The Blue Site

NYC Protesters Making Fools of Themselves

Ya know...Protesters are a joke. Overall. Not all protests are a joke, and sometimes they actually look like reasonable people with something to say...I can't say that much for the protestors I have seen so far in NYC. Who takes these people seriously? I don't, and I don't anyone who does.

The messages from many, many, MANY protesters are absurd- the war for oil idiots, the idiot parents who claim Bush killed their kids (as if Bush forced their kids into the military, and freeing tens of millions of Iraqis was a bad thing), the idiots who want to push anarchy and socialism and fascism...the free palestine idiots, the Bush is a murderer or hitler or a killer idiots, the republicans are evil idiots...all of the idiots.

These drum-bangers with their dirty hair and their homemade beaded necklaces are wasting their time...because the main thing most of us think of when we see these people are the scenes of protesters causing millions of dollars of damages by busting out windows or turning over cars that line the streets, or throwing objects at the police. I'm sure if we took a poll- most people would agree, these are the main images that come to mind.

The protests in NYC have already outnumbered all the protests during the Democratic convention in Boston- and this convention hasn't even started yet. I think it hurts Democrats, because you can't NOT associate the protestors with them on some level. From the naked protestors, who seem to complain about AIDS- even tho it's a disease that affects a very tiny number of Americans (mostly homosexual men and their partners), yet our tax dollars pay billions to African nations who can't get their acts together to fight the disease on their own...to the protestors who are urging violence against police and innocent bystander to prove their "point"- it's all a huge joke to reasonable Americans. And that's not even taking into account the vile hatred from many on the left- the hitler, murderer, war for oil comments are as disgusting as you can get. As I mentioned- I think it ultimately hurts the democrats, and I'd be quick to denounce most of this stuff.

I'd like to offer a few points to the more absurd protestors, many of whom I believe are desperate for an education that consists of facts as they exist in the real world, not their peace hippy- love paradise.

1. The US has not taken any land from any other nations in recent history. The only thing the American govt. ever asks is for a small place to bury their dead. This fact kills your protests of the big bad American empirialists. It's just not true...to be an empirial power- you have to forcefully take land from other nations. This hasn't happened in a very VERY long time.

2. The price of oil is at record levels...American oil companies haven't benefited from the war in Iraq overall, and the US is still held hostage, in a sense, like all other western nations to oil producing countries in the middle east and other parts of the globe. This kills your war for oil protests.

3. The US military is an all volunteer force...no one in this country is ever forced to serve. This alone kills your argument that Bush is a murderer who killed your child, and you should be ashamed for even claiming such a disgusting thing. You're only spitting on the memory of your fallen child by your outrageous actions, and I feel no sympathy for you.

4. Capitalism is good for people. It allows people to strive to be the best they can be, and with whatever wealth they amass, they can go out and buy whatever they want to make their lives better, easier, safer, etc. Capitalism, as an economic system, is the best the world has known. If you hate our system so much, go over to a communist nation, get your rations, and see how happy you are with that system that brings evern man, woman, and child down...see how it kills a man's spirit, then come back and enjoy what you have here in America.

5. The United States sends billions of dollars in aid to countries around the globe...we get involved in military battles that are, at times, no concern to us, simply to help our fellow man...we send food and other aid to countries that are stricken by disease, war, famine, natural disasters...and we do it all because we can, not because we have to. We saved the world from the tryanny of facism, nazism, and communism in the 20th century...and we spent billions to rebuild enemy nations whose forces killed millions of our young men and women. Those are, in no way, the actions of a terrorist nation. Wise up.

6. Finally, the war in Iraq was not an evil thing...it was not a war fought for our own interests alone. It was not a selfish act. It was the freeing of tens of millions of people that had been held hostage by a maniac (they don't call him the butcher of Baghdad for nothing, folks)...a people who were tortued, raped, and murdered for no reason at all. Neighboring countries who were invaded simply because the leader of Iraq was a madman who wanted more and more power. That nation now has a chance to be proud of what it can accomplish- it can make peace in the world, and it can join other nations and help build a better Iraq...a more free Iraq- a better and more free world. Ousting a brutal despot is never a bad thing, which is why your protests are completely puzzling. We were right to do what we did, and that's a fact.

In the end, protest can be a good thing...all too often, the people involved in the protest seem unstable and irrational in their views. In NYC- it's one level up for many thousands of these protestors- they're protesting the very things they take for granted, living in the most powerful nation man has ever witnessed...they're protesting the very things that make America great. There are good protesters and bad ones- hopefully reasonable Americans can tell the difference.

Jim Rassman is a Liar

Nice. I don't see the mainstream media reporting this. I will pass it on to anyone who views this page tho...

It seems Jim Rassman is a liar. The media want us to believe we are to take Rassman at his word, no matter what- because Kerry "saved his life" (so he says), but the Swift Boat Vets for Truth are not to be trusted...they are automatically treated as liars who have to PROVE what they're saying. Rassman has never been asked to prove his claims.

Rassman wrote an August 10, 2004 commentary for the Wall Street Journal. He made his mistake, showing his true nature and agenda by titling the piece "Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush." Now, we all know that the Bush campaign has not been linked to this group...one of the Bush attorneys also was asked to help these veterans with their ads- the FEC has said there is nothing wrong with this, it's totally legal and it's fine to do- no ethical problems with it at all. The NY Times linkage piece was a joke...it shows that, oh my God- no way- some of the people with this group back Republicans and some people associated with Republicans and Bush Sr. are involved with the vets as well...this is common on BOTH sides. So, there's no evidence to suggest Bush is part of this group, or that it's a Bush "front group" as the highly dishonest John Kerry claims.

Rassman is clearly a liar now...he wants to link these vets (who are merely speaking out JUST LIKE RASSMAN IS- Rassman thinks he has the right to do so, but others who fought do not.) Rassman is doing the same dishonest thing Kerry is doing...and since he's lying by calling it swift boat vets for Bush- which is an outright lie- he's proven himself a liar...which means, we can no longer simply take his word that John Kerry saved his life...nor can we automatically believe anything he says. You lie once, you're not to be trusted again- without proving what you're claiming.

It seems to me that Rassman is as big a coward as Kerry- lying to the American people is clearly a cowardly act. Funny- the man running for President this year is a liar...and the man who was in the White House 4 years ago was a liar. Both democrats, both men were opportunists who seem to want all the power they can get- I'm seeing a pattern here.

I say- shame on you, Mr. Rassman for spreading lies to the American people.

Kerry Can't Win

Just to add two things to the story below...Kerry, as I mentioned, is complaining about Bush's plan to take some troops out of Europe and Asia= yet, he called for the exact thing not long ago. Another example of Kerry trying to have it both ways.

Also- Kerry is attacking Bush everyday, using the words "smear" each time- claiming that a sitting president is involved in illegal activities by using a 527 as a front group...the American people, in general, won't tolerate such rhetoric- especially since there's no evidence to back it up. There was a sitting president involved in illegal activity a few short years ago, his name was Bill Clinton...maybe John Kerry is confused?

I agree with the piece- Kerry has basically shot himself with his actions. He's on the defense, and he will most likely stay there thru till election day. Bad news for Kerry...good news for America.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Polls Show That John Kerry Can’t Win
Editorial by CK Rairden
August 27, 2004

Many pollsters and pundits settled in a few weeks ago on this mantra, “This is John Kerry’s race to lose.” That was a bit premature and quite frankly, wrong. It’s now very clear that John Kerry can’t win the White House in 2004. That’s not to say that Mr. Kerry won’t be inaugurated in January of 2005, but he has now shown that he does not have what it takes to win. The only way for Kerry to make it to the White House is for President George W. Bush to lose.
Click here for the rest of the editorial

The Convention Blues

The Convention Blues
By: Bill O'Reilly
Thursday, Aug 26, 2004

Covering a political convention is kind of like watching a porn film; you know what's going to happen by its very definition. My coverage of the Democratic Convention in Boston brought tears to the eyes of some television critics who loudly wailed that I was an irresponsible cad for not broadcasting the prime-time speeches on my program. This, of course, is nonsense. Why would I waste time on partisan presentations? My job is to analyze what is going on, not let politicians bloviate unchecked.
The speeches, of course, are broadcast on other TV outlets, as they should be. If you want 'em, you should get 'em. But remember this: Anybody can say anything. Most words are hollow. In politics, sports and dirty movies, it is actions that count. And one more thing, the most dishonest individual on earth can sound honest, if given the right script.

So what about the Republican Convention in New York? Once again, I will not broadcast the partisan speeches, because they are agenda-driven. Of course, I'll read the speeches and watch them, if I'm not on the air. Then I'll give you my opinion on what's genuine and what's spin.

Too many Americans are not skeptical enough about what is said to them. Fast-talking con people can hurt you badly. These politicians have a battery of writers parsing every word they say, and their pre-speech rehearsals tend to drain the blood out of their presentations. These people don't talk from the heart, they talk from a script that is designed to rally the faithful, not put forth solutions to problems. So why should we listen?

Curiosity is the primary reason. The only thing really on the line during those speeches is how the politician will perform. And if you can't deliver a pre-packaged speech laid out in front of you on a giant teleprompter after days of rehearsal, well, you may lose a few votes.

The contrived convention display on the part of both political parties isn't offensive to me, it's just meaningless. What is offensive is the debate structure. This year, the Presidential candidates will meet three times, the Vice Presidential guys once. But the format has a tragic flaw. The debate moderator can't interrupt the candidates. So if a guy decides to dodge the question or deliver a false fact or dance around an issue, there's really nothing the moderator can do. And if the questioners point out any spin, deception or obfuscation, they will likely be criticized as being a boorish or partisan.

The candidates, of course, know all this. They also know the likely line of the debate questioning, so once again they can rehearse with their professional "handlers." Whatever happened to just answering a question honestly? Where is Harry Truman when we need him?

So here's a bulletin about the Republican Convention and the upcoming debates: Help is not on the way. Hope is not on the way. Nothing is on the way, except how well the candidates can put across their preprogrammed points.

Obviously, this is not the way it should be. The nation deserves rigorous debate and tough, incisive questioning of the candidates. Our lives could be at stake in this election, and the stage play that has become the election process is certainly not making us any safer.

Kerry Camp Pulls Ad Attacking Pres. with False Info.

The Kerry camp is becoming unhinged with this swift boat vet issue...so unhinged that they chose to pull their dishonest ad attacking President Bush. In the ad, they played part of a rep. nominee debate with McCain, Bush, and others...in which McCain called Bush to apologize for some guy in South Carolina who smeared McCain's service in Vietnam. I don't remember this exchange myself, but Bill O'Reilly showed the entire ad- in which John Kerry claims that Bush is behind the Swift Boat Vets for Truth- a dangerous charge that has no evidence to support it, and the ad says 4 years ago Bush smeared McCain. BUT- O'Reilly read the transcript of the exchange where the ad left off- Bush said the guy who smeared McCain did not speak for him, and he was proud of John's service in Vietnam, AND that he didn't like what that guy said about McCain OR his father- it seems the guy who supposedly worked for Bush to smear McCain also smeared Bush Sr.- which shows us that Bush was not smearing McCain with this guy in SC. Which means- Kerry is claiming attacks on McCain that Bush had no part of, and now he's claiming attacks on himself that Bush has no part of...

So, the Kerry campaign is not only being completely dishonest (maybe they decided smearing Bush was a bad idea, which is why they took the ad off the air, perhaps?), and on top of that, they're being totally hypocritical. The ad itself says that Bush needs to stop smearing Kerry- tho 1. no evidence exists to tie Bush to the group doing the smearing, and 2. Kerry, himself, is now attempting to smear Bush, with what I just showed was a blatant lie- like the letter given to the Kerry campaign from the group of veterans (not the swift boat vets group) and the White House said, John Kerry cannot have it both ways. He claims that it's wrong to attack soldiers coming home from war, yet that's precisely what he did in 1971 in front of the entire nation- and now, he's using outright lies to attack the President, while calling for an end to attacks of the same himself.

Another example of Kerry trying to have it all ways to garner favor with every group...simply change the message to suit each particular group you're talking to- too bad he's on a national stage now, and we all hear his constant flip flops and his double speak...and he can no longer get away with it without being called out on the mat.

What On Earth is the "Latin Grammys?"

You know what's outrageously racist and stupid and it's a wonder how they even have it at all? Well, a number of things fit this description...but, I just saw a commercial on CBS for the Latin Grammys.

Why on earth is there a need for a special "grammys" for "latins?" I have no idea. How do the organizers of such a blatantly racist awards show have the balls to even pull this off? No idea. How is there no outcry of racism with this? No idea again.

We know this is inherently racist in this manner- if you took latin and replaced it with "white" every race obsessed group in America would be screaming bloody-murder...every politician in the land would be kissing up to get more votes, and crying foul over this "shameful racist display..." How is it okay to for every different "racial group" to divide themselves and have their own awards shows, their own organizations, etc- yet, if any group of whites did the same thing, they'd be called racist scumbags and bigots?

Yes, folks, racism does exist still...and it's events like these, that actually garner respect instead of shame, that ensure it will stay around for a long time to come...

Kerry, Vietnam, and Bogus Claims of Dr. King

It seems John Kerry has been caught in another lie. I don't see this story online by searching google, but according to what news I've heard on cable news- Kerry told a group before that he was in Vietnam, and he tried to talk about how he and his crew got news of the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, and how he remembered it so well. Only problem is- King was murdered in April of that year (1968 I believe?) and Kerry's website and records show him not even going to Vietnam until November of that year, so he wasn't there when King was killed. Sorta rings of the many lies of Al Gore during the 2000 campaign, such as the time when he claimed his mother sung a particular union song to him as he went to sleep as a baby, but the song he claimed was sung wasn't even written until decades later when Gore was 27 years old.

I'll say it again- Kerry is a opportunist who cares about POWER, not serving...the evidence of this keeps mounting...

Sean Hannity Intro

The intro to the Sean Hannity radio show on WABC

The REAL Steal

To all the left wing whiners out there who want to claim Bush stole the election...here are some facts for you to chew on. Facts that show how the liberal media nearly "stole" the election from G.W.

test

testing

Condemnations, Kerry's Lies, and Media Bias

I am demanding that the Kerry campaign televise an apology for claiming in their new ad that the Swift Boat Vet's ad is a "front group" for President Bush.

Have you seen the NY Times story on these supposed connections? It's a joke! This group is NOT connected to Bush, and Kerry and Edwards both keep claiming that it's a Bush front group...Kerry staff members continually call it "Swift Boat Vets for Bush" on Fox News, CNN, and other news outlets.

This means, the Kerry campaign (and the mainstream media) is attacking Bush, accusing him of violating the law, by having a "front group" as a 527. That is illegal, and there's no proof that this is true.

I would also like to point out that very few media outlets are reporting the story correctly...today, not more than 5 mins ago, the reporter from Newshour on PBS claimed that Bush never condemned the Swift Boat Vet's ad- that he just did a generalized condemnation...BUT, then they played Bush's comments where he was asked about this ad in particular- and the President said "this ad" and all the others from 527 groups- who he says should be banned...AND, he has called for Kerry to come together with him to call for an outright ban to ALL 527 groups. That means- PBS' Newshour reported a supposed fact, then completely contradicted themselves with the actual words from the president- I'm surprised they didn't cut the video off so we wouldn't hear Bush's full comments, to further their clear agenda.

So, PBS skews the reporting to make Bush look bad...and other news outlets have done the very same thing. Fox News seems to be telling the truth- Carl Cameron told the truth about Bush's comments today...reporting that he DID condemn this particular ad as well as every other 527 group's ads.

Shame on PBS' Newshour (please don't fire me!), and shame on the others who keep spreading disinformation to the American people.

Guns Don't Kill People...

Wow...insanity, a total lack of historical understanding, and radical statements all packed into one quote.

Essay writer, Roger Rosenblatt of PBS' Newshour said the following on May 20, 1999:

That statement is the very definition of radical, and it's wholly lacking in any common sense or context. First off- the 2nd Amendment was never in place simply to fight the British...if so, it would have been odd for the founding fathers to stick with it years after the British were defeated...and you'd think that at least one Supreme Court would say something to this extent. Next- he says the right was never absolute, which is nonsense...all the rights guaranteed Americans by the Constitution are absolute.

If you take away the guns, violence will go away? How do you gather? Do people murder other people for the simple reason that there are guns in existance? No. Did people murder others before the very first gun was invented? Yes. Do people act out in violent ways against others without using guns? Yes. Those three points and probably a hundred others you could come up with totally kill his argument that the violence would diminish considerably. It wouldn't. People would merely use other tools to kill other people, or to simply injur other people, or to vandalize properties. I'm sure that murder by kitchen knife and hacksaw would go up exponentially!

Violence isn't a part of society because of guns...and it wouldn't diminish or go away totally if there were no guns. Americans use guns to protect themselves all the time- so, we know that many Americans would be in danger without protection...we also know that the criminals would find a way to get guns, and it would create a huge black market underground for selling firearms...and that would be a new danger in itself. The criminals and law enforcement would have guns, and innocent civilians would be in their homes or on the street, banned from having these same weapons, and in time- the criminals would use this advantage.

I'm going to search for stats or anything...but, common sense tells us that people avoid committing crimes many times because they know that...there is no telling which one of these civilians in this bank is carrying a concealed weapon. They never know which house they break into will have a shotgun, and an owner willing to use it to protect his family and his property. They never know which citizen is going to witness a crime and use a firearm to save someone's life.

Guns aren't the problems...violence has been around, and at the same levels, longer than guns have, and it'll stay around even if guns WERE banned. Banning guns is clearly not the answer at all.

Bring On the "Price Gougers"

This isn't a subject I've thought about myself, until I read Jacoby's article below...Being a believer in capitalism and the idea of supply and demand- I have to agree with Jacoby, and the economist he links to in his piece. Prices should go way up in the middle of a disaster area- it costs more to work in that area, it costs more to get things in, it's much more work usual, and supply is WAY up...and if supply and demand works in, as Jacoby points out- the airline industry, hotels, etc. (I can think of the example of rental properties that skyrocket during the peak months, but are cheap cheap cheap during the off-OFF season). I guess we can peg this as one more rule that government put into place probably for good intentions, but it ends up hurting us and taking away our freedoms.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BRING ON THE 'PRICE GOUGERS'
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Sunday, August 22, 2004

Imagine a system that could instantly respond to a calamity like Hurricane Charley by mobilizing suppliers to speed urgently needed resources to the victims. Imagine that such a system could quickly attract the out-of-town manpower needed for cleanup and repairs, while seeing to it that existing supplies were neither recklessly squandered nor hoarded. Imagine that it could prompt thousands of men and women to act in the public interest, yet not force anyone to do anything against his will.

Actually, there's no need to imagine. The system already exists. Economists refer to it as the law of supply and demand. Unfortunately, too many journalists and politicians call it by a more pejorative and destructive name: "price-gouging."

Even before Charley made landfall last weekend, Florida officials had launched a campaign against "those who would seek to profit from the misery of others." Residents were urged to be on guard against any unscrupulous rise in prices, and to call a hotline with information about suspected profiteers.

Not surprisingly, the complaints poured in. By Thursday, Attorney General Charlie Crist's office had received 2,340 reports of price-gouging, and had filed a "first round" of lawsuits.

"It is astounding to me," Crist said, "the level of greed that someone must have in their soul to be willing to take advantage of someone suffering in the wake of a hurricane."

The media were similarly indignant. "After storm come the vultures," read a headline in USA Today. A Page 1 story in The New York Times offered examples of "those brazenly looking to make some extra money": vendors selling bags of ice for $10 instead of $2, gas stations "facing long lines of cars" charging $3 a gallon for gas normally priced at $1.78, and "a man with a chain saw" offering to clear a felled oak from one man's roof for $10,500.

"Some greedy merchants started ahead of the storm," reported The Washington Times. It cited "one complaint about a man in the Orlando area who normally leases generators for $250 a day with no requirements. He boosted the price to about $400 a day just before the storm hit, and implemented a seven-day minimum policy."

But why should it be news, let alone a crime, when soaring demand and/or tight supplies send prices through the roof? Air fares climb during peak travel periods, hotels charge more during the tourist season -- and yes, Virginia, ice sells at a premium when tens of thousands of Florida homes are without refrigeration and air conditioning in the middle of August.

It isn't gouging to charge what the market will bear. It isn't greedy or brazen. It's how goods and services get allocated in a free society in response to actual conditions -- without the chronic shortages and corruption that are the usual result of price controls and rationing. And never is the flexibility of an unhampered market more essential than in the aftermath of a catastrophe.

Of course price spikes are infuriating, especially to someone whose life has just been thrown into turmoil by a deadly storm. But unpopular or not, they do far more good than harm. Higher prices make it possible for victims to get the help they need to ride out the crisis and for the devastated region to recover as quickly as possible. They do so by sending the message that critical supplies and skills are urgently needed, and by inducing consumers with less-pressing needs to voluntarily defer to those whose needs are more exigent.

When customers in Florida are willing to pay $10 for ice that usually goes for $2, or $400 to rent a generator that usually fetches $250, producers everywhere have a powerful incentive to ship truckloads of ice and generators to Florida. The higher price is justified not only by the higher demand, but by the higher costs associated with doing business in a disaster area. Newsday last week quoted the owner of a tree removal company, who had driven down from Miami and was charging twice his normal rate "because I've got to deal with more aggravation."

"No one wants to come here when I can stay home and sleep in air conditioning next to my wife and kid, go to the gas station whenever I want and get gas," he said. "The ones who are willing to pay now know that they're not getting a great deal, but they're willing to pay a little bit more to get their lives together quicker."

At the same time, price increases perform what George Mason University economist Donald Boudreaux calls "economic triage," directing supplies and repairs to those whose need for them is most pressing. Someone who wants a generator so he can power his computer and TV might be willing to rent one for $250. At $400, he is more likely to decide he can live without it -- thereby making it available to the butcher desperate for electricity so he can keep thousands of dollars' worth of meat from spoiling.

When demand increases, prices go up. As prices rise, supplies do too. And with higher supplies eventually come lower prices. It isn't "gouging," it's the way the world works -- even after hurricanes. Demonizing vendors won't speed Florida's recovery. Letting them go about their business will.

(Jeff Jacoby is a syndicated columnist for The Boston Globe.)

TV on DVD

I went to Wal Mart Friday afternoon and bought Boomtown, season 1 on dvd and Aqua Teen Hungerforce vol 2 (I already have vol 1) on DVD. I bought Monk, season 1 on dvd a few days before that.

I was going to buy the Rocket Power DVD- Island of the Menuhune (this is surely spelled wrong), but I didn't.

The Left: Iraq Was All About Oil...Wait, it's how much a barrel?!

Just a thought for those peace hippies and radical lefties who buy into nonsense that is peddled by much of the media...

Oil prices are at record levels...nearly $50 a barrel. I guess morons like Janeane Garofalo owe President Bush an apology when she, and others like her, claimed that the war in Iraq was based on lies (the bipartisan congressional group that did the recent report says there were no lies from anyone, including Bush), and that it was all about oil. I guess Mr. Bush, the left's version of a hitler-like, evil genius is too little genius and too much evil, since his vile plan to take over the world (wait, how can he take over the world, the left says he's an imbicile- I'm confused!) isn't working too well, and oil prices are going thru the roof.

Maybe Garofalo would also like to apologize for her remark, saying that the Bush white house is the 43rd Reich. Hitler comparison- ahhh...the classy left at work. How refreshing.

Chiles

I was watching the Good Eats episode called Chile's Angels, all about chiles and how hot each is and the scale (the scoville heat scale) at which they are measured...AB mentioned that pure capsaicin (capsaicin is the chemical that gives chiles their heat) measures 6 million on the scoville scale. The websites I have found say more than that...one says 16 million. I wanted to know if it was possible to ingest pure capsaicin, and I found this page of information on the chemical. Interesting stuff. Also, this site has a nice graphic that shows the scale and the various peppers and where they fit.

John Kerry's Flip Flop on Troop Reduction

This is why we call John Kerry the biggest flip-flopper out there. Kerry has been attacking President Bush's plan for troop reduction in Europe and the Korean Peninsula. He says that such a move would be a bad idea and that Bush's idea for this is just wrong. Problem is- Kerry has vowed twice this year that he would reduce troops from THE SAME areas- he specifically mentioned possibly Europe and the Korean Peninsula.

I will say it again folks- this man will do anything for power...his positions don't change a lot- he never has a position to begin with. He simply comes down on the side of the issue that is most favorable to him with certain voters, depending on which voters he is talking to.

We're at war, and when Kerry attacks a plan by the president to reduce troops in certain areas, he's doing none of us any good...especially when he's mentioned the same plan twice this year alone! You cannot, I repeat CANNOT have it both ways like Kerry thinks you can. You need to have some commitment, a core...President Bush has proven he has that, John Kerry has proven he does not.

Protestors in NYC during RNC Won't Urge Peace Against Police

The nutjob gang at not in our name- the group that wrote an "apology letter" to the Iraqi people for what this country supposedly "did to them." I wonder what it says- 'dear people of iraq- sorry for freeing you from a monster who has killed hundreds of thousands of you? we are sorry we ousted the maniac and you now have the right to take your country back?' One of the leaders of this group was on Sean Hannity's radio show (listen to the fool here [windows media file])...where she attacked the president, kept referring to the "gang" in the white house, and refused to say that her group would not attack police during the Republican National Convention! Hate is rampant in the left in this country- Hannity and Colmes tonight had the cheap shot of the day where Sean showed clips of various TOP democrats spewing vile hatred about Bush...spreading lies about this man to the American people, and attacking him personally NONSTOP.

Yet ANOTHER example of why the left must be defeated along with their disgusting agenda of hatred against all those who are not in their camp.

The mayor of Boston has warned Mayor Bloomberg of NYC to limit protests to a certain, blocked off area for saftey reasons...Bloomberg isn't planning on doing this, and Boston's mayor is warning that if he doesn't do this, there will be serious trouble. Unlike the democratic convention, the anti-war idiots (sorry again for freeing you tens of millions of iraqis!) and the hate bush idiots will be out in force...again, another example of the hatred on the left, and the lack of it from the right. Some are even predicting riots in the street if these protestors are left unchecked to roam wherever they want. Hopefully Bloomberg won't allow this happen, and hopefully the left will get some common sense- doubtful, but miracles do happen.

Moveon's Lies

Radical leftist group moveon.org is at it again...spreading lies once more. They have a new ad that attacks the swift boat veterans for truth ad- an ad that is in no way connected to the president, and the people who run that group said that even if the president told them to stop running it, they wouldn't stop. They have that right, of course. Not to mention, John Kerry, who- I'll say it again for the idiots out there- is a SELF DESCRIBED war criminal.

The ad from moveon attacks the vets and claims they're spreading lies...they also claim that President Bush is linked to the ad, which isn't true. First off- moveon has no idea if what the swift boat vets' ad says is truthful or not, and on top of that, they're accusing these men of lying while lying themselves by claimimg Bush is connected to it. This is common logic used by the fools at this radical group, and it's disgusting! They are demanding the president take this ad off the air- which means, they want to hold their radical views, yet they don't want anyone else to have their free speech rights and do the same! They also demand that a man who isn't associated with the ad remove it, an attempt to link Bush to the ad which his people have already condemned.

The ad also lies and claims that George Bush failed to appear for his air natl guard duty, yet the records came out, and witnesses came forward to prove that theory false and nothing but a lie used by groups like moveon to further than liberal agenda and attack a man who was NOT missing from his duty. They attack Bush, claiming he had his dad pull strings to make sure he didn't go to vietnam...BUT, they never mention that Bush took part in missions protecting the US in the air natl guard, and that there is nothing illegal or immoral about NOT going to vietnam. They claim Bush evaded service, which is a very serious charge that has no evidence to support it. They talk about how John Kerry, remember- he's a self described war criminal, chose to go to Vietnam and fought heorically- moveon's idea of heroism is burning down villages and shooting men in the back, I guess??

What's even more outraegous is that moveon even lies about what the swift boat vets ad says! On their site, they claim the following:

"Incredibly, the "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" operatives have responded to our
campaign by issuing a statement that claims, "We were there. We served with John Kerry."
But even that is a lie. While the ad presents its subjects as former crewmates of
Kerry's, the reality is that the only thing most of the men share with him is that they
were in Vietnam at the same time. And the men who did serve with Kerry are unanimous in
their support of him."

Only problem is- in the ad, the military men NEVER claim they were crewmates of Kerry. They merely say they "served with" John Kerry in Vietnam. These men were all on swift boats in the SAME UNITS as Kerry- which means, they were right there with him. Not on the same boat, they never claim they were, but if you're a few yard from someone (swift boats traveled in units of many boats, in close contact), that is, by definition, "serving with" that person. How insane is it that the moveon ad contains at least 3 lies about Bush and the swift boat vets...it even contains a lie about the very ad they're attacking!

They go on to claim that Bush (again, the White House has condemned the ad) is "re-opening this national wound" by bringing up the past...YET, in the same piece/ad they attack Bush and claim he didn't show up for duty (proven to be untrue by the press and the white house, and witnesses who were with him at the time, and medical records from the time, etc). In the ad they say that Bush can't have it both ways, yet it seems moveon is the group trying to have it both ways- either bringing up the past and attacking one's military record is "re-opening this national wound" OR is it okay to make baseless attacks on a sitting president who has nothing to do with the ad in question?

Let it be known, moveon is nothing but a group dedicated to lies...lies about anyone who doesn't fit their far left agenda. It's time we remove the loophole that allows these groups to air such propaganda. It's time we stop allowing billionaire radicals like George Soros to use hundreds of millions to lie to the American people. It isn't right, and it's unamerican, and I am, once again, sick of it. One thing all sane people know for sure- you cannot reason with the radical fools at moveon.

Old People, New People, and Monk on DVD

Weird. I went to Best Buy to get either the Bruce Hornsby CD, a DVD, or both- ended up getting Monk season 1 on DVD...I saw a guy I went to high school with who works there. We talked for a bit- we were close at one time, really good friends, but he started hanging out with other people and we lost touch- we were friends in grade school, then I switched grade schools, then in jr high we knew each other, but we were close in high school from band- hung out a lot on out band trip to florida, that sorta thing. I was nervous, because...well, I'm always nervous talking to people, especially people I haven't seen in forever, and especially when I don't have much I can think of to say.

So, I was looking thru the tv shows DVD section...and horror movies, and he walked up every once in a while and was asking if I talked to anyone from school, what was going on with me, that sort of thing. I left, blah blah blah....came home and checked my mail really quick, and I noticed Kaleah was on- the girl I was with for like 2 days, then she up and changed her mind and decided she liked me and all, but nothing was gonna happen...and we stopped talking when she wouldn't answer her phone for some reason and she got all pissed at me. Anyhow- point is, I just imed her and said 'hey, it's kaleah,' because I never see her name online and I'm usually not even signed on to AIM. So, she actually replied which was weird...chatted for a few mins, what's new, how are things, what are you up to- stuff. The norm, I guess.

I being the type of person I am- yeah, that makes sense, I found it a bit upsetting. Well, just because I really liked the girl, I thought we made this really great connection, and really quickly, so that was unusual for me for one, and 2. I don't usually like a lot of people (in that way...I'm not some ass who hates everyone.) And, since I'm totally honest, open, and unashamed, I'll mention that- I missed her a lot since we stopped talking. I missed what it felt like to talk to an amazing person and have this weird connection with someone that was really strong, even tho we hadn't know each other very long. I don't think, in the end, she really liked me- I think maybe she was bored and wanted to have someone to take her mind off her recent breakup, but who knows in the end. I can't read people's minds, and she's surely no exception. Oh well, whatever...can't change the past, and I can't control the way people act, tho sometimes, it'd be nice.

I need to tape the other 2 hrs of The Grid onto tape then make a copy of that tape (I want a copy for myself), and send it off to this girl I contacted online. She sent her tape off on Aug 11, and I still haven't found the time to sit down and watch the final 2 hrs and copy a tape and send it off to her. I feel bad...hope she doesn't think poorly of me because of it. I care too much about what people think, even strangers who I am merely trading tapes with online. Oh well. I need to try to get those two hours on tape and make a complete copy for myself sometime tonight so I can have my dad mail it off tomorrow for me. I have no idea where the post office is to start with, and he works there, so he'll be there anyhow.

Anyhow...I guess I'll be off. Need something to drink. I want some funnel cake. I need a deep fryer. Oh, need to renew my web hosting package by Sept 6. Need to do that this Friday. $95 for a yr...isn't too bad, because I get a lot of bandwidth and tons of space.

Halcyon Days

[Aug. 17th, 2004|02:11 am]
I have to be at work at 7:30 in the morning...It's 2:12 AM right now. I went to Wal-Mart at 12:30 AM to get the new Bruce Hornsby CD, but it turns out- they don't put CD's out themselves, they have people come in and put all those up...and no telling if they'll even have it. I tried called twice to see if they had CD's out at midnight the day they're released, like they do with DVD's, but I could never get anyone in electronics to answer. So, I went, and it wasn't there...so, I was thinking maybe I would get a DVD. So, I look and I see a few CD's under 30 bucks (I had like $27, I believe), and I looked some more...and some more. I picked up the Invader Zim Vol 1 DVD. I like that show, I wanted the DVD when it came out, it's only $20, I'll get it. Then, I saw Aqua Teen Hungerforce Vol 2, and I have vol 1, so I picked it up and walked around with it for a bit (it was the last one they had on the shelf). Then, I saw they had the newest Rocket Power movie on DVD, which I taped from Nickelodeon, but this one has 3 bonus episodes...nah, I don't want this.

So, I started looking at computer games...saw a few that looked interesting. Maybe I will buy one of the sims games- the cheap kind...like rollercoaster tycoon, or maybe Carnival Cruise Line sim, or maybe mall sim, or theme park sim, or circus sim, or maybe one of those horror games with puzzles in them, 3D environments, finding clues to solve a mystery...or maybe I will get this one I noticed in back- I forget the name, but it was a presidential candidate game where you choose a candidate and try to win election by going on TV, smearing your opponent, getting the backing of various groups in the country, etc. So, I had that one in my hands for a while- it was only $20, I would get it.

By now, I had been there a while, and I felt nervous...like someone was thinking, why the hell has this guy been here looking over this small selection of DVD's and games for an hr and a half. Maybe I look stupid, maybe they think I'm trying to steal something! Nah...I don't look the type. Who knows tho. I've been here a long time, and there's so many good dvd's and games that there's too much to choose from, and it feels like my brain might explode. Then, I'm thinking- maybe I should wait and get something I really want when I get paid and have more money to spend...like Boomtown season 1 on DVD which is 37, or one of the other tv shows on dvd I want. They have a bunch of Jimmy Neutron episodes- hmmm. Nah. I should wait. Wait until the Bruce Hornsby is actually in stores tomorrow and get it like I had planned.

So, I left. Well, not before going over to thea area where they have school and office supplies, looking for big post it notes WITHOUT the sticky stuff...don't see any, so I went out the door.

I'm driving away and McDonald's is right there, and I'm planning on stopping there, because I AM hungry, and I did eat really early today- at about 4PM, which is all I had all day...but, I got into the turn lane, yet didn't turn. I shouldn't spend any money, I thought...I should save it and do what I was going to do. I don't need food at 2 AM anyhow.

So, now it's 2:22 AM, and I don't feel tired enough to go to sleep, but I have to get up at 6:30 and be there by 7:30...I guess I'll go in there and watch TV. Maybe Dr. Katz on tape. Man, I should have stopped at McDonald's...

Hateful Rhetoric from Tom Harkin

This is gonna come as a shock, I know...but, more hateful rhetoric from the left. GASP! Never!

Tom Harkin is calling Vice President Cheney a coward for not serving in Vietnam, and is saying he cannot attack Kerry on defense, because Kerry actually served. He then went on to spout off nonsense about how Cheney is tough when it's the blood of other kids being spilled and not his own.

I e-mailed Harkin, because I am sick and tired of these types of attacks. Harkin is the true coward, and he should be ashamed of himself for his irresponsible and immature comments.

One tip to Harkin before he attacks someone else and praises Kerry- John Kerry is a self described war criminal. How Cheney is a coward for not going to Vietnam, but John Kerry is a hero for violating the Geneva Convention on more than one occasion is odd. Clearly the guy isn't all there, and his comments prove as much.
- - - - - - - - - -
DES MOINES Iowa Senator Tom Harkin says Vice President Cheney is a coward for avoiding service in Vietnam.

Harkin notes that Cheney had several student deferments that allowed him to skip serving in Vietnam.

That's why he says Cheney's criticism of presidential candidate John Kerry in Iowa this week makes his blood boil. Cheney said Kerry lacks a basic understanding of the war on terror and couldn't make America safer.

But Harkin, a former pilot in the Navy, says Cheney will act tough when someone else's blood is on the line but skipped service when it was his turn to go.

A spokesman for the Republican National Committee dismissed Harkin's criticism as -- quote -- "shrill, negative attacks."

Constitution Doesn't OK U.N. Election Monitoring

I didn't hear about this until now. I don't Bush should do this...this should have ZERO support, and this is not an issue to play politics, nor is it the time. The UN has no business overseeing our elections. That group can't even be trusted to run the oil for food program without taking billions in kickbacks...no way they should be allowed to oversee anything in the US. Another thing that idiot politicians are doing that would make the founding fathers turn over in their graves!
- - - - - - - - - - -
Constitution Doesn't OK U.N. Election Monitoring

Tom Kilgannon, president of Freedom Alliance, demonstrated his bipartisanship when it comes to deferring America's independence.

After blasting John Kerry for his overt globalist agenda, Kilgannon is bashing the Bush State Department for the same headlong charge down the slope of America's slipping sovereignty.

"Obviously, somebody over at Foggy Bottom misread the Constitution," stated Kilgannon. "According to our Founding Fathers, it is the 'States' -- not the 'State Department' -- which are in charge of overseeing federal elections."

The State Department splashed headlines around the world and incensed many Americans recently with its invitation to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), an Austrian-based human rights group, to monitor the U.S. presidential election on November 2 -- setting a terrifically damaging precedent for future U.S. elections.

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, and 10 of her Democrat colleagues started the whole mess by running to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to see if he would take time out from his scandal with the Oil-for-Food program to get the world body involved in the U.S. elections.

"The United States is the best example of representative democracy, fairness and equality that the world has ever seen," said Kilgannon. "Any American who believes that foreign institutions like the United Nations and the OSCE are more qualified to judge any election in our country is unfit to hold a position of trust in the government. On November 2, millions of American citizens will exercise their right to participate in the most sacred act of American democracy -- our presidential election. Americans have been electing their own leaders for 200 years. We don't need advice from the French or the Germans, thank you very much."

Australia Bans Same Sex Marriage

A small victory (of sorts...)

Australia Bans Same Sex Marriage

On Friday, August 13, the Australian Senate voted to ban same sex marriage by an overwhelming vote of 38-7. The vote will alter the Australian Marriage Act to include the phrases:

“Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."

"Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnized in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognized as a marriage in Australia."

The law was enacted partially in response to Australian homosexuals, married in Ontario, who expressed the desire to have their union recognized in their home country. Rather than have the issue decided in the courts, Australian lawmakers chose to explicitly ban homosexual marriage. Christian Coalition lauds this common sense action to defend the traditional family in Australia.

How Arafat's Gunmen Suppress The News

HOW ARAFAT'S GUNMEN SUPPRESS THE NEWS
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Sunday, August 15, 2004

Two days after the liberation of Baghdad, a senior news executive at CNN disclosed that his network had for years been sanitizing its reports from Iraq. In an op-ed column titled "The news we kept to ourselves," Jordan Eason confessed that CNN routinely chose not to report on the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein's regime. To have revealed the truth, he wrote, "would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff."

Suppressing news by threatening reporters with violence or death is one of the dirty little secrets of Middle East journalism. In his 1989 memoir From Beirut to Jerusalem, Thomas Friedman wrote that "physical intimidation" was a major impediment to honest reporting from Beirut during the years when southern Lebanon was in the grip of Yasser Arafat's PLO.

"There were . . . stories which were deliberately ignored out of fear," Friedman admitted. "How many serious stories were written from Beirut about the well-known corruption in the PLO leadership. . . ? It would be hard to find any hint of them in Beirut reporting before the Israeli invasion." Instead of reporting what they knew, journalists censored themselves. "The Western press coddled the PLO," Friedman acknowledged. "For any Beirut-based correspondent, the name of the game was keeping on good terms with the PLO."

That was more than 20 years ago. Has anything changed?

In the wake of the 1993 Oslo Accord, Arafat and the PLO assumed control of the Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank. Reconstituted as the Palestinian Authority, or PA, they lost no time cracking down on the press.

Arafat's "security forces have made more than 30 arrests of journalists and editors," the Columbia Journalism Review noted in 1996. "Although they have been almost completely freed from the Israeli yoke of military censorship, Palestinian journalists are being fettered in new ways. Reporters Sans Frontieres, a watchdog group based in Paris, released a report . . . deploring the Palestinian Authority's policy of suspending newspapers and employing threats and violence against journalists. . . . The result is a tame, compliant press that . . . rarely engages in investigative journalism and publishes only . . . 'vegetarian' criticism of the regime."

Khaled Abu Toameh, a veteran Arab reporter who covers Gaza and the West Bank for The Jerusalem Post and US News and World Report, noted recently that no credible, professional reporter can get a job at the three major Palestinian newspapers. "There are many professional Palestinian journalists," he told the Middle East Forum last April, but they can only find work with the non-Palestinian press.

Unfortunately, the intimidation of journalists extends to the wider Arab and Western media too.

On Sept. 11, 2001, Americans were shocked by footage of Palestinians dancing in the streets to celebrate the terrorist attacks on the United States. But those scenes disappeared from the airwaves soon after -- not because they weren't newsworthy, but because the Palestinian Authority gave orders to suppress them.

An Associated Press cameraman was summoned to a PA security office and warned not to release the material he had filmed. A top aide to Arafat told the AP's Jerusalem bureau that if the footage were aired, "we cannot guarantee the life" of the cameraman. Other news outlets were likewise ordered not to use any images of the 9/11 revelry. Most of them caved, and the images dried up.

Journalists like to cultivate a reputation for fearlessness, for a publish-and-be-damned commitment to putting out the story no matter what. The reality is not always so heroic. Sometimes the media are not fearless at all -- and their coverage, or lack of it, can amount to collaboration with dictators or thugs.

Meanwhile, the intimidation goes on.

In June, Abu Toameh reported in The Jerusalem Post that the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, an armed wing of the PLO's Fatah faction, admitted responsibility for a beating that left an Agence France Press photographer with two broken arms. In July, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate -- an Arafat front group -- warned that any reporter caught covering clashes between rival groups in Gaza would be punished severely. Just last week, armed gunmen threatened to attack journalists working for Arab satellite stations unless they stopped covering the current turmoil in the Palestinian Authority.

"People in the rest of the world . . . do not get an accurate picture of what happens in the region," Abu Toameh said in April. "Partly to blame are foreign journalists who allow themselves to be misled. . . . The bulk of the blame, however, rests with the PA, whose tyrannical approach and control of the media creates an atmosphere of intimidation and fear." For too many journalists, it seems, keeping on good terms with Palestine's bad men is still the name of the game.

(Jeff Jacoby is a syndicated columnist for The Boston Globe.)

Michael Moore Refuses to Admit Wrong After Being Exposed

Proving Michael Moore is an anti-American scumbag, he's exposed ONCE AGAIN as a liar, yet refuses to admit any wrong, and refuses to apologize. He did nothing misleading? How on earth can any reasonable human being say that? He deliberately doctored a newspaper "headline" and then changed the date of the piece in the paper! That is the very definition of misleading. The mooreons who fawn over this bloated idiot need to wake up.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Moore Defends Disputed Headline

Director Michael Moore is refusing to apologize to bosses at an Illinois newspaper, who have accused him of altering a headline in his controversial film Fahrenheit 9/11. Bosses at Bloomington publication The Pantagraph say the headline, flashed briefly in the film, came from a letter to the editor about the 2000 presidential election recount but was doctored to look like a news story. Even the date was changed. The newspaper sent a letter to Moore and his production company last month that it says was lighthearted but symbolic, demanding an apology and $1 in compensatory damages. But an attorney for Moore's Westside Productions replied this week, stating that Moore violated no copyright laws and did nothing misleading. Pantagraph president and publisher Henry Bird, who directed his lawyers to send a follow-up letter asking Moore to explain why material from the paper was altered without permission, booms, "Baloney!" Westside Productions lawyer Devereux Chatillon acknowledges that Moore was two weeks off on the date of the headline, which read: "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election." But Chatillon wrote in a letter to the paper that the mistake "did not make a difference to the editorial point... and was in no way detrimental to (The Pantagraph)".

Yet Another Review to Expose the America- Hating Scumbag that is Micheal Moore

Great review of Michael 'I Hate America' Moore's crockumentary F911...exposing a number of lies and distortions. How anyone could show happy scenes of Iraq, trying to make it look like a peaceful place before the big bad American military machine came in and attacked, it's just beyond me...it's so low, it's so disgusting, it's hard to even think that any person would stoop so low. Moore does tho, and sadly enough, millions of Americans have joined him in lala land and might stay there forever.

Nancy Pelosi Should Resign

Demand that Nancy Pelosi step down from office.

That's what all Americans should be doing. In an age of terrorism, any person who holds public office who makes natl. security a partisan issue, puts us all in danger. Pelosi is attacking the Bush admin's choice for new CIA chief- Porter Goss. She said:

Funny how that works...a person should not be acting in a political way when it comes to the safety of the American people. Wow, Nancy- I guess you should take your own advice. It seems an article of the June 5 Chattanooga Times talked about Pelosi's stance on Goss:

This is disgusting on every level. Pelosi is always, and I mean ALWAYS making everything out to be a partisan issue. I am sick of it from her, and I am sick of it from every public official who does it. Pelosi seems to be doing it more than anyone as far as I can see it, and because of her partisan games, I believe she should resign her seat. We must start holding our elected officials accountable, and demanding that this nonsense NOT stand. We are in the midst of world war 3 here folks- no doubt about it...there are monsters out there that are planning attacks as I type this out. They are planning ways of killing thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of innocent Americans, simply because we are American. Simply because we don't live by their sick twisted ways. These monsters will stop at nothing, and they MUST be destroyed. That's not at question. Leaders who play games with our safety cannot be tolerated, it goes for Pelosi and anyone who acts in the way she has.

To contact Pelosi and let her know you will not tolerate such behavior:

I have already sent my own E-Mail to her, and I have posted it below.

Dear Rep. Pelosi

I do not live in California; I am from Indiana, so I am not a direct constituent. You do, however, represent all Americans as part of the US Congress, so I had to contact you with this issue.

I have read a number of stories on your comments toward the Bush administration's choice of Porter Goss to head the CIA. You claim that politics has been brought into this and that it's not right. It seems, tho, that you are the one making this a partisan issue, since the news agencies have reported on your comments in the Chattanooga Times where you supported Goss and said you worked closely with him on the Sept 11 investigation. Now, it seems (from reports I have seen and read) that you are suddenly backing away from these comments, and your office is reporting that you didn't support him, but were merely saying you respected him. This is clearly not the case from the published news accounts of the issue.

I have seen you make VERY important things partisan issues on a number of occasions, and frankly, I am tired of it. When you do such things, you are putting Americans' safety at risk. You are an elected official, and it seems you will make these comments, attacks, etc. to gain political points, and for a member of Congress, I find it shameful, and you're doing a complete disservice to us all by continuing such acts.

I am requesting that you either do the job you were elected for, and stop playing political games with such serious issues, or resign your seat. The American people deserve more than this.

Joshua Taj Bozeman
Evansville, Indiana

Jacoby Points Out Absurd Nature of UNITY

Thank you, Jeff Jacoby for pointing out the complete racism espoused by groups like UNITY and pointing out the absurd claim that skin color leads to diversity of thought. Skin color should not play a role at all- the very fact that skin color plays a role is, in itself, a racist concept. UNITY and groups like it are a big joke- journalists need to NOT divide themselves at all, let alone divide themselves by the color of their skin- an idea that would appal Dr. King if he were alive today.

Take off the glasses that make you see everyone on the basis of their skin color, and wake up to the reality of the situation- "diversity" by skin color is ridiculous, and it serves no real purpose. Racist groups like UNITY should stop dividing and come together- if they did, a lot of these supposedly HUGE problems would come to an end.

This group is respected, to the point where CSPAN aired days of their meetings. That is disgusting in America. There's little difference between giving this group respect and giving the KKK respect- both groups see all people as one color or another...both groups demand that they're particular "color group" be given higher priority, and claim that each of their groups is discriminated against. The KKK gets no respect, and it shouldn't, nor should any group who practice such racism...when, then, does UNITY get loads of the respect they don't deserve?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHEN DIVERSITY IS ONLY SKIN-DEEP
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Thursday, August 12, 2004


George W. Bush was scourged for giving a speech in 2000 at Bob Jones University, an institution that used to ban interracial dating. Trent Lott was compelled to resign as Senate majority leader in 2002 after he toasted Strom Thurmond's segregationist campaign for president in 1948.

Given that recent history, no presidential candidate would even think of appearing before any association organized on the basis of race, right? Republican and Democrat alike would shun any group whose members demanded preferential treatment for those of their own skin color, right? If a candidate did agree to address such an audience, it would only be for purposes of effecting a "Sister Souljah moment" -- i.e., of making it clear that he emphatically rejected their racialist mindset. Right?

Wrong.

Last week, both Bush and John Kerry appeared before the "Unity: Journalists of Color" convention in Washington, DC. Unity is an amalgam of four racial/ethnic organizations -- the National Association of Black Journalists, the Asian-American Journalists Association, the Native American Journalists Association, and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists -- and it exists primarily to bleat about the lack of "diversity" in the media.

The overriding theme at Unity conventions is always the same: White people have too many jobs, especially the best jobs, in journalism. On the eve of last week's conference, it trotted out a study showing that "only" 10.5 percent of reporters, editors, and columnists in the Washington press corps are nonwhite. This it denounced as an "absymal lack of diversity," intolerable in a nation with a nonwhite population of 30 percent.

A media outlet with no minorities in its DC bureau is guilty of "dishonest journalism," fumed Unity's president, Ernest Sotomayor, "because it's a willful decision made to deliberately exclude diverse staff, and that means the media company is satisfied with providing its readers or audience a skewed view of the news."

But the argument is entirely illogical. Why should the Washington press corps, or any other occupational subgroup, be expected to exactly match the racial composition of the nation? Surely the relevant comparison is not to the percentage of nonwhites in America, but to the percentage of nonwhites in journalism. According to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, minorities account for 12.5 percent of journalists working for daily newspapers. Sowhy is it "abysmal" that a comparable proportion of journalists in those papers' Washington bureaus are minorities as well?

And just how does the race of reporters and editors determine whether they produce "a skewed view of the news?"

Unity claims that "journalists of color bring different and necessary perspectives to their work." Where is the evidence to prove it? Would two graduates of journalism school, both of them the product of (say) a suburban, middle-class upbringing, report a Senate hearing or a presidential press conference differently just because one of them is Scandinavian-American and the other is Japanese-American? The notion that race is a proxy for thought and belief is as odious as the Nuremberg Laws and South Africa's former Racial Classification Law, and has no more business in American journalism than they do.

It would be nice to report that Bush and Kerry used their time at the Unity podium to condemn the organization's obsession with skin color, and to remind the journalists in the room that true diversity, the only diversity worth fighting for, is intellectual diversity: the diversity of minds.

But there was no "Sister Souljah moment" last week. Instead, Bush and Kerry pandered shamelessly, telling Unity's racialists exactly what they wanted to hear.

"I will do my part to bring more diversity into the media," Kerry assured them. "As president, I will expand opportunities for people of color in the media by appointing FCC commissioners committed to enforcing equal employment and ensuring that small minority-owned broadcasters are not consolidated into extinction."

Bush spoke the next day. "You believe that there ought to be diversity in the newsroom," he said. "I understand that. You believe that there ought to be diversity on the editorial pages of America. I agree. You believe that there ought to be diversity behind that managing editor's desk. I agree with that too."

Neither candidate rose to the occasion. What the convention should have been told is that it is neither moral nor progressive to view the world through a racial prism. Unity's "journalists of color" should have heard the blunt message that journalism does not need more reporters and editors of color. It doesn't need more white journalists, either. What it needs are men and women of talent and integrity -- adults who have no interest in a "diversity" that is merely skin-deep. Bob Jones University has abandoned its benighted fixation with color. It's time American journalism followed suit.

(Jeff Jacoby is a syndicated columnist for The Boston Globe.)

Refuting Nonsense

This guy is a joke. He has opposed the iraq war from it was first proposed, which means he's not a very good source on the issue- the guy wanted to do nothing to remove a brutal despot from that country...and still feels that way today, that tells you something about the guy- maybe that's here not all there to begin with.

He starts out his article by mentioning militiamen killed, then he talks about so many innocent deaths...which seems to me he's claiming these people are part of the innocents as well- we all know innocent people get caught up in war and lose their lives...just as a million or so were SLAUGHTERED by Saddam Hussein- he makes no mention of these people. Well, he does- but he merely uses the quick brush over on the subject to call Americans murderers- "participating" in the deaths of so many innocent people, as if we are deliberately letting them die- never mentioning the fact that many died because Hussein is a psychopath who always placed military targets right on top of civilians to cause more death and carnage. Go figure.

He then talks about how Bush has done basically everything wrong for 4 years- which shows this guy is clearly a Bush-hater, which means his opinion about the subject is shoddy at best, wholly invalidated at worst. He claims Bush gave the middle finger to our allies- which we all know is bunk...the German PM who ran on an anti-American platform to win election, the French who stabbed Powell in the back with the UN resolution they said they would veto no matter what it said (the French have been implicated in the oil for food scandal, they were almost surely on the take with Hussein for millions of dollars, perhaps even more), the Russians- come on! Vladimir 'I will make all my opponents disappear' Putin? Russia isn't a happy place to be, and Putin isn't a good guy...never has been, never will be. We never gave the finger to any of these backstabbers. Recent polls show that the overwhelming majority of Europeans, if they had to choose right now, would do very little to fight radical islamic terrorism- they won't step up to the plate...the same thing happened during WWII. Europe refused to stand up to Hitler, and we came in and saved the day. We will most likely have to do the same thing today with terrorism. Big deal- we don't need the weasels with their funny hats and cheese, and we don't need the thug-like Russians, and we surely don't need the anti-American Germans.

As for Christianity- this guy must be very adept on the Bible. I really don't believe that God would say to America- "hey guys, get yourself killed...don't defend yourselves, let the world's people stay oppressed by brutal sociopaths like Saddam Hussein- see if I care." Highly doubtful. If God took action himself, he would annihilate Hussein and all men like him- one day, in the future, he will do JUST that, so let's not try to claim that removing despots thru force is at complete odds with Christianity.

He calls Iraq a fiasco- which is just stupid. Tens of millions of people FREED, no more murder rooms, no more rape rooms, no more torture chambers- a free nation in the heart of the middle east! No more threat to Kuwait, Iran, the US, any other nation from crazy Hussein. He talks about how we should have respect for human rights- as if freeing millions isn't respecting human rights. He also talks about a thirst for empire- which is absurd, since the US has added not one single inch of territory from any other nation since- hell, I don't even know when we took land from military action. So, a thirst for empire is just a blatant lie.

As I have shown- this piece is nonsense, and honesty is clearly not part of this guy's vocabulary.

Loony Leftist Ben Cohen and His Lack of Logic

I had to laugh when I saw this. Ben Cohen, the leftist co-founder of Ben and Jerry's has some silly ideas- silly at best, I should say. He talks about how we should cut defense spending by $5 billion to give more to k-12 education. He claims college scholarship money is drying up (sure could have fooled me!), then mentions merely K-12 education, which has no bearing on college spending...The US education system has TONS of money- of course it has less than defense spending by the pentagon...the nature of defense is- things cost a lot more than what education costs. That doesn't mean the answer is more money. Liberals always think- hey, this isn't working well enough, lets throw even MORE of your hard earned money at it (it's easy for a mutli-millionaire like Cohen to urge the govt. to spend more of the common taxpayer's money!) More money for education is NOT the answer. Education run by the govt is poorly managed. The government rarely does anything besides defense WELL. Government run schools are a joke compared to private schools. The answer isn't more money, because we spend tons of money per student already. To help prove Cohen wrong on education- the US spends more than any other industrialized nation on education. (SOURCE)

He goes on to talk about how Russia spends so much less than the US in regards to defense. Hello! This is EXACTLY why we crushed the USSR- by outspending them, causing their economy to collapse, freeing millions of people from harsh communist rule. He mentions China spends less than we do as well- yet neglects to mention that nation has, oh a billion man army, which comes into play when we discuss this subject! Not to mention, they are also a brutal communist dictatorship, which also has to come into all of this. His logic is completely insane.

He also talks about spending more money (taken from the pentagon budget) for energy purposes...to help us get off the need for mideast oil. More money isn't needed for that. I have a simple answer...let's drill in the tiny area of ANWAR. Liberals oppose us drilling for what could be TONS of oil we could use, simply to save a few frogs and a bird or two. Let's get our priorities straight- do we want to lessen the need for middle east oil, or do we want to protect the cute little animals? Liberals like Cohen have chosen- yet, their answer, as always, is to throw gobs of money at the problem. Money doesn't solve problems like this, it never has, and it never will. Cohen has tens of millions of dollars- of course he has the mindset that money money money is the answer.

He also talks about using defense spending to feed every hungry child on earth. Ya know what, Ben? Every child on earth is not my responsibility...defense spending to oust brutal regimes that CAUSE the hunger to begin with might be an snwer, but your plan is to cut that by $5 billion.

Makes no sense at all.
- - - - - - - -

This is what Cohen said about President Bush. Funny that all the reports out on the issue made it clear that NO ONE lied...just another leftist looney calling the president a liar, simply to promote their own backwards agenda. I should also mention that Cohen travels around the country with a 12 foot tall effigy of the president with flames shooting out of his pants, claiming the president is a liar. (SOURCE)

And, finally, more on Cohen

NOTE:(I believe Cohen actually might be a billionaire, not a millionaire. Makes it even easier to support throwing money at problems when you have more money than a thousand schools spend in a year!)

35 Years Later- The Day Teddy Kennedy Murdered

I despise Ted Kennedy. I don't get why this family is so revered in this country. JFK was a coward and a philanderer and Teddy is a murderer who was basically appointed to his seat in the senate thanks to his bro.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
July 20, 2004, 9:44 a.m.
Remembering Mary Jo
35 years later: Ted Kennedy’s under-investigated scandal.
Myrna Blyth

This week we may hear a little about the 35th anniversary of Neil Armstrong's moonwalk, but there is another anniversary that has alreeady gone unnoticed. On July 18, 1969, a couple of nights before Armstrong took that "giant step for mankind," Ted Kennedy took a turn onto a narrow bridge in Chappaquiddick. The passenger in his car that night was Mary Jo Kopechne, a pretty, blond Capitol Hill secretary, just about to celebrate her 29th birthday. The two events are inextricably linked in my mind because my husband, who was a correspondent for a British newspaper, instead of reporting on our glorious odyssey into space, ended up at police headquarters on Martha's Vineyard covering that sordid story.

In case you have forgotten or never knew the details, Ted and five of his pals and six women known as the "Boiler Room Girls" who had worked in Bobby Kennedy's presidential campaign, cut short by his assassination the year before, were weekending together. Afterward, the men claimed it was just a couple of days of innocent fun to thank the girls for their help, though the six guys were all married but partying without their wives, and the young women were all single. One of the "Boiler Room Girls" is now big-time New York literary agent Esther Newberg, who was Mary Jo's roommate for the weekend. Like everyone involved in the incident, Esther remains close-mouthed about what occurred.

What everyone testified at the time was that Kennedy and Mary Jo left the party before midnight. Kennedy said he was driving her back to the ferry to Edgartown, and took a wrong turn, though he was very familiar with the roads on the island. His car toppled off a narrow wooden-planked bridge, a bridge that is in the opposite direction to the road that led to the ferry but is on the way to the beach. The car landed upside-down in eight feet of water and, Kennedy claimed that after escaping, he tried unsuccessfully to rescue Mary Jo. He then staggered back to the party, called out his cousin Joe Gargan and his pal Paul Markham, to return to the scene. What he didn't do, inexplicably, was seek help in a lighted house only yards from the bridge or use the fire-alarm phone at a fire station he passed on the way back to the party.

Right from the start, the reporters who arrived at the scene were skeptical of his story, skeptical even of how he claimed he got back to Edgartown that night. Markham and Gargan said when they drove to the ferry landing — the ferry had stopped running by then — Kennedy took them by surprise by jumping in the water, and swimming across the channel towards Edgartown. They assumed, they said, he would report the accident that night to the police. Instead Kennedy went back to his hotel, ostensibly to change his clothes but instead, went downstairs to complain about a noisy party that was going on.

The next morning Markham and Gargan were waiting for Kennedy when he arrived at 9 A.M. on the first ferry. The ferry operator said Kennedy appeared to be in a jovial mood, but probably only until he was told that his car had been found. Only then did Kennedy return and report the accident.

Some reporters, primarily the foreign press, did ask tough questions. For example: Did Kennedy really swim back to Edgartown that night? No one saw him with wet clothes and my husband, for one, interviewed a young man who had tied up his rowboat at the Chappaquiddick dock on Saturday night. When he got there on Sunday morning, he said, it had been retied and with what he called a "land lubber's knot."

But the whole incident was overshadowed by the worldwide coverage of the moonwalk. Besides, all the people involved had, by midday, left Martha's Vineyard and headed home. When the police went to the cottage where the party had taken place, all they found were some washed Coca-Cola bottles. There was no one to interview and no one who would talk then — or ever. Besides, Kennedy was treated like Massachusetts royalty by the local police chief, Dominick Arena, who even gave up his office so that Kennedy could make telephone calls to advisers and lawyers in privacy.

It may have been the last time when a scandal was so under-investigated, so quickly dispatched — and the man involved seemed to get off so easily for what he had done. A week later, Kennedy, who arrived in court wearing a neck brace, pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and was given a two-month suspended sentence and a year's probation.

Next week Ted Kennedy will be center stage at the Democratic convention in Boston. "It will be a celebration...of the work of Ted Kennedy.... There will be a lot of appropriate attention paid to a person who has been at the center of national politics for the past forty years," his colleague Senator Christopher Dodd has enthused. And last year Boston Globe reporter Charles Pierce commented, "If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age."

It would be funny — if it wasn't so sad.