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!
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
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."
Another Purple Heart
This Time for Shooting Himself in the Foot.
Thanks for the Memory to Tim Blair via Free Will.
John Kerry talked to Pro-Kerry pundit Don Imus today, and even Imus wasn't impressed:
"I was just back in my office banging my head on the jukebox," Mr. Imus said. "This is my candidate, and ... I don't know what he's talking about."
And the best quote, as pointed out by both my sources, was this exchange:
KERRY: I mean, what you ought to be doing and what everybody in America ought to be doing today is not asking me; they ought to be asking the president, What is your plan? What's your plan, Mr. President, to stop these kids from being killed? What's your plan, Mr. President, to get the other countries in there? What's your plan to have 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost being carried by America?
IMUS: We're asking you because you want to be president.
Finally a Democrat who gets what we Republicans have been saying all along.
Thanks for the Memory to Tim Blair via Free Will.
John Kerry talked to Pro-Kerry pundit Don Imus today, and even Imus wasn't impressed:
"I was just back in my office banging my head on the jukebox," Mr. Imus said. "This is my candidate, and ... I don't know what he's talking about."
And the best quote, as pointed out by both my sources, was this exchange:
KERRY: I mean, what you ought to be doing and what everybody in America ought to be doing today is not asking me; they ought to be asking the president, What is your plan? What's your plan, Mr. President, to stop these kids from being killed? What's your plan, Mr. President, to get the other countries in there? What's your plan to have 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost being carried by America?
IMUS: We're asking you because you want to be president.
Finally a Democrat who gets what we Republicans have been saying all along.
Welcome to Wittenburg
Thanks for the Memory to It Comes in Pints?
The Memogate controversy has garnered attention in Belfast -- and they are paying attention to the fact that it was bloggers who made it happen.
I highly recommend reading the essay. I found the Catholic Church/Printing Press analogy appropriate, but I would go one step further: Blogs have been the MSM's printing press for some time.
This was our 95 Theses.
The Memogate controversy has garnered attention in Belfast -- and they are paying attention to the fact that it was bloggers who made it happen.
I highly recommend reading the essay. I found the Catholic Church/Printing Press analogy appropriate, but I would go one step further: Blogs have been the MSM's printing press for some time.
This was our 95 Theses.
Signs of the Apocalypse
Thanks for the Memory to Sheila via It Comes in Pints?
Apparently plans are in the works to film a new movie version of F Scott Fitzgeralds The Great Gatsby. That's cool, I'm all for a renewed interests in the classics.
Now the bad news.
They're casting Paris Hilton and Lance Bass as Daisy Buchanan and Jay Gatsby.
Really.
I may just have to take a wood burning kit to my occipital lobe.
Apparently plans are in the works to film a new movie version of F Scott Fitzgeralds The Great Gatsby. That's cool, I'm all for a renewed interests in the classics.
Now the bad news.
They're casting Paris Hilton and Lance Bass as Daisy Buchanan and Jay Gatsby.
Really.
I may just have to take a wood burning kit to my occipital lobe.
Shut Yo Mouth
A Shout Out for the Memory to Macktastic Rusty Wicked of Yo! MyPetJawa!
Rusty has suggested that we form a Blog Pimp Alliance. The first step is getting a Fly Pimpafied Name.
Well, considering the way we've made Dan Rather our B*&$#, it does seem appropo. So from now on, you may call me Ghetto Fabulous B. Slick
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get down with my bad self.
Rusty has suggested that we form a Blog Pimp Alliance. The first step is getting a Fly Pimpafied Name.
Well, considering the way we've made Dan Rather our B*&$#, it does seem appropo. So from now on, you may call me Ghetto Fabulous B. Slick
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get down with my bad self.
Greenpeace: Next on the Agenda, converting the Rainbow Warrior Into a Whaler
Thanks for the Memory to Common Sense & Wonder
via It Comes in Pints?
Greenpeace is facing criminal charges for violation of Alaskan state environmental laws.
I think the article speaks for itself. Any further comment would spoil its perfection.
via It Comes in Pints?
Greenpeace is facing criminal charges for violation of Alaskan state environmental laws.
I think the article speaks for itself. Any further comment would spoil its perfection.
Unanswered Questions
I watched the 60 Minutes II interview with Killian's secretary last night, and was amazed at how quickly Dan Rather managed to glaze over the fact that the memos are not authentic. He's still living in the past, thinking he can just slickly move past that, and not get called on it. Hasn't learned much from the last week.
He goes on to argue that regardless of the authenticity of the documents, there are bigger questions that remain unanswered. I agree -- more on that in a moment.
He then claimed that in all the furor over the documents themselves, that his critics and the White House have failed to address the other evidence, or the issues that they raise.
Sorry, Mr. Rather, you're wrong. These allegations have been made for the past 5 years. They've been addressed again and again and again. The more recent allegations, and all of the arguments made in your story, have been equally addressed in the last week by numerous blogs. I am not going to go to the trouble of repeating their efforts, but I'd recommend you start with Ace of Spades or Rathergate (I thought you'd like that one).
But let's consider some other questions this story raised, Mr. Rather.
Why were you and are you still insistent on the authenticity of documents that were so easily debunked so quickly?
If they are forgeries, why are you protecting a source you now know to be unreliable? What are you hiding?
Why have you not interviewed the son and widow of Killian, both of whom deny the veracity of the memos' contents? And why did you ignore Killian's son's advice to talk to several other TANG sources who could provide contrary views?
Why have you failed to address the fact that your main witness, Burkett, is a hardline Democrat with an axe to grindwhose own child says this is politically motivated? Correction -- that's Barnes. Burkett has enough baggage, no need for me to go pulling a CBS. Thanks to reader Merc for the correction.
There ARE plenty of unanswered questions, Mr. Rather, but I believe it is YOU who needs to answer them. Otherwise you continue to look like nothing more than a strident mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.
He goes on to argue that regardless of the authenticity of the documents, there are bigger questions that remain unanswered. I agree -- more on that in a moment.
He then claimed that in all the furor over the documents themselves, that his critics and the White House have failed to address the other evidence, or the issues that they raise.
Sorry, Mr. Rather, you're wrong. These allegations have been made for the past 5 years. They've been addressed again and again and again. The more recent allegations, and all of the arguments made in your story, have been equally addressed in the last week by numerous blogs. I am not going to go to the trouble of repeating their efforts, but I'd recommend you start with Ace of Spades or Rathergate (I thought you'd like that one).
But let's consider some other questions this story raised, Mr. Rather.
Why were you and are you still insistent on the authenticity of documents that were so easily debunked so quickly?
If they are forgeries, why are you protecting a source you now know to be unreliable? What are you hiding?
Why have you not interviewed the son and widow of Killian, both of whom deny the veracity of the memos' contents? And why did you ignore Killian's son's advice to talk to several other TANG sources who could provide contrary views?
Why have you failed to address the fact that your main witness, Burkett, is a hardline Democrat with an axe to grind
There ARE plenty of unanswered questions, Mr. Rather, but I believe it is YOU who needs to answer them. Otherwise you continue to look like nothing more than a strident mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.
The Empress Has No Clothes
Thanks for the Memory to PoliPundit via Ace of Spades HQ.
This seems appropriate, considering she's named after Marie Anoinette's mother. Teesa Heinz Kerry, visiting relief efforts for hurricane victims, said, "Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while, at least the kids,"
I will repeat that, because, to borrow from Lewis Black, it bears repeating:
"Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while, at least the kids"
Wow.
According to the AP article, she was concerned the effort was too focused on sending clothes instead of essentials like water and electric generators.
Well, yes, Teraysuh, if that's all any of the relief centers were packing, I'd be concerned too. Of course, I'd ask first how the food and water situation was being handled, and I'd find a more sensitive way to express this concern. You know, one that was a little less reminiscent of "Let zem eat cake."
Furthermore, you might be surprised to learn that clothing is still quite essential, not just "wonderful." Protection from the elements and all that.
Imagine the outrage from Democrats if a Republican said something like that. Look at the way they excoriate the President for his malapropisms. Imagine if it had not been Teresa, but Laura Bush. Except I just can't imagine our First Lady making such an insensitive quip.
Keep talking, Dahling. You're helping our cause.
This seems appropriate, considering she's named after Marie Anoinette's mother. Teesa Heinz Kerry, visiting relief efforts for hurricane victims, said, "Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while, at least the kids,"
I will repeat that, because, to borrow from Lewis Black, it bears repeating:
"Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while, at least the kids"
Wow.
According to the AP article, she was concerned the effort was too focused on sending clothes instead of essentials like water and electric generators.
Well, yes, Teraysuh, if that's all any of the relief centers were packing, I'd be concerned too. Of course, I'd ask first how the food and water situation was being handled, and I'd find a more sensitive way to express this concern. You know, one that was a little less reminiscent of "Let zem eat cake."
Furthermore, you might be surprised to learn that clothing is still quite essential, not just "wonderful." Protection from the elements and all that.
Imagine the outrage from Democrats if a Republican said something like that. Look at the way they excoriate the President for his malapropisms. Imagine if it had not been Teresa, but Laura Bush. Except I just can't imagine our First Lady making such an insensitive quip.
Keep talking, Dahling. You're helping our cause.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Taking Care of Our Own
One misperception that many have of a conservative like myself is that because I oppose huge government-sponsored social programs, I am somehow in opposition to charity. On the contrary, I believe very strongly in giving to worthy causes -- assisting the poor, disaster relief, the arts and sciences, education. What I take issue with is the propriety and ability of the government ot administer such giving properly. I feer the added overhead of government bureaucracy, and prefer to have more say in where my charitable giving goes. But I definitely give when I can, and encourage others to do the same.
Well, now I have a chance to encourage my readers to give to help a fellow blogger. If you've followed any of the links in my entries or at the side of my blog, you'll know I'm a huge fan of Da Goddess. In fact, she's my "Blogmother" -- one of the bloggers who helped me get started when I decided to do this. She's a funny, smart, sweet lady in San Diego who really has some good things to say.
And now she's out of work. She's been that way for 3 weeks or so now, and finances are getting tight. I know her well enough to know she's trying, but the job market is tight in her area, and she hasn't had much luck yet. She's actively seeking. This isn't a case of someone who won't work, it's someone who tries hard but hasn't had much luck. I know the feeling -- I've been there, and may be again soon. Besides, she's a good person, and a damned good blogger.
So I'm asking you to go drop a buck in her tip jar -- pop by her blog, find the "Flag Fund", and hit the "Donate Now" button.
Thanks.
Well, now I have a chance to encourage my readers to give to help a fellow blogger. If you've followed any of the links in my entries or at the side of my blog, you'll know I'm a huge fan of Da Goddess. In fact, she's my "Blogmother" -- one of the bloggers who helped me get started when I decided to do this. She's a funny, smart, sweet lady in San Diego who really has some good things to say.
And now she's out of work. She's been that way for 3 weeks or so now, and finances are getting tight. I know her well enough to know she's trying, but the job market is tight in her area, and she hasn't had much luck yet. She's actively seeking. This isn't a case of someone who won't work, it's someone who tries hard but hasn't had much luck. I know the feeling -- I've been there, and may be again soon. Besides, she's a good person, and a damned good blogger.
So I'm asking you to go drop a buck in her tip jar -- pop by her blog, find the "Flag Fund", and hit the "Donate Now" button.
Thanks.
MY Turn to Question THEIR Timing
It's become a blogosphere cliche joke -- questioning the timing of something. It stems from the tendency of the Left and of the Kerry campaign to respond to any piece of good news or alert in the WoT coming from the White House by "Questioning the timing" of the news, as if the news was released merely to coincide with some even the Left was putting on, in order to steal attention from the Left. They couldn't refute the news itself, so instead, they'd "question it's timing". A new take on an old fallacy.
Now, they've found a new take on THAT new take, questioning the timing of the Freeper post that got the ball rolling on the whole Memogate affair. Unfortunately for the left, even their questioning of the time is in question. But apparently, the Left didn't get the memo, and Susan Esterich continued to bring it up (Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades.
Well, now it's MY turn to do some questioning of timing. No, I'm not trying to avoid issues by diverting. I think that the memos have been pretty effectively debunked, and any questions raised by them are only valid if their claims are true, which seems at best questionable, since they're made in forged documents.
No, my questioning of the timing has to do with a question that hasn't been answered yet: Who released these documents to CBS in the first place? I have my opinion, and the timing of the whole story only strengthens that opinion. Ironically enough, it has to do with ANOTHER bit of screeching by Susan Esterich that I commented on a while back. It pretty much summed up the Democrats' battlecry after the RNC -- The Republicans fight dirty, so now we will too. The gloves are coming off, and we're going to dig up as much dirt on Bush as we can.
Well, now a reader over at Backcountry Conservative (read the comment by Gary Maxwell) has expressed a concern that was bothering me last night: In all the hooplah about the veracity of the documents themselves, let's not forget how eerily soon after the RNC this story came out. I have a feeling that it was a Democratic operative who pushed these memos on CBS.
And as I've said before, regardless of the source, CBS' credibility has taken a huge hit. furthermore, the timing of the story so soon after the RNC and comments like those made by Esterich reveal an eagerness on the part of CBS to help the Democrats' cause. Oh, THAT liberal media.
Now, they've found a new take on THAT new take, questioning the timing of the Freeper post that got the ball rolling on the whole Memogate affair. Unfortunately for the left, even their questioning of the time is in question. But apparently, the Left didn't get the memo, and Susan Esterich continued to bring it up (Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades.
Well, now it's MY turn to do some questioning of timing. No, I'm not trying to avoid issues by diverting. I think that the memos have been pretty effectively debunked, and any questions raised by them are only valid if their claims are true, which seems at best questionable, since they're made in forged documents.
No, my questioning of the timing has to do with a question that hasn't been answered yet: Who released these documents to CBS in the first place? I have my opinion, and the timing of the whole story only strengthens that opinion. Ironically enough, it has to do with ANOTHER bit of screeching by Susan Esterich that I commented on a while back. It pretty much summed up the Democrats' battlecry after the RNC -- The Republicans fight dirty, so now we will too. The gloves are coming off, and we're going to dig up as much dirt on Bush as we can.
Well, now a reader over at Backcountry Conservative (read the comment by Gary Maxwell) has expressed a concern that was bothering me last night: In all the hooplah about the veracity of the documents themselves, let's not forget how eerily soon after the RNC this story came out. I have a feeling that it was a Democratic operative who pushed these memos on CBS.
And as I've said before, regardless of the source, CBS' credibility has taken a huge hit. furthermore, the timing of the story so soon after the RNC and comments like those made by Esterich reveal an eagerness on the part of CBS to help the Democrats' cause. Oh, THAT liberal media.
Statement Watch
CBS has said they'll issue a statement regarding MemoGate today. Backcountry Conservative promises to keep us posted.
Reaping the Benefits of Their Own Efforts
Thanks for the Memory to Da Goddess.
Da Goddess has a friend whose publisher is currently offering to ship any donated books to the USO to send to the troops overseas.
What a great idea. Take the fruit of one of our basic freedoms, that of expression, and send that fruit to the troops who are guarding those freedoms.
Besides, anything we can do to help our troops is worth the effort. So I will repeat the link: GO DONATE BOOKS TO THE USO FOR OUR TROOPS!
Da Goddess has a friend whose publisher is currently offering to ship any donated books to the USO to send to the troops overseas.
What a great idea. Take the fruit of one of our basic freedoms, that of expression, and send that fruit to the troops who are guarding those freedoms.
Besides, anything we can do to help our troops is worth the effort. So I will repeat the link: GO DONATE BOOKS TO THE USO FOR OUR TROOPS!
Vichy Redux
Thanks for the Memory to the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Apparently the French have been hearing it for their attempts to avoid terrorism by staying out of Iraq. A few of the recent comments from editorials:
"The abduction of the French journalists is a lesson for those who think they can be neutral in the war on terror, or for those who think that it is possible to arrive at a truce with international terror by means of spineless political positions towards terrorism.
"France thought that the terror in Iraq would not reach it because it opposed the war and tried to set itself apart from the American position. As a result, international terror treats [France] like every other [country]. International terror is democratic. It strikes everyone without asking whether the casualties are Muslim or Christian, or supporters or opponents of America. International terror does not differentiate among the civilians of Fallujah, Riyadh, San'aa, Algeria, New York, and Nairobi. There is no differentiation between American and French. The only aim of international terror is to kill."
Amen.
Or how about this:
"Here the 'neutral' countries err in understanding the new developments in the Arab arena by thinking they can remain neutral. This is because the terror groups' true aspiration is to kill the captives in the name of Allah. Neutrality remains something unacceptable today, because these are groups that want to enter Paradise with the greatest quantity of victims' blood, and who are not interested in political or financial negotiations…"
That's what we've been saying on the right for some time.
One last quote:
"Those who claim that there is a 'Crusader war of the West against Islam' are in fact themselves waging 'holy war' against the Western democracies and against democracy and civilization everywhere… France, which deluded itself that it would be spared from the depraved hands of the terrorists because it opposes the war of liberation in Iraq, today faces the truth: The war on terror must be international, and all democratic countries and the United Nations must fight terrorist countries such as Saddam's regime…"
There's plenty more, but you can go read this article to see more.
But be sitting down when you do. you see, all these quotes are from Arab newspapers.
Poor France. When even the Arab Street calls you a wussy in the WoT, you're really and truly a wussy.
Apparently the French have been hearing it for their attempts to avoid terrorism by staying out of Iraq. A few of the recent comments from editorials:
"The abduction of the French journalists is a lesson for those who think they can be neutral in the war on terror, or for those who think that it is possible to arrive at a truce with international terror by means of spineless political positions towards terrorism.
"France thought that the terror in Iraq would not reach it because it opposed the war and tried to set itself apart from the American position. As a result, international terror treats [France] like every other [country]. International terror is democratic. It strikes everyone without asking whether the casualties are Muslim or Christian, or supporters or opponents of America. International terror does not differentiate among the civilians of Fallujah, Riyadh, San'aa, Algeria, New York, and Nairobi. There is no differentiation between American and French. The only aim of international terror is to kill."
Amen.
Or how about this:
"Here the 'neutral' countries err in understanding the new developments in the Arab arena by thinking they can remain neutral. This is because the terror groups' true aspiration is to kill the captives in the name of Allah. Neutrality remains something unacceptable today, because these are groups that want to enter Paradise with the greatest quantity of victims' blood, and who are not interested in political or financial negotiations…"
That's what we've been saying on the right for some time.
One last quote:
"Those who claim that there is a 'Crusader war of the West against Islam' are in fact themselves waging 'holy war' against the Western democracies and against democracy and civilization everywhere… France, which deluded itself that it would be spared from the depraved hands of the terrorists because it opposes the war of liberation in Iraq, today faces the truth: The war on terror must be international, and all democratic countries and the United Nations must fight terrorist countries such as Saddam's regime…"
There's plenty more, but you can go read this article to see more.
But be sitting down when you do. you see, all these quotes are from Arab newspapers.
Poor France. When even the Arab Street calls you a wussy in the WoT, you're really and truly a wussy.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Worst Case Scenario
Thanks for the Memory to my best friend Brian F.
In the midst of all the controversy surrounding Memogate, one of the options being bandied about, especially on the left, is that the memos are plants by the right -- and of course, top of the suspect list is Karl "Kayzer Soze" Rove. The thought is that the documents were intentionally forged poorly so that CBS and the left would bite, use them to attack the president, then get caught in a political rope-a-dope when they were revealed as forgeries.
Let's address this theory for a moment. Let's ignore the fact that today's latest stories indicate it might have originated elsewhere (personally, I haven't seen enough evidence to trust the rumors regarding the specific source). Let's ignore the fact that once such a plot was uncovered, it would backfire and make the Bush campaign look as evil as the left claims it is, and that Karl Rove is an evil genius, not an idiot. Let's ignore the fact that in order to work, such a plot would rely on an incredible level of gullibility on the part of CBS (ok, let's not ignore that fact, let's just set it aside to pick up again in a moment). Let's play "What If?" What if this theory is true? What if they did originate somewhere in the smoky back rooms of the GOP?
So what?
If the intent was to discredit the media, and specifically CBS, it worked, regardless of who originated it. Yes, it would also completely derail the Bush campaign, who would be viewed as playing just way too dirty. But the one assumption we made above to even consider this option that HAS proven true is an incredible level of gullibility on the part of CBS. As poorly forged as these documents probably are, as much other information as is coming out today, it required an incredible level of willingness by CBS to believe the unbelievable simply because they wanted it to be true in order for this story to proceed. Whether the documents were forged by the left, the right, the Grey Aliens, or the ghost of Howard Hughes, CBS fell for them, and now they have to live with the consequences.
Or die by them.
In the midst of all the controversy surrounding Memogate, one of the options being bandied about, especially on the left, is that the memos are plants by the right -- and of course, top of the suspect list is Karl "Kayzer Soze" Rove. The thought is that the documents were intentionally forged poorly so that CBS and the left would bite, use them to attack the president, then get caught in a political rope-a-dope when they were revealed as forgeries.
Let's address this theory for a moment. Let's ignore the fact that today's latest stories indicate it might have originated elsewhere (personally, I haven't seen enough evidence to trust the rumors regarding the specific source). Let's ignore the fact that once such a plot was uncovered, it would backfire and make the Bush campaign look as evil as the left claims it is, and that Karl Rove is an evil genius, not an idiot. Let's ignore the fact that in order to work, such a plot would rely on an incredible level of gullibility on the part of CBS (ok, let's not ignore that fact, let's just set it aside to pick up again in a moment). Let's play "What If?" What if this theory is true? What if they did originate somewhere in the smoky back rooms of the GOP?
So what?
If the intent was to discredit the media, and specifically CBS, it worked, regardless of who originated it. Yes, it would also completely derail the Bush campaign, who would be viewed as playing just way too dirty. But the one assumption we made above to even consider this option that HAS proven true is an incredible level of gullibility on the part of CBS. As poorly forged as these documents probably are, as much other information as is coming out today, it required an incredible level of willingness by CBS to believe the unbelievable simply because they wanted it to be true in order for this story to proceed. Whether the documents were forged by the left, the right, the Grey Aliens, or the ghost of Howard Hughes, CBS fell for them, and now they have to live with the consequences.
Or die by them.
Betrayed by the Truth
Thanks for the Memories to Ace of
Spades HQ for TWO pertinent articles.
More on MemoGate. and no, I don't blog in my PJ's. I only have access to the internet at work, and that sort of attire will get me fired even in liberal Eugene.
Moving past the whole issue of type and fonts and scripts, another issue that has been plaguing CBS, Dan Rather, and the MSM regarding the memo issue has been the fact that before the story broke, they intentionally ignored warnings from Killian's son that the memos didn't sound like his father, and failed to follow up with several references that Killian the Younger gave them who could give a different perspective on the story. Both Killian's son and widow have claimed this memo doesn't sound like the Colonel, and deny that Killian held the views expressed in the memos.
Well, it gets worse. Even those supposedly on CBS' side are betraying them by telling the truth. Now Killian's secretary is denying she typed the memos.
By PETE SLOVER / The Dallas Morning News
HOUSTON – The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel who supposedly authored memos critical of President Bush’s Guard service said Tuesday that the documents are fake, but that they reflect real documents that once existed.
Marian Carr Knox, who worked from 1956 to 1979 at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, said she prided herself on meticulous typing, and the memos first disclosed by CBS News last week were not her work.
“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. “They’re not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him.”
Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events, said she is not a supporter of Mr. Bush, who she deemed “unfit for office” and “selected, not elected.”
“I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it,” she said.
So this lady who doesn't like the President, still refutes CBS' assertion that the memos are genuine. Not good, Danny.
That's not the whole article. Thanks to Ace, we also get this:
"She also said the memos may have been constructed from memory by someone who had seen Lt. Col. Killian's private file but were not transcriptions because the language and terminology did not match what he would have used."
So she claims they reflect the truth of Killian's opinion, even if they aren't authentic themselves. This despite the claims of Killian's family to the effect that he never expressed such an opinion. Sounds like she's trying to mitigate the damage she herself has just done to the left.
It gets worse still. In an interview with ABC (remember the cannibalism reference I made?), the experts cited by CBS claim they expressed concerns about the documents that were ignored.
Furthermore, the Guard officer quoted in the CBS story feels he was misled, because CBS told him the memos were handwritten, not typed (Killian didn't type).
And now, Dan Rather is defending himself by attacking Laura Bush:
"Laura Bush became the first White House insider to doubt the authenticity of the documents. But she offered no evidence to back up her claim."
How much lower can Dan Rather sink? And how long until he faces the truth and turns himself in to the court of public opinion?
Spades HQ for TWO pertinent articles.
More on MemoGate. and no, I don't blog in my PJ's. I only have access to the internet at work, and that sort of attire will get me fired even in liberal Eugene.
Moving past the whole issue of type and fonts and scripts, another issue that has been plaguing CBS, Dan Rather, and the MSM regarding the memo issue has been the fact that before the story broke, they intentionally ignored warnings from Killian's son that the memos didn't sound like his father, and failed to follow up with several references that Killian the Younger gave them who could give a different perspective on the story. Both Killian's son and widow have claimed this memo doesn't sound like the Colonel, and deny that Killian held the views expressed in the memos.
Well, it gets worse. Even those supposedly on CBS' side are betraying them by telling the truth. Now Killian's secretary is denying she typed the memos.
By PETE SLOVER / The Dallas Morning News
HOUSTON – The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel who supposedly authored memos critical of President Bush’s Guard service said Tuesday that the documents are fake, but that they reflect real documents that once existed.
Marian Carr Knox, who worked from 1956 to 1979 at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, said she prided herself on meticulous typing, and the memos first disclosed by CBS News last week were not her work.
“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. “They’re not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him.”
Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events, said she is not a supporter of Mr. Bush, who she deemed “unfit for office” and “selected, not elected.”
“I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it,” she said.
So this lady who doesn't like the President, still refutes CBS' assertion that the memos are genuine. Not good, Danny.
That's not the whole article. Thanks to Ace, we also get this:
"She also said the memos may have been constructed from memory by someone who had seen Lt. Col. Killian's private file but were not transcriptions because the language and terminology did not match what he would have used."
So she claims they reflect the truth of Killian's opinion, even if they aren't authentic themselves. This despite the claims of Killian's family to the effect that he never expressed such an opinion. Sounds like she's trying to mitigate the damage she herself has just done to the left.
It gets worse still. In an interview with ABC (remember the cannibalism reference I made?), the experts cited by CBS claim they expressed concerns about the documents that were ignored.
Furthermore, the Guard officer quoted in the CBS story feels he was misled, because CBS told him the memos were handwritten, not typed (Killian didn't type).
And now, Dan Rather is defending himself by attacking Laura Bush:
"Laura Bush became the first White House insider to doubt the authenticity of the documents. But she offered no evidence to back up her claim."
How much lower can Dan Rather sink? And how long until he faces the truth and turns himself in to the court of public opinion?
Free Rope With Which to Hang Them
Thanks for the Memory to Michelle Malkin.
Apparently the ever-vigilant folks over at CBS News want to help us expose scams.
What do you think? Can we help them find one to expose?
Apparently the ever-vigilant folks over at CBS News want to help us expose scams.
What do you think? Can we help them find one to expose?
More From the Rumor Mills
And if you think I mean blogs, you haven't been paying attention.
According to NewsMax, Kitty Kelley has admitted on the Today Show that she failed to record the alleged Cocaine Conversation. Immediately after her interview, Sharon Bush, the president's ex-sister-in-law, scorned woman with no love for the Bush family, denied that she ever made the allegations to Kelley.
Right after the RNc, whhen the Democrats were screaming that they were going for blood and they would find dirt on the president, my response was to mock the idea that they could find anything that hasn't already been tried and shot down at least once before in the last 5 years, and that if they haven't found anyhting damning to pin on the president already, there isn't anyhting TO be found.
If this is the best they can do -- a set of forged documents on 60 minutes and a trash book by the National Enquirer of biographers, well, my theory has only been reinforced.
According to NewsMax, Kitty Kelley has admitted on the Today Show that she failed to record the alleged Cocaine Conversation. Immediately after her interview, Sharon Bush, the president's ex-sister-in-law, scorned woman with no love for the Bush family, denied that she ever made the allegations to Kelley.
Right after the RNc, whhen the Democrats were screaming that they were going for blood and they would find dirt on the president, my response was to mock the idea that they could find anything that hasn't already been tried and shot down at least once before in the last 5 years, and that if they haven't found anyhting damning to pin on the president already, there isn't anyhting TO be found.
If this is the best they can do -- a set of forged documents on 60 minutes and a trash book by the National Enquirer of biographers, well, my theory has only been reinforced.
Monday, September 13, 2004
Strengthen the Good
I've had a lot of great feedback regarding my post "What's the Font, Kenneth?' regarding the news media, blogs, and accountability. When we talk about the responsibility of accountability, and the ability of blogs to fact check each other, it is important not to neglect another responsibility that comes with influence -- the responsibility of making sure that we use that influence for good.
A while back I joined a network of Bloggers called Strengthen the Good. The idea is that we can use the influence of our blogs not just to decry the evil in this world, but also to do what the name implies. STG highlights small "Micro-charities", organizations that are doing good work helping people, just not on as grand a scale as more well-known charities. By using blogs, we can get the word out to more donors than these charities could on their own.
Well, in light of this weekend's anniversary, STG has come up with a good one. The Brent Woodall Foundation For Exceptional Children offers care and education to autistic children and their parents. This is what STG says about the charity:
The Foundation was created by Tracy Woodall, who lost her husband,
Brent, in the South Tower on September 11th, 2001. Tracy was 5 weeks
pregnant at the time, and she created the foundation as a way of dealing with
her grief and extending his legacy.
We all lost somehting on 9/11/01, but for Tracy, it was a husband and a father for her child. She decided not to let the terrorists win. We can do the same. We can show them, show the world, and show ourselves that we can make something good out of the worst they can throw at us. I would encourage you to do so. Check out Strengthen the Good's site for more information.
A while back I joined a network of Bloggers called Strengthen the Good. The idea is that we can use the influence of our blogs not just to decry the evil in this world, but also to do what the name implies. STG highlights small "Micro-charities", organizations that are doing good work helping people, just not on as grand a scale as more well-known charities. By using blogs, we can get the word out to more donors than these charities could on their own.
Well, in light of this weekend's anniversary, STG has come up with a good one. The Brent Woodall Foundation For Exceptional Children offers care and education to autistic children and their parents. This is what STG says about the charity:
The Foundation was created by Tracy Woodall, who lost her husband,
Brent, in the South Tower on September 11th, 2001. Tracy was 5 weeks
pregnant at the time, and she created the foundation as a way of dealing with
her grief and extending his legacy.
We all lost somehting on 9/11/01, but for Tracy, it was a husband and a father for her child. She decided not to let the terrorists win. We can do the same. We can show them, show the world, and show ourselves that we can make something good out of the worst they can throw at us. I would encourage you to do so. Check out Strengthen the Good's site for more information.
It's About Time II
After the cruel trick they played on me in the Ducks game Saturday, the football gods owed me a little consolation come NFL Sunday.
They did not disappoint.
Having been without a favorite team for several years, I have been following the teams who have drafted recent UO grads -- particularly Joey Harrington. Also, I'm trying to care about the Seahawks, since they ARE in the PNW, and San Diego, since I lived there for 12 years. Not as true favorites, but as teams I like.
Minnesota drafted Keenan Howry and Onterrio Smith. They beat Dallas 35-17.
Seattle also has a former Duck, Maurice Morris. They beat New Orleans 21-7.
San Diego has Justin Peele and Igor Olshansky (watch for that name. He's a rookie, but as he matures, he's going to be a force to recon with on the D-line). They beat Houston 27-20.
And finally, Detroit. Detroit of the 24-game road losing streak. Detroit who recruited my favorite Quarterback. They ended the streak, beating Chicago 20-16.
Not a bad way to start the season. It sure beat all sorts of hell out of Saturday.
They did not disappoint.
Having been without a favorite team for several years, I have been following the teams who have drafted recent UO grads -- particularly Joey Harrington. Also, I'm trying to care about the Seahawks, since they ARE in the PNW, and San Diego, since I lived there for 12 years. Not as true favorites, but as teams I like.
Minnesota drafted Keenan Howry and Onterrio Smith. They beat Dallas 35-17.
Seattle also has a former Duck, Maurice Morris. They beat New Orleans 21-7.
San Diego has Justin Peele and Igor Olshansky (watch for that name. He's a rookie, but as he matures, he's going to be a force to recon with on the D-line). They beat Houston 27-20.
And finally, Detroit. Detroit of the 24-game road losing streak. Detroit who recruited my favorite Quarterback. They ended the streak, beating Chicago 20-16.
Not a bad way to start the season. It sure beat all sorts of hell out of Saturday.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
A Quick Note to the Oklahoma University Sooners
Practice special teams. A lot. If my Ducks play as crappy against you next week in Norman as they did against Indiana yesterday here in Eugene, "Y'all" are going to be spending a lot of time kicking off after scoring.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
It's Been a While
So I thought I'd do a Top Ten List.
Despite the obvious Memogate temptation, I decided not to go for humor. Also, this time I'll be counting up from number 1 to 10.
So without further ado,
My Top 10 Favorite Works of Literature:
1. The Bible
Yeah, cliche. So sue me. It's true. My father was a pastor, so I grew up around the Bible. I studied it in Bible college. As a Christian, I try to continue learning from it and following it.
2. The Chronicles of Narnia
As a child, my mother would read these to me on long trips. She'd always stop reading at a point of suspense. This is what got me hooked on reading from a young age.
3. World Book Encyclopedia
We were poor, so when I became a voracious reader, my father bought an old encyclopedia set at a garage sale, and scrounged up some high school Literature class textbooks for me when I was around 8 or 9. I blame them for my advanced reading skills.
4. Anything Else Written by C.S. Lewis
Starting with God in the Dock, assigned as a college text, and including works such as Mere Christianity, Surprised by Joy, and others, C.S. Lewis became the most influential thinker to shape my view of Christianity, Philosophy, and Reason.
5. Lord of the Rings
Yeah, again, I know. But it really moved me. I read the trilogy for the first time as a young adult having just been forced out of college, unsure of where my life was going. Tolkien became my favorite fiction author just as his friend is my favorite non-fiction writer.
6. The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
This book had a strong influence on my view of faith, grace, and Christian ethics.
7. Through Gates of Splendor by Elizabeth Elliot
The story of a group of Christian Missionaries who were martyred in South America. A very moving story, and again, one that forced me to examine my commitment to my faith.
8. Between Heaven and Hell by Peter Kreeft
A great book for comparing world views. Admittedly sympathetic to Christianity, as the author is a Christian.
9. The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara
Growing up in the Western US, the Civil War is not as personal as it is for those who grow up in the Eastern US. This was the book that woke me to my heritage.
10. John Adams by David McCullough
This one just joined the list, and I'm currently reading it. A very insightful look at the life of one of our greatest founding patriots, and very relevant to today's political debate.
Honorable Mention: Anything by Ray Bradbury
My second favorite storyteller and favorite Sci Fi author.
Honorable Mention II: I'm Just Here For the Food by Alton Brown
Smart, funny, and a good cook. It's like reading a mirror. Yeah, I wish.
Despite the obvious Memogate temptation, I decided not to go for humor. Also, this time I'll be counting up from number 1 to 10.
So without further ado,
My Top 10 Favorite Works of Literature:
1. The Bible
Yeah, cliche. So sue me. It's true. My father was a pastor, so I grew up around the Bible. I studied it in Bible college. As a Christian, I try to continue learning from it and following it.
2. The Chronicles of Narnia
As a child, my mother would read these to me on long trips. She'd always stop reading at a point of suspense. This is what got me hooked on reading from a young age.
3. World Book Encyclopedia
We were poor, so when I became a voracious reader, my father bought an old encyclopedia set at a garage sale, and scrounged up some high school Literature class textbooks for me when I was around 8 or 9. I blame them for my advanced reading skills.
4. Anything Else Written by C.S. Lewis
Starting with God in the Dock, assigned as a college text, and including works such as Mere Christianity, Surprised by Joy, and others, C.S. Lewis became the most influential thinker to shape my view of Christianity, Philosophy, and Reason.
5. Lord of the Rings
Yeah, again, I know. But it really moved me. I read the trilogy for the first time as a young adult having just been forced out of college, unsure of where my life was going. Tolkien became my favorite fiction author just as his friend is my favorite non-fiction writer.
6. The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
This book had a strong influence on my view of faith, grace, and Christian ethics.
7. Through Gates of Splendor by Elizabeth Elliot
The story of a group of Christian Missionaries who were martyred in South America. A very moving story, and again, one that forced me to examine my commitment to my faith.
8. Between Heaven and Hell by Peter Kreeft
A great book for comparing world views. Admittedly sympathetic to Christianity, as the author is a Christian.
9. The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara
Growing up in the Western US, the Civil War is not as personal as it is for those who grow up in the Eastern US. This was the book that woke me to my heritage.
10. John Adams by David McCullough
This one just joined the list, and I'm currently reading it. A very insightful look at the life of one of our greatest founding patriots, and very relevant to today's political debate.
Honorable Mention: Anything by Ray Bradbury
My second favorite storyteller and favorite Sci Fi author.
Honorable Mention II: I'm Just Here For the Food by Alton Brown
Smart, funny, and a good cook. It's like reading a mirror. Yeah, I wish.
What's the Font, Kenneth?
A while back, I attempted to fisk a blog post by Tom Humphrey, a newspaper editor from Tennessee. I wasn't the only one. If you'll follow the links to other blogs in my post, the trackback, or the link to Tom's blog where the comments are, you'll see that quite a few of us tore in to ol' Tommie.
While there was plenty to go on in his post, the main reason bloggers went after Mr. Humphrey was due to a comment in his post:
After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those iron clad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such.
Nice, huh? Thanks a lot, Tom. What's sad is, in recent days I've heard the same comments about bloggers AGAIN, thanks to the Memogate controversy.
Dan Rather called us "rumor mills" and "partisan political operatives" (pot and kettle much, Danny Boy?). Last night watching MSNBC, I heard a guest on Scarborough Country accuse bloggers of being rumor mongers, and of not being subject to fact checking.
Let's address quickly the fact that this is an unabashed ad hominem, and then move on. The person that made this comment could not refute the forgery allegations, could not lend any expertise to the discussion of the documents, so they had to assail the bloggers instead. Because we're rumor mongers, then anything we say must therefore be nothing but rumor, with no relevance or basis in fact. Pure ad hominem. As unsophisticated as some people think it is to cite her, I have to say, Ann Coulter was right when she wrote Slander.
Well, I have news for them. If anything, blogs are more closely scrutinized than Mainstream Media sources. Go back to my post on Tom Humphrey. In criticizing him, I made some spelling and grammatical errors myself, and a reader caught me and called me on it. Admittedly, it took a while, but I have a readership of what, 100 people a day or so? I'm nothing. If one of the heavy hitters (The top 100 or so on the TTLB ecosystem) make a mistake, how quickly do they get called on it. If not in their comment sections, you can BET other blogs, especially those of opposing political views, will call them on it.
That's a significant factor in the checks and balances present on the web, among blogs, as opposed to those in the MSM. Let's look specifically at fact checking.
Any time we are presented with an argument and with evidence for a position on any issue, our own opinion and feelings on that issue cloud our judgment of the evidence. That is human nature. Our desire influences our inclination, that is, the more we want something to be true, the more apt we are to believe it. It takes a great deal of intellectual courage to say, "I wish it were thus, but alas, it is not." Some people are more able to do it than others.
We were taught for generations that among those best able to do this were journalists. The dispassionate, impartial observer and reporter who could set aside personal feelings to "Just tell it like it is." But this belief itself was in great part based on our desire to believe. The reality was, sadly, more and more different all the time. Journalists are as fallible as we are. If someone is presented with a story that fits their perception and beliefs and desires, they are going to be more inclined to believe it. They're supposed to exercise caution, but sometimes it can be too tempting to pass up. That's why fact-checking, or some sort of independent review, is important. In the MSM, that's supposed to be the job of fact checkers, editors, and producers. In the blogosphere, it's your readers themselves (who also serve that function for the MSM, but to a lesser degree -- more on that in a bit), and your fellow bloggers.
The problem that the MSM runs into is that over the years, they have grown pretty close to homogeneous in their politics and beliefs. That means that the overseers, the editors, producers, and fact checkers, tend to have the same bias as the reporters, and thus inclined to err in favor of the same view that the reporters do. Whereas in the blogosphere, there are plenty of readers and fellow bloggers who disagree with you on any give topic, and they'll be more than happy to pick at and look as deeply as possible into the claims you present.
Furthermore, as I mentioned, the greater a blogs readership, the more likely and the more quickly will occur an "AHA!" if the blogger missteps. That means the most popular bloggers are held most accountable. In theory, it should be the same in the MSM, but alas, as a journalist becomes more famous, more influential, and more highly regarded, they develop clout that allows them protection from too close a scrutiny. Their mistakes tend to be glossed over and ignored by their peers and superiors, and until recently, the public had little recourse to address their errors. How many letters written to an editor actually get published? And if they don't how else will you get the word out? Go to a cometing journalist? It was doubtful you'd get the time of day unless the charge was highly significant and incontrovertable, and even then it was not guaranteed any attention. Out of professional regard, mutually held opinions, and self-preservation, journalists rarely attack their own. It happens, but not often.
The internet and blogs changed that. Now you have an outlet. Now everyone can have a voice. If that voice is used poorly, you will be ignored, mocked, and refuted. But while it may be small at first, if what your new internet voice has to say is right, and significant, and well said, it will get heard. And listened to. And repeated. And some day, like this week, it may just drown out the old, authoritarian voices of the old media.
While there was plenty to go on in his post, the main reason bloggers went after Mr. Humphrey was due to a comment in his post:
After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those iron clad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such.
Nice, huh? Thanks a lot, Tom. What's sad is, in recent days I've heard the same comments about bloggers AGAIN, thanks to the Memogate controversy.
Dan Rather called us "rumor mills" and "partisan political operatives" (pot and kettle much, Danny Boy?). Last night watching MSNBC, I heard a guest on Scarborough Country accuse bloggers of being rumor mongers, and of not being subject to fact checking.
Let's address quickly the fact that this is an unabashed ad hominem, and then move on. The person that made this comment could not refute the forgery allegations, could not lend any expertise to the discussion of the documents, so they had to assail the bloggers instead. Because we're rumor mongers, then anything we say must therefore be nothing but rumor, with no relevance or basis in fact. Pure ad hominem. As unsophisticated as some people think it is to cite her, I have to say, Ann Coulter was right when she wrote Slander.
Well, I have news for them. If anything, blogs are more closely scrutinized than Mainstream Media sources. Go back to my post on Tom Humphrey. In criticizing him, I made some spelling and grammatical errors myself, and a reader caught me and called me on it. Admittedly, it took a while, but I have a readership of what, 100 people a day or so? I'm nothing. If one of the heavy hitters (The top 100 or so on the TTLB ecosystem) make a mistake, how quickly do they get called on it. If not in their comment sections, you can BET other blogs, especially those of opposing political views, will call them on it.
That's a significant factor in the checks and balances present on the web, among blogs, as opposed to those in the MSM. Let's look specifically at fact checking.
Any time we are presented with an argument and with evidence for a position on any issue, our own opinion and feelings on that issue cloud our judgment of the evidence. That is human nature. Our desire influences our inclination, that is, the more we want something to be true, the more apt we are to believe it. It takes a great deal of intellectual courage to say, "I wish it were thus, but alas, it is not." Some people are more able to do it than others.
We were taught for generations that among those best able to do this were journalists. The dispassionate, impartial observer and reporter who could set aside personal feelings to "Just tell it like it is." But this belief itself was in great part based on our desire to believe. The reality was, sadly, more and more different all the time. Journalists are as fallible as we are. If someone is presented with a story that fits their perception and beliefs and desires, they are going to be more inclined to believe it. They're supposed to exercise caution, but sometimes it can be too tempting to pass up. That's why fact-checking, or some sort of independent review, is important. In the MSM, that's supposed to be the job of fact checkers, editors, and producers. In the blogosphere, it's your readers themselves (who also serve that function for the MSM, but to a lesser degree -- more on that in a bit), and your fellow bloggers.
The problem that the MSM runs into is that over the years, they have grown pretty close to homogeneous in their politics and beliefs. That means that the overseers, the editors, producers, and fact checkers, tend to have the same bias as the reporters, and thus inclined to err in favor of the same view that the reporters do. Whereas in the blogosphere, there are plenty of readers and fellow bloggers who disagree with you on any give topic, and they'll be more than happy to pick at and look as deeply as possible into the claims you present.
Furthermore, as I mentioned, the greater a blogs readership, the more likely and the more quickly will occur an "AHA!" if the blogger missteps. That means the most popular bloggers are held most accountable. In theory, it should be the same in the MSM, but alas, as a journalist becomes more famous, more influential, and more highly regarded, they develop clout that allows them protection from too close a scrutiny. Their mistakes tend to be glossed over and ignored by their peers and superiors, and until recently, the public had little recourse to address their errors. How many letters written to an editor actually get published? And if they don't how else will you get the word out? Go to a cometing journalist? It was doubtful you'd get the time of day unless the charge was highly significant and incontrovertable, and even then it was not guaranteed any attention. Out of professional regard, mutually held opinions, and self-preservation, journalists rarely attack their own. It happens, but not often.
The internet and blogs changed that. Now you have an outlet. Now everyone can have a voice. If that voice is used poorly, you will be ignored, mocked, and refuted. But while it may be small at first, if what your new internet voice has to say is right, and significant, and well said, it will get heard. And listened to. And repeated. And some day, like this week, it may just drown out the old, authoritarian voices of the old media.
Looking to the Future
2008
Yeah, I know it's a little early to think ahead, but it was on my mind last night.
Most of the talk about 2008 has been about the probable candidacy of Hillary clinton, and hoe Republicans should be preparing for it. A lot of talk has centered around thinking Dick Cheney should step down, clearing the way for a new VP who could then be groomed for 2008. I'm not for it.
Setting aside for a minute the fact that I think Cheney is a good VP, I think it overlooks one important factor. I don't think the 2008 GOP candidate should be perceivable at all as a Bush Camp Protege.
For 5 years now, the left has been focusing all their anger and hatred on George W Bush. While they've played dirty in the past, the level of bile being pumped out now is phenomenal. If the 2008 candidate is associated with Bush too closely, that vitriol will spill over. If the new candidate is viewed as their own person, they'll still have to contend with the typical liberal opposition to a conservative, but without the baggage of 2004.
So what do my conservative friends and readers think? Will the fact that they don't have George W Bush to kick around anymore mean the level of spite on the left subsides in 2008, or not?
Yeah, I know it's a little early to think ahead, but it was on my mind last night.
Most of the talk about 2008 has been about the probable candidacy of Hillary clinton, and hoe Republicans should be preparing for it. A lot of talk has centered around thinking Dick Cheney should step down, clearing the way for a new VP who could then be groomed for 2008. I'm not for it.
Setting aside for a minute the fact that I think Cheney is a good VP, I think it overlooks one important factor. I don't think the 2008 GOP candidate should be perceivable at all as a Bush Camp Protege.
For 5 years now, the left has been focusing all their anger and hatred on George W Bush. While they've played dirty in the past, the level of bile being pumped out now is phenomenal. If the 2008 candidate is associated with Bush too closely, that vitriol will spill over. If the new candidate is viewed as their own person, they'll still have to contend with the typical liberal opposition to a conservative, but without the baggage of 2004.
So what do my conservative friends and readers think? Will the fact that they don't have George W Bush to kick around anymore mean the level of spite on the left subsides in 2008, or not?
Friday, September 10, 2004
Mass Hypoxia at the Democratic Underground
Caused by Memogate giving them all "the Vapors", I suppose.
Thanks for the Memory to the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Apparently, the latest Right-Wing Establishment target of DU's ire is NPR.
As in National Public Radio.
The collapse of the left is now in full swing. The revolution will not only be televised, it will be a sitcom.
Thanks for the Memory to the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Apparently, the latest Right-Wing Establishment target of DU's ire is NPR.
As in National Public Radio.
The collapse of the left is now in full swing. The revolution will not only be televised, it will be a sitcom.
Word Association
A little game for a Friday afternoon. I say a word or phrase, you say the first name that comes to mind.
Ready?
partisan political operatives
rumor mills
OK, now that you have a mental picture of who those phrases describe, take a guess at who uttered those phrases.
How much ya wanna bet they're the same person?
Thanks for the Memory to Rather Biased.
Ready?
partisan political operatives
rumor mills
OK, now that you have a mental picture of who those phrases describe, take a guess at who uttered those phrases.
How much ya wanna bet they're the same person?
Thanks for the Memory to Rather Biased.
Kerry's Campaign Gets Pulled Over Again
Thanks for the Memory to reader CG at (you guessed it) Ace of Spades.
From the official Bush Blog:
Fraternal Order of Police Endorses President Bush
The largest Police union in the country.
Mr. Kerry, you have the right to remain silent. I suggest you use it.
From the official Bush Blog:
Fraternal Order of Police Endorses President Bush
The largest Police union in the country.
Mr. Kerry, you have the right to remain silent. I suggest you use it.
He's Baaaack....
Good News From the Home Front:
Nader clears ballot hurdle
When Bill Bradbury DQ'ed a bunch of names, I was disappointed, not despairing. But as the article goes on to say:
Nader's name now will appear on the ballot along with the names of President Bush and challenger John Kerry - unless a higher court rules otherwise.
That means we're back in play, baby! Enough of our liberal voters here are hard left enough to vote Nader, even in THIS election.
Next this will go to the Oregon State Supreme Court. The Dems are trying to keep Nader off the ballot. Keep your fingers crossed.
the article has some interesting comments from both the kerry and Nader camps that sum their positions well.
There hasn't been much official comment on this from local GOP leadership. that's pretty smart. We don't want to stir up cries of "Florida 2000!", and any support of Nader in public will tip an already obvious hand. But privately, we're all pulling a Mr. Burns. Eeeeexxxcellleeennnt!
Personally, I think an even craftier tack for the Republican Party to take would be to make statements backing the assertions of the Democrats. This would deflect any Democratic accusations of GOP interference, and would play up the "Everybody's Picking on Nader!" angle, which is likely to swing even more lefties, especially bloody-minded, stubbern, pro-underdog Oregonians, into the Nader camp, almost exclusively to Kerry's detriment.
Between the polling picture, including this little tidbit, the Memogate issue, and an expected next salvo from the USS Swifties, watching the Kerry Campaign fall apart is like watching a car wreck in slow motion -- except replace the sense of horror with one of delight.
Nader clears ballot hurdle
When Bill Bradbury DQ'ed a bunch of names, I was disappointed, not despairing. But as the article goes on to say:
Nader's name now will appear on the ballot along with the names of President Bush and challenger John Kerry - unless a higher court rules otherwise.
That means we're back in play, baby! Enough of our liberal voters here are hard left enough to vote Nader, even in THIS election.
Next this will go to the Oregon State Supreme Court. The Dems are trying to keep Nader off the ballot. Keep your fingers crossed.
the article has some interesting comments from both the kerry and Nader camps that sum their positions well.
There hasn't been much official comment on this from local GOP leadership. that's pretty smart. We don't want to stir up cries of "Florida 2000!", and any support of Nader in public will tip an already obvious hand. But privately, we're all pulling a Mr. Burns. Eeeeexxxcellleeennnt!
Personally, I think an even craftier tack for the Republican Party to take would be to make statements backing the assertions of the Democrats. This would deflect any Democratic accusations of GOP interference, and would play up the "Everybody's Picking on Nader!" angle, which is likely to swing even more lefties, especially bloody-minded, stubbern, pro-underdog Oregonians, into the Nader camp, almost exclusively to Kerry's detriment.
Between the polling picture, including this little tidbit, the Memogate issue, and an expected next salvo from the USS Swifties, watching the Kerry Campaign fall apart is like watching a car wreck in slow motion -- except replace the sense of horror with one of delight.
Harkins Hops in Handbasket
FLASH
See Update # 2 at bottom!
The Old Mainstream Media, Dan Rather, The Kerry Campaign, and now Tom Harkins can all skip merrily to hell, slung snug under Dorothy's arm, ensconced in wicker. All thanks to a set of forged memos.
Thanks for the Memory to Blogfather Rusty at MyPetJawa. Literally, this time. Last night this particular issue had me livid, and thanks to Rusty, I am now remembering to Blog on it.
Last night when I got home, after checking on the Feared Redhead, I was eager to see how the news channels would be handling the Killian Memos:
CNN Headline News, as I've mentioned, was parroting the line from CBS/60 minutes.
Fox's Tim Russert just had to go on about how damaging the memos are to Bush, if they're authentic, before addressing the objections to said authenticity.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough Was interviewing someone (only caught the tail end, not sure who) who was talking about how these memos are more damaging to Bush than the swifties are to Kerry, because the Swifties have been "disproven," while the memos have not. Try to keep up, joey.
And CNN had the most infuriating coverage of all, airing a press statement by Tom Harkins criticizing Bush's military record, crowing about how these memos prove he's a liar, and demanding the President address the accusations. Rusty has the transcript.
I sat there, seething and chuckling at the same time. It was one more example of Democratic hypocrisy, accusing Republicans of mudslinging when this kind of attack is all too common bt the left. And yet it was amusing, because I knew he had to have made this statement before the forgery issue had come up.
I'm sure when all is said and done, the Democratic spin will try to dismiss this as nothing, and in fact, the true believers will still be quoting the memos, oblivious to their discredit.
But the Old Media in their coverage, the Kerry campaign in passing the memos to CBS, CBS and Rather for running with it, and Democratic leadership for playing it as their trump card even as it was being deconstructed like a house OF cards, took a huge hit to their credibility yesterday.
Update #1
Powerline has a lead on Dan Rather's insistence on staying in the Alamo.
This has Prompted Ace of Spades to start a Dan Rather Retirement Watch.
Update #2
Again, thanks to Ace!
According to the Nashua Telegraph, John Edwards is challenging Bush to address the accusations made in the memos!!!!
President Bush should have to explain newly released records that reveal his former Texas National Guard superior was asked to “sugar coat” performance records after finding Bush failed standards to be a trained pilot, Sen. John Edwards said Thursday.
How about this: THEY'RE FORGERIES, YOU MORON!!!!!!!
The left just isn't getting it.
Already Terry McAuliffe is luanching in on the "Rove Plant Conspiracy" angle. Ace has a great take on this.
Update #3:
Rather Spins
Thanks for the Memory to Ace YET AGAIN
So Rather's story, and he sticking to it (for now), is that even if the source isn't true, the story is!
Dan, Dan, Dan.... if the Source is Lying, the Story is a Lie!
Ace has retracted this story. Apparently Rather is still insisting that the documents themselves are genuine.
At least he hasn't pulled a Clintonesque "Meaning of the word is" moment. But he's still getting burned like a mutha.
Update #3.5
Again, from Ace. The man is ON FREAKING FIRE!
Apparently even the Dems are beginning to understand how bad this is for them.
See Update # 2 at bottom!
The Old Mainstream Media, Dan Rather, The Kerry Campaign, and now Tom Harkins can all skip merrily to hell, slung snug under Dorothy's arm, ensconced in wicker. All thanks to a set of forged memos.
Thanks for the Memory to Blogfather Rusty at MyPetJawa. Literally, this time. Last night this particular issue had me livid, and thanks to Rusty, I am now remembering to Blog on it.
Last night when I got home, after checking on the Feared Redhead, I was eager to see how the news channels would be handling the Killian Memos:
CNN Headline News, as I've mentioned, was parroting the line from CBS/60 minutes.
Fox's Tim Russert just had to go on about how damaging the memos are to Bush, if they're authentic, before addressing the objections to said authenticity.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough Was interviewing someone (only caught the tail end, not sure who) who was talking about how these memos are more damaging to Bush than the swifties are to Kerry, because the Swifties have been "disproven," while the memos have not. Try to keep up, joey.
And CNN had the most infuriating coverage of all, airing a press statement by Tom Harkins criticizing Bush's military record, crowing about how these memos prove he's a liar, and demanding the President address the accusations. Rusty has the transcript.
I sat there, seething and chuckling at the same time. It was one more example of Democratic hypocrisy, accusing Republicans of mudslinging when this kind of attack is all too common bt the left. And yet it was amusing, because I knew he had to have made this statement before the forgery issue had come up.
I'm sure when all is said and done, the Democratic spin will try to dismiss this as nothing, and in fact, the true believers will still be quoting the memos, oblivious to their discredit.
But the Old Media in their coverage, the Kerry campaign in passing the memos to CBS, CBS and Rather for running with it, and Democratic leadership for playing it as their trump card even as it was being deconstructed like a house OF cards, took a huge hit to their credibility yesterday.
Update #1
Powerline has a lead on Dan Rather's insistence on staying in the Alamo.
This has Prompted Ace of Spades to start a Dan Rather Retirement Watch.
Update #2
Again, thanks to Ace!
According to the Nashua Telegraph, John Edwards is challenging Bush to address the accusations made in the memos!!!!
President Bush should have to explain newly released records that reveal his former Texas National Guard superior was asked to “sugar coat” performance records after finding Bush failed standards to be a trained pilot, Sen. John Edwards said Thursday.
How about this: THEY'RE FORGERIES, YOU MORON!!!!!!!
The left just isn't getting it.
Already Terry McAuliffe is luanching in on the "Rove Plant Conspiracy" angle. Ace has a great take on this.
Ace has retracted this story. Apparently Rather is still insisting that the documents themselves are genuine.
At least he hasn't pulled a Clintonesque "Meaning of the word is" moment. But he's still getting burned like a mutha.
Update #3.5
Again, from Ace. The man is ON FREAKING FIRE!
Apparently even the Dems are beginning to understand how bad this is for them.
Reaping the Whirlwind -- in a Good Way
Wow.
My average traffic has been in the 80-90 visit per day range for a while now. Not impressive, but not bag for a humble little blog.
According to Sitemeter, based on my traffic today, they predict my traffic will climb to 111 visits per day. If the last hour, since I started blogging in earnest on Memogate, is any indication (which it probably isn't), I'm looking at 600 visits/day.
I realize this is a rare spike, and that my average will be nowhere near that. But I'm still seeing a significant climb. And it's readers from all over the place.
Now if this is happening to lil' ol' me, what must it be like for the big boys?
This story is, as Ace said yesterday, the shot heard 'round the blogosphere.
My average traffic has been in the 80-90 visit per day range for a while now. Not impressive, but not bag for a humble little blog.
According to Sitemeter, based on my traffic today, they predict my traffic will climb to 111 visits per day. If the last hour, since I started blogging in earnest on Memogate, is any indication (which it probably isn't), I'm looking at 600 visits/day.
I realize this is a rare spike, and that my average will be nowhere near that. But I'm still seeing a significant climb. And it's readers from all over the place.
Now if this is happening to lil' ol' me, what must it be like for the big boys?
This story is, as Ace said yesterday, the shot heard 'round the blogosphere.
Semper Fidelis
Just got back from a little jaunt over to Blogmother Da Goddess' blog, where I saw this very moving picture. I suggest you go view her photography, read her moving words. i'm still unsure of how I escaped tears.
I'm not sure the man is a marine and not a soldier, the uniform is't clear enough for a civilian like me to say. Either way, the USMC motto seemed appropriate. Look at the photo. It's the perfect picture of the faithfulness of a family. A man. A woman. a child. Together, linked, one. But there's that uniform, which demands a faithfulness of its own. And like the family bond, the bond to the uniform was made willingly, voluntarily, fully cognizant of the cost, out of love.
Out of love for his country, the man makes a sacrifice. Out of love for the man, the family makes sacrifices. Because of their sacrifice, he knows his will not be in vain.
Faithful. Semper Fidelis. And we're all better off because they are.
I'm not sure the man is a marine and not a soldier, the uniform is't clear enough for a civilian like me to say. Either way, the USMC motto seemed appropriate. Look at the photo. It's the perfect picture of the faithfulness of a family. A man. A woman. a child. Together, linked, one. But there's that uniform, which demands a faithfulness of its own. And like the family bond, the bond to the uniform was made willingly, voluntarily, fully cognizant of the cost, out of love.
Out of love for his country, the man makes a sacrifice. Out of love for the man, the family makes sacrifices. Because of their sacrifice, he knows his will not be in vain.
Faithful. Semper Fidelis. And we're all better off because they are.
Quote of the Day
(During the fourth quarter of last night's Indianapolis Colts vs. New England Patriots football game in Massachussetts, after two Colts possessions and one Patriots possession had ended in turnovers):
John Madden: Boy, this game is a real flip-flop.
Al Michaels: Well, you're in the right state for it!
John Madden: Boy, this game is a real flip-flop.
Al Michaels: Well, you're in the right state for it!
Thursday, September 09, 2004
WHAT THE HELL
Is It With the End of the Week and Stressfull Calls?????
According to my wife over the phone:
The neighbors are being evicted. They have a cat that we've grown fond of, and can't keep her. They asked us to take her. In trying to get the cat IN to our duplex, my wife accidentally let the dog OUT. the dog, a small inside dog, needs obedience training -- she ran off, chasing the cat. Cat and dog were both almost hit by traffic. Wife gave chase. Man on street ignored wife's request for help, did not even respond. Will not go into details of how THAT makes me feel. Wife fell, scraped knee and face, fell partly on tummy, worries about baby inside.
I'm gonna scream!
Everything worked out ok, she feels no abdominal pain. I told her if she feels at all concerned, to got to urgent care. But what really has me shaking and near tears is the thought that with a little less providence, I could have lost 2 pets, a child, and my wife, all in one fell swoop.
According to my wife over the phone:
The neighbors are being evicted. They have a cat that we've grown fond of, and can't keep her. They asked us to take her. In trying to get the cat IN to our duplex, my wife accidentally let the dog OUT. the dog, a small inside dog, needs obedience training -- she ran off, chasing the cat. Cat and dog were both almost hit by traffic. Wife gave chase. Man on street ignored wife's request for help, did not even respond. Will not go into details of how THAT makes me feel. Wife fell, scraped knee and face, fell partly on tummy, worries about baby inside.
I'm gonna scream!
Everything worked out ok, she feels no abdominal pain. I told her if she feels at all concerned, to got to urgent care. But what really has me shaking and near tears is the thought that with a little less providence, I could have lost 2 pets, a child, and my wife, all in one fell swoop.
Memo
From: Blogs
To: Old Media
Subject: See Ya
Update II 9/10/04:
Last night on CNN HN, I kid you not, after all this had broken, at 7 PM PDT, I watched the talking heads parrot the EXACT line spewed by 60 Minutes the day before -- no caveat at all. While over on Fox, Tim Russert had to talk about how bad for Bush this was *IF* the memos were authentic, BEFORE discussing their authenticity. And even then, it only received a cursory explanation. Sheesh. The media is the media is the media.
UPDATE!
Thanks for the Memory to reader LC Christopher at The Rottie.
Even as the Blogs tear into them, the Old Media turn on each other. ABC News is now posting an article in which Killian's Son questions the veracity of the documents.
How beautiful is that?
Original Post:
Thanks for the memory to reader Ken J at Ace's blog.
So I snoozed, I loozed... er... lost... regarding the Killian Memo Controversy. I had a chance to get in on the big wave, but I was influenced by cooler heads. Oh, well. It's better in this case to have been scooped than to have ended up with egg on my face. Maybe CBS should have thought of that too. That's the point of the controversy, isn't it? Vetting your sources before you build your case on them?
Remember this post where I talked about how the ability of the blogosphere to force the Swift Boat Vets issue into the foreground showed how modern forms of communication were storming the gates of the Mainstream Media's hold on information? Well, as Ace points out, THIS STORY BLOW THINGS WIDE OPEN IN WAYS WE ONLY IMAGINED BEFORE.
While Ace may not be right in his assertion that this will end Rathers' career, it certainly tarnishes it. Furthermore, the fact that CBS is guilty of exactly what Rather accuses blogs of, namely being "committed ideologues relying upon 'faulty intelligence' without thoroughly vetting it due to the fact that the dubious 'evidence' supports their preconceived ideological faith," while it was the oft-sneered-upon blogs who caught them with their pants down, is further evidence that blogs are coming into their own and that the Old Media is losing it.
There's plenty of time for me to catch the next wave. The tide's coming in.
To: Old Media
Subject: See Ya
Update II 9/10/04:
Last night on CNN HN, I kid you not, after all this had broken, at 7 PM PDT, I watched the talking heads parrot the EXACT line spewed by 60 Minutes the day before -- no caveat at all. While over on Fox, Tim Russert had to talk about how bad for Bush this was *IF* the memos were authentic, BEFORE discussing their authenticity. And even then, it only received a cursory explanation. Sheesh. The media is the media is the media.
UPDATE!
Thanks for the Memory to reader LC Christopher at The Rottie.
Even as the Blogs tear into them, the Old Media turn on each other. ABC News is now posting an article in which Killian's Son questions the veracity of the documents.
How beautiful is that?
Original Post:
Thanks for the memory to reader Ken J at Ace's blog.
So I snoozed, I loozed... er... lost... regarding the Killian Memo Controversy. I had a chance to get in on the big wave, but I was influenced by cooler heads. Oh, well. It's better in this case to have been scooped than to have ended up with egg on my face. Maybe CBS should have thought of that too. That's the point of the controversy, isn't it? Vetting your sources before you build your case on them?
Remember this post where I talked about how the ability of the blogosphere to force the Swift Boat Vets issue into the foreground showed how modern forms of communication were storming the gates of the Mainstream Media's hold on information? Well, as Ace points out, THIS STORY BLOW THINGS WIDE OPEN IN WAYS WE ONLY IMAGINED BEFORE.
While Ace may not be right in his assertion that this will end Rathers' career, it certainly tarnishes it. Furthermore, the fact that CBS is guilty of exactly what Rather accuses blogs of, namely being "committed ideologues relying upon 'faulty intelligence' without thoroughly vetting it due to the fact that the dubious 'evidence' supports their preconceived ideological faith," while it was the oft-sneered-upon blogs who caught them with their pants down, is further evidence that blogs are coming into their own and that the Old Media is losing it.
There's plenty of time for me to catch the next wave. The tide's coming in.
Get to the Points
Thanks for the Memory to Blogs for Bush.
Ever since the RNC, the baying and howling for blood from the Democratic camp has been deafening. The battle cry has been "The gloves are off!" If you listen to the grating screeches of Susan Esterich, or read the scrawls and scratches from a thousand Liberal "pundits", that's the theme -- we're gonna dig up dirt on Bush, and fight the way the Republicans do.
My first reaction, as I believe I have stated, was incredulity that the left would think that the American public would actually believe them when they say they've been playing nice, given the tone of politics for the last five years. They've been slinging mud and out for Bush' blood since the last election. Nothing they've done has been nice, nothing about their fight has been fair.
My second response was annoyed expectation. LEt them try. They've been trying to nail Bush on something for this whole time. If there was anything valid with which to inmpugn him, we would have heard it by now. I expected rehashing of old lies, and I expected them to fail as miserably as the first time.
With the exception of the new Kitty Kelley book (and anyone who remembers that name knows she has the journalistic integrity of oh, the National Enquirer or the New York Times), the "mud" being slung has been the same as it was in the last election -- draft dodging, string-pulling, AWOL flyboy.
And thanks to the fact that they're pulling the same stunt as last time, we've had time to prepare for it this time. A new article in the Hill points out just how inaccurate the claims against the President are:
First of all, the claim that he failed to fullfil his service IN the Guard:
The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.
That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.
Not two years of weekends. Two years.
After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.
According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).
Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?
But... but... Alabama! AWOL!
Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.
....
So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.
Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.
In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.
Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.
But.... but.... Avoiding Vietnam!
“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”
There is plenty more to the article, and I recommend you read it. There are several points that have been made in other places that also back up this more positive view of the president's service, but since I don't have the sources, I'm not going to risk misquoting them.
Bush did not make his service a campaign issue. Bush's opponents did. Kerry DID make his OWN record a campaign issue. And that is proving his undoing. And, as the article says, "it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s."
So the next time the Democrats tell you, "No more Mr. Nice Guy," just tell them we never were fooled by that mask to begin with.
Update (yes, already!):
Thanks for the Memory to Blogfather Rusty at MyPetJawa (ring kissing will commence forthwith).
Still not satisfied that he wasn't AWOL in Alabama? OK, how about an interview with another AANG officer who says Bush showed up?
Ever since the RNC, the baying and howling for blood from the Democratic camp has been deafening. The battle cry has been "The gloves are off!" If you listen to the grating screeches of Susan Esterich, or read the scrawls and scratches from a thousand Liberal "pundits", that's the theme -- we're gonna dig up dirt on Bush, and fight the way the Republicans do.
My first reaction, as I believe I have stated, was incredulity that the left would think that the American public would actually believe them when they say they've been playing nice, given the tone of politics for the last five years. They've been slinging mud and out for Bush' blood since the last election. Nothing they've done has been nice, nothing about their fight has been fair.
My second response was annoyed expectation. LEt them try. They've been trying to nail Bush on something for this whole time. If there was anything valid with which to inmpugn him, we would have heard it by now. I expected rehashing of old lies, and I expected them to fail as miserably as the first time.
With the exception of the new Kitty Kelley book (and anyone who remembers that name knows she has the journalistic integrity of oh, the National Enquirer or the New York Times), the "mud" being slung has been the same as it was in the last election -- draft dodging, string-pulling, AWOL flyboy.
And thanks to the fact that they're pulling the same stunt as last time, we've had time to prepare for it this time. A new article in the Hill points out just how inaccurate the claims against the President are:
First of all, the claim that he failed to fullfil his service IN the Guard:
The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.
That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.
Not two years of weekends. Two years.
After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.
According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).
Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?
But... but... Alabama! AWOL!
Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.
....
So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.
Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.
In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.
Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.
But.... but.... Avoiding Vietnam!
“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”
There is plenty more to the article, and I recommend you read it. There are several points that have been made in other places that also back up this more positive view of the president's service, but since I don't have the sources, I'm not going to risk misquoting them.
Bush did not make his service a campaign issue. Bush's opponents did. Kerry DID make his OWN record a campaign issue. And that is proving his undoing. And, as the article says, "it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s."
So the next time the Democrats tell you, "No more Mr. Nice Guy," just tell them we never were fooled by that mask to begin with.
Update (yes, already!):
Thanks for the Memory to Blogfather Rusty at MyPetJawa (ring kissing will commence forthwith).
Still not satisfied that he wasn't AWOL in Alabama? OK, how about an interview with another AANG officer who says Bush showed up?
Toot! Toot!
That's my own horn, folks! When I got back from vacation Tuesday, I learned that I've won a Kerry photo caption contest over at Blogs for Bush! Go check it out!
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
I Love Living in Oregon: Reason #87
Not-quite-Summer-not-quite-Fall September weather. Believe it or not, I missed real seasons and the changes between them when I lived in San Diego. "76 and sunny" gets old after a while.
This weather's perfect -- still warm, but not hot, with just a faint bit of crisp, and the blackberries are still ripe.
This weather's perfect -- still warm, but not hot, with just a faint bit of crisp, and the blackberries are still ripe.
Damned if You Do....
Thanks for the Memory to Rusty at MyPetJawa.
According to Wizbang, the United Nations is all in a tizzy because the US destroyed components of Iraq's WMD programs.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Less than three months after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein, American-appointed Iraqi authorities began shipping thousands of tons of scrap metal out of the country, including at least 42 engines from banned missiles, according to a new report from U.N. weapons inspectors circulated Tuesday.
The scrap exports also included equipment that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction, said the report, which was to be presented to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.
Wait a minute! I thought there weren't and WMD's! Isn't that what the left has been telling us? What is this stuff then? Oh, components and equipment for making WMD's. OK, that makes all the difference in the world!
So if he had this stuff, and we had left him alone, how long until the UN officials receiving bribes had managed to get the embargo lifted? How long would it have taken before he had started using this equipment?
The report criticized "the systematic removal" of items subject to U.N. monitoring from a number of sites.
And we all know how effective than U.N. monitoring was before the war.
The report also said it was impossible to know what happened to U.N.-monitored equipment with the potential for making banned weapons.
You couldn't monitor it effectively before, so I fail to see how this has changed things.
The U.N. is whining because we're not including them in the removal process. But why should we? They couldn't be trusted with it before Hussein was removed, why should we trust them now?
According to Wizbang, the United Nations is all in a tizzy because the US destroyed components of Iraq's WMD programs.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Less than three months after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein, American-appointed Iraqi authorities began shipping thousands of tons of scrap metal out of the country, including at least 42 engines from banned missiles, according to a new report from U.N. weapons inspectors circulated Tuesday.
The scrap exports also included equipment that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction, said the report, which was to be presented to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.
Wait a minute! I thought there weren't and WMD's! Isn't that what the left has been telling us? What is this stuff then? Oh, components and equipment for making WMD's. OK, that makes all the difference in the world!
So if he had this stuff, and we had left him alone, how long until the UN officials receiving bribes had managed to get the embargo lifted? How long would it have taken before he had started using this equipment?
The report criticized "the systematic removal" of items subject to U.N. monitoring from a number of sites.
And we all know how effective than U.N. monitoring was before the war.
The report also said it was impossible to know what happened to U.N.-monitored equipment with the potential for making banned weapons.
You couldn't monitor it effectively before, so I fail to see how this has changed things.
The U.N. is whining because we're not including them in the removal process. But why should we? They couldn't be trusted with it before Hussein was removed, why should we trust them now?
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
There's Something on the Wing!
And it ain't patriotism.
Thanks for the Memory to Michelle Malkin.
Some of you may remember the entry I made regarding Greyhound's treatment of a Marine. I never did hear any follow-up on that one. Apparently, however, Greyhound isn't alone in its idiocy. Michelle links to one of my favorite blogs, Marine Corps Moms, who in turn link to the Benton Courier, and a Letter to the Editor (sort of):
This letter is NOT to the editor. This letter is to the young female soldier from Benton, who I had the privilege to meet this past Friday evening as we were both trying to get home to Arkansas. Returning from a business trip to New Jersey, I was changing planes in Cincinnati when we met. I had just boarded Delta Flight 6281 (operated by Chautauqua Airlines, a Delta Connection Carrier), Delta's last flight of the evening to Little Rock, when you came onboard and sat down in front of me. I, along with other passengers who had already boarded, listened while you shared your story with us. Having spent [more than] six months in Iraq, you were traveling home to Arkansas. While in Iraq, you had been under enemy fire frequently - on many occasions, several times a day. You had lost two fellow soldiers from your post, and just recently (watched) another lose a leg. You were exhausted from two days of travel, having flown from Iraq to Kuwait, from Kuwait to the Netherlands, from the Netherlands to Cincinnati Š but you were excited and happy, because Cincinnati to Little Rock meant you would be home, just in time for your youngest child's second birthday. You had 18 days' leave remaining before returning to Iraq.
This letter is also to the well-dressed, middle-aged woman who boarded the plane late, who through some administrative error had been assigned the same seat as the soldier. Your behavior made it obvious to me and those around me that you had no intention of handling the situation in a mature way. You approached the flight attendant and demanded "your seat." As the flight attendant worked with the gate crew to try and resolve the issue, the soldier was asked to leave the plane. Shortly thereafter, you returned. When I inquired as to whether you were aware that the individual who had previously been in "your seat" was a soldier traveling home from Iraq on leave to see her family, your verbatim response was, "So what Š I'm a victim from Chicago! What's the difference?" All within earshot were dumbfounded. It was apparent that you have no appreciation for your fellow Americans who leave home and family and risk their lives wearing the uniform of the United States military.
This letter is also to Delta Airlines. When I, along with several others onboard, approached the Chautauqua flight attendant volunteering to give up one of our seats for the soldier, she left to ask the pilot if that could be arranged, then returned to inform me that the pilot was discussing it with "ops." I overheard part of her ensuing conversation with the pilot, where he conveyed the message that Delta would not permit a paying passenger to be replaced with a "non-rev" Š so, in the end, the decision which caused the soldier to spend yet another night away from home was a financial one. Why, instead, don't soldiers like this one get preferential treatment from Delta instead of being placed last on the list? I am, and have been for many years, a Delta Medallion frequent flier, and may continue to fly Delta when appropriate. However, in spite of Delta's well-publicized financial difficulties, if it is your corporate policy to prioritize profit margin over principled corporate citizenship, then I will be a vocal opponent of any federal financial aid to Delta Airlines.
This letter is also to those in the U.S. military responsible for placing this soldier and all like her in this situation in the first place. As a small businessman, I understand fiscal responsibilities and expect taxpayers' money to be stewarded wisely. I cannot believe, though, that there are not better ways to save money than having our military personnel traveling to and from combat situations on leave flying on commercial airlines under this type of arrangement. Does this policy apply to the military decision-makers as well? Will it take you three days to get home on leave if and when you are ever again asked to serve in combat?
As I was deplaning in Little Rock, the flight attendant handed me a folded piece of paper and personally thanked me for offering my seat to the soldier. Walking through the terminal, I read the note she had written. The youngest of her six children, her only son, was joining the Army. She was expressing her hopes that, in the event he was ever placed in a similar situation, he would be treated differently or at least know that there were those who appreciated his service.
Back to the young soldier: Because you were asked to leave the plane, you did not see that there were numerous volunteers willing to give up their set for you. You only heard the one ingrate who had no appreciation for the sacrifices you are making for all of us. That was no way to be welcomed home to America. I was both ashamed to have been a part of what happened and angry that, in spite of our efforts, there was nothing the other passengers and I could do to help you. Again, this letter is first and foremost to you. It is my intention that it appears in the media before your return to Iraq, so that you will know your efforts are appreciated and that you are sincerely welcomed home by most, if not all, of us. I hope we get another opportunity to do just that. May God bless you and keep you safe.
Michael E. Nelson
Warren
Well said, Mr. Nelson. Good for you and your fellow passengers for the effort. shame on that woman.
And shame on Delta for stabbing a young soldier serving her country in the back. I'll never fly Delta again. (And with the financial trouble they're in, let's hope that before long, NOONE ever flies Delta again)!
Courtesy of Michelle, here is a site where you can tell Delta what unpatriotic scum they are.
Thanks for the Memory to Michelle Malkin.
Some of you may remember the entry I made regarding Greyhound's treatment of a Marine. I never did hear any follow-up on that one. Apparently, however, Greyhound isn't alone in its idiocy. Michelle links to one of my favorite blogs, Marine Corps Moms, who in turn link to the Benton Courier, and a Letter to the Editor (sort of):
This letter is NOT to the editor. This letter is to the young female soldier from Benton, who I had the privilege to meet this past Friday evening as we were both trying to get home to Arkansas. Returning from a business trip to New Jersey, I was changing planes in Cincinnati when we met. I had just boarded Delta Flight 6281 (operated by Chautauqua Airlines, a Delta Connection Carrier), Delta's last flight of the evening to Little Rock, when you came onboard and sat down in front of me. I, along with other passengers who had already boarded, listened while you shared your story with us. Having spent [more than] six months in Iraq, you were traveling home to Arkansas. While in Iraq, you had been under enemy fire frequently - on many occasions, several times a day. You had lost two fellow soldiers from your post, and just recently (watched) another lose a leg. You were exhausted from two days of travel, having flown from Iraq to Kuwait, from Kuwait to the Netherlands, from the Netherlands to Cincinnati Š but you were excited and happy, because Cincinnati to Little Rock meant you would be home, just in time for your youngest child's second birthday. You had 18 days' leave remaining before returning to Iraq.
This letter is also to the well-dressed, middle-aged woman who boarded the plane late, who through some administrative error had been assigned the same seat as the soldier. Your behavior made it obvious to me and those around me that you had no intention of handling the situation in a mature way. You approached the flight attendant and demanded "your seat." As the flight attendant worked with the gate crew to try and resolve the issue, the soldier was asked to leave the plane. Shortly thereafter, you returned. When I inquired as to whether you were aware that the individual who had previously been in "your seat" was a soldier traveling home from Iraq on leave to see her family, your verbatim response was, "So what Š I'm a victim from Chicago! What's the difference?" All within earshot were dumbfounded. It was apparent that you have no appreciation for your fellow Americans who leave home and family and risk their lives wearing the uniform of the United States military.
This letter is also to Delta Airlines. When I, along with several others onboard, approached the Chautauqua flight attendant volunteering to give up one of our seats for the soldier, she left to ask the pilot if that could be arranged, then returned to inform me that the pilot was discussing it with "ops." I overheard part of her ensuing conversation with the pilot, where he conveyed the message that Delta would not permit a paying passenger to be replaced with a "non-rev" Š so, in the end, the decision which caused the soldier to spend yet another night away from home was a financial one. Why, instead, don't soldiers like this one get preferential treatment from Delta instead of being placed last on the list? I am, and have been for many years, a Delta Medallion frequent flier, and may continue to fly Delta when appropriate. However, in spite of Delta's well-publicized financial difficulties, if it is your corporate policy to prioritize profit margin over principled corporate citizenship, then I will be a vocal opponent of any federal financial aid to Delta Airlines.
This letter is also to those in the U.S. military responsible for placing this soldier and all like her in this situation in the first place. As a small businessman, I understand fiscal responsibilities and expect taxpayers' money to be stewarded wisely. I cannot believe, though, that there are not better ways to save money than having our military personnel traveling to and from combat situations on leave flying on commercial airlines under this type of arrangement. Does this policy apply to the military decision-makers as well? Will it take you three days to get home on leave if and when you are ever again asked to serve in combat?
As I was deplaning in Little Rock, the flight attendant handed me a folded piece of paper and personally thanked me for offering my seat to the soldier. Walking through the terminal, I read the note she had written. The youngest of her six children, her only son, was joining the Army. She was expressing her hopes that, in the event he was ever placed in a similar situation, he would be treated differently or at least know that there were those who appreciated his service.
Back to the young soldier: Because you were asked to leave the plane, you did not see that there were numerous volunteers willing to give up their set for you. You only heard the one ingrate who had no appreciation for the sacrifices you are making for all of us. That was no way to be welcomed home to America. I was both ashamed to have been a part of what happened and angry that, in spite of our efforts, there was nothing the other passengers and I could do to help you. Again, this letter is first and foremost to you. It is my intention that it appears in the media before your return to Iraq, so that you will know your efforts are appreciated and that you are sincerely welcomed home by most, if not all, of us. I hope we get another opportunity to do just that. May God bless you and keep you safe.
Michael E. Nelson
Warren
Well said, Mr. Nelson. Good for you and your fellow passengers for the effort. shame on that woman.
And shame on Delta for stabbing a young soldier serving her country in the back. I'll never fly Delta again. (And with the financial trouble they're in, let's hope that before long, NOONE ever flies Delta again)!
Courtesy of Michelle, here is a site where you can tell Delta what unpatriotic scum they are.
The Last Political Career to Die for a Lie
Thanks for the Memory to Rusty at MyPetJawa.
Remember this essay I linked to the other day? The one about how Kerry's campaign was in trouble in part because Vietnam vets want some payback for the way they were treated when they returned from the war?
Well, Mr. Kerry, reap the whirlwind:
KERRY LIED . . . while good men died
A gathering of Vietnam veterans from across America
Where: Upper Senate Park, Washington, D.C. It is easy to get to, shady and pretty, with a great view of the Capitol dome in back of the speaker's platform. THIS IS A NEW LOCATION AS OF 7/17/04
When: Sunday, Sept 12, 2004 2:00-4:00 PM (EDT)
Why: To tell the truth about Vietnam veterans.
To counter the lies told about Vietnam veterans by John Kerry
All Vietnam veterans and their families and supporters are asked to attend.Other veterans are invited as honored guests.
NOTE: Bring a blanket or lawn chairs. None will be provided.
PLEASE NOTE: WHILE THIS RALLY IS CONDUCTED IN HONOR OF AND ON BEHALF OF VIETNAM VETERANS, EVERYBODY IS ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND! PLEASE COME AND BRING A FRIEND!
Payback, she is, how do you say it....
Remember this essay I linked to the other day? The one about how Kerry's campaign was in trouble in part because Vietnam vets want some payback for the way they were treated when they returned from the war?
Well, Mr. Kerry, reap the whirlwind:
KERRY LIED . . . while good men died
A gathering of Vietnam veterans from across America
Where: Upper Senate Park, Washington, D.C. It is easy to get to, shady and pretty, with a great view of the Capitol dome in back of the speaker's platform. THIS IS A NEW LOCATION AS OF 7/17/04
When: Sunday, Sept 12, 2004 2:00-4:00 PM (EDT)
Why: To tell the truth about Vietnam veterans.
To counter the lies told about Vietnam veterans by John Kerry
All Vietnam veterans and their families and supporters are asked to attend.Other veterans are invited as honored guests.
NOTE: Bring a blanket or lawn chairs. None will be provided.
PLEASE NOTE: WHILE THIS RALLY IS CONDUCTED IN HONOR OF AND ON BEHALF OF VIETNAM VETERANS, EVERYBODY IS ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND! PLEASE COME AND BRING A FRIEND!
Payback, she is, how do you say it....
Monday, September 06, 2004
A Note to Susan Estrich
I just read your essay, and have only one thing to say to you:
There are new treatments for the symptoms of menopause that really work. Ask your doctor for more information, or call the number on your screen.
There are new treatments for the symptoms of menopause that really work. Ask your doctor for more information, or call the number on your screen.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Aborted on the Fourth of July
Thanks for the Memory to the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Remember that Tom Cruise movie, "Born on the Fourth of July", about a Viet Nam vet who returns only to protest against the war?
Sound familiar?
Well, if this essay is accurate, John Kerry is gonna wish he'd picked a different role model.
Remember that Tom Cruise movie, "Born on the Fourth of July", about a Viet Nam vet who returns only to protest against the war?
Sound familiar?
Well, if this essay is accurate, John Kerry is gonna wish he'd picked a different role model.
Friday, September 03, 2004
Before It's Too Late
Thought I'd share one of my favorite grilling recipes, while it's still warm enough to grill.
Bear in mind, this one is not very precise, I just kinda wing it. But here goes:
Oregon Filbert-Encrusted Steelhead
(For those not in the PNW, filbert=hazelnut, and you can use salmon instead of steelhead)
4 6-8 oz steelhead filets, skin on
1/3 cup honey
salt (pinch)
pepper (to taste)
1/4 tsp garlic powder
1/4 tsp onion powder
1 tsp dill weed
1 cup chopped raw filberts
2 cedar planks, soaked in water
Mix honey and spices. Place the filets skin down, 2 to a plank. coat in honey mixture, sprinkle until coated with nut crumbs, saving about 1/4. Place on grill, cook until steelhead is firm but not quite done. As fish cooks, openings will appear in the nut crust. Use the extra nuts to fill spaces. When fish is almost done, remove from grill and place under red hot broiler for 1- 1.5 minutes, just long enough to finish toasting the nuts. Serve with mixed greens, mashed or pan fried potatos and a bottle of Pinot Noir.
Bear in mind, this one is not very precise, I just kinda wing it. But here goes:
Oregon Filbert-Encrusted Steelhead
(For those not in the PNW, filbert=hazelnut, and you can use salmon instead of steelhead)
4 6-8 oz steelhead filets, skin on
1/3 cup honey
salt (pinch)
pepper (to taste)
1/4 tsp garlic powder
1/4 tsp onion powder
1 tsp dill weed
1 cup chopped raw filberts
2 cedar planks, soaked in water
Mix honey and spices. Place the filets skin down, 2 to a plank. coat in honey mixture, sprinkle until coated with nut crumbs, saving about 1/4. Place on grill, cook until steelhead is firm but not quite done. As fish cooks, openings will appear in the nut crust. Use the extra nuts to fill spaces. When fish is almost done, remove from grill and place under red hot broiler for 1- 1.5 minutes, just long enough to finish toasting the nuts. Serve with mixed greens, mashed or pan fried potatos and a bottle of Pinot Noir.
We Ain't Talkin' About Fabric Softener!
Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades HQ.
During presidential elections, there is usually a phenomenon known as Bounce. The idea is, the momentum and publicity of a party's convention gives the party's candidate a boost in the polls.
This year, President Bush was struggling in the polls against Kerry in the days leading up to the DNC. It was predicted that he'd slip even further after Kerry announced the selection of Edwards as his running mate, it was an expected "Mini-bounce." It failed to materialize. Not to worry, folks! said the Donkeys. We still have the Convention! The DNC came and went, and guess what? No discernable bounce. But the Dem-wits had an explanation for this, too. There is no bounce they said, Neo-Matrix-Like. The electorate is so partisan, there aren't enough undecideds left to provide a bounce. Kerry didn't get one, and neither will Bush. Then came the RNC, and before President Bush even spoke, the polls tossed the Dimocrats this curveball:
A MEGA-BOUNCE!
One has to wonder what the bounce will look like after Thursday night.
George Bush is like Tigger: Bouncing is what he does bestest.
During presidential elections, there is usually a phenomenon known as Bounce. The idea is, the momentum and publicity of a party's convention gives the party's candidate a boost in the polls.
This year, President Bush was struggling in the polls against Kerry in the days leading up to the DNC. It was predicted that he'd slip even further after Kerry announced the selection of Edwards as his running mate, it was an expected "Mini-bounce." It failed to materialize. Not to worry, folks! said the Donkeys. We still have the Convention! The DNC came and went, and guess what? No discernable bounce. But the Dem-wits had an explanation for this, too. There is no bounce they said, Neo-Matrix-Like. The electorate is so partisan, there aren't enough undecideds left to provide a bounce. Kerry didn't get one, and neither will Bush. Then came the RNC, and before President Bush even spoke, the polls tossed the Dimocrats this curveball:
A MEGA-BOUNCE!
One has to wonder what the bounce will look like after Thursday night.
George Bush is like Tigger: Bouncing is what he does bestest.
Quote of the Day
This letter over at Marine Corps Moms prompted me to select the following quote for today:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill
UPDATE:
Thanks for the Memory to the esteemed Michelle Malkin.
If you follow the link I gave at the top of the post to Marine Corps Moms, you'll find it's a letter from the mother of a young marine, reacting to the protests in NYC, especially to the sight of protestors carrying coffins representing US Casualties. Well, Jen Martinez has another letter, this time from a soldier, expressing similar views.
It comes down to this, it would seem. The servicemembers and their families recognize that the protestors have the right to express their opinions. But they resent what they perceive as the protestor's lack of respect for the fact that it's those very soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen whose sacrifices make possible the freedoms the protestors are exercizing. They resent being used as political pawns by the protestors, and they want people to know they don't agree with them. They volunteered willingly to serve, and serve is what they want to do.
Read the letters. Think about the words. And thank God Almighty he blessed us with people as noble as these servicemembers and their families.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill
UPDATE:
Thanks for the Memory to the esteemed Michelle Malkin.
If you follow the link I gave at the top of the post to Marine Corps Moms, you'll find it's a letter from the mother of a young marine, reacting to the protests in NYC, especially to the sight of protestors carrying coffins representing US Casualties. Well, Jen Martinez has another letter, this time from a soldier, expressing similar views.
It comes down to this, it would seem. The servicemembers and their families recognize that the protestors have the right to express their opinions. But they resent what they perceive as the protestor's lack of respect for the fact that it's those very soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen whose sacrifices make possible the freedoms the protestors are exercizing. They resent being used as political pawns by the protestors, and they want people to know they don't agree with them. They volunteered willingly to serve, and serve is what they want to do.
Read the letters. Think about the words. And thank God Almighty he blessed us with people as noble as these servicemembers and their families.
One Dead President a Year Is Enough
Thanks for the memory to readers Chris W and USMT at the Rottie:
Apparently former President Bill Clinton may have suffered a heart attack and is undergoing bypass surgery.
I have little respect for the man as a political figure, and despised his presidency, but I would never wish him harm. If you read my earlier post, you know I speak from experience when I say that Chelsea's too young to bury her father.
Pray for him and his family, please.
Apparently former President Bill Clinton may have suffered a heart attack and is undergoing bypass surgery.
I have little respect for the man as a political figure, and despised his presidency, but I would never wish him harm. If you read my earlier post, you know I speak from experience when I say that Chelsea's too young to bury her father.
Pray for him and his family, please.
Blog Plug
OK, I ain't Glenn Reynolds, and this ain't no Instalaunch, but I do realize that my handful of loyal readers are a bright bunch and good judges of horseflesh, so to speak. So I'm telling you about one of your own.
Less than an hour ago, I got an email from reader Keith in Mt. View, asking permission to link to this blog from his. I was a bit amused, since I consider that the linker is doing the linkee a favor. But I respected the politeness, granted permission, and offered to return the favor if he'd send me his link. He complied, and I followed it, only to realize I'd been there, and liked what I saw. Then I notice only one of his entries has a comment, and it's from ME!!!!
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS WORLD???????
This guy's blog is well-layed out and well-written. He's bright, well-travelled, well-informed, and writes well. For pete's sake, people! go read it! NOW!!!!!
Less than an hour ago, I got an email from reader Keith in Mt. View, asking permission to link to this blog from his. I was a bit amused, since I consider that the linker is doing the linkee a favor. But I respected the politeness, granted permission, and offered to return the favor if he'd send me his link. He complied, and I followed it, only to realize I'd been there, and liked what I saw. Then I notice only one of his entries has a comment, and it's from ME!!!!
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS WORLD???????
This guy's blog is well-layed out and well-written. He's bright, well-travelled, well-informed, and writes well. For pete's sake, people! go read it! NOW!!!!!
A Little Piece of My Heart
I have developed a very weird habit in the last few years, for a specific reason. I suppose it's my little share of the world's insanity. To understand the habit, you need to understand its history.
In July of 2001, while preparing to move to Oregon, my wife and I were forced to live for some time in a very tiny 24-foot RV. One morning I was very ill, so I stayed home from work. The Redhead had things she needed to do to prepare for work, and was making a lot of noise, so I called my dad to ask if I could nap at my parent's RV for the morning. He said yes. Before I left, I decided to go for a little swim, I figured it would help me feel better. After that, my wife sent me on an errand. While on the errand, my father called to see when I would be there. My wife told him I'd be there soon.
I finished the error, then left our RV for my parents' RV park. When I got to the RV, my dad was sleeping in his favorite chair, a western novel he'd been reading still in his hands. I decided to wake him to let him know I was there.
Except he wasn't sleeping. He was dead. I called 911, administered CPR until the fire department arrived, and they tried for some time to revive him, but it was useless. He probably died instantly of a massive heart attack.
So this is the habit I've developed since then: Any time I wake in the night, and my wife or my dog is sleeping too soundly, I have a tendency to nudge them, just a bit, not enough to intentionally wake them completely, but enough to make them stir, just so I know they're actually just asleep. You can imagine how annoying this is to them. I'd been getting better about it, but with a baby on the way, I caught myself doing it to the dog several times last night.
I'm gonna be a basket case once the kid arrives.
In July of 2001, while preparing to move to Oregon, my wife and I were forced to live for some time in a very tiny 24-foot RV. One morning I was very ill, so I stayed home from work. The Redhead had things she needed to do to prepare for work, and was making a lot of noise, so I called my dad to ask if I could nap at my parent's RV for the morning. He said yes. Before I left, I decided to go for a little swim, I figured it would help me feel better. After that, my wife sent me on an errand. While on the errand, my father called to see when I would be there. My wife told him I'd be there soon.
I finished the error, then left our RV for my parents' RV park. When I got to the RV, my dad was sleeping in his favorite chair, a western novel he'd been reading still in his hands. I decided to wake him to let him know I was there.
Except he wasn't sleeping. He was dead. I called 911, administered CPR until the fire department arrived, and they tried for some time to revive him, but it was useless. He probably died instantly of a massive heart attack.
So this is the habit I've developed since then: Any time I wake in the night, and my wife or my dog is sleeping too soundly, I have a tendency to nudge them, just a bit, not enough to intentionally wake them completely, but enough to make them stir, just so I know they're actually just asleep. You can imagine how annoying this is to them. I'd been getting better about it, but with a baby on the way, I caught myself doing it to the dog several times last night.
I'm gonna be a basket case once the kid arrives.
Political Greeting Cards?
I kid you not. I was in Fred Meyer last night, buying a birthday card for my nephew, when I saw them.
Only in Oregon.
But they were funny.
First card:
Outside: Happy Birthday from President Nader
Inside: And the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, and....
Second card:
Outside: What do you get when you cross Dennis Kucinich and Joe Lieberman?
Inside: 3% of the vote and a bad haircut.
Only in Oregon.
But they were funny.
First card:
Outside: Happy Birthday from President Nader
Inside: And the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, and....
Second card:
Outside: What do you get when you cross Dennis Kucinich and Joe Lieberman?
Inside: 3% of the vote and a bad haircut.
We Love You Too, New York
In the opening moments of his speech last night, Governor Pataki praised a group of Oregonians who travelled to NYC in the weeks after 9/11 to help sustain the NY tourism industry.
Well, we do understand how important tourism can be to a local economy. We would have difficulty surviving without it.
But I couldn't have been prouder. Great moment.
Well, we do understand how important tourism can be to a local economy. We would have difficulty surviving without it.
But I couldn't have been prouder. Great moment.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
My Shot Left Foot
Thanks for the Memory to VodkaPundit and Darth Apathy.
Aside from the veracity of his claims and their bearing on his qualifications for the Presidency, one of the primary reasons so many veterans take issue with John Kerry, and one of the reasons the Swift Boat Vets for the Truth have come after him so hard has to do with his anti-war activities after the war. They feel he has defamed them and dishonored their service and their memory. Many would like to hear him apologize. Recently President Bush suggested to Brit Hume that that would be a good idea for Kerry. Kerry's Response? "There will be no apology."
I guess his theory is, if he shoots himself in the OTHER foot, then it'll even things out and his campaign won't limp as badly. It doesn't work like that, Johnny.
He was already slipping in the polls among veterans. I wouldn't be surprised if he polls as low as 25% after this.
Aside from the veracity of his claims and their bearing on his qualifications for the Presidency, one of the primary reasons so many veterans take issue with John Kerry, and one of the reasons the Swift Boat Vets for the Truth have come after him so hard has to do with his anti-war activities after the war. They feel he has defamed them and dishonored their service and their memory. Many would like to hear him apologize. Recently President Bush suggested to Brit Hume that that would be a good idea for Kerry. Kerry's Response? "There will be no apology."
I guess his theory is, if he shoots himself in the OTHER foot, then it'll even things out and his campaign won't limp as badly. It doesn't work like that, Johnny.
He was already slipping in the polls among veterans. I wouldn't be surprised if he polls as low as 25% after this.
You Might Be From The Pacific Northwest If:
1. You know the state flower (Mildew).
2. You feel guilty throwing aluminum cans or paper in the trash.
3. Use the statement "sun break" and know what it means.
4. You know more than 10 ways to order coffee.
5. You know more people who own boats than air conditioners.
6. You feel overdressed wearing a suit to a nice restaurant.
7. You stand on a deserted corner in the rain waiting for the "Walk" signal.
8. You believe that if it has no snow or has not recently erupted, it is not a real mountain.
9. You can taste the difference between Starbucks, Seattle's Best, and Veneto's
10. You know the difference between Chinook, Coho, and Sockeye salmon.
11. You know how to pronounce Sequim, Puyallup, Issaquah, Oregon, and Willamette.
12. You consider swimming an indoor sport.
13. You can tell the difference between Japanese, Chinese and Thai food.
14. In winter, you go to work in the dark and come home in the dark-while only working eight-hour days.
15. You never go camping without waterproof matches and a poncho.
16. You are not fazed by "Today's forecast: showers followed by rain," and “Tomorrow's forecast: rain followed by showers."
17. You cannot wait for a day with "showers and sun breaks."
18. You have no concept of humidity without precipitation.
19. You know that Boring is a town in Oregon and not just a state of mind.
20. You can point to at least two volcanoes, even if you cannot see through the cloud cover.
You notice that "the mountain is out" when it is a pretty day and you can actually see it.
22. You put on your shorts when the temperature gets above 50, but still wear your hiking boots and parka.
23. You switch to your sandals when it gets about 60, but keep the socks on.
24. You have actually used your mountain bike on a mountain.
25. You think people who use umbrellas are either wimps or tourists.
26. You knew immediately that the view out of Frasiers window was a fake.
27. You buy new sunglasses every year, because you can't find the old ones after such a long time.
28. You measure distance in hours.
29. You often switch from "heat" to "a/c" in the same day.
30. You use a down comforter in the summer.
31. You carry jumper cables in your car and your wife knows how to use them.
32. You design your kid's Halloween costume to fit under a raincoat.
33. You know all the important seasons: Almost Winter; Winter; Still Raining (aka Spring); Road Construction (Summer); Deer & Elk season (Fall).
34. You go to the coast, never the beach.
UPDATE: #34 contributed by fellow conservative AND Nor'wester Stephen of Doggerrel Pundit.
2. You feel guilty throwing aluminum cans or paper in the trash.
3. Use the statement "sun break" and know what it means.
4. You know more than 10 ways to order coffee.
5. You know more people who own boats than air conditioners.
6. You feel overdressed wearing a suit to a nice restaurant.
7. You stand on a deserted corner in the rain waiting for the "Walk" signal.
8. You believe that if it has no snow or has not recently erupted, it is not a real mountain.
9. You can taste the difference between Starbucks, Seattle's Best, and Veneto's
10. You know the difference between Chinook, Coho, and Sockeye salmon.
11. You know how to pronounce Sequim, Puyallup, Issaquah, Oregon, and Willamette.
12. You consider swimming an indoor sport.
13. You can tell the difference between Japanese, Chinese and Thai food.
14. In winter, you go to work in the dark and come home in the dark-while only working eight-hour days.
15. You never go camping without waterproof matches and a poncho.
16. You are not fazed by "Today's forecast: showers followed by rain," and “Tomorrow's forecast: rain followed by showers."
17. You cannot wait for a day with "showers and sun breaks."
18. You have no concept of humidity without precipitation.
19. You know that Boring is a town in Oregon and not just a state of mind.
20. You can point to at least two volcanoes, even if you cannot see through the cloud cover.
You notice that "the mountain is out" when it is a pretty day and you can actually see it.
22. You put on your shorts when the temperature gets above 50, but still wear your hiking boots and parka.
23. You switch to your sandals when it gets about 60, but keep the socks on.
24. You have actually used your mountain bike on a mountain.
25. You think people who use umbrellas are either wimps or tourists.
26. You knew immediately that the view out of Frasiers window was a fake.
27. You buy new sunglasses every year, because you can't find the old ones after such a long time.
28. You measure distance in hours.
29. You often switch from "heat" to "a/c" in the same day.
30. You use a down comforter in the summer.
31. You carry jumper cables in your car and your wife knows how to use them.
32. You design your kid's Halloween costume to fit under a raincoat.
33. You know all the important seasons: Almost Winter; Winter; Still Raining (aka Spring); Road Construction (Summer); Deer & Elk season (Fall).
34. You go to the coast, never the beach.
UPDATE: #34 contributed by fellow conservative AND Nor'wester Stephen of Doggerrel Pundit.
Somebody Had to Say It
A while back, I got a trackback from an excellent blog called Naked Villainy (I've been meaning to thank them, I probably will today). Ever since, I've read it and found it to be well-written and frighteningly in agreement with me on some obscure things.
That was especially borne out today, when they did something I've wanted to do for some time: Go ballistic on the California Cows commercials.
To take things a step further, not only do I agree with their deconstruction of the "Happy Cow" argument, I can tell you from experience, I am unimpressed with the quality of California cheese, especially sharp cheddar, my personal favorite.
Now I'm biased, but I think that in respect to both what constitutes happy cows, and what constitutes good cheese, a better option would be that offered by the Tillamook County Creamery Association, a favorite here in Oregon and an annual contender in national competitions. Their Black Label Extra Sharp White Cheddar is evilly good. Small craft cheesemakers are beginning to pop up all over the state, but Tillamook manages to put out large quantities of high quality cheese thanks to a cooperative agreement with the dairies in their area, an area whose annual rainfall and mild coastal climate makes for lush, green grass year round for the cows.
That was especially borne out today, when they did something I've wanted to do for some time: Go ballistic on the California Cows commercials.
To take things a step further, not only do I agree with their deconstruction of the "Happy Cow" argument, I can tell you from experience, I am unimpressed with the quality of California cheese, especially sharp cheddar, my personal favorite.
Now I'm biased, but I think that in respect to both what constitutes happy cows, and what constitutes good cheese, a better option would be that offered by the Tillamook County Creamery Association, a favorite here in Oregon and an annual contender in national competitions. Their Black Label Extra Sharp White Cheddar is evilly good. Small craft cheesemakers are beginning to pop up all over the state, but Tillamook manages to put out large quantities of high quality cheese thanks to a cooperative agreement with the dairies in their area, an area whose annual rainfall and mild coastal climate makes for lush, green grass year round for the cows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)