I have a confession to make: I am a traffic junkie. Ever since I discovered the TTLB Blog ecosystem and the tools afforded my by Site Meter, I have become fascinated with my stats, and with tracking how many visitors I get, as well as where they originate, and how many page views they go to while here. While I still write what I want, when I want, and how I want, I do get excited when I get a response, and I'm not too proud to advertise with links on other blogs where I think the owners and/or readers will appreciate my offering, nor to trackback when one of my entries is inspired by another blog.
And I'm pleased to report that my readership has steadily risen over time. I currently have an average of 116 visits per day, with a one day record of around 250. Now, that's admittedly peanuts compared to the big boys, but still, considering how new I am and how limited my blogging time is, I think that's a pretty decent gain. All by being myself.
All of this is to provide background for my take on the following blog entry by Michelle Malkin:
HOW MUCH MOBILITY IS THERE IN THE BLOGOSPHERIC ECOSYSTEM?
In the LA Times, former blogger Billmon writes that bloggers have sold out. His thesis is that "[a]s blogs commercialize, they are tied ever closer to the mainstream media and its increasingly frivolous news agenda."
I was particularly interested in his argument that "a charmed circle of bloggers" is gaining "larger audiences and greater influence," while the rest of the blogosphere is being left behind. Media exposure to the top blogs, he argues, "is intensifying an existing trend toward a 'winner take all' concentration of audience share." He goes on:
Even before blogs hit the big time, Web stats showed the blogosphere to be a surprisingly unequal place, with a relative handful of blogs — say, the top several hundred — accounting for the lion's share of all page hits.
In Billmon's eyes, the blogosphere is an inegalitarian place, with little opportunity for new blogs to break into the "charmed circle" of high-traffic sites that have sold out in pursuit of advertising dollars. I am not familiar with Billmon's writings, but I get the sense that he (or she) probably feels the same way about economic opportunity in the U.S.
How well does this pessimistic view of the blogosphere align with reality? Is mobility really as limited as Billmon suggests?
A little more than a year ago, John Hawkins listed the most influential center-right bloggers. (He ignored left-of-center blogs and non-political blogs because he was not well acquainted with them.) His list was as follows:
1. Andrew Sullivan
2. Instapundit
3. The Corner
4. The Volokh Conspiracy
5. Little Green Footballs
6. Lileks (James) The Bleat
7. Steven Den Beste
8. Scrappleface
9. A Small Victory
10. Tim Blair
If Hawkins were to create such a list today, I have no doubt we'd see plenty of new names--sites like Powerline, Hewitt, Allah, and perhaps Wizbang and INDC Journal. Not coincidentally, these are among the most consistently interesting and informed sites in the blogosphere.
In essence, Billmon believes the game is rigged. But in blogging, as in life more generally, there is tremendous opportunity for those inclined to seize it.
It cannot be denied that early bloggers enjoy an advantage over latecomers. A blog that launches today, no matter how good or heavily promoted, will not soon overtake Instapundit or Daily Kos. Yet even the mightiest blog won't retain its position in the "charmed circle" for long if it is running on fumes.
More thoughts on Billmon's op-ed (from liberal bloggers) here: 1 2 3
Update: It turns out that Hawkins ranked the top 125 political blogs just this week. Compare to his October 2003 list here and his January 2003 list here.
Update II: For blog newbies, N.Z. Bear's weblog ecosystem is a fascinating barometer of blog mobility (though it seems to be down this morning for maintenance).
I am in agreement with Michelle on this. A while back I blogged about Memogate (who didn't?), and in particular about the level of fact checking and policing done by blogs, OF OTHER BLOGS. In it, I also touched on the issue of blog quality and how it affects blog popularity. To shamelessly quote myself:
The internet and blogs changed that. Now you have an outlet. Now everyone can have a voice. If that voice is used poorly, you will be ignored, mocked, and refuted. But while it may be small at first, if what your new internet voice has to say is right, and significant, and well said, it will get heard. And listened to. And repeated.
That, I think, is the point that Billmon has missed. The Blogosphere is truly a "Free Market of Ideas" in the sense for which that term was truly intended. Not only are you free to express your opinions on a blog, but your success, at least in terms of readership, is directly related to how well-expressed and well-received those opinions are BY YOUR AUDIENCE -- not by a publisher or producer. Unlike the MSM, where only those who please the ear of the bigwigs ever gets a chance to present their views to the public, anyone can post to a blog. From there, its success is up to you and your audience. Admittedly, there are bloggers who have received commercial support, and who continue to blog because of it. But as Michelle points out, these blogs don't necessarily get the readerhsip they once did.
Furthermore, she could have used as examples two of my favorite blogs, both of whome have been gaining in readership and influence (and upon whose coattails I have made some of my most spectacular gains): Ace of Spades and MyPetJawa. Both of these guys blog because they enjoy doing it, yes, both care about recognition, but no, neither one has bee coopted by the forces of conformity because of it.
While it may be arguable that blogs in general are not as upwardly mobile as Billmon wishes we were, one thing can be said in our defense:
At least we're self-propelled.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Guest Post
You'll recall, perhaps, a post I made early on in my blogging about how my Christian faith shapes my political views.
Well, one of my best friends in the whole world read it, we had a dialogue, and the following blog entry is his response. With his permission, I am reprinting it here, without comment from me:
As you called for on your blog several weeks ago, there is a need for "righteousness" in American government. It is, in fact, a virtue toward which individuals and institutions are morally obligated to strive. Despite the claims in recent years by some in the political arena, the pursuit of justice has always been (to varying degrees) a part of the American experiment. This is evident in the three great documents of the American form of government - the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. These documents wit-ness to certain principles, ideals and virtues that the state must recognize and strive to secure or, at the very least, recognize above all others:
· All citizens will have liberty
· All citizens will be equal
· All citizens will be justly governed - i.e., justice
Whereas liberty and equality are oriented toward the individual, justice (as the highest of the three) is always geared toward the common good.(1) Because "good" is a moral term, the common good is understood as a political science about what is best and right for the whole. This is how and why justice will "run into" or at times "run over" liberty and equality. Of course, the devil is in the details, and our task as citizens of a representative republic is to seek the proper definition of the common good and then to create an atmosphere in order for people to achieve it.
This naturally leads to a discussion of rights, which should be understood as natural rights recognized (though not created nor established) by our democracy. Tocqueville wrote that it is by reference to natural rights that "men have always defined the nature of license and tyranny." In other words, no nation can be called great without having respect for natural rights. It seems to me that it could be persuasively argued that without this there can be no real civil society at all (unless one considers types of tyrannical societies "civil").
Even a rudimentary inspection of American history will show that liberty and equality have always quarreled with each other in our democracy. And they will do so in any democracy. This is what Alexander Hamilton and James Madison feared the most when considering the future of democracy in America. In fact, this is the explanation for John Adams' fear of the eventual failure of the American experiment, writing (in a private letter after his presidency) that "all democracies eventually self-destruct."
As Mortimer J. Adler wrote in The Time of Our Lives (1970) the conflict in our society between liberty and equality occurs only when neither is limited by justice. The application of this principle is extraordinary: from affirmative action to abortion. Only justice has the natural ability to resolve the inevitable tension and conflict between liberty and equality that will arise in any type of democracy. Justice must be the controlling principle among these three since it alone has the ability to determine the scope of the other two without sacrificing either. Left unchecked, liberty will run roughshod over equality and vice-versa. Justice, when properly conceived in coordination with "the common good" and "natural rights" must be recognized as the ultimate discriminating virtue in government.
Definitions:
Below are some detailed definitions of several key terms I have outlined above.
Natural Rights
There are several ways to define natural rights. One way is through the observing that natural rights are to be identified by our natural needs. This is to say that human beings possess no natural right that does not correspond to a natural need. Justice and natural rights are inherently linked together because our ability to determine right and wrong in both private and social contexts is based on what is really and objectively good.
A just government must recognize and secure the natural rights of men and women in order that they may be able to make good lives. This is what the Declaration of Independence is speaking of when it mentions our natural right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." No government has the power to grant a good life. The good life entails meeting our natural needs through the possession of real goods, as well as the possession of those goods or wants that we have that do not interfere with our natural needs (or those of others).
All of this is possible, of course, because all human beings possess the same essential nature. If this were not so, society would be impossible. This last point has been famously rejected by many political, biological, sociological and, sadly, even religious thinkers of the past century. Thankfully, not all have fallen into this serious philosophical error.
Liberty
To understand liberty properly (which is synonymous with freedom) we need to under-stand the four kinds of liberty. Circumstantial liberty is the ability and right of self-realization. Moral liberty is the freedom to perfect oneself - that is, to be perfected by means of a virtuous character. Natural liberty is the ability and right we possess for self-determination. The final kind, political liberty, can be considered as a type or aspect of circumstantial freedom - that is, a person possesses political liberty or freedom only when they are living in economic, social, and political conditions that foster it. The essence of this last type of liberty is the ability of an individual or a society to be governed by their consent and to have a voice in that government.
Equality
Like liberty, there are several types of equality. For the purposes of the present discussion, political equality is based on circumstances, but is entitled to all human beings by virtue of being human. In other words, these are conditions that should be experienced by everyone - specifically, the political conditions of status, treatment and opportunity.
The issue of slavery is a good, if not obvious, example to use to explore these conditions. In terms of status, the reason why slavery is wrong is because no person is more or less human than another. This means that every member of society deserves the same general treatment since no one naturally deserves more dignity than anyone else. As for opportunity, every human being naturally deserves the same opportunity afforded to others for the same reason - their shared human nature. If and when these conditions are not distributed equally, it is the duty of a just state to override liberty and do what is necessary to correct the situation (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education). Every person is by nature equal to all other persons and is naturally entitled to an equality of political, social and economic conditions. Our greatest President and statesman, the honorable Abraham Lincoln, recognized this as one of the core principles of democracy, even though it was not evident in American society at the time. This is why he called the ideals in the Declaration of Independence as a promise to the future rather than a statement of fact.
Justice
Aristotle (4th century B.C.) distinguished between two types of justice - universal and particular justice. Particular justice deals with such things as fairness in exchange, the distribution of goods and taking corrective steps to ensure equality (like in the example given in the immediately preceding paragraph). John Rawls, the late Harvard professor, was mistaken when he argued that justice was limited to fairness in how we deal with others. When it comes to universal justice Aristotle asked the question, what is lawful? By which he meant, what is right and good? Understood in this way, justice is recognized as one of the four cardinal virtues (along with courage, temperance and prudence). This idea can be traced back to his teacher Plato who had the insight to observe that justice consisted in virtuous acts toward others. It is universal justice that we speak of when discussing political justice.
Aristotle also recognized that, while all other animals are social to various degrees, only man is a political animal. When seeking to understand the proper relation of justice to the state we must ask whether the principle of justice is prior to the political state (including its constitution, laws, etc.) or if justice is relative to the political state. If it is relative then we are forced to into two positions. First, that justice is completely dependent on the power of state. Second, that justice is the result of the state’s laws rather than the basis of them. This is tantamount to saying that saying that justice is merely political. However, if we say that justice is antecedent to the political state, then we are claiming that political justice is deter-mined by natural justice. Hence, justice is understood as natural and rational rather than conventional. In other words, justice is not man-made. If it were then justice would change with the coming and going of different political regimes. Instead, because justice is natural it is, therefore, universally binding on all people in all places and at all times.
It was this definition of justice that led Lincoln to conclude that the obligations of a just government were to do for its people what they, individually, cannot do for themselves. The preamble of the U. S. Constitution summarizes these obligations well - "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
(1) Admittedly, these terms are not oriented wholly to the individual. They are corporate terms that also possess specific personal and/or individual application.
- David Alan Reed
Well, one of my best friends in the whole world read it, we had a dialogue, and the following blog entry is his response. With his permission, I am reprinting it here, without comment from me:
As you called for on your blog several weeks ago, there is a need for "righteousness" in American government. It is, in fact, a virtue toward which individuals and institutions are morally obligated to strive. Despite the claims in recent years by some in the political arena, the pursuit of justice has always been (to varying degrees) a part of the American experiment. This is evident in the three great documents of the American form of government - the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. These documents wit-ness to certain principles, ideals and virtues that the state must recognize and strive to secure or, at the very least, recognize above all others:
· All citizens will have liberty
· All citizens will be equal
· All citizens will be justly governed - i.e., justice
Whereas liberty and equality are oriented toward the individual, justice (as the highest of the three) is always geared toward the common good.(1) Because "good" is a moral term, the common good is understood as a political science about what is best and right for the whole. This is how and why justice will "run into" or at times "run over" liberty and equality. Of course, the devil is in the details, and our task as citizens of a representative republic is to seek the proper definition of the common good and then to create an atmosphere in order for people to achieve it.
This naturally leads to a discussion of rights, which should be understood as natural rights recognized (though not created nor established) by our democracy. Tocqueville wrote that it is by reference to natural rights that "men have always defined the nature of license and tyranny." In other words, no nation can be called great without having respect for natural rights. It seems to me that it could be persuasively argued that without this there can be no real civil society at all (unless one considers types of tyrannical societies "civil").
Even a rudimentary inspection of American history will show that liberty and equality have always quarreled with each other in our democracy. And they will do so in any democracy. This is what Alexander Hamilton and James Madison feared the most when considering the future of democracy in America. In fact, this is the explanation for John Adams' fear of the eventual failure of the American experiment, writing (in a private letter after his presidency) that "all democracies eventually self-destruct."
As Mortimer J. Adler wrote in The Time of Our Lives (1970) the conflict in our society between liberty and equality occurs only when neither is limited by justice. The application of this principle is extraordinary: from affirmative action to abortion. Only justice has the natural ability to resolve the inevitable tension and conflict between liberty and equality that will arise in any type of democracy. Justice must be the controlling principle among these three since it alone has the ability to determine the scope of the other two without sacrificing either. Left unchecked, liberty will run roughshod over equality and vice-versa. Justice, when properly conceived in coordination with "the common good" and "natural rights" must be recognized as the ultimate discriminating virtue in government.
Definitions:
Below are some detailed definitions of several key terms I have outlined above.
Natural Rights
There are several ways to define natural rights. One way is through the observing that natural rights are to be identified by our natural needs. This is to say that human beings possess no natural right that does not correspond to a natural need. Justice and natural rights are inherently linked together because our ability to determine right and wrong in both private and social contexts is based on what is really and objectively good.
A just government must recognize and secure the natural rights of men and women in order that they may be able to make good lives. This is what the Declaration of Independence is speaking of when it mentions our natural right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." No government has the power to grant a good life. The good life entails meeting our natural needs through the possession of real goods, as well as the possession of those goods or wants that we have that do not interfere with our natural needs (or those of others).
All of this is possible, of course, because all human beings possess the same essential nature. If this were not so, society would be impossible. This last point has been famously rejected by many political, biological, sociological and, sadly, even religious thinkers of the past century. Thankfully, not all have fallen into this serious philosophical error.
Liberty
To understand liberty properly (which is synonymous with freedom) we need to under-stand the four kinds of liberty. Circumstantial liberty is the ability and right of self-realization. Moral liberty is the freedom to perfect oneself - that is, to be perfected by means of a virtuous character. Natural liberty is the ability and right we possess for self-determination. The final kind, political liberty, can be considered as a type or aspect of circumstantial freedom - that is, a person possesses political liberty or freedom only when they are living in economic, social, and political conditions that foster it. The essence of this last type of liberty is the ability of an individual or a society to be governed by their consent and to have a voice in that government.
Equality
Like liberty, there are several types of equality. For the purposes of the present discussion, political equality is based on circumstances, but is entitled to all human beings by virtue of being human. In other words, these are conditions that should be experienced by everyone - specifically, the political conditions of status, treatment and opportunity.
The issue of slavery is a good, if not obvious, example to use to explore these conditions. In terms of status, the reason why slavery is wrong is because no person is more or less human than another. This means that every member of society deserves the same general treatment since no one naturally deserves more dignity than anyone else. As for opportunity, every human being naturally deserves the same opportunity afforded to others for the same reason - their shared human nature. If and when these conditions are not distributed equally, it is the duty of a just state to override liberty and do what is necessary to correct the situation (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education). Every person is by nature equal to all other persons and is naturally entitled to an equality of political, social and economic conditions. Our greatest President and statesman, the honorable Abraham Lincoln, recognized this as one of the core principles of democracy, even though it was not evident in American society at the time. This is why he called the ideals in the Declaration of Independence as a promise to the future rather than a statement of fact.
Justice
Aristotle (4th century B.C.) distinguished between two types of justice - universal and particular justice. Particular justice deals with such things as fairness in exchange, the distribution of goods and taking corrective steps to ensure equality (like in the example given in the immediately preceding paragraph). John Rawls, the late Harvard professor, was mistaken when he argued that justice was limited to fairness in how we deal with others. When it comes to universal justice Aristotle asked the question, what is lawful? By which he meant, what is right and good? Understood in this way, justice is recognized as one of the four cardinal virtues (along with courage, temperance and prudence). This idea can be traced back to his teacher Plato who had the insight to observe that justice consisted in virtuous acts toward others. It is universal justice that we speak of when discussing political justice.
Aristotle also recognized that, while all other animals are social to various degrees, only man is a political animal. When seeking to understand the proper relation of justice to the state we must ask whether the principle of justice is prior to the political state (including its constitution, laws, etc.) or if justice is relative to the political state. If it is relative then we are forced to into two positions. First, that justice is completely dependent on the power of state. Second, that justice is the result of the state’s laws rather than the basis of them. This is tantamount to saying that saying that justice is merely political. However, if we say that justice is antecedent to the political state, then we are claiming that political justice is deter-mined by natural justice. Hence, justice is understood as natural and rational rather than conventional. In other words, justice is not man-made. If it were then justice would change with the coming and going of different political regimes. Instead, because justice is natural it is, therefore, universally binding on all people in all places and at all times.
It was this definition of justice that led Lincoln to conclude that the obligations of a just government were to do for its people what they, individually, cannot do for themselves. The preamble of the U. S. Constitution summarizes these obligations well - "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
(1) Admittedly, these terms are not oriented wholly to the individual. They are corporate terms that also possess specific personal and/or individual application.
- David Alan Reed
Pundit Review's Upcoming Schedule
From an email I received from Pundit Review:
This Saturday (10/2) at noon we will have on Dean's World to talk about the latest project for Operation Hope and then we will have Scoott Johnson of PowerLine. The show can be heard live at www.wbix.com and archived at punditreview.com. If you want to call in, the number is 877-711-1060.
We have a great line up, including Don Luskin of Poor and Stupid.com on 10/9.
This Saturday (10/2) at noon we will have on Dean's World to talk about the latest project for Operation Hope and then we will have Scoott Johnson of PowerLine. The show can be heard live at www.wbix.com and archived at punditreview.com. If you want to call in, the number is 877-711-1060.
We have a great line up, including Don Luskin of Poor and Stupid.com on 10/9.
Mini-Rant
1. Open the top to the coffee pot.
2. Slide the pot under the brewer.
3. Slide the filter basket out of the brewer.
4. Dump the old filter and grounds in the trash.
5. Place a new filter in the basket.
6. Place the basket in the dispenser and pull the handle twice.
7. Slide the basket back in the brewer.
8. Press the "Start" button.
Eight steps. A total of oh, two minutes. How freaking hard is that? And yet, every day, when I come to work, ONE OR BOTH OF THE POTS IS EMPTY!!!!!
I can only assume this is attributable to rudeness or stupidity. Or both.
2. Slide the pot under the brewer.
3. Slide the filter basket out of the brewer.
4. Dump the old filter and grounds in the trash.
5. Place a new filter in the basket.
6. Place the basket in the dispenser and pull the handle twice.
7. Slide the basket back in the brewer.
8. Press the "Start" button.
Eight steps. A total of oh, two minutes. How freaking hard is that? And yet, every day, when I come to work, ONE OR BOTH OF THE POTS IS EMPTY!!!!!
I can only assume this is attributable to rudeness or stupidity. Or both.
Monday, September 27, 2004
Uh-Oh, Here We Go Again!
Thanks for the Memory to Rusty at MyPetJawa (Actually, I'd already heard about it, but tracking back to Rusty gets me gobs of traffic!).
US volcano that wreaked havoc 24 years ago rumbles to back life
LOS ANGELES (AFP) Sep 27, 2004
Mount St. Helens, a volcano that devastated swathes of the US northwest when it erupted 24 years ago, has rumbled back to life, raising fears of a fresh explosion, seismologists said Monday.
Experts believe that a sudden and potentially dangerous event could be on the way after a wave of nearly 100 small earthquakes began hitting the area in the states of Washington and Oregon in recent days.
"We have had small swarm of earthquakes that begun last Thursday and are worried that a small explosion may occur without warning," said Peter Frenzen, a scientist from Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument.
"The earthquake activity is occurring below the dome -- all this could increase the likelihood of small rock slides from the lava dome," he said, adding that the mountain had not been hit by waves of quakes since 2001.
Trails up the mountain were closed to climbers and hikers after quakes measuring between two and to 2.8 on the Richter Scale shook the area amid fears of mud and rock slides over an eight kilometer (five mile) area around the peak.
The area north of the peak was hard hit in the 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens that left 57 people dead, devastating hundreds of square kilometers (miles) and spewing ash over much of the Pacific Northwest region.
The mountain's top lies around 88 kilometers (55 miles) northeast of the Oregon's main city of Portland, which was also covered in a thick layer of ash in the 1980 eruption.
I remember. Here in the Pacific Northwest, unless you're talking to someone VERY young, all you have to do is say May 18th, and people know what you mean. Before she blew, St. Helens was called "The Fuji of America" because she was so perfectly symmetrical. The initial eruption pulverized a cubic MILE I was living just to the east of Washington in Idaho, and we got a light dusting. My church's camp is in Camas WA, less than 50 miles from MSH, but away from the direction of the blast. The ash there was a couple of inches think. The stuff was incredibly fine and got into EVERYTHING. It was abrasive and destroyed engines and paint jobs. Interestingly enough, if heated hot enough, it makes a beautiful glass that can be blown in artwork. It turned the skies black at noon. It was a weird time, kind of exciting as a kid, especially since I was a bit removed from it, but scary at the same time.
As I told Rusty, Washington's Mt. Rainier and The Three Sisters here in Oregon have both been showing signs of awaking. If The Sisters go, I'll have an incredibly good view, but a fairly safe one. It's the people in Central Oregon who will be screwed. That's cattle country, the cost of evacuating livestock will be phenomenal. We don't put up with tornadoes, or hurricanes (well, not true. Storms on the PNW coast are routinely of Hurricane force, and the Columbus Day Storm was the hardest blow to ever hit the US in terms of wind speed. But there's hardly anyone there to notice it), or as many bizzards as the midwest or earthquakes as California, but when we finally do have a disaster, we do it with flair.
US volcano that wreaked havoc 24 years ago rumbles to back life
LOS ANGELES (AFP) Sep 27, 2004
Mount St. Helens, a volcano that devastated swathes of the US northwest when it erupted 24 years ago, has rumbled back to life, raising fears of a fresh explosion, seismologists said Monday.
Experts believe that a sudden and potentially dangerous event could be on the way after a wave of nearly 100 small earthquakes began hitting the area in the states of Washington and Oregon in recent days.
"We have had small swarm of earthquakes that begun last Thursday and are worried that a small explosion may occur without warning," said Peter Frenzen, a scientist from Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument.
"The earthquake activity is occurring below the dome -- all this could increase the likelihood of small rock slides from the lava dome," he said, adding that the mountain had not been hit by waves of quakes since 2001.
Trails up the mountain were closed to climbers and hikers after quakes measuring between two and to 2.8 on the Richter Scale shook the area amid fears of mud and rock slides over an eight kilometer (five mile) area around the peak.
The area north of the peak was hard hit in the 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens that left 57 people dead, devastating hundreds of square kilometers (miles) and spewing ash over much of the Pacific Northwest region.
The mountain's top lies around 88 kilometers (55 miles) northeast of the Oregon's main city of Portland, which was also covered in a thick layer of ash in the 1980 eruption.
I remember. Here in the Pacific Northwest, unless you're talking to someone VERY young, all you have to do is say May 18th, and people know what you mean. Before she blew, St. Helens was called "The Fuji of America" because she was so perfectly symmetrical. The initial eruption pulverized a cubic MILE I was living just to the east of Washington in Idaho, and we got a light dusting. My church's camp is in Camas WA, less than 50 miles from MSH, but away from the direction of the blast. The ash there was a couple of inches think. The stuff was incredibly fine and got into EVERYTHING. It was abrasive and destroyed engines and paint jobs. Interestingly enough, if heated hot enough, it makes a beautiful glass that can be blown in artwork. It turned the skies black at noon. It was a weird time, kind of exciting as a kid, especially since I was a bit removed from it, but scary at the same time.
As I told Rusty, Washington's Mt. Rainier and The Three Sisters here in Oregon have both been showing signs of awaking. If The Sisters go, I'll have an incredibly good view, but a fairly safe one. It's the people in Central Oregon who will be screwed. That's cattle country, the cost of evacuating livestock will be phenomenal. We don't put up with tornadoes, or hurricanes (well, not true. Storms on the PNW coast are routinely of Hurricane force, and the Columbus Day Storm was the hardest blow to ever hit the US in terms of wind speed. But there's hardly anyone there to notice it), or as many bizzards as the midwest or earthquakes as California, but when we finally do have a disaster, we do it with flair.
Finally
Oregon won Saturday, 48-10 over Idaho. Yeah, it's "only" Idaho, but they had already lost to "only" Indiana, so it was a relief to see them stay focused. The only thing sad about the game for Ducks fans was the fact that Michael Harrington was the Vandals' QB, and it reminded us just how much we miss his older brother Joey.
Joey lost yesterday, to Philadelphia, but Detroit hung in there and played well, the Eagles are just scary. San Diego lost, that was a bit of a bummer, but the Vikings won, and so did Seattle, demolishing SF 34-0!!!! Who ever expected to hear the words "Seattle" and "Led by their defense" in the same sentence?
Joey lost yesterday, to Philadelphia, but Detroit hung in there and played well, the Eagles are just scary. San Diego lost, that was a bit of a bummer, but the Vikings won, and so did Seattle, demolishing SF 34-0!!!! Who ever expected to hear the words "Seattle" and "Led by their defense" in the same sentence?
Worth the Trip
Pop on over to my friend Ricky V's blog Vices & Virtues and enter the Caption Contest. Even if you don't win, heck, even if you don't enter, it's worth the trip just for the photo.
DeFazio Violates Election Rules
The following press release was issued by the Oregon Republican Party, and forwarded to me by a local GOP activist. I'd appreciate any help I can get from other conservative bloggers, especially on the Left Coast, to get the news out:
DeFazio Campaign Website Violates House Ethics Rules
Eugene, OR—On Friday, Lane County Republican Central Committee Chair Robert
Avery filed a formal complaint with the U.S. House Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct against Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio.
House Standards Committee rules clearly state that no member’s campaign
website can include links to members’ House sites. However, DeFazio’s
campaign web site contains two links to his House site.
One link reads, “If you’d like to read about my current affairs in Congress,
or to contact my office about an issue, please click on this link:
http//:www.house.gov/defazio/.”
The second states: “Read about my forest thinning legislation:
http://www.house.gov/defazio/073004EGRelease.shtml.”
Bruce Harvie, campaign manager for Republican 4th Congressional District
candidate Jim Feldkamp, said he was surprised to see such a blatant
violation go unnoticed.
“The rules state very clearly that campaign sites and House sites should not
be linked,” Harvie said. “Those links are still on his campaign site right
now, which is in clear breach of official protocol.”
Oddly enough, the Democratic Party of Oregon filed a complaint against
Feldkamp, alleging that trips he made to Washington D.C. for Naval Reserve
drills and to Boston to visit his daughter were in violation of election
rules governing the disclosure of campaign expenditures. Feldkamp, who was
recently endorsed by the Grants Pass Daily Courier, has documents that
verify his presence at those Naval Reserve drills.
“It’s ironic to me that the same people who would choose to file a frivolous
and unfounded complaint against Jim would be so unaware of a legitimate
violation taking place,” Harvie said. “Trips that he paid for out of pocket
are scrutinized, yet official misconduct goes unnoticed. I guess this just
demonstrates the extent that some people are willing to go to in order to
advance a partisan agenda.”
Havie said that a veteran legislator like DeFazio should be aware of such
rules by now.
“Anyone who has spent 18 years in the House should be familiar with the
basic laws set forth by that body,” Harvie said. “Either he’s unaware, or he
chooses to ignore them, and I don’t see either scenario as being very good.”
DeFazio Campaign Website Violates House Ethics Rules
Eugene, OR—On Friday, Lane County Republican Central Committee Chair Robert
Avery filed a formal complaint with the U.S. House Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct against Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio.
House Standards Committee rules clearly state that no member’s campaign
website can include links to members’ House sites. However, DeFazio’s
campaign web site contains two links to his House site.
One link reads, “If you’d like to read about my current affairs in Congress,
or to contact my office about an issue, please click on this link:
http//:www.house.gov/defazio/.”
The second states: “Read about my forest thinning legislation:
http://www.house.gov/defazio/073004EGRelease.shtml.”
Bruce Harvie, campaign manager for Republican 4th Congressional District
candidate Jim Feldkamp, said he was surprised to see such a blatant
violation go unnoticed.
“The rules state very clearly that campaign sites and House sites should not
be linked,” Harvie said. “Those links are still on his campaign site right
now, which is in clear breach of official protocol.”
Oddly enough, the Democratic Party of Oregon filed a complaint against
Feldkamp, alleging that trips he made to Washington D.C. for Naval Reserve
drills and to Boston to visit his daughter were in violation of election
rules governing the disclosure of campaign expenditures. Feldkamp, who was
recently endorsed by the Grants Pass Daily Courier, has documents that
verify his presence at those Naval Reserve drills.
“It’s ironic to me that the same people who would choose to file a frivolous
and unfounded complaint against Jim would be so unaware of a legitimate
violation taking place,” Harvie said. “Trips that he paid for out of pocket
are scrutinized, yet official misconduct goes unnoticed. I guess this just
demonstrates the extent that some people are willing to go to in order to
advance a partisan agenda.”
Havie said that a veteran legislator like DeFazio should be aware of such
rules by now.
“Anyone who has spent 18 years in the House should be familiar with the
basic laws set forth by that body,” Harvie said. “Either he’s unaware, or he
chooses to ignore them, and I don’t see either scenario as being very good.”
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Countdown to the Apocalypse
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)