Well, not exactly, but close enough...
Last night, as I was watching my standard guy fare on the History channel, the Feared Redhead called to me from the bedroom where she was surfing for a more chick-friendly program. "Hurry," she said, "Turn it to channel 16. You have to see this!"
Channel 16 is QVC. I complied (because she is called the Feared Redhead for good reason) with great trepidation. And there it was, scheduled for 9 PM PDT:
Countdown to Christmas
On September 24th.
It hurt my head. Then she informed me that the local Ross had Christmas stuff out at the end of August.
I'm just waiting for the plagues of locusts. Yep, any day now.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Friday, September 24, 2004
An Open Letter to the Left-Wing Jerk
Who Peeled the Bush/Cheney Sticker Off of the Back of our Car:
(originally posted 9:19 AM PDT, September 4, 2004 -- Update at bottom)
Thanks a lot, jackass. Thank you for respecting my private property. Thanks for thinking that my opinion doesn't have a right to be expressed on my car. Thank you for showing me what brave and honorable defenders of the First Amendment you Leftist scumbags are. And thanks for reminding me once again why I'm glad I'm a Republican.
I've heard a lot of pissing and moaning lately from the left about how nasty and mean Republicans are. I've heard all the chatter about Bush=Hitler and how our freedoms are being trampled on by the Right and how I'm a digital Brownshirt. I've heard Democrats say that it's time they stopped playing nice and fair and started slinging mud the way they claim Republicans do.
What utter rot. What kind of deep woods hermit do you think I'd have to be not to have noticed the five years of effort trying to make all sorts of mud stick to President Bush? What ROCK have you been hiding on not to have observed the books and bumper stickers and protesters' signs calling conservatives and our leaders nazis, and villains, and all sorts of evil, vile names, calling for the assassination of the POTUS, gleefully celebrating the deaths of American troops because it will damage the President politically? How naive do you think I am, to expect me not to pay attention to the antics of movie producers making hate and lie-filled movies, "comediennes" standing on stage and making snide, obscene comments about the president, or 527's like MoveOn, the Media Fund, and all of Soros' other little whores/handmaidens? This little bumper sticker was NOTHING compared to the crap you've been flinging in your monkey pens for years. But this was personal.
So go ahead, peel off my bumper sticker. I'll just get another.
Go ahead, peel off my bumper sticker. It just strengthens my resolve to campaign for the President.
Go ahead, peel off my bumper sticker. You can't so easily deny me my VOTE. Although I'm sure you wish you could.
Added Note: Based on some feedback from commenters, I feel it prudent to explain why a mere bumper sticker should set me off so. Setting aside for a moment the affront to my personal property, please understand that this was the last straw in a series of incidents of harassment prompted by my display of support for the president. I live in Eugene/Springfield, Oregon, a community with a large population of individuals whose politics make most liberal Democrats seem like Zell Miller by comparison -- Greens, anarchists, Supporters of the likes of Nader, Kucinch, Mumia, etc. Suffice it to say, my conservatism is not often well-received. I've been called a "F@&#ing Republican Commie", my visibly pregnant wife has been cursed at by three different people in as many minutes as she has parked our car, and then this. So while a Bumper Sticker may seem like a small matter, it was one of many small matters that added up. This was my catharsis. 10/01/04
UPDATE 09/24/04:
Thanks for the Memory to Russ at TacJammer.
I know it's not the same person, Vancouver WA's 2 hours north of here. But the following story recounted to Larry Elder by one of his listeners from Vancouver certainly makes me feel a little better:
Dear Larry,
Last Thursday I put out one of my Bush/Cheney signs in my front yard. Between midnight and 3:00 a.m. someone stole it. On Friday night I put out sign No. 2. Since I didn't have to get up early, I thought my dog and I would "stake out" our sign. This time I put the sign a little closer to the gate leading to my backyard. With my dog on an extra long leash, I planted myself on a lawn chair and read "Unfit for Command" by flashlight until about 1:00 a.m. Here comes the fun part . . . I noticed that the car coming down the street was slowing down and pulling over to the curb right next to my yard. Sure enough, he gets out of his car and heads right for my sign. Just as he was about to uproot and desecrate it, I opened my gate and let my dog make the initial introduction! As he ran to hide behind the rear end of his car, I promptly moved to the driver-side door, which was still open. It was a fairly nice car with power everything and still running. While my dog continued to "introduce" herself, I rolled up the window and hit the power door lock button. With that, I slammed the door, grabbed my Bush sign and headed into the back yard.
And now for the "rest of the story." About 40 minutes later, I heard a knock at the door. I opened the door to one of our city's finest . . . the Vancouver Police Department. The officer asked me what was going on and when I told him, he could not stop laughing! I followed him out to the perp's car and stood there while he asked the guy a few more questions. Upon learning that the guy lived a couple of streets down, I -- knowing what was about to happen -- asked him, "Why do you have Oregon plates on your car if you live just down the street (here in Vancouver, Wash.)?" Larry, Oregon has no sales tax, so often Washington residents will buy and register cars in Oregon to avoid paying sales tax . . . it's a crime and the fine is pretty stiff. Here comes the best part. . . . The look on this guy's face told me he knew he was about to get busted. When the officer asked for his license and registration, the "Democrat" mumbled that (his license) was suspended. Just for kicks and giggles I asked the officer if he smelled any alcohol coming from the guy! The officer looked at me, smiled and promptly gave him a field breathalyzer test. Guess what? You got it, he blew a .10, legally drunk in the state of Washington.
DUI, illegal registration and the brand of "MORON," all 'cause he hates Bush!
Sincerely,
John
Cost of Bush signs: $5.95 each
Cost of Flashlight batteries: $3.95/Pack
Seeing a Leftwing Numbskull carted off to the hoosegow: Priceless.
(originally posted 9:19 AM PDT, September 4, 2004 -- Update at bottom)
Thanks a lot, jackass. Thank you for respecting my private property. Thanks for thinking that my opinion doesn't have a right to be expressed on my car. Thank you for showing me what brave and honorable defenders of the First Amendment you Leftist scumbags are. And thanks for reminding me once again why I'm glad I'm a Republican.
I've heard a lot of pissing and moaning lately from the left about how nasty and mean Republicans are. I've heard all the chatter about Bush=Hitler and how our freedoms are being trampled on by the Right and how I'm a digital Brownshirt. I've heard Democrats say that it's time they stopped playing nice and fair and started slinging mud the way they claim Republicans do.
What utter rot. What kind of deep woods hermit do you think I'd have to be not to have noticed the five years of effort trying to make all sorts of mud stick to President Bush? What ROCK have you been hiding on not to have observed the books and bumper stickers and protesters' signs calling conservatives and our leaders nazis, and villains, and all sorts of evil, vile names, calling for the assassination of the POTUS, gleefully celebrating the deaths of American troops because it will damage the President politically? How naive do you think I am, to expect me not to pay attention to the antics of movie producers making hate and lie-filled movies, "comediennes" standing on stage and making snide, obscene comments about the president, or 527's like MoveOn, the Media Fund, and all of Soros' other little whores/handmaidens? This little bumper sticker was NOTHING compared to the crap you've been flinging in your monkey pens for years. But this was personal.
So go ahead, peel off my bumper sticker. I'll just get another.
Go ahead, peel off my bumper sticker. It just strengthens my resolve to campaign for the President.
Go ahead, peel off my bumper sticker. You can't so easily deny me my VOTE. Although I'm sure you wish you could.
Added Note: Based on some feedback from commenters, I feel it prudent to explain why a mere bumper sticker should set me off so. Setting aside for a moment the affront to my personal property, please understand that this was the last straw in a series of incidents of harassment prompted by my display of support for the president. I live in Eugene/Springfield, Oregon, a community with a large population of individuals whose politics make most liberal Democrats seem like Zell Miller by comparison -- Greens, anarchists, Supporters of the likes of Nader, Kucinch, Mumia, etc. Suffice it to say, my conservatism is not often well-received. I've been called a "F@&#ing Republican Commie", my visibly pregnant wife has been cursed at by three different people in as many minutes as she has parked our car, and then this. So while a Bumper Sticker may seem like a small matter, it was one of many small matters that added up. This was my catharsis. 10/01/04
UPDATE 09/24/04:
Thanks for the Memory to Russ at TacJammer.
I know it's not the same person, Vancouver WA's 2 hours north of here. But the following story recounted to Larry Elder by one of his listeners from Vancouver certainly makes me feel a little better:
Dear Larry,
Last Thursday I put out one of my Bush/Cheney signs in my front yard. Between midnight and 3:00 a.m. someone stole it. On Friday night I put out sign No. 2. Since I didn't have to get up early, I thought my dog and I would "stake out" our sign. This time I put the sign a little closer to the gate leading to my backyard. With my dog on an extra long leash, I planted myself on a lawn chair and read "Unfit for Command" by flashlight until about 1:00 a.m. Here comes the fun part . . . I noticed that the car coming down the street was slowing down and pulling over to the curb right next to my yard. Sure enough, he gets out of his car and heads right for my sign. Just as he was about to uproot and desecrate it, I opened my gate and let my dog make the initial introduction! As he ran to hide behind the rear end of his car, I promptly moved to the driver-side door, which was still open. It was a fairly nice car with power everything and still running. While my dog continued to "introduce" herself, I rolled up the window and hit the power door lock button. With that, I slammed the door, grabbed my Bush sign and headed into the back yard.
And now for the "rest of the story." About 40 minutes later, I heard a knock at the door. I opened the door to one of our city's finest . . . the Vancouver Police Department. The officer asked me what was going on and when I told him, he could not stop laughing! I followed him out to the perp's car and stood there while he asked the guy a few more questions. Upon learning that the guy lived a couple of streets down, I -- knowing what was about to happen -- asked him, "Why do you have Oregon plates on your car if you live just down the street (here in Vancouver, Wash.)?" Larry, Oregon has no sales tax, so often Washington residents will buy and register cars in Oregon to avoid paying sales tax . . . it's a crime and the fine is pretty stiff. Here comes the best part. . . . The look on this guy's face told me he knew he was about to get busted. When the officer asked for his license and registration, the "Democrat" mumbled that (his license) was suspended. Just for kicks and giggles I asked the officer if he smelled any alcohol coming from the guy! The officer looked at me, smiled and promptly gave him a field breathalyzer test. Guess what? You got it, he blew a .10, legally drunk in the state of Washington.
DUI, illegal registration and the brand of "MORON," all 'cause he hates Bush!
Sincerely,
John
Cost of Bush signs: $5.95 each
Cost of Flashlight batteries: $3.95/Pack
Seeing a Leftwing Numbskull carted off to the hoosegow: Priceless.
Oh, He's a Democrat, and He's OK...
He flips all night,
and flops all day....
Thanks for the Memory to a Large Regular.
A bit of a Pythonesque jab at the Kerry/Edwards campaign:
Dead Parrot Redux
John Edwards enters Terry McAuliffe's office with John Kerry in tow.
Edwards: Hello, I wish to register a complaint.
(McAuliffe does not respond.)
Edwards: Hello, Miss?
McAuliffe: What do you mean "miss"?
Edwards: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
McAuliffe: We're closin' for lunch.
Edwards: Never mind that. I wish to complain about this candidate that I got teamed with not two months ago from this very office.
McAuliffe: Oh yes, the, uh, the Boston Blueblood Vietnam Veteran Protester ...What's,uh...What's wrong with him?
Edwards: I'll tell you what's wrong with him. He's politically dead, that's what's wrong with him!
McAuliffe: No, no, he's uh,...he's resting.
Edwards: Look, I know a politically dead candidate when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
McAuliffe: No no he's not politically dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable candidate, the Boston Blueblood Vietnam Veteran Protester. Beautiful to watch when he's wind-surfing!
Edwards: The wind-surfing don't enter into it. He's stone politically dead. And I know stone politically dead because I campaigned against Kucinich.
McAuliffe: No no no no, no, no! He's just resting!
Edwards: All right then, if he's just resting, I'll wake him up! (shouting at Kerry) Hello, Mister War Hero! I've got a lovely story of Halliburton making billions.
McAuliffe: There, he moved!
Edwards: No, he didn't.
McAuliffe: Yes he did!
Edwards: (yelling and hitting Kerry on the arm repeatedly) HELLO JOHNNY!!!!!Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! Jane Fonda's on the phone. Alec Baldwin wants to speak with you. This is your nine o'clock wake-up call!
(Takes Unfit for Duty off McAuliffe's desk and hits Kerry on the head with it.)
Edwards: Now that's what I call a politically dead candidate.
McAuliffe: No, no.....No, he's just stunned!
Edwards: STUNNED?!?
McAuliffe: Yeah! The Swift Boat ads stunned him, just as he was getting his momentum after the DNC! Boston Blueblood Vietnam Veteran Protesters stun easily, John.
Edwards: Um...now look...now look, Terry, I've definitely had enough of this. This ticket is definitely deceased, and when I signed on not two months ago, you assured me that his total lack of charisma was due to him being tired and wiped out following a prolonged primary season.
McAuliffe: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.
Edwards: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, Look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment the DNC was over?
McAuliffe: The Boston Blueblood Vietnam Veteran Protester prefers campaigning on it's back! Remarkable candidate - isn't he? He's a great skateboarder!
Edwards: Look, I took the liberty of examining the poll numbers when I got home from the DNC,and I discovered the only reason that he had been sitting on his top of the ticket perch in the first place was that he had been NAILED there by the New York Times and by you.
(pause)
McAuliffe: Of course he was put up at the top of the ticket! If I hadn't nailed him up at the top of the ticket, then "VOOM" his wife and George Soros would have withdrawn all their money from this campaign!
Edwards: "VOOM"?!? Terry, this guy wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through him! Face it - the ticket is friggin' demised!
McAuliffe: No no! He's just pining!
Edwards: He's not pining! He's history! This ticket is no more! We have ceased to be! He's making Mondale look good! He's a stiff! Bereft of honesty! He makes people yearn for Dukakis!! THIS IS AN EX-CANDIDATE!!
(pause)
McAuliffe: Well, I'd better replace it, then (he takes a quick peek in a folder on his desk).
McAuliffe: Sorry John, I've had a look around and uh, we're right out of candidates.
Edwards: I see. I see, I get the picture.
McAuliffe: I got a Tom Harkin.
(pause)
Edwards: (sweet as sugar) Pray, does he have a combat history?
McAuliffe: Nnnnot really.
Edwards: WELL HE'S HARDLY A FRIGGIN' REPLACEMENT, IS HE?!!???!!?
McAuliffe: Look, if you wait four years - maybe I can hook you up with Hillary.
Edwards: Hillary, eh? Very well.
and flops all day....
Thanks for the Memory to a Large Regular.
A bit of a Pythonesque jab at the Kerry/Edwards campaign:
Dead Parrot Redux
John Edwards enters Terry McAuliffe's office with John Kerry in tow.
Edwards: Hello, I wish to register a complaint.
(McAuliffe does not respond.)
Edwards: Hello, Miss?
McAuliffe: What do you mean "miss"?
Edwards: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
McAuliffe: We're closin' for lunch.
Edwards: Never mind that. I wish to complain about this candidate that I got teamed with not two months ago from this very office.
McAuliffe: Oh yes, the, uh, the Boston Blueblood Vietnam Veteran Protester ...What's,uh...What's wrong with him?
Edwards: I'll tell you what's wrong with him. He's politically dead, that's what's wrong with him!
McAuliffe: No, no, he's uh,...he's resting.
Edwards: Look, I know a politically dead candidate when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
McAuliffe: No no he's not politically dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable candidate, the Boston Blueblood Vietnam Veteran Protester. Beautiful to watch when he's wind-surfing!
Edwards: The wind-surfing don't enter into it. He's stone politically dead. And I know stone politically dead because I campaigned against Kucinich.
McAuliffe: No no no no, no, no! He's just resting!
Edwards: All right then, if he's just resting, I'll wake him up! (shouting at Kerry) Hello, Mister War Hero! I've got a lovely story of Halliburton making billions.
McAuliffe: There, he moved!
Edwards: No, he didn't.
McAuliffe: Yes he did!
Edwards: (yelling and hitting Kerry on the arm repeatedly) HELLO JOHNNY!!!!!Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! Jane Fonda's on the phone. Alec Baldwin wants to speak with you. This is your nine o'clock wake-up call!
(Takes Unfit for Duty off McAuliffe's desk and hits Kerry on the head with it.)
Edwards: Now that's what I call a politically dead candidate.
McAuliffe: No, no.....No, he's just stunned!
Edwards: STUNNED?!?
McAuliffe: Yeah! The Swift Boat ads stunned him, just as he was getting his momentum after the DNC! Boston Blueblood Vietnam Veteran Protesters stun easily, John.
Edwards: Um...now look...now look, Terry, I've definitely had enough of this. This ticket is definitely deceased, and when I signed on not two months ago, you assured me that his total lack of charisma was due to him being tired and wiped out following a prolonged primary season.
McAuliffe: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.
Edwards: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, Look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment the DNC was over?
McAuliffe: The Boston Blueblood Vietnam Veteran Protester prefers campaigning on it's back! Remarkable candidate - isn't he? He's a great skateboarder!
Edwards: Look, I took the liberty of examining the poll numbers when I got home from the DNC,and I discovered the only reason that he had been sitting on his top of the ticket perch in the first place was that he had been NAILED there by the New York Times and by you.
(pause)
McAuliffe: Of course he was put up at the top of the ticket! If I hadn't nailed him up at the top of the ticket, then "VOOM" his wife and George Soros would have withdrawn all their money from this campaign!
Edwards: "VOOM"?!? Terry, this guy wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through him! Face it - the ticket is friggin' demised!
McAuliffe: No no! He's just pining!
Edwards: He's not pining! He's history! This ticket is no more! We have ceased to be! He's making Mondale look good! He's a stiff! Bereft of honesty! He makes people yearn for Dukakis!! THIS IS AN EX-CANDIDATE!!
(pause)
McAuliffe: Well, I'd better replace it, then (he takes a quick peek in a folder on his desk).
McAuliffe: Sorry John, I've had a look around and uh, we're right out of candidates.
Edwards: I see. I see, I get the picture.
McAuliffe: I got a Tom Harkin.
(pause)
Edwards: (sweet as sugar) Pray, does he have a combat history?
McAuliffe: Nnnnot really.
Edwards: WELL HE'S HARDLY A FRIGGIN' REPLACEMENT, IS HE?!!???!!?
McAuliffe: Look, if you wait four years - maybe I can hook you up with Hillary.
Edwards: Hillary, eh? Very well.
Radio Blog-ah
I received the following email, and think this is a cool idea:
Who: Pundit Review Radio
What: A show featuring the work of the most interesting, influential
bloggers and the impact they are having on the mainstream media
When: Saturday's between Noon and 1pm on Boston's business news station,
WBIX AM1060.
Where: The show is streamed live at www.wbix.com and will be archived
on www.punditreview.com. The show will also be made available to all
bloggers.
Why: We hope to interview our favorites each week and get their fresh
perspective on the news of the moment.
Scheduled Guests Include:
September 25: Matt Margolis, Blogs for Bush
October 2: Scott Johnson, Powerline Blog
October 9: Donald Luskin, Poor and Stupid
Who: Pundit Review Radio
What: A show featuring the work of the most interesting, influential
bloggers and the impact they are having on the mainstream media
When: Saturday's between Noon and 1pm on Boston's business news station,
WBIX AM1060.
Where: The show is streamed live at www.wbix.com and will be archived
on www.punditreview.com. The show will also be made available to all
bloggers.
Why: We hope to interview our favorites each week and get their fresh
perspective on the news of the moment.
Scheduled Guests Include:
September 25: Matt Margolis, Blogs for Bush
October 2: Scott Johnson, Powerline Blog
October 9: Donald Luskin, Poor and Stupid
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Sam Adams Would Approve
Thanks for the Memory to Michelle Malkin.
According to Stars and Stripes, a group of GI's stationed in Iraq has come up with a great way to boost morale: a way for people to buy soldiers beer online.
I can't think of anyone who deserves a frosty one more than the men and women serving our country. GO TO BEER FOR SOLDIERS AND GIVE!
According to Stars and Stripes, a group of GI's stationed in Iraq has come up with a great way to boost morale: a way for people to buy soldiers beer online.
I can't think of anyone who deserves a frosty one more than the men and women serving our country. GO TO BEER FOR SOLDIERS AND GIVE!
Kerry: For the Red Sox Before He Was Against Them?
Thanks for the Memory to Blogs for Bush.
Apparently, for Kerry, flip-flopping is not limited to political affairs. The Junior Senator from Massachusetts, a regular attendee of Boston Red Sox games, has now declared his loyalty to the New York Yankees, hated arch foes of the Bosox:
At the fundraiser, Kerry reflected on his reborn self. He praised the triple victories of the Jets, Giants and Yankees and said: "I came here to bask in your glory, came here to grab onto that winning streak."
That's gotta sting, eh Mass.? Especially since two of the wins in that streak have come against the Sox.
Apparently, for Kerry, flip-flopping is not limited to political affairs. The Junior Senator from Massachusetts, a regular attendee of Boston Red Sox games, has now declared his loyalty to the New York Yankees, hated arch foes of the Bosox:
At the fundraiser, Kerry reflected on his reborn self. He praised the triple victories of the Jets, Giants and Yankees and said: "I came here to bask in your glory, came here to grab onto that winning streak."
That's gotta sting, eh Mass.? Especially since two of the wins in that streak have come against the Sox.
Kerry: Building Consensus By Alienating ALL of Our Friends
Thanks for the Memory to Blogs for Bush.
One of the chief claims that the Kerry campaign has made regarding the war on Iraq and the reason Kerry is a better choice for president is that President Bush has alienated the world community by his actions, and that John Kerry will be able to heal these rifts.
Well, he didn't get off to a good start today.
For that matter, he hasn't done such an impressive job even before hand. The dismissive, scornful tone he takes when referring to the coalition is not bound to sit well with nations like Poland, Australia, and Great Britain who are already on our side. Furthermore, the nations most frequently discussed when people bring up these issues aren't exactly helping him any: France is the target of terrorist attacks despite their anti-US stand on the war, and has stated that they will not send troops there regardless of who wins the election. And as a result of the School Massacre, the Russians are now taking an even harder-line stance than Bush, let alone that of Kerry.
But now Kerry has decided to ice that cake and insult the Iraqis as well.
Iyad Illawi, interim Iraqi Prime Minister, addressed a joint session of Congress today, and thanked the United States, saying in part, "We know Americans have made enormous sacrifices.... We promise you your sacrifices are not in vain."
Well, apparently, that's not good enough for John Kerry:
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that Iraq's Ayad Allawi was sent before Congress to put the "best face" on Bush administration policy.
Nice, Senator. You've just told Allawi he's nothing but a mouthpiece for the administration. I know that's a popular view on the left, but how do you thing that sits with Iraq?
Bush "missed a huge opportunity" at the United Nations this week to try to persuade leaders of other nations to join the United States in Iraq and the broader anti-terror war, Kerry said.
How will you do that, senator? By belittling our allies? By kowtowing to countries who had a vested interest in seeing the US fail? By giving the terrorists a timetable so they know exactly how long they have to lay low before Iraq will be left high and dry? By returning to the ways of the administration prior to this one, and reassuring the forces of evil that the US is a blowhard full of empty threats and swagger, without the will to back up our threats with actions?
No thank you.
The Bush campaign's response echos my own:
"Today, John Kerry showed he lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the United States of America to victory in the War on Terror.
"His attacks on the veracity of the Iraqi Prime Minister's historic address to Congress reveal a stunning propensity to take political cheap shots for his own benefit by denigrating our allies in this important struggle against a global terror network. President Bush is proud to stand with Prime Minister Allawi while John Kerry attacks progress and resolve and advocates a policy of retreat and defeat in the face of terror.
"John Kerry said today, 'And when you people judge me and the American people judge me on this, I want you to judge me on the full record.' We're confident the American people will."
Oh, we will, Marc. And I for one will find Senator Kerry wanting.
One of the chief claims that the Kerry campaign has made regarding the war on Iraq and the reason Kerry is a better choice for president is that President Bush has alienated the world community by his actions, and that John Kerry will be able to heal these rifts.
Well, he didn't get off to a good start today.
For that matter, he hasn't done such an impressive job even before hand. The dismissive, scornful tone he takes when referring to the coalition is not bound to sit well with nations like Poland, Australia, and Great Britain who are already on our side. Furthermore, the nations most frequently discussed when people bring up these issues aren't exactly helping him any: France is the target of terrorist attacks despite their anti-US stand on the war, and has stated that they will not send troops there regardless of who wins the election. And as a result of the School Massacre, the Russians are now taking an even harder-line stance than Bush, let alone that of Kerry.
But now Kerry has decided to ice that cake and insult the Iraqis as well.
Iyad Illawi, interim Iraqi Prime Minister, addressed a joint session of Congress today, and thanked the United States, saying in part, "We know Americans have made enormous sacrifices.... We promise you your sacrifices are not in vain."
Well, apparently, that's not good enough for John Kerry:
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that Iraq's Ayad Allawi was sent before Congress to put the "best face" on Bush administration policy.
Nice, Senator. You've just told Allawi he's nothing but a mouthpiece for the administration. I know that's a popular view on the left, but how do you thing that sits with Iraq?
Bush "missed a huge opportunity" at the United Nations this week to try to persuade leaders of other nations to join the United States in Iraq and the broader anti-terror war, Kerry said.
How will you do that, senator? By belittling our allies? By kowtowing to countries who had a vested interest in seeing the US fail? By giving the terrorists a timetable so they know exactly how long they have to lay low before Iraq will be left high and dry? By returning to the ways of the administration prior to this one, and reassuring the forces of evil that the US is a blowhard full of empty threats and swagger, without the will to back up our threats with actions?
No thank you.
The Bush campaign's response echos my own:
"Today, John Kerry showed he lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the United States of America to victory in the War on Terror.
"His attacks on the veracity of the Iraqi Prime Minister's historic address to Congress reveal a stunning propensity to take political cheap shots for his own benefit by denigrating our allies in this important struggle against a global terror network. President Bush is proud to stand with Prime Minister Allawi while John Kerry attacks progress and resolve and advocates a policy of retreat and defeat in the face of terror.
"John Kerry said today, 'And when you people judge me and the American people judge me on this, I want you to judge me on the full record.' We're confident the American people will."
Oh, we will, Marc. And I for one will find Senator Kerry wanting.
Hello Minnesota!
I was just monitoring Traffic to my blog and discovered a reader accessing it from the server of the Minnesota Republican Party.
What a happy coincidence. The Feared Redhead (my wife) is a native of Minnesota, and grew up in the Twin Cities suburb of Plymouth. We were married near Lake Minnetonka, and I think you have the second prettiest state in the Union (I'm biased).
So welcome to Oregon, enjoy, I hope you like what you see. Keep fighting the good fight, it's good to be in a state that's in play again, isn't it?
What a happy coincidence. The Feared Redhead (my wife) is a native of Minnesota, and grew up in the Twin Cities suburb of Plymouth. We were married near Lake Minnetonka, and I think you have the second prettiest state in the Union (I'm biased).
So welcome to Oregon, enjoy, I hope you like what you see. Keep fighting the good fight, it's good to be in a state that's in play again, isn't it?
Offender of the Faith
UPDATE:
Via the Seattle Times
Evangelist Swaggart apologizes for remark about gays.
Original Post, 1:27 PM PDT, 21 September, 2004:Thanks for the Memory to the Twisted Spinster.
Apparently Eugene Volokh over at the Volokh Conspiracy is upset by a comment made by Jimmy Swaggart:
I'm trying to find the correct name for it . . . this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. . . . I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died.
Oh, apparently, Andrew Sullivan weighs in on this too. There's a surprise.
First of all, let me say I'm not a regular visitor to Volokh's blog. I know it's popular, and from what I see, well-written, but it's not on my list of frequents. Nothing against it, I just thought it fair warning.
Apparently what upset Volokh most was not the comment itself, but the lack of outrage from the Christian Community:
But it seems to me that decent Christians ought to condemn this defender of murder, who publicly says that he'd violate the Ten Commandments when someone "looks at [him]" the wrong way, while purporting to preach God's word and lead Christian congregations. Tell us, at least, that this supposed Christian — who was once one of the nation's leading evangelists, until he was tripped up by another of the Commandments — doesn't speak for you.
Trust me, Eugene, he doesn't speak for me -- about a great many things. I'm not at ALL a member of Jimmy Swaggart's regular audience -- nor for that matter, a WILLING member of his audience PERIOD. Setting aside the above quote, the man espouses a doctrine (the Word Faith Movement) I find abhorrent. I believe that most Christians who follow it are merely deceived, and doctrinally in error, but I am also firm in my belief that most pastors teaching it, especially leaders like Swaggart, are espousing Heresy. About that I will not equivocate. For this reason I would discourage ANY Christian from paying heed to ANYTHING being preached by Swaggart.
And that's the reason THIS Christian has not yet denounced Swaggart's comment -- because I do my best to completely avoid or ignore him, I had no idea Swaggart had said something like this. If I had, I would have denounced it, as I do now. I wonder how many other Christians, and even pastors, are in the same boat. While Swaggart is still popular in some circles, I doubt he's as influential as he once was, or as Volokh believes him to be.
Having said that, I do denounce this statement. It is not at all in keeping with Christian Doctrine to speak of killing someone because they look at you with unwanted sexual intent -- nor, for that matter, for sinning at all. That's the Law, we live under Grace. As for the part about "telling God he died", theologically, that's just... What's the word? Oh, yeah -- stupid.
I do hope that any Christian leader who hears of this will vocally step to the plate and agree.
But there was something else about the Volokh blog entry that bothered me. In an update to the post, he linked to a response from another blogger, Sweeny A. of Ipsa Loquitur, who writes in part:
Eugene is certainly right that ethical people should condemn [Swaggart's] words, but one wonder's [sic] about Eugene's implication that this moral stain is automatically conferred to other Christians until they renounce it. One might say that for a Christian who has heard this comment to consciously refuse to renounce it is a tacit endorsement. That may be true, but the very terms in which Volokh has couched the ultimatum is unfair.
Since advocating murder because a gay man looks at you wrong is an obvious violation of the Christian ethic, why should Christians, qua Christians, feel obligated to renounce the remarks any more than people who share the last name of Swaggart?
Volokh has a lengthy response, but this is the part of it that caught my attention:
Christianity is a belief system — not just an involuntary status such as race or ethnicity, but a consciously chosen belief system that is based on certain writings and certain traditions. Historically, Christians have often stressed the importance of those writings, which supposedly provide something of an objective standard of behavior, and of a Christian community, which helps enforce this behavioral standard. In recent decades, many Christians have also tried to downplay denominational differences (say, between Protestants and Catholics), and to stress the common purpose of those who follow Jesus's [sic] teachings.
When someone who is a Christian minister, and still something of a Christian leader, makes a claim about what Christian scriptures mean, it seems to me that those Christians who condemn his views — and condemn them as deeply evil, rather than just subtly or slightly wrong — do have a responsibility to speak out.
and later,
I'm not asking for anything much — I'm simply saying that Christians should be outraged at Swaggart's essentially slandering their religion, and should denounce his views, to make clear that his views (though purportedly Christian) are not mainstream Christian views.
If I interpret Volokh's point correctly, he believes we Christians should not only condemn Swaggart's statement as morally reprehensible, but as doctrinally unorthodox. When he says "Historically, Christians have often stressed the importance of those writings, which supposedly provide something of an objective standard of behavior," that's as close as he's ever going to come to what we say when we acknowledge the inspiration and authority of scripture. In other words, we should reassure him that Swaggart doesn't speak for us because "That's not what our Scriptures teach."
Well, fine, Eugene. If you'll go back to my response to Swaggart's statement, that's exactly what I did. I stated my denouncing of the statement out of adherence to sound doctrine.
And here's the irony. That same adherence to sound doctrine requires that I take stances on many issues that I'm sure Volokh and Sullivan would both find... Distasteful, at best. That includes believing that adherence to certain tenets of the faith is requisite for being acknowledged as a Christian, believing that orthodox Christianity is the exclusive means by which an individual can know and have fellowship with God, and, yes, believing that homosexual behavior is in opposition to the commands of God.
Yet when I make such statements, rest assured that a great many people, both theologically liberal Christians and Non-Christians alike, will denounce me as being too closed-minded, too narrow, too devoted to an ancient book.
I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways. If you want Christians to speak out against Swaggart, and specifically want us to do so based on his violation of some standard of orthodoxy based on our Scriptures, then you are giving us your assent that we are correct in acknowledging the authority of those scriptures in establishing ALL standards of orthodoxy.
Via the Seattle Times
Evangelist Swaggart apologizes for remark about gays.
Original Post, 1:27 PM PDT, 21 September, 2004:Thanks for the Memory to the Twisted Spinster.
Apparently Eugene Volokh over at the Volokh Conspiracy is upset by a comment made by Jimmy Swaggart:
I'm trying to find the correct name for it . . . this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. . . . I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died.
Oh, apparently, Andrew Sullivan weighs in on this too. There's a surprise.
First of all, let me say I'm not a regular visitor to Volokh's blog. I know it's popular, and from what I see, well-written, but it's not on my list of frequents. Nothing against it, I just thought it fair warning.
Apparently what upset Volokh most was not the comment itself, but the lack of outrage from the Christian Community:
But it seems to me that decent Christians ought to condemn this defender of murder, who publicly says that he'd violate the Ten Commandments when someone "looks at [him]" the wrong way, while purporting to preach God's word and lead Christian congregations. Tell us, at least, that this supposed Christian — who was once one of the nation's leading evangelists, until he was tripped up by another of the Commandments — doesn't speak for you.
Trust me, Eugene, he doesn't speak for me -- about a great many things. I'm not at ALL a member of Jimmy Swaggart's regular audience -- nor for that matter, a WILLING member of his audience PERIOD. Setting aside the above quote, the man espouses a doctrine (the Word Faith Movement) I find abhorrent. I believe that most Christians who follow it are merely deceived, and doctrinally in error, but I am also firm in my belief that most pastors teaching it, especially leaders like Swaggart, are espousing Heresy. About that I will not equivocate. For this reason I would discourage ANY Christian from paying heed to ANYTHING being preached by Swaggart.
And that's the reason THIS Christian has not yet denounced Swaggart's comment -- because I do my best to completely avoid or ignore him, I had no idea Swaggart had said something like this. If I had, I would have denounced it, as I do now. I wonder how many other Christians, and even pastors, are in the same boat. While Swaggart is still popular in some circles, I doubt he's as influential as he once was, or as Volokh believes him to be.
Having said that, I do denounce this statement. It is not at all in keeping with Christian Doctrine to speak of killing someone because they look at you with unwanted sexual intent -- nor, for that matter, for sinning at all. That's the Law, we live under Grace. As for the part about "telling God he died", theologically, that's just... What's the word? Oh, yeah -- stupid.
I do hope that any Christian leader who hears of this will vocally step to the plate and agree.
But there was something else about the Volokh blog entry that bothered me. In an update to the post, he linked to a response from another blogger, Sweeny A. of Ipsa Loquitur, who writes in part:
Eugene is certainly right that ethical people should condemn [Swaggart's] words, but one wonder's [sic] about Eugene's implication that this moral stain is automatically conferred to other Christians until they renounce it. One might say that for a Christian who has heard this comment to consciously refuse to renounce it is a tacit endorsement. That may be true, but the very terms in which Volokh has couched the ultimatum is unfair.
Since advocating murder because a gay man looks at you wrong is an obvious violation of the Christian ethic, why should Christians, qua Christians, feel obligated to renounce the remarks any more than people who share the last name of Swaggart?
Volokh has a lengthy response, but this is the part of it that caught my attention:
Christianity is a belief system — not just an involuntary status such as race or ethnicity, but a consciously chosen belief system that is based on certain writings and certain traditions. Historically, Christians have often stressed the importance of those writings, which supposedly provide something of an objective standard of behavior, and of a Christian community, which helps enforce this behavioral standard. In recent decades, many Christians have also tried to downplay denominational differences (say, between Protestants and Catholics), and to stress the common purpose of those who follow Jesus's [sic] teachings.
When someone who is a Christian minister, and still something of a Christian leader, makes a claim about what Christian scriptures mean, it seems to me that those Christians who condemn his views — and condemn them as deeply evil, rather than just subtly or slightly wrong — do have a responsibility to speak out.
and later,
I'm not asking for anything much — I'm simply saying that Christians should be outraged at Swaggart's essentially slandering their religion, and should denounce his views, to make clear that his views (though purportedly Christian) are not mainstream Christian views.
If I interpret Volokh's point correctly, he believes we Christians should not only condemn Swaggart's statement as morally reprehensible, but as doctrinally unorthodox. When he says "Historically, Christians have often stressed the importance of those writings, which supposedly provide something of an objective standard of behavior," that's as close as he's ever going to come to what we say when we acknowledge the inspiration and authority of scripture. In other words, we should reassure him that Swaggart doesn't speak for us because "That's not what our Scriptures teach."
Well, fine, Eugene. If you'll go back to my response to Swaggart's statement, that's exactly what I did. I stated my denouncing of the statement out of adherence to sound doctrine.
And here's the irony. That same adherence to sound doctrine requires that I take stances on many issues that I'm sure Volokh and Sullivan would both find... Distasteful, at best. That includes believing that adherence to certain tenets of the faith is requisite for being acknowledged as a Christian, believing that orthodox Christianity is the exclusive means by which an individual can know and have fellowship with God, and, yes, believing that homosexual behavior is in opposition to the commands of God.
Yet when I make such statements, rest assured that a great many people, both theologically liberal Christians and Non-Christians alike, will denounce me as being too closed-minded, too narrow, too devoted to an ancient book.
I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways. If you want Christians to speak out against Swaggart, and specifically want us to do so based on his violation of some standard of orthodoxy based on our Scriptures, then you are giving us your assent that we are correct in acknowledging the authority of those scriptures in establishing ALL standards of orthodoxy.
RECALL OF KRYPTONITE BIKE LOCKS
Thanks for the Memory to KVAL TV the Feared Redhead.
I hate to link to a CBS affiliate news station, but that's who's covering the story in this area, and being a bicycle rider, this one's important to me -- especially since I own one of said Kryptonite locks.
Bike Lock Recall
By Dana Rebik
Eugene -
Bike theft is becoming more and more of a problem in Eugene and around the country.
The company Kryptonite is now recalling its cylinder lock after finding people can break into it easily with a Bic pen.
Today we visited the owners of Riley and Paul's Bike Shop in Eugene. They demonstrated how to pick the lock and had it open within a matter of seconds.
Students are arriving back and the University of Oregon and many were surprised to hear their locks can be picked so easily.
"It's news to me," says Theron Wells. "I thought my bike was safe. I've had this Kryptonite lock for years and it served me well. I'm surprised all it takes is a Bic pen to unlock it."
Some say it's best to put two locks on your bike to deter thieves. Better locks can help, but some think bike theft could decrease if police are more aggressive in responding.
"Bike theft needs to be taken seriously and there also has to be a law enforcement effort to suppress this activity," says Paul Robertson.
Eugene police say September and October are the peak months for bike theft.
For information on how to return your Kryptonite lock, click on the link below or send an email to: kryptonite@irco.com
I hate to link to a CBS affiliate news station, but that's who's covering the story in this area, and being a bicycle rider, this one's important to me -- especially since I own one of said Kryptonite locks.
Bike Lock Recall
By Dana Rebik
Eugene -
Bike theft is becoming more and more of a problem in Eugene and around the country.
The company Kryptonite is now recalling its cylinder lock after finding people can break into it easily with a Bic pen.
Today we visited the owners of Riley and Paul's Bike Shop in Eugene. They demonstrated how to pick the lock and had it open within a matter of seconds.
Students are arriving back and the University of Oregon and many were surprised to hear their locks can be picked so easily.
"It's news to me," says Theron Wells. "I thought my bike was safe. I've had this Kryptonite lock for years and it served me well. I'm surprised all it takes is a Bic pen to unlock it."
Some say it's best to put two locks on your bike to deter thieves. Better locks can help, but some think bike theft could decrease if police are more aggressive in responding.
"Bike theft needs to be taken seriously and there also has to be a law enforcement effort to suppress this activity," says Paul Robertson.
Eugene police say September and October are the peak months for bike theft.
For information on how to return your Kryptonite lock, click on the link below or send an email to: kryptonite@irco.com
The "Blair" Which Would You "Rather" Believe Project
Thanks for the Memory to Rathergate via No Left Turns.
Now blogs are scooping the MSM with interviews.
Mark Hemingway of Rathergate.com has obtained an exclusive interview with Jayson Blair (yes, THAT Jayson Blair) regarding his thoughts on the Dan Rather memo controversy. He has a very unique and relevant perspective, and his contrition over his own offenses is in refreshing contrast to Rather's bluster. I would highly recommend you read it.
Now blogs are scooping the MSM with interviews.
Mark Hemingway of Rathergate.com has obtained an exclusive interview with Jayson Blair (yes, THAT Jayson Blair) regarding his thoughts on the Dan Rather memo controversy. He has a very unique and relevant perspective, and his contrition over his own offenses is in refreshing contrast to Rather's bluster. I would highly recommend you read it.
Nicea on the Hudson
Thanks for the Memory to reader 51st State for this from the Ashbrook Center.
The Liberals’ Creed
by Robert Alt
We believe in the United Nations, and Kofi Annan, the maker of international legitimacy.
We believe that the UN inspections worked.
We believe that SCUD missiles fired at U.S. troops minutes after the war began don’t change anything;
We believe that 3 liters of sarin gas used against U.S. troops doesn’t change anything;
We believe that finding evidence of mustard gas doesn’t change anything.
We believe that the war in Iraq conducted by a Republican president was unjustified because it lacked UN approval;
We believe that the "military action" in Kosovo conducted by a Democratic president was justified without UN approval.
We believe that the Iraq war was unilateral.
We believe that the participation of Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine does not change the fact that the war was unilateral;
We believe that multilateralism can only be achieved with the participation of France and Germany;
We believe in multilateralism.
We believe that this war was motivated by greed and oil;
We believe that when France, Germany, and Russia opposed the war, they were motivated by principle, and not by sweetheart oil deals or Oil-For-Food kickbacks;
We believe that US oil prices are too high, and that the administration failed in its responsibility to do something about it.
We believe that the U.S. may only legitimately use force for humanitarian ends in one place if it does so in all places where aid might be needed;
We believe that the U.S. may not quell threats in places where the cost is relatively low unless it is willing to use force in places like North Korea, where the cost in lives would likely be very high;
We believe that a humanitarian action is only truly humanitarian if there are no strategic interests to muddle the altruism.
We believe that President Bush lied.
We believe that Prime Minister Blair lied.
We believe that when Hillary Clinton and Dick Gephardt voted for the war based on the same intelligence relied upon by Bush and Blair, they made reasonable decisions based on the intelligence available at the time.
We believe that the administration did not make the case for war;
We believe that the administration offered many different reasons but could not offer a coherent message explaining the need to go to war;
We believe that the administration made perfectly clear that the only reason we were going to war was because of the threat from WMDs.
We believe that there were no WMDs.
We believe that finding sarin gas is 14th page news;
We believe that if the sarin gas is old, then it really isn’t a WMD we were looking for;
We believe that it wasn’t really sarin gas;
We believe that sarin gas isn’t necessarily a WMD.
We believe that there was no terrorist connection to, or threat from, Iraq.
We believe that members of Abu Nidal in Iraq would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that Saddam’s terrorist training camp at Salman Pak—complete with a Boeing 707 plane used for hijacking drills—did not exist or posed no real threat;
We believe that it was merely a coincidence that the pharmaceutical factory bombed by President Clinton in Sudan was using al Qaeda funds and a uniquely Iraqi formula to produce VX gas;
We believe that we are responsible for bringing terror on ourselves.
We believe that the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib is widespread and is probably the tip of the iceberg;
We believe that Abu Ghraib proves that the America’s occupation is no different than Saddam’s tyranny;
We believe that any attempt to suggest that there is a moral difference between a regime which systematically killed 300,000 people and tortured countless others and a regime which punished the acts of Abu Ghraib is illegitimate.
We believe that soldiers deliberately target women and children;
We believe that the soldiers abuse and kill Iraqis because they are racists;
We support our troops.
We believe that no one should question our statement that we "support our troops;"
We believe that the best thing that could happen for this country would be for Bush to lose in November;
We believe that the best way for Bush to lose in November is for the Iraq effort to go poorly, even if that means that more Iraqis and troops will die;
We believe that most of the troops are minorities and the poor;
We believe that when the word "heroes" is used to describe our troops, it should always be enclosed in scare quotes.
We believe in quagmire.
We believe that when fringe Iraqi groups attack hard targets and are soundly defeated with relatively low Coalition casualties, that this is inescapable evidence of crisis;
We believe that Iraq is Bush’s Vietnam.
We believe that Vietnam is the lens through which all wars should be viewed.
We believe that soldiers in Vietnam were baby killers;
We believe that John Kerry is a hero for his service in Vietnam.
We believe that because John Kerry is a hero, he necessarily has the national security expertise necessary to be commander-in-chief.
We believe that any attempt to question his national security expertise based on his voting record, including his decision to vote against a supplemental bill used to buy the soldiers body armor, is an unfair attack on the patriotism of a hero, who by virtue of this honorific has the expertise to be commander-in-chief.
We believe in the trinity: NPR, CNN, and the New York Times. We believe in Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and all the DNC, and we look for President Clinton yet to come. Amen.
The Liberals’ Creed
by Robert Alt
We believe in the United Nations, and Kofi Annan, the maker of international legitimacy.
We believe that the UN inspections worked.
We believe that SCUD missiles fired at U.S. troops minutes after the war began don’t change anything;
We believe that 3 liters of sarin gas used against U.S. troops doesn’t change anything;
We believe that finding evidence of mustard gas doesn’t change anything.
We believe that the war in Iraq conducted by a Republican president was unjustified because it lacked UN approval;
We believe that the "military action" in Kosovo conducted by a Democratic president was justified without UN approval.
We believe that the Iraq war was unilateral.
We believe that the participation of Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine does not change the fact that the war was unilateral;
We believe that multilateralism can only be achieved with the participation of France and Germany;
We believe in multilateralism.
We believe that this war was motivated by greed and oil;
We believe that when France, Germany, and Russia opposed the war, they were motivated by principle, and not by sweetheart oil deals or Oil-For-Food kickbacks;
We believe that US oil prices are too high, and that the administration failed in its responsibility to do something about it.
We believe that the U.S. may only legitimately use force for humanitarian ends in one place if it does so in all places where aid might be needed;
We believe that the U.S. may not quell threats in places where the cost is relatively low unless it is willing to use force in places like North Korea, where the cost in lives would likely be very high;
We believe that a humanitarian action is only truly humanitarian if there are no strategic interests to muddle the altruism.
We believe that President Bush lied.
We believe that Prime Minister Blair lied.
We believe that when Hillary Clinton and Dick Gephardt voted for the war based on the same intelligence relied upon by Bush and Blair, they made reasonable decisions based on the intelligence available at the time.
We believe that the administration did not make the case for war;
We believe that the administration offered many different reasons but could not offer a coherent message explaining the need to go to war;
We believe that the administration made perfectly clear that the only reason we were going to war was because of the threat from WMDs.
We believe that there were no WMDs.
We believe that finding sarin gas is 14th page news;
We believe that if the sarin gas is old, then it really isn’t a WMD we were looking for;
We believe that it wasn’t really sarin gas;
We believe that sarin gas isn’t necessarily a WMD.
We believe that there was no terrorist connection to, or threat from, Iraq.
We believe that members of Abu Nidal in Iraq would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that Saddam’s terrorist training camp at Salman Pak—complete with a Boeing 707 plane used for hijacking drills—did not exist or posed no real threat;
We believe that it was merely a coincidence that the pharmaceutical factory bombed by President Clinton in Sudan was using al Qaeda funds and a uniquely Iraqi formula to produce VX gas;
We believe that we are responsible for bringing terror on ourselves.
We believe that the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib is widespread and is probably the tip of the iceberg;
We believe that Abu Ghraib proves that the America’s occupation is no different than Saddam’s tyranny;
We believe that any attempt to suggest that there is a moral difference between a regime which systematically killed 300,000 people and tortured countless others and a regime which punished the acts of Abu Ghraib is illegitimate.
We believe that soldiers deliberately target women and children;
We believe that the soldiers abuse and kill Iraqis because they are racists;
We support our troops.
We believe that no one should question our statement that we "support our troops;"
We believe that the best thing that could happen for this country would be for Bush to lose in November;
We believe that the best way for Bush to lose in November is for the Iraq effort to go poorly, even if that means that more Iraqis and troops will die;
We believe that most of the troops are minorities and the poor;
We believe that when the word "heroes" is used to describe our troops, it should always be enclosed in scare quotes.
We believe in quagmire.
We believe that when fringe Iraqi groups attack hard targets and are soundly defeated with relatively low Coalition casualties, that this is inescapable evidence of crisis;
We believe that Iraq is Bush’s Vietnam.
We believe that Vietnam is the lens through which all wars should be viewed.
We believe that soldiers in Vietnam were baby killers;
We believe that John Kerry is a hero for his service in Vietnam.
We believe that because John Kerry is a hero, he necessarily has the national security expertise necessary to be commander-in-chief.
We believe that any attempt to question his national security expertise based on his voting record, including his decision to vote against a supplemental bill used to buy the soldiers body armor, is an unfair attack on the patriotism of a hero, who by virtue of this honorific has the expertise to be commander-in-chief.
We believe in the trinity: NPR, CNN, and the New York Times. We believe in Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and all the DNC, and we look for President Clinton yet to come. Amen.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Blue Collar Academia
Thanks for the Memory to Dr. Bauman at In Extremis.
With Sincere Apologies to Jeff Foxworthy: You Might be a Liberal If . . .
By: Dr. Michael Bauman
Even though some liberal politicians don’t like using the "L" word, it’s still possible to know who’s a liberal and who is not.
You might be a liberal if . . .
You think that consenting adults can engage freely in every activity except capitalism.
You think the really alarming violence takes place outside the abortion clinic.
You’ve ever referred to the “root cause” of something.
You pray to “The Woman Upstairs.”
You think we never gave peace a chance.
You had to be told that “Manhattan,” “menopause” and “boycott” were not sexist words
You begin sentences with the words “I feel.”
Your driver’s license has a hyphen because, for you, one last name just isn’t enough.
You think OJ is out looking for the real killers.
You don’t know that you see B.S. when you watch CBS.
You think Fox News is faux news.
You get your economic theory from John Mellencamp and your foreign policy from Sean Penn.
You think it takes a village.
You think higher education is about diversity, not excellence.
You think that the words “to promote the general welfare” in the Constitution mean to promote welfare generally.
You think that conservatives, like preservatives, ought to be federally regulated.
You ever wore earth shoes.
You have ever wondered out loud, “Why can’t we all just get along?”
You think the New York Times prints all the news that’s fit.
You think that Bill O'Reilly is just an entertainer.
You spent Columbus Day reading Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.
You reach the limits of your talent and then complain that you ran into a glass ceiling.
You wear more ribbons on your lapel than in your hair.
You think that the really dangerous McCarthy was Joe, not Eugene.
You blame the Unabomber’s parents.
You fail to see the connection between Lenin and Lennon.
You have ever agreed with Alec Baldwin.
Seriously, if you haven't been to In Extremis, GO NOW!!!!! Bauman and Oren are two of the most underrated bloggers I've read!
With Sincere Apologies to Jeff Foxworthy: You Might be a Liberal If . . .
By: Dr. Michael Bauman
Even though some liberal politicians don’t like using the "L" word, it’s still possible to know who’s a liberal and who is not.
You might be a liberal if . . .
You think that consenting adults can engage freely in every activity except capitalism.
You think the really alarming violence takes place outside the abortion clinic.
You’ve ever referred to the “root cause” of something.
You pray to “The Woman Upstairs.”
You think we never gave peace a chance.
You had to be told that “Manhattan,” “menopause” and “boycott” were not sexist words
You begin sentences with the words “I feel.”
Your driver’s license has a hyphen because, for you, one last name just isn’t enough.
You think OJ is out looking for the real killers.
You don’t know that you see B.S. when you watch CBS.
You think Fox News is faux news.
You get your economic theory from John Mellencamp and your foreign policy from Sean Penn.
You think it takes a village.
You think higher education is about diversity, not excellence.
You think that the words “to promote the general welfare” in the Constitution mean to promote welfare generally.
You think that conservatives, like preservatives, ought to be federally regulated.
You ever wore earth shoes.
You have ever wondered out loud, “Why can’t we all just get along?”
You think the New York Times prints all the news that’s fit.
You think that Bill O'Reilly is just an entertainer.
You spent Columbus Day reading Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.
You reach the limits of your talent and then complain that you ran into a glass ceiling.
You wear more ribbons on your lapel than in your hair.
You think that the really dangerous McCarthy was Joe, not Eugene.
You blame the Unabomber’s parents.
You fail to see the connection between Lenin and Lennon.
You have ever agreed with Alec Baldwin.
Seriously, if you haven't been to In Extremis, GO NOW!!!!! Bauman and Oren are two of the most underrated bloggers I've read!
When They Call it "Last Comic Standing," I Don't Think They Mean the Host
I watched "Last Comic Standing" last night, and only have one piece of advice for host Jay Mohr:
Dude, your guest stars were Carrot Top and Louie Anderson.
That's "Dial Down the Center" Carrot Top and Louie "Just When You Thought Family Feud Couldn't Get More Pathetic" Anderson!
FIRE
YOUR
AGENT
!!!!!
You're this close to Hollywood Squares status!
Dude, your guest stars were Carrot Top and Louie Anderson.
That's "Dial Down the Center" Carrot Top and Louie "Just When You Thought Family Feud Couldn't Get More Pathetic" Anderson!
FIRE
YOUR
AGENT
!!!!!
You're this close to Hollywood Squares status!
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Gore Campaign: More Journalistic Integrity Than CBS?
Thanks for the Memory to Drudge.
Gore campaign rejected allegations similar to CBS report, former campaign chief says
- MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
(09-21) 15:54 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
Former Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign heard but did not pursue allegations about George W. Bush's Air National Guard service, similar to the information in discredited documents aired by CBS News this month, a former campaign official said Tuesday.
Tony Coelho, who ran the campaign for several months in 2000, said he did not follow up on the claims because they were not serious enough to demand further attention.
"Of everyone I talked to, no one had anything that rose to the level that we should get ourselves into," Coelho said.
CBS and anchor Dan Rather apologized Monday for a "60 Minutes" segment that quoted documents purported to be from one of Bush's commanders in the Texas Air National Guard. The documents say the commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, ordered Bush to take a medical exam, which he did not, and felt pressured to sugarcoat an evaluation of then-1st Lt. Bush.
Rather said the network could not determine if the memos were authentic.
White House officials and other Republicans suggested that Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign was behind the CBS report. Kerry campaign officials denied that.
Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart said he spoke with Bill Burkett, who gave CBS the documents, after a network producer suggested it. Lockhart and Burkett said they only discussed how Kerry could respond to a group of Republican veterans who accuse Kerry of exaggerating his Vietnam War record.
Coelho said he remembered taking phone calls in 2000 from several Texans with allegations about Bush's Guard service. He said he did not remember if any were from Burkett, a former Texas Army National Guard officer and longtime Bush critic.
"I never felt there was anything substantive for us to try to deal with or not, so we never pursued it," Coelho said. "We never had any documents given to us. That would have been something different. We would have had to check it out."
I'm not sure I completely believe Coelho -- there's a lot of "CYA" going on in leftist circles these days.
If he's lying (plausible), it's one more example of rats abandoning a sinking swift boat. If he's telling the truth, it speaks volumes that CBS was eager to jump on a story that even the avowed nemesis of the story's target wouldn't touch.
Gore campaign rejected allegations similar to CBS report, former campaign chief says
- MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
(09-21) 15:54 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
Former Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign heard but did not pursue allegations about George W. Bush's Air National Guard service, similar to the information in discredited documents aired by CBS News this month, a former campaign official said Tuesday.
Tony Coelho, who ran the campaign for several months in 2000, said he did not follow up on the claims because they were not serious enough to demand further attention.
"Of everyone I talked to, no one had anything that rose to the level that we should get ourselves into," Coelho said.
CBS and anchor Dan Rather apologized Monday for a "60 Minutes" segment that quoted documents purported to be from one of Bush's commanders in the Texas Air National Guard. The documents say the commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, ordered Bush to take a medical exam, which he did not, and felt pressured to sugarcoat an evaluation of then-1st Lt. Bush.
Rather said the network could not determine if the memos were authentic.
White House officials and other Republicans suggested that Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign was behind the CBS report. Kerry campaign officials denied that.
Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart said he spoke with Bill Burkett, who gave CBS the documents, after a network producer suggested it. Lockhart and Burkett said they only discussed how Kerry could respond to a group of Republican veterans who accuse Kerry of exaggerating his Vietnam War record.
Coelho said he remembered taking phone calls in 2000 from several Texans with allegations about Bush's Guard service. He said he did not remember if any were from Burkett, a former Texas Army National Guard officer and longtime Bush critic.
"I never felt there was anything substantive for us to try to deal with or not, so we never pursued it," Coelho said. "We never had any documents given to us. That would have been something different. We would have had to check it out."
I'm not sure I completely believe Coelho -- there's a lot of "CYA" going on in leftist circles these days.
If he's lying (plausible), it's one more example of rats abandoning a sinking swift boat. If he's telling the truth, it speaks volumes that CBS was eager to jump on a story that even the avowed nemesis of the story's target wouldn't touch.
The Enemy of His Enemy is His... Enemy?
Thanks for the Memory to Drudge.
One of the criticisms of President Bush leveled by the Left is that he's "a Divider, not a Uniter." They are, of course, referring to the current polarization of the electorate, both to the left and the right.
Given that criticism, and the fact that he represents the left, don't you think Kerry should refrain from Dividing the Left Itself?
Nader Blames Kerry for Ballot Access Fight
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader accused his Democratic rival Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday of being responsible for a campaign to try and keep him off the Nov. 2 ballot.
Seen by many Democrats as the "spoiler" in the 2000 election that elected Republican George W. Bush as president, Nader's campaign said it was fighting 21 legal cases in 17 states in a bid to get the consumer advocate on the ballot.
Nader pointed the finger at Kerry and Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe for being behind what his campaign says is a program of harassment, intimidation and phony lawsuits that are costing tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
"The ballot access has drained our time and our resources," Nader told a news conference. "I have to hold Sen. John Kerry and Terry McAuliffe directly responsible."
The Kerry campaign did not immediately return phone calls asking for a response.
Nader's campaign played a tape they said was testimony by the head of the Democratic Party in Maine who is heard saying that the Democratic National Committee is paying for her time and expenses related to trying to keep Nader off the ballot.
The Nader campaign said that kind of coordination appeared to be illegal and should be investigated by the Federal Elections Commission.
His campaign said Nader was on the ballot in 29 states.
Nader called the Democrats "gutless, spineless, clueless and hapless" and said their gamble that people would vote for anyone but Bush was misguided and would make them lose the election.
Democrats around the United States have been challenging Nader's presence on the ballot, fearing he will again boost Bush's re-election chances by drawing votes that would otherwise go to Kerry.
Polls indicate the 2004 election may be as close as the one in 2000 when the Supreme Court ruled on the Florida recount to hand Bush victory over Democrat Al Gore.
Last week, Florida's Supreme Court ordered Nader could be allowed to compete in the state and a judge also ordered that he be included on the ballot in Colorado.
Judges in New Mexico and Arkansas have denied Nader access to the Nov. 2 ballot, but he did win a spot on the ballot in Maryland.,
And in Oregon, I think she meant to say. I've blogged on the whole Nader issue before, specifically because of his influence here in Oregon.
The irony here is delicious. As I've stated, being the Not-Bush has been such a huge part of Kerry's appeal to the left. Yet in the way he's dealt with Nader, he is alienating the extreme left -- the one group of people who most often take up the "Anybody but Bush" battlecry.
One of the criticisms of President Bush leveled by the Left is that he's "a Divider, not a Uniter." They are, of course, referring to the current polarization of the electorate, both to the left and the right.
Given that criticism, and the fact that he represents the left, don't you think Kerry should refrain from Dividing the Left Itself?
Nader Blames Kerry for Ballot Access Fight
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader accused his Democratic rival Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday of being responsible for a campaign to try and keep him off the Nov. 2 ballot.
Seen by many Democrats as the "spoiler" in the 2000 election that elected Republican George W. Bush as president, Nader's campaign said it was fighting 21 legal cases in 17 states in a bid to get the consumer advocate on the ballot.
Nader pointed the finger at Kerry and Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe for being behind what his campaign says is a program of harassment, intimidation and phony lawsuits that are costing tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
"The ballot access has drained our time and our resources," Nader told a news conference. "I have to hold Sen. John Kerry and Terry McAuliffe directly responsible."
The Kerry campaign did not immediately return phone calls asking for a response.
Nader's campaign played a tape they said was testimony by the head of the Democratic Party in Maine who is heard saying that the Democratic National Committee is paying for her time and expenses related to trying to keep Nader off the ballot.
The Nader campaign said that kind of coordination appeared to be illegal and should be investigated by the Federal Elections Commission.
His campaign said Nader was on the ballot in 29 states.
Nader called the Democrats "gutless, spineless, clueless and hapless" and said their gamble that people would vote for anyone but Bush was misguided and would make them lose the election.
Democrats around the United States have been challenging Nader's presence on the ballot, fearing he will again boost Bush's re-election chances by drawing votes that would otherwise go to Kerry.
Polls indicate the 2004 election may be as close as the one in 2000 when the Supreme Court ruled on the Florida recount to hand Bush victory over Democrat Al Gore.
Last week, Florida's Supreme Court ordered Nader could be allowed to compete in the state and a judge also ordered that he be included on the ballot in Colorado.
Judges in New Mexico and Arkansas have denied Nader access to the Nov. 2 ballot, but he did win a spot on the ballot in Maryland.,
And in Oregon, I think she meant to say. I've blogged on the whole Nader issue before, specifically because of his influence here in Oregon.
The irony here is delicious. As I've stated, being the Not-Bush has been such a huge part of Kerry's appeal to the left. Yet in the way he's dealt with Nader, he is alienating the extreme left -- the one group of people who most often take up the "Anybody but Bush" battlecry.
Secret Service Hunting for Man Intending to Assasinate President Bush.
MAJOR UPDATE:
Also credited to Ace.
The suspect has been found and questioned by the Secret Service.
URGENT UPDATE:
Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades HQ:
The latest regarding this story from the Washington Times is that they still haven't caught him: He's completely disappeared!
U.S. law enforcement officials have been unable to locate an upstate New York man wanted for questioning regarding threats to President Bush.
Original Post, 21 September 2004:
Thanks for the Memory to Drudge.
City alert in threat to Bush
BY MICHELE McPHEE and LEO STANDORA
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Lawrence Ward
The Secret Service clamped down on midtown last night to protect President Bush from a possible assassin armed with a hunting rifle.
Lawrence Ward, 59, left his upstate New York home Wednesday with a .30-30 lever-action hunting rifle in the trunk of his car, telling a neighbor, "I'm not coming back."
Inside his house in Bainbridge was a picture of Bush with the words "Dead Man" spray-painted near it, law enforcement authorities said.
Bush was in town for a fund-raiser at the Sheraton New York before speaking today at the UN General Assembly.
The Secret Service deemed Ward, a software engineer, such a "credible threat" that a three-square-block chunk of midtown was cordoned off.
Secret Service agents and city cops patrolled the area looking for anything suspicious.
Ward's ex-wife, Judith Ward, 59, who lives in Connecticut, told the Secret Service she thinks her former husband "is very dangerous and capable of killing someone and/or committing suicide."
She said Ward "is obsessed with weapons, [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh and the book 'The Dead Zone' - a novel about the stalking and attempted assassination of a presidential candidate," according to a Secret Service document.
The document, reviewed by the Daily News, said Ward sent his ex-wife a CD that mentions killing both Bush and Democratic rival John Kerry.
He also was said to be "obsessed" with his 19-year-old daughter, Priscilla Jane.
Judith Ward told The News she divorced her husband four years ago after 18 years of marriage because "he was a wife-beater and other things I don't want to talk about."
Authorities said Ward has a criminal past dating to 1991, including an indecent sexual proposal charge.
The neighbor in Bainbridge, a community about 40miles northeast of Binghamton, told authorities that Ward "frequently spoke of 'fighting the system' and other anti-government topics."
The neighbor said Ward gave him his house keys and told him to help himself. He then drove off in a blue 1997 Toyota sedan with the New York license plate BRF-6546.
Two days later, the neighbor went into the house, found the photo of Bush and called police.
Please pray for the safety of the President, the Secret Service agents, any innocent bystanders, and even this man. He's obviously mentally disturbed, and the ideal outcome would be that he spends a long, long time in a secure facility.
Also credited to Ace.
The suspect has been found and questioned by the Secret Service.
URGENT UPDATE:
Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades HQ:
The latest regarding this story from the Washington Times is that they still haven't caught him: He's completely disappeared!
U.S. law enforcement officials have been unable to locate an upstate New York man wanted for questioning regarding threats to President Bush.
Original Post, 21 September 2004:
Thanks for the Memory to Drudge.
City alert in threat to Bush
BY MICHELE McPHEE and LEO STANDORA
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Lawrence Ward
The Secret Service clamped down on midtown last night to protect President Bush from a possible assassin armed with a hunting rifle.
Lawrence Ward, 59, left his upstate New York home Wednesday with a .30-30 lever-action hunting rifle in the trunk of his car, telling a neighbor, "I'm not coming back."
Inside his house in Bainbridge was a picture of Bush with the words "Dead Man" spray-painted near it, law enforcement authorities said.
Bush was in town for a fund-raiser at the Sheraton New York before speaking today at the UN General Assembly.
The Secret Service deemed Ward, a software engineer, such a "credible threat" that a three-square-block chunk of midtown was cordoned off.
Secret Service agents and city cops patrolled the area looking for anything suspicious.
Ward's ex-wife, Judith Ward, 59, who lives in Connecticut, told the Secret Service she thinks her former husband "is very dangerous and capable of killing someone and/or committing suicide."
She said Ward "is obsessed with weapons, [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh and the book 'The Dead Zone' - a novel about the stalking and attempted assassination of a presidential candidate," according to a Secret Service document.
The document, reviewed by the Daily News, said Ward sent his ex-wife a CD that mentions killing both Bush and Democratic rival John Kerry.
He also was said to be "obsessed" with his 19-year-old daughter, Priscilla Jane.
Judith Ward told The News she divorced her husband four years ago after 18 years of marriage because "he was a wife-beater and other things I don't want to talk about."
Authorities said Ward has a criminal past dating to 1991, including an indecent sexual proposal charge.
The neighbor in Bainbridge, a community about 40miles northeast of Binghamton, told authorities that Ward "frequently spoke of 'fighting the system' and other anti-government topics."
The neighbor said Ward gave him his house keys and told him to help himself. He then drove off in a blue 1997 Toyota sedan with the New York license plate BRF-6546.
Two days later, the neighbor went into the house, found the photo of Bush and called police.
Please pray for the safety of the President, the Secret Service agents, any innocent bystanders, and even this man. He's obviously mentally disturbed, and the ideal outcome would be that he spends a long, long time in a secure facility.
No Moore, No Less
I received the following email, and thought it was a great idea!
PUBLISHER SPONSORING "DVD BUY-BACK" PROGRAM TO KEEP AMERICAN HOMES SAFE FROM MICHAEL MOORE'S DANGEROUS PROPAGANDA
Similar to Gun Buy-Backs, World Ahead Publishing Exchanges "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Copies of THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH
LOS ANGELES, September 17, 2004 - In an effort to ensure the safety of American homes, World Ahead Publishing, publisher of THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH, announces its Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD Buy-Back program for U.S. purchasers of Michael Moore's documentary. In urban areas, city leaders periodically sponsor gun "buy-back" programs to help reduce gun violence. Similarly, the Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD Buy-Back program is designed to protect Americans from harm, especially young children who might accidentally slip this dangerous propaganda into the living room DVD player.
Beginning October 5th, the day Moore's documentary goes on sale, World Ahead Publishing will offer citizens the opportunity to exchange their copies of Fahrenheit 9/11 for THANK YOU PRESIDENT BUSH: REFLECTIONS ON THE WAR ON TERROR, DEFENSE OF THE FAMILY, AND THE REVIVAL OF THE ECONOMY, with no questions asked.
Unlike Moore's film, which deceptively splices film footage to score its points, Thank You, President Bush discusses the facts. This book's all-star list of contributors includes Art Laffer, the father of supply-side economics; George Shultz, former Secretary of State; James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; and Bill Bennett, former Secretary of Education. Vice President Dick Cheney also contributes a chapter on foreign policy, and the President's brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, pens a moving and personal introduction. All 29 writers are experts in their
topics, addressing such important issues as national security, the economy,
and social policy in straightforward language.
"Moore's work isn't a documentary. It's a dangerous weapon that shouldn't be left lying around the house," says Aman Verjee, co-editor of the anthology. "Send us Moore's lies and we'll give you the truth on President Bush's record and policies. We want to give people who unsuspectingly buy Moore's propaganda a chance to trade it in for a book that's positive and insightful," added Verjee. "This book sets the
record straight: George W. Bush deserves more than another term in office; he
deserves our gratitude."
For the mailing address and the terms and conditions of the buy-back program, go to www.worldaheadpublishing.com.
ABOUT WORLD AHEAD PUBLISHING
World Ahead Publishing is a privately-held, California-based corporation with a growing coterie of authors who advocate individual liberty and free markets. World Ahead believes that freedom is the inalienable right of all human beings but the spread of liberty is by no means a foregone conclusion-individual freedom and the institutions that make it possible, including capitalism itself, face risks from
reactionary and powerful interests. To that end, World Ahead Publishing seeks to publish thought-provoking nonfiction books exploring the significant economic, political, and security issues facing the nation and the world. Two other titles will debut in the second half of 2004, and seven new books are planned for 2005-2006.
For more information: www.worldaheadpublishing.com
When I read the gun buyback comparison, I couldn't help but think, DVDs don't deceive people, Michael Moore deceives people!
PUBLISHER SPONSORING "DVD BUY-BACK" PROGRAM TO KEEP AMERICAN HOMES SAFE FROM MICHAEL MOORE'S DANGEROUS PROPAGANDA
Similar to Gun Buy-Backs, World Ahead Publishing Exchanges "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Copies of THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH
LOS ANGELES, September 17, 2004 - In an effort to ensure the safety of American homes, World Ahead Publishing, publisher of THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH, announces its Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD Buy-Back program for U.S. purchasers of Michael Moore's documentary. In urban areas, city leaders periodically sponsor gun "buy-back" programs to help reduce gun violence. Similarly, the Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD Buy-Back program is designed to protect Americans from harm, especially young children who might accidentally slip this dangerous propaganda into the living room DVD player.
Beginning October 5th, the day Moore's documentary goes on sale, World Ahead Publishing will offer citizens the opportunity to exchange their copies of Fahrenheit 9/11 for THANK YOU PRESIDENT BUSH: REFLECTIONS ON THE WAR ON TERROR, DEFENSE OF THE FAMILY, AND THE REVIVAL OF THE ECONOMY, with no questions asked.
Unlike Moore's film, which deceptively splices film footage to score its points, Thank You, President Bush discusses the facts. This book's all-star list of contributors includes Art Laffer, the father of supply-side economics; George Shultz, former Secretary of State; James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; and Bill Bennett, former Secretary of Education. Vice President Dick Cheney also contributes a chapter on foreign policy, and the President's brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, pens a moving and personal introduction. All 29 writers are experts in their
topics, addressing such important issues as national security, the economy,
and social policy in straightforward language.
"Moore's work isn't a documentary. It's a dangerous weapon that shouldn't be left lying around the house," says Aman Verjee, co-editor of the anthology. "Send us Moore's lies and we'll give you the truth on President Bush's record and policies. We want to give people who unsuspectingly buy Moore's propaganda a chance to trade it in for a book that's positive and insightful," added Verjee. "This book sets the
record straight: George W. Bush deserves more than another term in office; he
deserves our gratitude."
For the mailing address and the terms and conditions of the buy-back program, go to www.worldaheadpublishing.com.
ABOUT WORLD AHEAD PUBLISHING
World Ahead Publishing is a privately-held, California-based corporation with a growing coterie of authors who advocate individual liberty and free markets. World Ahead believes that freedom is the inalienable right of all human beings but the spread of liberty is by no means a foregone conclusion-individual freedom and the institutions that make it possible, including capitalism itself, face risks from
reactionary and powerful interests. To that end, World Ahead Publishing seeks to publish thought-provoking nonfiction books exploring the significant economic, political, and security issues facing the nation and the world. Two other titles will debut in the second half of 2004, and seven new books are planned for 2005-2006.
For more information: www.worldaheadpublishing.com
When I read the gun buyback comparison, I couldn't help but think, DVDs don't deceive people, Michael Moore deceives people!
Monday, September 20, 2004
CBS: As Impartial as a Russian Olympic Judge
Thanks for the Memory to Luciane Via Ace of Spades HQ.
Kerry Aid Contacted Burkett on CBS' Advice
Associated Press
NEW YORK - At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released.
Do tell.
Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. (Uh huh. The way things have been going in this case, buddy, you might understand if we view this claim... skeptically.)Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.
It's a good thing the media is so unbiased, or we might think Mapes was trying to help Kerry.
"He had some advice on how to deal with the Vietnam issue and the Swift boat" allegations, Lockhart said Monday, referring to GOP-fueled accusations that Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam War record. "He said these guys play tough and we have to put the Vietnam experience into context and have Kerry talk about it more."
You're sure he didn't saying anything about "fighting fire with fire, even if you have to start the fire yourself?
Lockhart said he thanked Burkett for his advice after a three to four minute call.
Lockhart said he does not recall talking to Burkett about Bush's Guard records. "It's baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this," he said.
Then why are we talking to you? The fact that you called him, on CBS' advice, right in the middle of the whole mess, you don't consider that a bit... suspicious?
CBS News apologized Monday for a "mistake in judgment" in its story questioning Bush's Guard service, claiming it was misled by the source of documents that several experts have dismissed as fakes.
Burkett admitted this weekend to CBS that he lied about obtaining the documents from another former National Guard member, the network said. CBS hasn't been able to conclusively tell how he got them, or even whether they're fakes or not.
Kerry ally Max Cleland, a former Georgia senator, also said he had a brief conversation last month with Burkett, who told him he had information about Bush to counter charges against Kerry's Vietnam War service. Cleland said he gave Burkett's name and phone number to the campaign's research department.
But... but... I thought it was "...baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this"! What is this your telling us?
Kerry spokesman David Ginsberg said nobody in the campaign's research department followed up on Burkett's offer of information.
Again, we're a bit skeptical, given how many times we've been lied to in this whole mess.
Lockhart said Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."
That's the part of this story that galls me to no end. Forget the direct link to a Kerry campaign worker. It's possible, but not likely, that he acted independently, and that they really ARE telling the truth (for once) when they claim a lack of collusion.
But the fact that Mapes, the CBS Producer of the story, called a member of the campaign staff of one of the two candidates, with information she thought would help him defeat the other candidate, nails the lid in the coffin of any claims to impartiality on the part of CBS.
I repeat,
This nails the lid in the coffin of any claims to impartiality on the part of CBS.
Oh, THAT media bias.
UPDATE:
Thanks for the Memory to reader Mark at Ace.
Apparently, even Mapes' own FATHER recognizes her as a DNC Shill.
Ouch.
UPDATE 2:
Thanks for the Memory to Random Birkel via Ace of Spades.
Apparently Joe Lockhart isn't the only member Kerry camp talking about contact with Burkett. In an interview on MSNBC's Hardball (the most poorly named program on TV), Tony Coelho claims that the DNC saw the Burkett documents, but suspected they were fakes.
Which raises a couple of questions in my mind: If you knew they were fakes, why didn't you say so when this story first broke? Hoping that little tidbit wouldn't come out? Hmmmm? And if you knew Burnett was passing fake documents, why didn't you warn Kerry's staff not to take his advice on ANYTHING?????!!!!!
In trying to exhonorate themselves, the DNC just sinks deeper into this. A little bit of advice: When you're up to your neck in quicksand, STOP STRUGGLING!
UPDATE 3:
Again via Ace of Spades.
This Article from USA Today is the most damning yet. It implies that Burkett agreed to give CBS the documents only on condition that they arrange a meeting between him and the Kerry camp!
Dan Rather should quit now. Hey, at least he'll have a job as a press aid to Kerry.
Kerry Aid Contacted Burkett on CBS' Advice
Associated Press
NEW YORK - At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released.
Do tell.
Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. (Uh huh. The way things have been going in this case, buddy, you might understand if we view this claim... skeptically.)Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.
It's a good thing the media is so unbiased, or we might think Mapes was trying to help Kerry.
"He had some advice on how to deal with the Vietnam issue and the Swift boat" allegations, Lockhart said Monday, referring to GOP-fueled accusations that Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam War record. "He said these guys play tough and we have to put the Vietnam experience into context and have Kerry talk about it more."
You're sure he didn't saying anything about "fighting fire with fire, even if you have to start the fire yourself?
Lockhart said he thanked Burkett for his advice after a three to four minute call.
Lockhart said he does not recall talking to Burkett about Bush's Guard records. "It's baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this," he said.
Then why are we talking to you? The fact that you called him, on CBS' advice, right in the middle of the whole mess, you don't consider that a bit... suspicious?
CBS News apologized Monday for a "mistake in judgment" in its story questioning Bush's Guard service, claiming it was misled by the source of documents that several experts have dismissed as fakes.
Burkett admitted this weekend to CBS that he lied about obtaining the documents from another former National Guard member, the network said. CBS hasn't been able to conclusively tell how he got them, or even whether they're fakes or not.
Kerry ally Max Cleland, a former Georgia senator, also said he had a brief conversation last month with Burkett, who told him he had information about Bush to counter charges against Kerry's Vietnam War service. Cleland said he gave Burkett's name and phone number to the campaign's research department.
But... but... I thought it was "...baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this"! What is this your telling us?
Kerry spokesman David Ginsberg said nobody in the campaign's research department followed up on Burkett's offer of information.
Again, we're a bit skeptical, given how many times we've been lied to in this whole mess.
Lockhart said Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."
That's the part of this story that galls me to no end. Forget the direct link to a Kerry campaign worker. It's possible, but not likely, that he acted independently, and that they really ARE telling the truth (for once) when they claim a lack of collusion.
But the fact that Mapes, the CBS Producer of the story, called a member of the campaign staff of one of the two candidates, with information she thought would help him defeat the other candidate, nails the lid in the coffin of any claims to impartiality on the part of CBS.
I repeat,
This nails the lid in the coffin of any claims to impartiality on the part of CBS.
Oh, THAT media bias.
UPDATE:
Thanks for the Memory to reader Mark at Ace.
Apparently, even Mapes' own FATHER recognizes her as a DNC Shill.
Ouch.
UPDATE 2:
Thanks for the Memory to Random Birkel via Ace of Spades.
Apparently Joe Lockhart isn't the only member Kerry camp talking about contact with Burkett. In an interview on MSNBC's Hardball (the most poorly named program on TV), Tony Coelho claims that the DNC saw the Burkett documents, but suspected they were fakes.
Which raises a couple of questions in my mind: If you knew they were fakes, why didn't you say so when this story first broke? Hoping that little tidbit wouldn't come out? Hmmmm? And if you knew Burnett was passing fake documents, why didn't you warn Kerry's staff not to take his advice on ANYTHING?????!!!!!
In trying to exhonorate themselves, the DNC just sinks deeper into this. A little bit of advice: When you're up to your neck in quicksand, STOP STRUGGLING!
UPDATE 3:
Again via Ace of Spades.
This Article from USA Today is the most damning yet. It implies that Burkett agreed to give CBS the documents only on condition that they arrange a meeting between him and the Kerry camp!
Dan Rather should quit now. Hey, at least he'll have a job as a press aid to Kerry.
Rather Ironic
Thanks for the Memory to Little Green Footballs via Ace of Spades HQ.
This is a picture an LGF reader took of a CBS News van in NYC:
The small sign under the CBS News sign reads, "The only bush I trust is my own."
Ha ha ha. How clever. Oh, THAT Liberal Media Bias.
Ironically enough, the only CBS News I trust is... ummm....
This is a picture an LGF reader took of a CBS News van in NYC:
The small sign under the CBS News sign reads, "The only bush I trust is my own."
Ha ha ha. How clever. Oh, THAT Liberal Media Bias.
Ironically enough, the only CBS News I trust is... ummm....
U of O College Republicans Cry "Fowl!" at DeFazio Staffer's Behavior
Thanks for the Memory to to Jim Peterson, local GOP leader, who forwarded this press release from the UofO College Republicans to me:
Media Advisory
September 18,2004
Contact: Matt Lawrence
Chicken Ruffles DeFazio’s Feathers
Albany, OR – Apparently, some people can’t take a joke.
Last month, the Oregon College Republicans began a campaign of sorts against Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio. Upset over DeFazio’s lack of willingness to debate his opponent, Republican challenger Jim Feldkamp, the CRs began using a chicken suit to try and goad the reluctant Democrat into accepting more debates.
To date, the only debates accepted by DeFazio are scheduled for October 20 – five days after ballots are dropped.
“We felt that Mr. DeFazio was deliberately pushing the debate back as far as he could,” College Republicans Co-Chair Matt Lawrence said. “He claimed his Congressional schedule made it too difficult, but we know that they adjourn in early October.”
Thursday, DeFazio made some appearances in Albany. One of the first was a radio interview at KGAL’s downtown studio.
Unfortunately for DeFazio, The Chicken decided to stop in and watch the interview as it was in progress. The Chicken even had signs with questions written on them that DeFazio had previously refused to answer.
Once the interview was over, DeFazio and his staffers literally manhandled the chicken, threatening him and his family, and displaying the type of conduct not normally expected of statesmen and Congressional staffers.
“DeFazio and his staffers totally snapped,” Lawrence said. “I think it’s safe to say we really ruffled their feathers.”
The Chicken has subsequently reported receiving several prank phone calls at his house. He has been severely traumatized by the whole experience, and is currently seeking therapy as a result.
“I don’t know why Mr. DeFazio and his staffers would threaten me and my family. My little chicks have never done anything to hurt him or anybody else,” The Chicken said. “Cluck, cluck, cluck.”
Now, obviously, there is a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor at the end of the article, but some of it makes some serious allegations. So I called Matt for further details. Here's what I found out:
The incident occurred at an ountdoor event held by KGAL NewsTalk Radio 1580 AM in Albany, outside their studios. The interview is with KGAL host Jim Willhight, and is set to air today at 1:00 PM PDT. The public was welcome, and encouraged to come and ask questions of the congressman. So the CR's sent the Chicken and a few other members to the event. Matt said that DeFazio exited the event looking upset, so I'm looking forward to hearing it.
While they were entering the area where the interview was being held, and again when the left, the CR's were confronted by an individual who seemed quite displeased with his presence, and wanted to know what questions they had to ask (Matt's words were that this individual "got in the face" of one of the CR's). This individual then informed the CR that he would find out who he was, who his family was, and where he lived. He then left with DeFazio, leading the CR's to believe he was a DeFazio staffer. The CR in question has since received several "prank" calls, all of which have been recorded.
According to Matt, no mention of this incident has been made by KGAL or any of the local and state news sources they've sent it to. I doubt it will. Unfortunately, unless they got it on tape or video, it's the CR's word against DeFazio's. But while I'm hesitant to make a "post hoc" leap regarding any connection between the incident and the prank calls (at least not unless I have a chance to hear them), I wouldn't be surprised if there is a link.
More info as available.
Media Advisory
September 18,2004
Contact: Matt Lawrence
Chicken Ruffles DeFazio’s Feathers
Albany, OR – Apparently, some people can’t take a joke.
Last month, the Oregon College Republicans began a campaign of sorts against Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio. Upset over DeFazio’s lack of willingness to debate his opponent, Republican challenger Jim Feldkamp, the CRs began using a chicken suit to try and goad the reluctant Democrat into accepting more debates.
To date, the only debates accepted by DeFazio are scheduled for October 20 – five days after ballots are dropped.
“We felt that Mr. DeFazio was deliberately pushing the debate back as far as he could,” College Republicans Co-Chair Matt Lawrence said. “He claimed his Congressional schedule made it too difficult, but we know that they adjourn in early October.”
Thursday, DeFazio made some appearances in Albany. One of the first was a radio interview at KGAL’s downtown studio.
Unfortunately for DeFazio, The Chicken decided to stop in and watch the interview as it was in progress. The Chicken even had signs with questions written on them that DeFazio had previously refused to answer.
Once the interview was over, DeFazio and his staffers literally manhandled the chicken, threatening him and his family, and displaying the type of conduct not normally expected of statesmen and Congressional staffers.
“DeFazio and his staffers totally snapped,” Lawrence said. “I think it’s safe to say we really ruffled their feathers.”
The Chicken has subsequently reported receiving several prank phone calls at his house. He has been severely traumatized by the whole experience, and is currently seeking therapy as a result.
“I don’t know why Mr. DeFazio and his staffers would threaten me and my family. My little chicks have never done anything to hurt him or anybody else,” The Chicken said. “Cluck, cluck, cluck.”
Now, obviously, there is a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor at the end of the article, but some of it makes some serious allegations. So I called Matt for further details. Here's what I found out:
The incident occurred at an ountdoor event held by KGAL NewsTalk Radio 1580 AM in Albany, outside their studios. The interview is with KGAL host Jim Willhight, and is set to air today at 1:00 PM PDT. The public was welcome, and encouraged to come and ask questions of the congressman. So the CR's sent the Chicken and a few other members to the event. Matt said that DeFazio exited the event looking upset, so I'm looking forward to hearing it.
While they were entering the area where the interview was being held, and again when the left, the CR's were confronted by an individual who seemed quite displeased with his presence, and wanted to know what questions they had to ask (Matt's words were that this individual "got in the face" of one of the CR's). This individual then informed the CR that he would find out who he was, who his family was, and where he lived. He then left with DeFazio, leading the CR's to believe he was a DeFazio staffer. The CR in question has since received several "prank" calls, all of which have been recorded.
According to Matt, no mention of this incident has been made by KGAL or any of the local and state news sources they've sent it to. I doubt it will. Unfortunately, unless they got it on tape or video, it's the CR's word against DeFazio's. But while I'm hesitant to make a "post hoc" leap regarding any connection between the incident and the prank calls (at least not unless I have a chance to hear them), I wouldn't be surprised if there is a link.
More info as available.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Another Example of Jackbooted Right Wing Thugs and Their Freedom Loving Leftist Victims
Only, Y'know, Not:
Three-year-old Sophia Parlock cries while seated on the shoulders of her father, Phil Parlock, after having their Bush-Cheney sign torn up by Kerry-Edwards supporters on Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004, at the Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va. Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) made a brief stop at the airport as he concluded his two-day bus tour to locations in West Virginia and Ohio. (AP Photo/Randy Snyder)
Thanks for the Memory to Curtis at a_sdf.
Update:
As Aaron at Free Will points out, the jerk on their right, the one who seems to be holding remnants of the sign, is wearing a Union shirt -- apparently the IUPAT, the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades. I think it reflects well on their trade, don't you?
UPDATE 1:
Thanks for the Memory to reader Kat in Missouri over at the Rottie.
IUPAT Issues Apology.
Does this mean your thug will be turning himself in to the authorities?
As I've discussed before, this isn't the first time the left has acted like this. I doubt it will be the last.
UPDATE 2:
Amazing how quickly I was proven right.
Thanks for the Memory to Mr. Minority.
UPDATE 3:
Emily at It Comes in Pints? has a different conservative reaction to this, as do several readers over at the Rottie. And upon further reflection, I have to concede their point. The gentleman whose sign was torn up is a known conservative agitator, and this is the third presidential election in a row in which he's been involved in an incident like this. And it WAS irresponsible of him to take his 3-year old into the middle of a hostile crowd. And the Union thug is an aberration. Most people, even rabid supporters of one cause or the other, would not intentionally cause a child harm or trauma.
But just because he's not the norm does not mean he's necessarily the only one of his kind out there. Just look at the incidents I catalog in this post from August, or this post from Michelle Malkin today (some overlap occurs), or the link above in update 2. These "isolated incidents" start to snowball after a while.
I guess what irks me most of all is the hypocrisy of the Left, the blatant, unabashed willingness to accuse the Right of the very things they themselves do. Look at all these incidents. I've had one of my own -- admittedly not violent, but it was definitely the action of someone willing to take unethical action in order to deprive me of my freedom of expression -- and yet the daily rhetoric from the Left is about conservative being Nazis, about the threat to personal freedoms, especially freedom of expression. They do this without any sense of self-irony whatsoever, without shame, without batting an eye.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
Three-year-old Sophia Parlock cries while seated on the shoulders of her father, Phil Parlock, after having their Bush-Cheney sign torn up by Kerry-Edwards supporters on Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004, at the Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va. Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) made a brief stop at the airport as he concluded his two-day bus tour to locations in West Virginia and Ohio. (AP Photo/Randy Snyder)
Thanks for the Memory to Curtis at a_sdf.
Update:
As Aaron at Free Will points out, the jerk on their right, the one who seems to be holding remnants of the sign, is wearing a Union shirt -- apparently the IUPAT, the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades. I think it reflects well on their trade, don't you?
UPDATE 1:
Thanks for the Memory to reader Kat in Missouri over at the Rottie.
IUPAT Issues Apology.
Does this mean your thug will be turning himself in to the authorities?
As I've discussed before, this isn't the first time the left has acted like this. I doubt it will be the last.
UPDATE 2:
Amazing how quickly I was proven right.
Thanks for the Memory to Mr. Minority.
UPDATE 3:
Emily at It Comes in Pints? has a different conservative reaction to this, as do several readers over at the Rottie. And upon further reflection, I have to concede their point. The gentleman whose sign was torn up is a known conservative agitator, and this is the third presidential election in a row in which he's been involved in an incident like this. And it WAS irresponsible of him to take his 3-year old into the middle of a hostile crowd. And the Union thug is an aberration. Most people, even rabid supporters of one cause or the other, would not intentionally cause a child harm or trauma.
But just because he's not the norm does not mean he's necessarily the only one of his kind out there. Just look at the incidents I catalog in this post from August, or this post from Michelle Malkin today (some overlap occurs), or the link above in update 2. These "isolated incidents" start to snowball after a while.
I guess what irks me most of all is the hypocrisy of the Left, the blatant, unabashed willingness to accuse the Right of the very things they themselves do. Look at all these incidents. I've had one of my own -- admittedly not violent, but it was definitely the action of someone willing to take unethical action in order to deprive me of my freedom of expression -- and yet the daily rhetoric from the Left is about conservative being Nazis, about the threat to personal freedoms, especially freedom of expression. They do this without any sense of self-irony whatsoever, without shame, without batting an eye.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)