetoric from the Left is about conservative being Nazis, about the threat to personal freedoms, especially freedom of expression. They do this without any sense of self-irony whatsoever, without shame, without batting an eye.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)