If we want to prevent vote fraud we need to re-visit the issue of absentee ballots. Liberal use of absentee ballots is an invitation to vote fraud because the ballots are not marked in a protected place. That is, all of the protections that exist at a polling place-- private polling booths, prohibitions against employers accompanying the voter into the booth and so on, don't exist with an absentee ballot. For all we know, when a voter is filling out an absentee ballot, there is somebody standing there to make sure it is filled out a certain way. The other problem is making sure that the voter is the one who is filling out the ballot. Checking signatures seems like the solution, but be real. Verifying signatures requires expertise. Do we really have the time to have all of those signatures verified? No. We don't. Forcing people to show up makes checking identification easy. We should return to the days when people had to have an excuse to vote absentee. In fact I would institute a procedure in place in Pennsylvania when I lived there-- ifyou are able-bodied but plan to be out of town on election day, you go to the County Clerk's office ahead of election day and vote in person showing appropriate i. d.
We need to make sure that people are not stuffing ballot boxes with absentee ballots.
USATODAY.com - Don't cast that ballot until Election Day, that is: "Proponents of absentee and early voting say it's all about increasing voter participation. I say it's a prescription for fraud on a grand scale, and politically foolish to boot. It amazes me that critics of electronic voting, which is conducted under the watchful eye of bipartisan election officials, are so blasé about the fact that millions of ballots are floating around America with no security except the implicit trust that everyone who signs an absentee ballot is honest."
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Blair says it All
Michael Barone writes about hard America and soft America. Tony Blair has learned the difference. It is easy to "feel" someone's pain-- It is difficult to actually do something about the cause of the pain. Softness and ease are the same thing when we talk about dealing with problems. Toughness, embracing difficulty, these are the things we have to do to survive and thrive. It is as true in dealing with social problems as with international problems. We have been pretending, for at least 30 years that the Middle East would somehow fix itself. It won't. Someone needs to fix it. Why not us?
Blair Makes the Case: "I have come to realise that caring in politics isn't really about 'caring.' It's about doing what you think is right and sticking to it."
Blair Makes the Case: "I have come to realise that caring in politics isn't really about 'caring.' It's about doing what you think is right and sticking to it."
WorldNetDaily: Non-citizen voter fraud
Coincidentally I had just sent an e-mail to a friend making this exact point. Too many illegals are probably already voting, not to mention their family and friends who may be here legally. No one has personally questioned any of these people as to whether they are citizens as we used to back in the bad old days when deputy registrars registered people.
If we do not restore some integrity to our elections we will be overun without a shot being fired.
WorldNetDaily: Non-citizen voter fraud: "Non-citizen voter fraud
Posted: September 29, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Ever wonder why politicians of both major parties show little interest in cracking down on illegal immigration?
Here's one possibility: The 8-12 million illegals already in this country represent one of the largest, special-interest voting blocks in America.
SPONSORED LINKS
"
If we do not restore some integrity to our elections we will be overun without a shot being fired.
WorldNetDaily: Non-citizen voter fraud: "Non-citizen voter fraud
Posted: September 29, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Ever wonder why politicians of both major parties show little interest in cracking down on illegal immigration?
Here's one possibility: The 8-12 million illegals already in this country represent one of the largest, special-interest voting blocks in America.
SPONSORED LINKS
"
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Why The War Had to Start
Mike Savage, talk show host, expressed the theory that history for most of us starts when we were born. But for Democrats it started 20 minutes ago. In all of the talk about "patience" and "letting the diplomatic process work" the newspapers and msm seem to have completely forgotten that we had 200,000 troops sitting in Kuwait as the weather got hotter and the sand storm season came closer. Kerry's argument, forgetting this small fact, forgetting that Saddam did not allow the inspectors in until we had this force massed on his border, is, in and of itself proof that he is completely incompetent to be Commander in Chief
Amygdala: "Powerful as the US military is, the US, nor any conceivable coalition, cannot maintain an invasion force on the doorstep of Iraq indefinitely. Nor would it be politically sustainable by any of the involved countries.
So, the argument for the continuation of the inspection regime fails on this basis: it cannot, and would not, be continued indefinitely, or even for any significant length of time once the military threat against Iraq is withdrawn.
Which brings us back to the situation where Saddam Hussein, once again, in a few years time, if not sooner, is nuclear-armed, with missiles, and biological and chemical weapons.
And I don't see that as tolerable.
Reasonable people may, and do, disagree on this, and I remain entirely open to discussion of it, and introduction of facts and arguments I've not run in to, but right now, I don't see allowing Hussein, or his successors, to again arm himself to the point of such a threat, to be nuclear armed, as tolerable.
I point to North Korea as one example of some problems that would result.
The time when a regime has acquired such weapons and become such a threat is the time we call too late."
Amygdala: "Powerful as the US military is, the US, nor any conceivable coalition, cannot maintain an invasion force on the doorstep of Iraq indefinitely. Nor would it be politically sustainable by any of the involved countries.
So, the argument for the continuation of the inspection regime fails on this basis: it cannot, and would not, be continued indefinitely, or even for any significant length of time once the military threat against Iraq is withdrawn.
Which brings us back to the situation where Saddam Hussein, once again, in a few years time, if not sooner, is nuclear-armed, with missiles, and biological and chemical weapons.
And I don't see that as tolerable.
Reasonable people may, and do, disagree on this, and I remain entirely open to discussion of it, and introduction of facts and arguments I've not run in to, but right now, I don't see allowing Hussein, or his successors, to again arm himself to the point of such a threat, to be nuclear armed, as tolerable.
I point to North Korea as one example of some problems that would result.
The time when a regime has acquired such weapons and become such a threat is the time we call too late."
Perhaps this Blog from Mike Durett explains Kerry's orange color--too many cheetos
The Mike Durrett Show: My Diet Diary -or- Son of Blubber -or- Chinny Chins Chins -
Humor - 01/28/99: "And, no, I didn't fall asleep under a tanning light. Yes, my skin is orange-tinged. As I told you last time, I ate a lot of Chee-tos.
178 lbs. Jan. 20: Day 8
Three pounds lost due to embarrassment. Being orange frazzles the nerves.
Large and orange isn't so bad in itself. It's those incessant kids begging for Garfield the Cat's autograph. They all want a bite of my lasagnas, too.
I do expect this orange skin color to subside. I've substituted tomatoes for the Chee-tos. I don't eat nearly as many tomatoes, which is good; otherwise, I'd have more red neck than KKK hickeys."
Humor - 01/28/99: "And, no, I didn't fall asleep under a tanning light. Yes, my skin is orange-tinged. As I told you last time, I ate a lot of Chee-tos.
178 lbs. Jan. 20: Day 8
Three pounds lost due to embarrassment. Being orange frazzles the nerves.
Large and orange isn't so bad in itself. It's those incessant kids begging for Garfield the Cat's autograph. They all want a bite of my lasagnas, too.
I do expect this orange skin color to subside. I've substituted tomatoes for the Chee-tos. I don't eat nearly as many tomatoes, which is good; otherwise, I'd have more red neck than KKK hickeys."
Monday, September 27, 2004
Is Halliburton Kerry's magic bullet?
The Online Beat: "Kerry should make the crony capitalism that has allowed Vice President Dick Cheney's corporation to become the dominant player in the management of the botched occupation and reconstruction of Iraq a part of every answer to every question. The Democrat should explain to Americans, again and again and again, that one of the primary explanations for the fact that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has turned out badly is the determination of this administration to assure that Halliburton be the primary profiteer in the region."
Thus speaks a "progressive" i. e. leftwing Blogger. The problem is that, as usual, he's leaving out a lot of relevant facts that should leave Kerry with more egg on his face. Let's start with-- Halliburton has lost 40 employees in Iraq-- i. e. dead. You have to pay people a lot of money to do what these people are doing in place that means they are running the risk of being beheaded. Second he is leaving out the fact that the Clinton administration used Halliburton too. Why? Because Halliburton is the only company capable of moving into place quickly and performing the contract.
So here is a question for Senator Kerry and all of the left wing Halliburton obssessors? What other company can do what Halliburton can do at the drop of a hat? My sources say-- no one.
Thus speaks a "progressive" i. e. leftwing Blogger. The problem is that, as usual, he's leaving out a lot of relevant facts that should leave Kerry with more egg on his face. Let's start with-- Halliburton has lost 40 employees in Iraq-- i. e. dead. You have to pay people a lot of money to do what these people are doing in place that means they are running the risk of being beheaded. Second he is leaving out the fact that the Clinton administration used Halliburton too. Why? Because Halliburton is the only company capable of moving into place quickly and performing the contract.
So here is a question for Senator Kerry and all of the left wing Halliburton obssessors? What other company can do what Halliburton can do at the drop of a hat? My sources say-- no one.
What's wrong with Old Media Thinking
Here it is, the classic liberal solution to islamofascism;; throw money at it.
USATODAY.com - How aid to poor nations can alter post-9/11 world: "How aid to poor nations can alter post-9/11 world"
With all due respect Mr. Wolfensohn, these people in the middle east, at least the oil rich ones, have plenty of money. In case you haven't been paying attention, there are tens and thousands of schools throughout the Islamic world that are called Madrassas where little boys are turned into American hating killers.
What you are suggesting is trying to fight cancer with chicken soup.
Sorry. You have to cut out the cancer. Then the chicken soup will help.
USATODAY.com - How aid to poor nations can alter post-9/11 world: "How aid to poor nations can alter post-9/11 world"
With all due respect Mr. Wolfensohn, these people in the middle east, at least the oil rich ones, have plenty of money. In case you haven't been paying attention, there are tens and thousands of schools throughout the Islamic world that are called Madrassas where little boys are turned into American hating killers.
What you are suggesting is trying to fight cancer with chicken soup.
Sorry. You have to cut out the cancer. Then the chicken soup will help.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Mark O. Hatfield: For me, choice for president is clear: Bush
Remember how they used to say a conservative is a liberal who got mugged. Now it is a liberal who was bombed and figured out what it was all about. Simply said and simply elegant.
Mark O. Hatfield: For me, choice for president is clear: Bush: "Mark O. Hatfield: For me, choice for president is clear: Bush
Thursday, September 23, 2004
As a young Navy officer in World War II, I was one of the first Americans to see Hiroshima after the atomic bomb was dropped in 1945. That experience lives with me today, and it helped to shape the view I held during my public service career: a view that war is wrong in nearly every circumstance."
Mark O. Hatfield: For me, choice for president is clear: Bush: "Mark O. Hatfield: For me, choice for president is clear: Bush
Thursday, September 23, 2004
As a young Navy officer in World War II, I was one of the first Americans to see Hiroshima after the atomic bomb was dropped in 1945. That experience lives with me today, and it helped to shape the view I held during my public service career: a view that war is wrong in nearly every circumstance."
Gay Marriage v. Civil Unions
One of the proposed solutions to the issue of gay marriage is to allow what is, in essence, a marriage and call it something else like, for example, civil union. What advocates of this "compromise" still seem to insist on is that persons in these civil unions should be entitled to all of the same entitlements that married people are.
First of all, some of the so-called entitlements aren't entitlements at all-- two married working people pay a higher rate of taxes than two unmarried working people.
But, setting that aside, I am opposed. Let's first talk about what this civil union would be. As of today, outside of Massachusetts, the only sexual activity specifically affirmed and encouraged by any government is sexual activity inside of marriage. There is a reason for that. It's called reproduction. It's called the next generation. Sexual unions that produce children are of great interest to society and to the government that tries to protect society. We the people, despite some disagreement, have come to the conclusion that marriage between one man and one woman is the best for society. A little over a hundred years ago, when Utah wanted to become a state, we, as a country said no until Utah got rid of legal recogniation of plural marriage.
We took that position for the reason that we think that children born inside of wedlock with a mother and a father have the best circumstances for growing up and becoming productive citizens.
A gay union can NEVER produce a child. Not ever. What of the homosexuals with children? All of those children are the result of heterosexual relationships, even if that relationship was conveyed by means of a turkey baster to a womb. Perhaps I should qualify the NOT EVER. Maybe someone will figure out how to turn a sperm into an ovum. Who knows. So, maybe for the forseeable future.
The legal benefits of marriage, are, for the most part, premised on the idea that most marriages produce children. Children, for those who are not personally acquainted with any, are, among other things, future taxpayers, citizens, voters and soldiers. Society has an interest in making sure there are enough of them, brought up in health, to shoulder the future burdens.
We already have a problem, without gay marriage, in this regard. A huge percentage of childen are being born out of wedlock. That is bad news for children. Another hugh proportion of children do not have two parents in the home. Arguing that marriage has already been pretty much destroyed so lets just kill it off altogether, seems to be the latest sophistry in the argument for homosexual marriages.
What few people do is look at the benefits of being married: One, legitimacy of children born in the relationship. In virtually every state in the union a child born to a married couple is presumed to be that of the father. This legal "benefit" aids in assuring more support for a child, regardless of whether the parents stay together. This is a benefit which cannot rationnaly be attributed to a gay couple.
Another is various spousal benefits related to retirement and what have you. Here there is a closer question. Certainly with regard to social security, it is a public question. All of these systems assumed that a wife would have either been entirely absent from the workforce, or absent for a long time, because of child bearing and child raising responsibilities. These benefits were her compensation, her share of her husband's income over a lifetime. Even if one partner in a same sex relationship took time off, it is rarely for the purpose of raising children.
Medical benefits: This one we really need to examine carefully because there may be a temptation to marry someone to give that person medical benefits. We need some serious cost estimates before we plunge headlong into this one.
Inheritance rights: This can be accomplished without marriage. Who needs marriage?
Community property rights. Hmmm. This is the one where I wonder if gay couples really understood it, would they still want to get married. Did Rosie O'Donnell have a prenup? I'm really interested in that divorce. She did get married in California and it is a community property state. If her partner decides to leave and asks for half of her millions what will Rosie say? Nevertheless, this is somthing that, if the couple really wants it, they can arrange by contract.
Spousal support: Again, I wonder if most gay couples knew this about marriage, whether they would still want to get married. Do you want to be legally obligated to support your partner after you separate if you earn more than he or she does?
Access to medical records, medical consents and so on. Again, this can be accomplished without marriage-- written health care directives can pretty much solve all of these issue.
So, here is my proposal, yes lets have provision for registered domestic partnerships as essentially contracts-- sort of the domestic equivalent of a joint venture agreement and lets have some boilerplate provisions for that contract in law. We do that for landlord and tenant and auto dealerships and, importantly, wills and health care directives and so on. Why not living together arrangements? But lets not make a sexual relationship a predicate. What if my cousin and I want to make such an arrangement and it has nothing to do with sex but merely is about income and property? And let the form have some check boxes-- yes we want community property, no we don't, and let's not compel any private or public person to grant benefits to such arrangements. Then I am in favor of domestic partnerships.
As far as marriage itself is concerned-- the Metropolitan Community Church has been performing gay marriages for 30 years. They just aren't legally sanctioned and approved-- kind of like Brittany Spears last marriage.
Seriously, though, we owe an obligation to our children to create a world that is better for them. Marriage is part of that world. If we have treated it lightly and trashed it, we should stop trashing it. Rather than throwing it away altogether, we should back off from easy divorce and begin to wonder again about the stability of people who can't stay married.
First of all, some of the so-called entitlements aren't entitlements at all-- two married working people pay a higher rate of taxes than two unmarried working people.
But, setting that aside, I am opposed. Let's first talk about what this civil union would be. As of today, outside of Massachusetts, the only sexual activity specifically affirmed and encouraged by any government is sexual activity inside of marriage. There is a reason for that. It's called reproduction. It's called the next generation. Sexual unions that produce children are of great interest to society and to the government that tries to protect society. We the people, despite some disagreement, have come to the conclusion that marriage between one man and one woman is the best for society. A little over a hundred years ago, when Utah wanted to become a state, we, as a country said no until Utah got rid of legal recogniation of plural marriage.
We took that position for the reason that we think that children born inside of wedlock with a mother and a father have the best circumstances for growing up and becoming productive citizens.
A gay union can NEVER produce a child. Not ever. What of the homosexuals with children? All of those children are the result of heterosexual relationships, even if that relationship was conveyed by means of a turkey baster to a womb. Perhaps I should qualify the NOT EVER. Maybe someone will figure out how to turn a sperm into an ovum. Who knows. So, maybe for the forseeable future.
The legal benefits of marriage, are, for the most part, premised on the idea that most marriages produce children. Children, for those who are not personally acquainted with any, are, among other things, future taxpayers, citizens, voters and soldiers. Society has an interest in making sure there are enough of them, brought up in health, to shoulder the future burdens.
We already have a problem, without gay marriage, in this regard. A huge percentage of childen are being born out of wedlock. That is bad news for children. Another hugh proportion of children do not have two parents in the home. Arguing that marriage has already been pretty much destroyed so lets just kill it off altogether, seems to be the latest sophistry in the argument for homosexual marriages.
What few people do is look at the benefits of being married: One, legitimacy of children born in the relationship. In virtually every state in the union a child born to a married couple is presumed to be that of the father. This legal "benefit" aids in assuring more support for a child, regardless of whether the parents stay together. This is a benefit which cannot rationnaly be attributed to a gay couple.
Another is various spousal benefits related to retirement and what have you. Here there is a closer question. Certainly with regard to social security, it is a public question. All of these systems assumed that a wife would have either been entirely absent from the workforce, or absent for a long time, because of child bearing and child raising responsibilities. These benefits were her compensation, her share of her husband's income over a lifetime. Even if one partner in a same sex relationship took time off, it is rarely for the purpose of raising children.
Medical benefits: This one we really need to examine carefully because there may be a temptation to marry someone to give that person medical benefits. We need some serious cost estimates before we plunge headlong into this one.
Inheritance rights: This can be accomplished without marriage. Who needs marriage?
Community property rights. Hmmm. This is the one where I wonder if gay couples really understood it, would they still want to get married. Did Rosie O'Donnell have a prenup? I'm really interested in that divorce. She did get married in California and it is a community property state. If her partner decides to leave and asks for half of her millions what will Rosie say? Nevertheless, this is somthing that, if the couple really wants it, they can arrange by contract.
Spousal support: Again, I wonder if most gay couples knew this about marriage, whether they would still want to get married. Do you want to be legally obligated to support your partner after you separate if you earn more than he or she does?
Access to medical records, medical consents and so on. Again, this can be accomplished without marriage-- written health care directives can pretty much solve all of these issue.
So, here is my proposal, yes lets have provision for registered domestic partnerships as essentially contracts-- sort of the domestic equivalent of a joint venture agreement and lets have some boilerplate provisions for that contract in law. We do that for landlord and tenant and auto dealerships and, importantly, wills and health care directives and so on. Why not living together arrangements? But lets not make a sexual relationship a predicate. What if my cousin and I want to make such an arrangement and it has nothing to do with sex but merely is about income and property? And let the form have some check boxes-- yes we want community property, no we don't, and let's not compel any private or public person to grant benefits to such arrangements. Then I am in favor of domestic partnerships.
As far as marriage itself is concerned-- the Metropolitan Community Church has been performing gay marriages for 30 years. They just aren't legally sanctioned and approved-- kind of like Brittany Spears last marriage.
Seriously, though, we owe an obligation to our children to create a world that is better for them. Marriage is part of that world. If we have treated it lightly and trashed it, we should stop trashing it. Rather than throwing it away altogether, we should back off from easy divorce and begin to wonder again about the stability of people who can't stay married.
Friday, September 24, 2004
UNDERSTANDING IMMIGRATION NUMBERS AND OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
Rich Lowry criticizes Bush for trying to go after the Hispanic vote, but he doesn't seem to understand that, like the war on terror, its something we can't afford to lose.
Rich Lowry on Dems on National Review Online: "With its amnesty proposal at the beginning of the year, the Bush administration hoped to win more Hispanic support, but to no avail. 'The notion that you can float some sort of amnesty, and low-income, poorly educated voters come on board is fantasy,' says Gimpel, who has just authored a report for the Center for Immigration Studies on Latino voting patterns. Latinos mainly vote on the same issues as everyone else, meaning they vote like most other poor, Democratic-leaning voters. According to a Pew study, Latinos rate immigration reform 11th in terms of its importance as an issue.
Bush has been operating on a flawed theory of his own performance among Hispanics in his 1998 gubernatorial reelection in Texas. Yes, Bush did much better than Republicans usually do among Hispanics. But that is mostly because in his landslide victory many Hispanic voters stayed home, which increased the share of more-affluent, Republican-leaning Latinos in the Hispanic electorate. 'There is a big difference between increasing your share of the Hispanic vote based on low turnout and increasing it on the basis of conversion,' says Gimpel.
On a short term basis Rich Lowry is right. But on a long term basis, he is dead wrong. First, Bush wasn't going after the Hispanic vote with his proposal. He was trying to rationalize and solve an economic and demographic problem. Native Born Americans, other than Hispanics are not reproducing at a rate sufficient to replace themselves. http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/hispanics/hispanics.html
In the absence of immigration the imbalance of working and retired adults would be much worse than it is.
Those who complain about immigrants taking jobs are correct that they are not just taking low paying jobs. In Southern California a huge percentage of the unionized building trades are Hispanic.
So the truth is that in addition to causing problems, illegal immigration is solving problems.
Bush's proposal is an attempt to to rationalize this process and, frankly, to encourage illegal immigrants to go back to their native countries when they have finished working here.
His efforts at trying to garner a higher percentage of the Hispanic vote are an effort to deal with the coming reality and to tranform the Republican party into a party with a future. The Republican party must garner a higher percentage of the Black, Hispanic and Women's votes if it is to survive. Contrary to Lowry's implication, Bush doesn't have to gain a majority of either block to succeed. He just needs to increase the percentages. If he could increase the party identification of Blacks from 10 to 20 percent Republican, and of Hispanics to 35 percent Republican, the Republican party would be virtually guaranteed dominance.
The Democrats understand these numbers, which explains the race baiting viciousness of their tactics. Bush and the Democrats also understand the deep crevasses in the traditional Democratic coalition. On the social issues most Hispanics and Blacks agree far more with the Republican party platform than the Democrat party platform. Most Hispanics are Catholic. They are far more likely to be opposed to late term abortions and homosexual marriage than the average non Hispanic. On social issues, they are Repbulicans. If Bush can peel off an extra five or 10 percent, he can tip the balance of voting decisively to the Republican party.
Rich Lowry on Dems on National Review Online: "With its amnesty proposal at the beginning of the year, the Bush administration hoped to win more Hispanic support, but to no avail. 'The notion that you can float some sort of amnesty, and low-income, poorly educated voters come on board is fantasy,' says Gimpel, who has just authored a report for the Center for Immigration Studies on Latino voting patterns. Latinos mainly vote on the same issues as everyone else, meaning they vote like most other poor, Democratic-leaning voters. According to a Pew study, Latinos rate immigration reform 11th in terms of its importance as an issue.
Bush has been operating on a flawed theory of his own performance among Hispanics in his 1998 gubernatorial reelection in Texas. Yes, Bush did much better than Republicans usually do among Hispanics. But that is mostly because in his landslide victory many Hispanic voters stayed home, which increased the share of more-affluent, Republican-leaning Latinos in the Hispanic electorate. 'There is a big difference between increasing your share of the Hispanic vote based on low turnout and increasing it on the basis of conversion,' says Gimpel.
On a short term basis Rich Lowry is right. But on a long term basis, he is dead wrong. First, Bush wasn't going after the Hispanic vote with his proposal. He was trying to rationalize and solve an economic and demographic problem. Native Born Americans, other than Hispanics are not reproducing at a rate sufficient to replace themselves. http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/hispanics/hispanics.html
In the absence of immigration the imbalance of working and retired adults would be much worse than it is.
Those who complain about immigrants taking jobs are correct that they are not just taking low paying jobs. In Southern California a huge percentage of the unionized building trades are Hispanic.
So the truth is that in addition to causing problems, illegal immigration is solving problems.
Bush's proposal is an attempt to to rationalize this process and, frankly, to encourage illegal immigrants to go back to their native countries when they have finished working here.
His efforts at trying to garner a higher percentage of the Hispanic vote are an effort to deal with the coming reality and to tranform the Republican party into a party with a future. The Republican party must garner a higher percentage of the Black, Hispanic and Women's votes if it is to survive. Contrary to Lowry's implication, Bush doesn't have to gain a majority of either block to succeed. He just needs to increase the percentages. If he could increase the party identification of Blacks from 10 to 20 percent Republican, and of Hispanics to 35 percent Republican, the Republican party would be virtually guaranteed dominance.
The Democrats understand these numbers, which explains the race baiting viciousness of their tactics. Bush and the Democrats also understand the deep crevasses in the traditional Democratic coalition. On the social issues most Hispanics and Blacks agree far more with the Republican party platform than the Democrat party platform. Most Hispanics are Catholic. They are far more likely to be opposed to late term abortions and homosexual marriage than the average non Hispanic. On social issues, they are Repbulicans. If Bush can peel off an extra five or 10 percent, he can tip the balance of voting decisively to the Republican party.
Fool.com: Is eBay Killing America? [Commentary] September 24, 2004
The Dems reaction to Cheney'e e-bay comment is proof that they really don't get IT. They still live in a past where friendly networks could bury the swift vets story and fake documents could be rendered legitimate by Dan Rather. They really do not understand the future. They live in a past where a good job is with a union in a factory. They themselves have never held such jobs nor would they deign to. Behind the union leaders backs they sneer at how uncouth the redneck workers are.
I know this sort of person. They don't do computer or e-mail. That's what secretaries are for. Heck they don't type. When I worked for a big company, I remember one of this type, who was head of a division getting on an elevator. Silence fell on the assembled minions in the presence of greatness. Then his greatness asked, how one would get a letter to another city overnight. No one answered. He asked again. I, timidly, responded, "Airborne". "Of course it would be by air", he sneered. Another hardy soul volunteered, "That's the name of the company we contract with for overnight air delivery" he said. And I stood there thinking, How can you get so high up and so detached that you do not know the name of the company that has a many million dollar exclusive delivery contract with a company you are vice-president of. How is that all of us, not one a secretary, had read the memo saying we must use that company because it would save our company millions of dollars a year?
The Dems are similarly out of touch with the nation they are seeking to run and the world it lives in. Unfortunately the rest of us have no choice. There is no where better to go. I pray that the world will not go up in flames if Kerry wins but I deeply fear that it will.
Fool.com: Is eBay Killing America? [Commentary] September 24, 2004: " Email this page
Format for printing
Become a Fool!
Reuse/Reprint
Related Links
Commentary Archive
eBay Has the Power
Marry Me, Meg!
Discussion Boards
Fool News & Commentary
eBay
By Rick Aristotle Munarriz (TMF Edible)
September 24, 2004
It's big, it's hungry, and if you don't batten down the hatches, I swear, eBay (Nasdaq: EBAY) will eat your babies!
I'm just teasing you, now. You and I both know that it will gobble up cute puppies first.
The world's leading online exchange has become a political hot potato this month. Yet if I can offer up an analytical voice of reason, I would argue that the partisan shots feel more like duds than spuds.
Let's review what happened here. Earlier this month, Vice President Dick Cheney was stumping in Cincinnati when he brought up eBay as an example of why economic data isn't fully factoring in a robust recovery. 'That's a source that didn't even exist 10 years ago,' he said, pointing out that the data munchers aren't accounting for the fact that '400,000 people make some money trading on eBay.'
Sensing that it was something worth pouncing on, the person angling to replace Cheney as the country's VP took aim. 'He said people are selling a lot of stuff on eBay,' John Edwards said. 'When we count the bake sales and lemonade stands, we'll have a roaring economy.'
It's odd, isn't it? It's not just that eBay has gone from CNBC to C-SPAN fodder these days. But now, despite the bucketfuls of ubiquity, this seemingly simple company is just being flat-out misunderstood by the educated politicos.
eBay is big
With 114 million registered users -- 48 million of those being active eBayers who have bid, bought, or listed with eBay over the past year -- this is more than just the world's largest garage sale. It's often referred to as a virtual flea market, though maybe a wired car showroom would be just as appropriate since nearly $10 billion of the $29.1 billion in gross merchandise value that the site has helped move over the past four quarters has been in its automotive category."
I know this sort of person. They don't do computer or e-mail. That's what secretaries are for. Heck they don't type. When I worked for a big company, I remember one of this type, who was head of a division getting on an elevator. Silence fell on the assembled minions in the presence of greatness. Then his greatness asked, how one would get a letter to another city overnight. No one answered. He asked again. I, timidly, responded, "Airborne". "Of course it would be by air", he sneered. Another hardy soul volunteered, "That's the name of the company we contract with for overnight air delivery" he said. And I stood there thinking, How can you get so high up and so detached that you do not know the name of the company that has a many million dollar exclusive delivery contract with a company you are vice-president of. How is that all of us, not one a secretary, had read the memo saying we must use that company because it would save our company millions of dollars a year?
The Dems are similarly out of touch with the nation they are seeking to run and the world it lives in. Unfortunately the rest of us have no choice. There is no where better to go. I pray that the world will not go up in flames if Kerry wins but I deeply fear that it will.
Fool.com: Is eBay Killing America? [Commentary] September 24, 2004: " Email this page
Format for printing
Become a Fool!
Reuse/Reprint
Related Links
Commentary Archive
eBay Has the Power
Marry Me, Meg!
Discussion Boards
Fool News & Commentary
eBay
By Rick Aristotle Munarriz (TMF Edible)
September 24, 2004
It's big, it's hungry, and if you don't batten down the hatches, I swear, eBay (Nasdaq: EBAY) will eat your babies!
I'm just teasing you, now. You and I both know that it will gobble up cute puppies first.
The world's leading online exchange has become a political hot potato this month. Yet if I can offer up an analytical voice of reason, I would argue that the partisan shots feel more like duds than spuds.
Let's review what happened here. Earlier this month, Vice President Dick Cheney was stumping in Cincinnati when he brought up eBay as an example of why economic data isn't fully factoring in a robust recovery. 'That's a source that didn't even exist 10 years ago,' he said, pointing out that the data munchers aren't accounting for the fact that '400,000 people make some money trading on eBay.'
Sensing that it was something worth pouncing on, the person angling to replace Cheney as the country's VP took aim. 'He said people are selling a lot of stuff on eBay,' John Edwards said. 'When we count the bake sales and lemonade stands, we'll have a roaring economy.'
It's odd, isn't it? It's not just that eBay has gone from CNBC to C-SPAN fodder these days. But now, despite the bucketfuls of ubiquity, this seemingly simple company is just being flat-out misunderstood by the educated politicos.
eBay is big
With 114 million registered users -- 48 million of those being active eBayers who have bid, bought, or listed with eBay over the past year -- this is more than just the world's largest garage sale. It's often referred to as a virtual flea market, though maybe a wired car showroom would be just as appropriate since nearly $10 billion of the $29.1 billion in gross merchandise value that the site has helped move over the past four quarters has been in its automotive category."
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
We Must Repeal Mc Cain Feingold
The links between liberal politicians and liberal media are constantly being revealed. The engineering of a hoped for scandal by CBS and the Kerry campaign is just the latest example. World Net Daily shows the links between the New York Times and the decision requiring homosexual marriage in Massachusetts.
What does Mc Cain Feingold have to do with this? Mc Cain Feingold imposes serious restrictions on everyone EXCEPT the media. Mc Cain Feingold ASSUMED a neutral media. NOT. If the Republicans survive the 4 year media blitz to which they have been subjected in preparation for this election, they must parlay the CBS expose into a repeal of Mc Cain Feingold. That, along with repeal of Motor Voter are what is necessary to restore a fair, open playing field.
Cato Institute
What does Mc Cain Feingold have to do with this? Mc Cain Feingold imposes serious restrictions on everyone EXCEPT the media. Mc Cain Feingold ASSUMED a neutral media. NOT. If the Republicans survive the 4 year media blitz to which they have been subjected in preparation for this election, they must parlay the CBS expose into a repeal of Mc Cain Feingold. That, along with repeal of Motor Voter are what is necessary to restore a fair, open playing field.
Cato Institute
Monday, September 20, 2004
Another Kerry Connection?--Boston Red Sox v Atlanta - Box Score - Saturday, June 16, 2001
'Not to make fun of Rathergate, but this came up on a google search and-- is it a mere coincidence? John Kerry's allegedly favorite team
Hmmm Lockhart and Burkett on Kerry's favorite team.
Boston Red Sox v Atlanta - Box Score - Saturday, June 16, 2001: "Atlanta 8th -- Lockhart pinch-hit for Burkett. Lockhart (bf) singled to shallow left. Veras (fbfbb) struck out swinging. Surhoff doubled to deep center, Lockhart to third. AJones (bfc) hit sacrifice fly to center, Lockhart scored. CJones doubled to left, Surhoff scored. Martinez (cc) flied out to center."
Hmmm Lockhart and Burkett on Kerry's favorite team.
Boston Red Sox v Atlanta - Box Score - Saturday, June 16, 2001: "Atlanta 8th -- Lockhart pinch-hit for Burkett. Lockhart (bf) singled to shallow left. Veras (fbfbb) struck out swinging. Surhoff doubled to deep center, Lockhart to third. AJones (bfc) hit sacrifice fly to center, Lockhart scored. CJones doubled to left, Surhoff scored. Martinez (cc) flied out to center."
Sunday, September 19, 2004
The Australian: US 'endangers Australians' [September 18, 2004]
This is so despicable that it defies comprehension. This man must be stopped.
The Australian: US 'endangers Australians' [September 18, 2004]: "US 'endangers Australians'
Roy Eccleston, Washington correspondent
September 18, 2004
JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.
Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.
'Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels,' she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq."
The Australian: US 'endangers Australians' [September 18, 2004]: "US 'endangers Australians'
Roy Eccleston, Washington correspondent
September 18, 2004
JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.
Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.
'Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels,' she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq."
Saturday, September 18, 2004
Bush Makes Pitch to 'Security Moms' (washingtonpost.com)See Moms4Bush
Bush gets it, the press doesn't and the Dems don't either. We want our babies and our grandbabies to be safe. What is that warning they give you in Yellowstone? Don't ever, ever, ever, get between a momma bear and her cub. She will kill you or die trying. Its instinct.
Also true with regard to the issue of flex time. How many times was I and other working moms told, we can't let you accumulate time and take it off later because its against the law? Bush is listening to women. Kerry is listening to labor union duesocrats. The people who live off the dues of employees but who rarely represent them.
Bush Makes Pitch to 'Security Moms' (washingtonpost.com): "The stakes are high because women are slightly more likely to vote than men, and pollsters say that they are more likely to switch allegiances than male voters. A poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that Bush, who had been running 10 percentage points behind Kerry among women, had moved ahead of him with women in the week after the Republican National Convention. Other polls found the same shift but have shown women edging back to Kerry."
Also true with regard to the issue of flex time. How many times was I and other working moms told, we can't let you accumulate time and take it off later because its against the law? Bush is listening to women. Kerry is listening to labor union duesocrats. The people who live off the dues of employees but who rarely represent them.
Bush Makes Pitch to 'Security Moms' (washingtonpost.com): "The stakes are high because women are slightly more likely to vote than men, and pollsters say that they are more likely to switch allegiances than male voters. A poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that Bush, who had been running 10 percentage points behind Kerry among women, had moved ahead of him with women in the week after the Republican National Convention. Other polls found the same shift but have shown women edging back to Kerry."
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Why We Need Congressional Hearings: Thomas Sowell: Rather not
Here is the real reason we should ask Congress to hold hearings as a result of what we have found out about CBS. The hearings should be, however, not about the media per se, but about campaign finance reform-- The courts and the congress acted on the assumption that the media would either be neutral or would be evenly balanced. But, if the bias of the media is, as Evan Thomas says, worth 15 points then we really need to allow people the ability to counterbalance that.
Thomas Sowell: Rather not: " Evan Thomas of Newsweek is a liberal, but he is also candid enough to admit that there is a liberal bias in the way news is reported. He estimates that this bias is worth 15 percentage points in the polls for Democrats.
If so, then Senator Kerry's poll numbers would be 15 points lower than they are -- which means he would be completely out of it -- if the media reported the news straight. But, with the liberal media spinning the news his way, Kerry is still in the running.
Maybe that is why CBS' '60 Minutes' has run story after story about what George W. Bush supposedly did or did not do in the National Guard more than 30 years ago -- and why they seem not to have been too finicky about their evidence.
The big question is how long the public will stand by the three big broadcast networks that used to have a virtual monopoly of television news and public affairs programs. Just last month, for the first time, a cable network -- Fox News -- had a larger audience for its broadcast of the Republican convention than any of the established big three broadcast networks had."
Thomas Sowell: Rather not: " Evan Thomas of Newsweek is a liberal, but he is also candid enough to admit that there is a liberal bias in the way news is reported. He estimates that this bias is worth 15 percentage points in the polls for Democrats.
If so, then Senator Kerry's poll numbers would be 15 points lower than they are -- which means he would be completely out of it -- if the media reported the news straight. But, with the liberal media spinning the news his way, Kerry is still in the running.
Maybe that is why CBS' '60 Minutes' has run story after story about what George W. Bush supposedly did or did not do in the National Guard more than 30 years ago -- and why they seem not to have been too finicky about their evidence.
The big question is how long the public will stand by the three big broadcast networks that used to have a virtual monopoly of television news and public affairs programs. Just last month, for the first time, a cable network -- Fox News -- had a larger audience for its broadcast of the Republican convention than any of the established big three broadcast networks had."
So Technically Burkett's condition is not Schizophrenia-- it just looks like it.
This web site discusses physical conditions which imitate schizophrenia. Burkett's own history ( seizures and encephalitis) shows physical history consistent with disease caused schizophrenic like conditions.
Schizophrenia.com - Misdiagnosis of Schizophrenia, Paranoid Schizophrenia: "Medical or neurological Substance-induced psychotic disorder, especially amphetamines, alcohol hallucinosis, anticholinergic, barbiturate withdrawal, belladonna alkaloids, cimetidine, cocaine, digitalis, disulfiram, hallucinogens, L-dopa, phencyclidine (PCP) Epilepsy, especially of temporal lobe origin Tumors, expecially frontal or limbin CNS infections, especially herpes encephalitis, Creuzfeldt-Jacob disease, neurosyphilis, AIDS Acute intermittent porphyia Dementia of the Alzheimer's type B12 deficiency Carbon monoxide poisoning Endocrinopathies, aspecially adrenal and thyroid Fabry's disease Fahr's syndrome Hallervorden-Spatz disease Heavy metal poisoning (arsenic, manganese, mercury, thallium) Homocystinuria Huntington's disease Metachromatic leukodystrophy Normal-preassure hydrocephalus Pellagra Pick's disease Systemic lupus erythematosus Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome Wilson's disease
Psychiatric Malingering Factitious disorder with predominantly psychologicl symptoms Autistic disorder Schizophrenia Schizophreniform disorder Brief psychotic disorder Mood disorder Schizoaffective disorder Psychotic disorder NOS (atypical psychosis) Delusional disorder Personality disorder, especially schizotypal, schizoid, borderline, paranoid Obsessive-compulsive disorder
Diseases and Disorders that Imitate Schizophrenia
Brain Injury or Disease Embolism Aqueductal stenosis Ischemia Trauma Tumor Epilepsy Encephalitis Narcolepsy Obstructive hydrocephalus Cerebrovascular infarction Neoplasms
Metabolic or Systemic Disorders Vitamin B12 deficiency Acquired immune deficiency system Syphilis Tuberculous meningitis Pellagra Hypoglycemia Hepatic encephalopathy Hyperthyroidism Lead poisoning Lupus erythematosus Multiple sclerosis Uremia Cotard's syndrome Herpetic encephalitis Cysticerosis Cushing's disease
Genetic or Chromosomal Disorders XXY karyotype (Klinefelter's syndrome) XO karyotype (Turner's or Noonan's syndrome) 18q- deletion (missing piece of long arm of chromosome 18) 5, q11-q13 triplication Huntington's disease Acute intermittent porphyria Metachromatic leukodystrophy Familial basal ganglia calcification Homocystinuria Phenylketonuria Wilson's diseas Albinism Congenital adrenal hyperplasia Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (favism) Kartagener's syndrome
DSM-IV Diagnostic Critera for Psychotic Disorder Due to a General Medical Condition
A. Prominent hallucinations or delusions.
B. There is evidence from the history, physical examination, or laboratory findings that the disturbance is the direct physiological consequence of a general medical condition.
C. The disturbance is not better accounted for by another mental disorder.
D. The disturbance does not occur exclusively during the course of a delirium. Code based on predominant symptom: With delusions: if delusions are the predominant symptom With hellucinations: if hallucinations are the predominant symptom
Coding note: Include the name of the general medical condition on Axis I, e.g., psychotic disorder due to"
Schizophrenia.com - Misdiagnosis of Schizophrenia, Paranoid Schizophrenia: "Medical or neurological Substance-induced psychotic disorder, especially amphetamines, alcohol hallucinosis, anticholinergic, barbiturate withdrawal, belladonna alkaloids, cimetidine, cocaine, digitalis, disulfiram, hallucinogens, L-dopa, phencyclidine (PCP) Epilepsy, especially of temporal lobe origin Tumors, expecially frontal or limbin CNS infections, especially herpes encephalitis, Creuzfeldt-Jacob disease, neurosyphilis, AIDS Acute intermittent porphyia Dementia of the Alzheimer's type B12 deficiency Carbon monoxide poisoning Endocrinopathies, aspecially adrenal and thyroid Fabry's disease Fahr's syndrome Hallervorden-Spatz disease Heavy metal poisoning (arsenic, manganese, mercury, thallium) Homocystinuria Huntington's disease Metachromatic leukodystrophy Normal-preassure hydrocephalus Pellagra Pick's disease Systemic lupus erythematosus Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome Wilson's disease
Psychiatric Malingering Factitious disorder with predominantly psychologicl symptoms Autistic disorder Schizophrenia Schizophreniform disorder Brief psychotic disorder Mood disorder Schizoaffective disorder Psychotic disorder NOS (atypical psychosis) Delusional disorder Personality disorder, especially schizotypal, schizoid, borderline, paranoid Obsessive-compulsive disorder
Diseases and Disorders that Imitate Schizophrenia
Brain Injury or Disease Embolism Aqueductal stenosis Ischemia Trauma Tumor Epilepsy Encephalitis Narcolepsy Obstructive hydrocephalus Cerebrovascular infarction Neoplasms
Metabolic or Systemic Disorders Vitamin B12 deficiency Acquired immune deficiency system Syphilis Tuberculous meningitis Pellagra Hypoglycemia Hepatic encephalopathy Hyperthyroidism Lead poisoning Lupus erythematosus Multiple sclerosis Uremia Cotard's syndrome Herpetic encephalitis Cysticerosis Cushing's disease
Genetic or Chromosomal Disorders XXY karyotype (Klinefelter's syndrome) XO karyotype (Turner's or Noonan's syndrome) 18q- deletion (missing piece of long arm of chromosome 18) 5, q11-q13 triplication Huntington's disease Acute intermittent porphyria Metachromatic leukodystrophy Familial basal ganglia calcification Homocystinuria Phenylketonuria Wilson's diseas Albinism Congenital adrenal hyperplasia Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (favism) Kartagener's syndrome
DSM-IV Diagnostic Critera for Psychotic Disorder Due to a General Medical Condition
A. Prominent hallucinations or delusions.
B. There is evidence from the history, physical examination, or laboratory findings that the disturbance is the direct physiological consequence of a general medical condition.
C. The disturbance is not better accounted for by another mental disorder.
D. The disturbance does not occur exclusively during the course of a delirium. Code based on predominant symptom: With delusions: if delusions are the predominant symptom With hellucinations: if hallucinations are the predominant symptom
Coding note: Include the name of the general medical condition on Axis I, e.g., psychotic disorder due to"
Exhibit B that Bill Burkett is Schizophrenic
This is from Kevin Drum's interview with Bill Burkett. Remember how I said schizophrenics hear voices that the rest of us don't hear? He says he stuck his head in the room saw no one, withdrew his head and then heard a conversation coming from the same room in which he has seen no one. This is the supposed conversation in which he heard people planning to scrub Bush's file.
Now folks, classic shizophrenic delusion. Does he believe what he says? Probably. Is it true? Was the psychiatrist treating John Nash a Russian spy? It is beyond pathetic that these Bush haters belive this man. They are also taking advantage of a very sick man. It is despicable.
Calpundit: An Interview With Bill Burkett: "Following is the account of how Burkett overheard the conversation about 'cleansing' George Bush's National Guard files.
The occurrences here occurred in the early months, the spring months of 1997....I had meant to simply go in and, best I recall....I went in to ask a quick question, it was just a passing question, or maybe pass along some information, I don't remember specifically. I went into General [Daniel] James' outer office, Henrietta Valderes was not there, but the door was slightly ajar, I'd say roughly eight inches, and the reason I say eight inches is only because I wear a size seven and a half hat and I just basically stuck my head inside.
I heard voices, I figured somebody was on the blue couch or in the two wingback chairs that face his desk, and that's not seen unless you slightly stick your head inside the door. I stuck my head inside the door, saw that no one was there, and I was embarrassed. I stepped back and I waited for a second and I overheard this conversation.
And it was a short conversation that I overheard, I only heard a line or two of it, and I stepped out into the hallway because I was uncomfortable at this point."
Now folks, classic shizophrenic delusion. Does he believe what he says? Probably. Is it true? Was the psychiatrist treating John Nash a Russian spy? It is beyond pathetic that these Bush haters belive this man. They are also taking advantage of a very sick man. It is despicable.
Calpundit: An Interview With Bill Burkett: "Following is the account of how Burkett overheard the conversation about 'cleansing' George Bush's National Guard files.
The occurrences here occurred in the early months, the spring months of 1997....I had meant to simply go in and, best I recall....I went in to ask a quick question, it was just a passing question, or maybe pass along some information, I don't remember specifically. I went into General [Daniel] James' outer office, Henrietta Valderes was not there, but the door was slightly ajar, I'd say roughly eight inches, and the reason I say eight inches is only because I wear a size seven and a half hat and I just basically stuck my head inside.
I heard voices, I figured somebody was on the blue couch or in the two wingback chairs that face his desk, and that's not seen unless you slightly stick your head inside the door. I stuck my head inside the door, saw that no one was there, and I was embarrassed. I stepped back and I waited for a second and I overheard this conversation.
And it was a short conversation that I overheard, I only heard a line or two of it, and I stepped out into the hallway because I was uncomfortable at this point."
Harvey Gough The guy Burkett relies on to Support His Claims
Gough is another documented nut case. He's the guy who has stuck by Burkett in his claims. The both of them are nut cases with no credibility.
Guidelive.com: "Since the 1970s, Mr. Gough has run the place that was started by his parents, Abe and Bernice Gough, in 1950. Through the years, there were several Goff's locations, but only the original Lovers Lane store remains. Currently, he's in a legal battle with his mother over the business, but that's another story.
Over the years, Mr. Gough has been known to refuse to serve male customers with long hair. And to those who are lucky enough to get him to serve up their order, he usually growls a curt 'dismissed' after handing them the food. And woe is the customer who asks for a drink in a to-go sack. The drink is promptly poured into a paper sack, and customers are left holding the leaky bag.
For a while, special glass was installed in the large front windows as detractors took to shooting out the plate glass.
On most days, when a customer's order is ready, Mr. Gough alerts them by calling across the dining area, 'Hey, doo doo.' Even vendors have fallen victim to Harvey . Once, he locked the ice-cream delivery man in the back of the refrigerated truck and drove him about a block down the street, said Theodore White, an employee for more than 40 years.
To some, it's difficult to understand how such a customer-driven business could survive all these years with a guy like Harvey running the show. But to others, that's part of the attraction.
'I guess I keep coming back because it's good hamburgers and a good sideshow,' said Craig Bryant, who ordered up an old-fashioned hamburger with mustard, fries and tea one recent afternoon before the 50th anniversary celebration. 'I've been coming here since 1968.'"
Guidelive.com: "Since the 1970s, Mr. Gough has run the place that was started by his parents, Abe and Bernice Gough, in 1950. Through the years, there were several Goff's locations, but only the original Lovers Lane store remains. Currently, he's in a legal battle with his mother over the business, but that's another story.
Over the years, Mr. Gough has been known to refuse to serve male customers with long hair. And to those who are lucky enough to get him to serve up their order, he usually growls a curt 'dismissed' after handing them the food. And woe is the customer who asks for a drink in a to-go sack. The drink is promptly poured into a paper sack, and customers are left holding the leaky bag.
For a while, special glass was installed in the large front windows as detractors took to shooting out the plate glass.
On most days, when a customer's order is ready, Mr. Gough alerts them by calling across the dining area, 'Hey, doo doo.' Even vendors have fallen victim to Harvey . Once, he locked the ice-cream delivery man in the back of the refrigerated truck and drove him about a block down the street, said Theodore White, an employee for more than 40 years.
To some, it's difficult to understand how such a customer-driven business could survive all these years with a guy like Harvey running the show. But to others, that's part of the attraction.
'I guess I keep coming back because it's good hamburgers and a good sideshow,' said Craig Bryant, who ordered up an old-fashioned hamburger with mustard, fries and tea one recent afternoon before the 50th anniversary celebration. 'I've been coming here since 1968.'"
Is Bill Burkett Suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia?
I'm not a doctor, but..... Read this column written by Burkett, Bush's suspected accuser. It reads to me like the rantings of a paranoid schizophrenic. Why would I, a mere lawyer, presume to make such a diagnosis? First and foremost because I grew up with a schizophrenic grandmother. ( i. e. my grandmother was diagnosed and treated for schizophrenia). Like many schizophrenics she occasionally believed that people were sending broadcasts to her through fillings in her teeth. She also ranted on from time to time about William Randolph Hearst, a man who, to my knowledge, she never met or knew other than in the newspapers.
My point in bringing up my grandmother is that I am personally familiar with the fact that schizophrenics believe bizarre things to be true which are certainly not true. Remember the opening sequences of "A Beautiful Mind" and the whole imagined life he lead that was not real? That is how life is for schizophrenics. Persons who suffer from this mental illness can seem perfectly reasonable and logical until they suffer what is called a schizophrenic break-- i. e. they go stand on the street corner and start ranting or do some other strange and odd behavior. The piece below referenced looks to me like Exhibit a in proof that Burkett is suffering from schizophrenia. While it is highly unusual for someone to first display symptoms late in life, it is possible that he did indeed suffer from some sort of illness that precipitated it. I haven't investigated it. I do know that my grandmother first displayed symptoms when she was in her late thirties.
More later.
What do you say?: "In January of 1998 and what seems like a full lifetime ago, I was stricken by a deadly case of meningoencephalitis. I was returning from a short duty trip to Panama as a team chief to inspect the hand over of Ft. Clayton to the Panamanians. I had been 'loaned' from the senior staff and state planning officer of the Texas National Guard to the Department of the Army for a series of these special projects after angering George W. Bush by refusing to falsify readiness information and reports; confronting a fraudulent funding scheme which kept 'ghost' soldiers on the books for additional funding, and refusing to alter official personnel records [of George W. Bush].
George W. Bush and his lieutenants were mad. They ordered that I not be accessed to emergency medical care services, healthcare benefits I earned by my official duty; and I was withheld from medical care for 154 days before I was withdrawn from Texas responsibility by the Department of the Army, by order of the White House.
I was a pawn then caught in a struggle for right and wrong, but also caught within a political struggle between a man who would do anything to be 'king' of America and an institution of laws that we knew as America."
My point in bringing up my grandmother is that I am personally familiar with the fact that schizophrenics believe bizarre things to be true which are certainly not true. Remember the opening sequences of "A Beautiful Mind" and the whole imagined life he lead that was not real? That is how life is for schizophrenics. Persons who suffer from this mental illness can seem perfectly reasonable and logical until they suffer what is called a schizophrenic break-- i. e. they go stand on the street corner and start ranting or do some other strange and odd behavior. The piece below referenced looks to me like Exhibit a in proof that Burkett is suffering from schizophrenia. While it is highly unusual for someone to first display symptoms late in life, it is possible that he did indeed suffer from some sort of illness that precipitated it. I haven't investigated it. I do know that my grandmother first displayed symptoms when she was in her late thirties.
More later.
What do you say?: "In January of 1998 and what seems like a full lifetime ago, I was stricken by a deadly case of meningoencephalitis. I was returning from a short duty trip to Panama as a team chief to inspect the hand over of Ft. Clayton to the Panamanians. I had been 'loaned' from the senior staff and state planning officer of the Texas National Guard to the Department of the Army for a series of these special projects after angering George W. Bush by refusing to falsify readiness information and reports; confronting a fraudulent funding scheme which kept 'ghost' soldiers on the books for additional funding, and refusing to alter official personnel records [of George W. Bush].
George W. Bush and his lieutenants were mad. They ordered that I not be accessed to emergency medical care services, healthcare benefits I earned by my official duty; and I was withheld from medical care for 154 days before I was withdrawn from Texas responsibility by the Department of the Army, by order of the White House.
I was a pawn then caught in a struggle for right and wrong, but also caught within a political struggle between a man who would do anything to be 'king' of America and an institution of laws that we knew as America."
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Apple 1984 Commercial
The Apple 1984 Commercial, which introduced the first Apple Macintosh, is a great graphic description of what just happened between the blogosphere and CBS. For those who don't recall the commercial, a 1984 ( a la Orwell) mass of gray people are shuffling into a large room with a face speaking on a screen, praising the unification of information. A lone runner carrying a sledge hammer runs into the room and hurls the sledge hammer at the screen, exploding it. At the time, Apple was taking on the IBM vision of the future relationship of individuals and computers. IBM foresaw a world in which everyone had a terminal connected to a hugh mainframe, the complete centralization of information. People forget that until Apple, IBM did not manufacture personal computers. They entered into that field, making both Intel and Microsoft Billionaires, in order to cut Apple off at the pass.
Someone should update the Apple commercial substituting a guy in pajamas for the runner and Dan Rather for the face on the screen.
When Apple expanded the market for personal computers it was smashing so much more than the Two Steves could ever have known.
Here is the text for that commerical. Eerily appropriate, eh?
Apple 1984 Commercial: "Text of '1984'
Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!
"
Someone should update the Apple commercial substituting a guy in pajamas for the runner and Dan Rather for the face on the screen.
When Apple expanded the market for personal computers it was smashing so much more than the Two Steves could ever have known.
Here is the text for that commerical. Eerily appropriate, eh?
Apple 1984 Commercial: "Text of '1984'
Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!
"
Monday, September 13, 2004
Homosexuality and the Church
The whole controversy that is tearing apart the Anglican Communion is emblematic of what is going on in our society on the issue of same sex marriage and the way that homsexuality should be viewed. A small group of elites have decided all the important "moral" questions without consultation with the masses and have attempted to enforce their view on the lay people. Shut up and pay your pledge, they seem to be saying.
If you, dear reader, like me, have many dear friends who are homosexual, you really wish this whole controversy would go away because you do not want to have to speak out and say what you think is right, knowing that it will hurt those you care about and perhaps alienate them from you forever.
Yet Jesus tells us, that in this situation that is precisely what we must do. This is what he is talking about when he says you must hate your mother and father if you are to love HIM. (Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, and even his own life--he cannot be My disciple)
Having said that, I will plunge on. The first problem with this social/church discussion is that we have no clear definition of what constitutes homosexuality. No. Don't laugh. That is one of the conceptual problems at the root of this disagreement. Is anyone who ever kissed anyone of the same sex a homosexual? Is it a person who has sexual relations exclusively with a person of the same sex? Statistics: 90 percent of male homosexuals have had intercourse with a woman (per Michael Medved-- need to check his sources) So, being homosexual doesn't mean you are INCAPABLE of having intercourse with the opposite sex. It means you don't want to . In fact close to one hundred percent of all children born to homosexuals are the result of sex with the opposite sex. Actually-- I don't have any formal statistical study-- just the people I know.
Assuming that being homosexual is a matter of who most of your current sex partners are and not your physical ability to have intercourse with the opposite sex, there is in fact only suggestive evidence that homosexuality is inherited. For a relatively neutral discussion of this subject see this discussion on google.
Link
In summary it says that there is a somewhat higher correlation between homosexuality in identical twins than brothers, but not enough to be persuasive. By comparison the evidence that say diabetes or tendency to overweight is far higher.
Which leads to the next question: Even though there is little evidence that homosexuality is inherited, i. e. that people are born that way, the fact that people may have an inherited or congenital condition does not mean that the condition is a good thing, Among inherited conditions are Tay-Sachs, Sickle Cell Anemia, Huntington's Chorea, among congenital conditions: Down's syndrome. All of these conditions are ones that we strive mightily as a society to prevent. So "Born that way" is not enough of a reason to simply accept homosexual behavior. (Other behaviors which have been linked to genetics are alcoholism and schizophrenia-- do we consider that these conditions are okay or normal or acceptable?)
Now before someone claims that I am gay bashing, there are other conditions and behaviors that are either certainly inherited or are probably inherited: resistance to heart disease, long life expectancy, intelligence, athletic skill. These are characteristics we hope our children will have.
So the fact, which is not a given, that there may be a genetic link is not dispositive of whether we should encourage the behavior, disregard the behavior or try to change or correct the behavior.
Some people claim that gay life styles lead to higher levels of addiction, depression and disease. I haven't been able to find any non-biased studies on this issue. What we do know is that male homosexuality involves sodomy, which is not a practice exclusive to homosexuals, and that sodomy poses some obvious health risks because of the presence of fecal matter and the fact that anal tissues are not as resilient as vaginal tissues.
See this link
Link
Now all of this talk of biology might seem to have nothing to do with theology or religion. But it does. If you believe that this is God's world, that He made it, that it has fallen into sin and is not perfect, then you must look to the best and highest of nature to discern His purposes. Thus it is a valid theological argument against homosexual practices that anuses are not made for intercourse.
There is, however, a much more important theoglogical argument. God tells us to be fruitful and multiply, Gen 1:28, inter alia. That can only happen when men have sex with women. The irreducible biological fact is that it takes a sperm and an ovum, a male and a female, to have children. In biological terms, if there is to be a next generation, if life is to continue, then men and women need to have sex with each other and spend a considerable amount of their time, energy , resources, love, commitment and life in raising children. That is the biological fact. That experience forms the template for all of our experiences of love. We refer to God as our Father, because it relates to our experience of strength and unselfish caring. The church is called the bride of Christ, because it relates to the mystical, merging and transcendent experience of marriage. The experience of human sexuality in a committed marriage is transcendent in part because it is a union of two different kinds of human beings which can result in the creation of a third person.
That is a qualitatively different experience than the experience of love between two persons of the same sex.
On a more mundane ( i.e . worldly) level, we note that special obligations between husband and wife arise in society precisely because of children and the ability to leave one's property to one's children and of family members to take care of each other. Same sex relationships can never be productive of biological families.
At the same time, we, as Christians, need to recognize that we live in a broken world full of people with broken lives. God calls us to be compassionate. Which one of us has not sinned? Are our heterosexual sins any less than the sin of homosexuality? Which of us has not been covetous, greedy, less than truthful? I could go on. In Galations 5:18 Paul talks about the sins that will keep us from heaven: But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar, about which I tell you in advance--as I told you before--that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
So it is not for us to sit in judgment on homosexuals-- that is, in the sense of deciding whether this particular sin is THE ONE which will keep them from heaven.
We need to be as accepting of homosexuals as we are of selfish, greedy, thougtless, envious, idolatrous, argumentative, angry people.
On a more practical level, we need to try to open calm dialogue about what really is homosexuality and what causes it. We need to know if it is something that can be changed and how. In my own personal experience, I know of people who have lived in homnosexual relationships who have subsequently married and lived in happy heterosexual relationships.
We cannot ignore our biblical tradition by blessing same sex relationships. They cannot stand on a par with the only biblical relationship approved-- one man and one woman. For a whole host of religions, biological, moral and theological, same sex sexual unions are, at best, not sanctioned and approved. The practice of blessing marriage between a man and a woman is inextricably linked to the fact that this the only relationship which can be fruitful.
If you, dear reader, like me, have many dear friends who are homosexual, you really wish this whole controversy would go away because you do not want to have to speak out and say what you think is right, knowing that it will hurt those you care about and perhaps alienate them from you forever.
Yet Jesus tells us, that in this situation that is precisely what we must do. This is what he is talking about when he says you must hate your mother and father if you are to love HIM. (Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, and even his own life--he cannot be My disciple)
Having said that, I will plunge on. The first problem with this social/church discussion is that we have no clear definition of what constitutes homosexuality. No. Don't laugh. That is one of the conceptual problems at the root of this disagreement. Is anyone who ever kissed anyone of the same sex a homosexual? Is it a person who has sexual relations exclusively with a person of the same sex? Statistics: 90 percent of male homosexuals have had intercourse with a woman (per Michael Medved-- need to check his sources) So, being homosexual doesn't mean you are INCAPABLE of having intercourse with the opposite sex. It means you don't want to . In fact close to one hundred percent of all children born to homosexuals are the result of sex with the opposite sex. Actually-- I don't have any formal statistical study-- just the people I know.
Assuming that being homosexual is a matter of who most of your current sex partners are and not your physical ability to have intercourse with the opposite sex, there is in fact only suggestive evidence that homosexuality is inherited. For a relatively neutral discussion of this subject see this discussion on google.
Link
In summary it says that there is a somewhat higher correlation between homosexuality in identical twins than brothers, but not enough to be persuasive. By comparison the evidence that say diabetes or tendency to overweight is far higher.
Which leads to the next question: Even though there is little evidence that homosexuality is inherited, i. e. that people are born that way, the fact that people may have an inherited or congenital condition does not mean that the condition is a good thing, Among inherited conditions are Tay-Sachs, Sickle Cell Anemia, Huntington's Chorea, among congenital conditions: Down's syndrome. All of these conditions are ones that we strive mightily as a society to prevent. So "Born that way" is not enough of a reason to simply accept homosexual behavior. (Other behaviors which have been linked to genetics are alcoholism and schizophrenia-- do we consider that these conditions are okay or normal or acceptable?)
Now before someone claims that I am gay bashing, there are other conditions and behaviors that are either certainly inherited or are probably inherited: resistance to heart disease, long life expectancy, intelligence, athletic skill. These are characteristics we hope our children will have.
So the fact, which is not a given, that there may be a genetic link is not dispositive of whether we should encourage the behavior, disregard the behavior or try to change or correct the behavior.
Some people claim that gay life styles lead to higher levels of addiction, depression and disease. I haven't been able to find any non-biased studies on this issue. What we do know is that male homosexuality involves sodomy, which is not a practice exclusive to homosexuals, and that sodomy poses some obvious health risks because of the presence of fecal matter and the fact that anal tissues are not as resilient as vaginal tissues.
See this link
Link
Now all of this talk of biology might seem to have nothing to do with theology or religion. But it does. If you believe that this is God's world, that He made it, that it has fallen into sin and is not perfect, then you must look to the best and highest of nature to discern His purposes. Thus it is a valid theological argument against homosexual practices that anuses are not made for intercourse.
There is, however, a much more important theoglogical argument. God tells us to be fruitful and multiply, Gen 1:28, inter alia. That can only happen when men have sex with women. The irreducible biological fact is that it takes a sperm and an ovum, a male and a female, to have children. In biological terms, if there is to be a next generation, if life is to continue, then men and women need to have sex with each other and spend a considerable amount of their time, energy , resources, love, commitment and life in raising children. That is the biological fact. That experience forms the template for all of our experiences of love. We refer to God as our Father, because it relates to our experience of strength and unselfish caring. The church is called the bride of Christ, because it relates to the mystical, merging and transcendent experience of marriage. The experience of human sexuality in a committed marriage is transcendent in part because it is a union of two different kinds of human beings which can result in the creation of a third person.
That is a qualitatively different experience than the experience of love between two persons of the same sex.
On a more mundane ( i.e . worldly) level, we note that special obligations between husband and wife arise in society precisely because of children and the ability to leave one's property to one's children and of family members to take care of each other. Same sex relationships can never be productive of biological families.
At the same time, we, as Christians, need to recognize that we live in a broken world full of people with broken lives. God calls us to be compassionate. Which one of us has not sinned? Are our heterosexual sins any less than the sin of homosexuality? Which of us has not been covetous, greedy, less than truthful? I could go on. In Galations 5:18 Paul talks about the sins that will keep us from heaven: But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar, about which I tell you in advance--as I told you before--that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
So it is not for us to sit in judgment on homosexuals-- that is, in the sense of deciding whether this particular sin is THE ONE which will keep them from heaven.
We need to be as accepting of homosexuals as we are of selfish, greedy, thougtless, envious, idolatrous, argumentative, angry people.
On a more practical level, we need to try to open calm dialogue about what really is homosexuality and what causes it. We need to know if it is something that can be changed and how. In my own personal experience, I know of people who have lived in homnosexual relationships who have subsequently married and lived in happy heterosexual relationships.
We cannot ignore our biblical tradition by blessing same sex relationships. They cannot stand on a par with the only biblical relationship approved-- one man and one woman. For a whole host of religions, biological, moral and theological, same sex sexual unions are, at best, not sanctioned and approved. The practice of blessing marriage between a man and a woman is inextricably linked to the fact that this the only relationship which can be fruitful.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
10 Reasons to Vote for George W. bush
I am tempted to say that all ten of them are National Security. But lets preface that, most of this election season, which started in November of 2000, has been devoted to a lot of nonsense issues raised by the Democrats. The Democratic Party could be accurately renamed the Trivial Pursuit party. They know a lot of useless trivia but they don't know how to run a government or defend a nation.
Unfortunately, we have been immersed in the trivia, debating how many black voters didn't get to vote in Florida as a result of bad procedures adopted by Democratic voting officials and how many national guard trianing sessions Bush missed. We have spent little or no time actually discussing the issues.
I learned a long time ago that when you vote for president you are voting for that man's party as well, so you have to take into account not only the candidate's record and platform, but the record and platform of his party as well. In listing my 10 reasons I am including, therefore, some thoughts on the Democratic party as well.
Reason number 1 to vote for Bush
National Security: The record of the Democrats is that they lack the spine to name and confront evil. The attacks of the Islamofascists started in 1972. They continued through 1979 when the Iranian mullahs took 52 hostages and Jimmy Carter couldn't figure out how to get them back, the attackson the Marine Barracks in Lebanon. I could go on. Clinton could have gotten the support of Congress to attack Afghanistan in 1998 when the embassies were bombed. Clinton didn't have the stomach for war. Larry Kudlow at NRO discusses this issue even better than I
Link
Summary, the Republicans have the spine for the War on Terror. The Democrats Don't.
Reason Number 2 to Vote for Bush
He has an energy policy.
When you begin to really understand what is going on in the War on Terror, you understand that we need to revise our energy policy. We need to figure out how we can stop sending money to Saudi Arabia and other Wahabbist, maddrassa hate teaching, Jihadist Mosque supporting regimes, without completely destroying our economy. Kerry and Friends are MIA on this issue. Their solution is for us to all buy teeny tiny cars and turn off the air conditioners. That aint gonna work. We need to develop our own oil resources even if they are located in beautiful scenic areas. We can do it in an environmentally responsible manner. The DemoEnvironmentalist Wackos scream no matter how careful anyone wants to be about drilling . They are opposed to any new drilling or exploration. They have been successful in bringing new exploration in the U.S. to a complete halt. We need to reverse that insane policy. Bush has a program. We will try to expand our own oil reserves and try to move to alternative fuels, including hydrogen. It remains to be seen if hydrogen power can replace oil, but at least he has a realistic idea and is putting some money behind it. In the meantime we need to cut off the money to the Arabs slowly but surely.
Reason number 3 to vote for Bush
Tax cuts: Have you noticed the stock market goes up and down based on whether or not investors think Kerry is going to win? Kerry up, stock market down. Why? Taxes. Lower taxes lead to an expanding economy. How do I explain the Clinton years? Are they an anomaly of tax increases followed by an expanding economy? No. NAFTA was a gigantic tax CUT that offset the tax increases Clinton also adopted. NAFTA reduced tarriffs significantly and contributed to an economic boom both because our own tarrifs were cut and because Mexican and Canadian Tarriffs were cut. Tax cuts, even if the taxes cut are external tarrifs, lead to economic expansion. Remember how Smoot Hawley contributed to the depression by raising tarriffs? NAFTA was a reverse Smoot Hawley, passed by Republican votes because it was the right thing to do.
Reason number 4 to vote for Bush
The ownership society. The truth is that the chances that a person will work for one company for 30 years and get a company pension now approach zero. Kerry has no plan. Bush does. This group of proposals is not a government giveaway but allows tax benefits to allow people to save for their own retirement and plan for their own health care needs.
Reason number 5 to vote for Bush
The federal Marriage amendment. Speaking as a lawyer, Bush is absolutely right when he says that activist judges have made a constitutional amendment necessary. Briefly: the full faith and credit clause of the constitution requires each state to recognize the legal acts of evey other state. If you are legally divorced in Nevada, you are legally divorced in California, If you are legally married in Massachusetts, you are legally married in California. The federal defense of Marriage act exempts weddings but it is already pretty clear that some judge is going to call it unconstitutional. It takes years to amend the constitution, even if most people agree. If we wait unti lthe Supreme Court rules on this issue, and invalidates the Defense of Marriage Act, same sex marriage will become a fact of life before we can act. We have to act now.
Reason Number 6 to Vote for Bush
Education. I am not a big fan of No child left behind. But it is a beginning. The reason we have not been able to do anything about education because the Democratic party is controlled in this aspect by the teacher's unions who care only about increasing privileges and pay for teachers while simultaneously reducing any accountability whatsoever.
Reason Number 7 to Vote for Bush
Reducing government regulation. The clean water act regulations that Clinton passed at the last minute and that Bush repealed are a perfect example of the Democratic play book. Most people don't know that arsenic is a natural component in some water. Out here in California, some streams in parks or near population centers have to labeled so that people won't drink out of them. Why? Rain and snow as they melt seep into the ground and leach out arsenic deposits carrying them into streams and lakes. A very small amount of arsenic is not harmful. A large amount of arsenic will kill you. Under the Clinton regulations, which were not signed until about 60 days before he left office, the amount of arsenic permitted in water was reduced. Because most water with arsenic in it is in groundwater of streams near hills or mountains, these regulations mostly affected small rural communities who would have had to buy very expensive equipment to remove naturally occurring arsenic brom the streams and groundwater they used to provide municipal water. This was nothing but a political time bomb planted by the Clinton administration so that they could accuse the Bush administration of poisoning people.
which leads to Reason Number 8 to vote for Bush
The Democrats have ceased being serious people. Politics is nothing but a game to them. They are interested only in the jobs and the perks that go with power. They have no real program other than taking from some of the rich (not their friends) and giving to the people who keep the poor in poverty. The fact that their programs don't achieve their stated goals is immaterial to them because the real goal is to make lots of jobs for people who will owe them to the Democratic party and force Republicans to do all the heavy lifting.
Reason Number 9 to vote for Bush
Judges. We need to have judges who see themselves in a limited role -- who understand that they are not a super legislature that has the right to change any laws they don't like.
Reason Number 10 to vote for Bush
Hey-- he's smarter than Kerry-- look at who he hangs out with-- Rumsfield, Rice, Cheney, Powell. Look who Kerry hangs out with-- trial lawyers.
Unfortunately, we have been immersed in the trivia, debating how many black voters didn't get to vote in Florida as a result of bad procedures adopted by Democratic voting officials and how many national guard trianing sessions Bush missed. We have spent little or no time actually discussing the issues.
I learned a long time ago that when you vote for president you are voting for that man's party as well, so you have to take into account not only the candidate's record and platform, but the record and platform of his party as well. In listing my 10 reasons I am including, therefore, some thoughts on the Democratic party as well.
Reason number 1 to vote for Bush
National Security: The record of the Democrats is that they lack the spine to name and confront evil. The attacks of the Islamofascists started in 1972. They continued through 1979 when the Iranian mullahs took 52 hostages and Jimmy Carter couldn't figure out how to get them back, the attackson the Marine Barracks in Lebanon. I could go on. Clinton could have gotten the support of Congress to attack Afghanistan in 1998 when the embassies were bombed. Clinton didn't have the stomach for war. Larry Kudlow at NRO discusses this issue even better than I
Link
Summary, the Republicans have the spine for the War on Terror. The Democrats Don't.
Reason Number 2 to Vote for Bush
He has an energy policy.
When you begin to really understand what is going on in the War on Terror, you understand that we need to revise our energy policy. We need to figure out how we can stop sending money to Saudi Arabia and other Wahabbist, maddrassa hate teaching, Jihadist Mosque supporting regimes, without completely destroying our economy. Kerry and Friends are MIA on this issue. Their solution is for us to all buy teeny tiny cars and turn off the air conditioners. That aint gonna work. We need to develop our own oil resources even if they are located in beautiful scenic areas. We can do it in an environmentally responsible manner. The DemoEnvironmentalist Wackos scream no matter how careful anyone wants to be about drilling . They are opposed to any new drilling or exploration. They have been successful in bringing new exploration in the U.S. to a complete halt. We need to reverse that insane policy. Bush has a program. We will try to expand our own oil reserves and try to move to alternative fuels, including hydrogen. It remains to be seen if hydrogen power can replace oil, but at least he has a realistic idea and is putting some money behind it. In the meantime we need to cut off the money to the Arabs slowly but surely.
Reason number 3 to vote for Bush
Tax cuts: Have you noticed the stock market goes up and down based on whether or not investors think Kerry is going to win? Kerry up, stock market down. Why? Taxes. Lower taxes lead to an expanding economy. How do I explain the Clinton years? Are they an anomaly of tax increases followed by an expanding economy? No. NAFTA was a gigantic tax CUT that offset the tax increases Clinton also adopted. NAFTA reduced tarriffs significantly and contributed to an economic boom both because our own tarrifs were cut and because Mexican and Canadian Tarriffs were cut. Tax cuts, even if the taxes cut are external tarrifs, lead to economic expansion. Remember how Smoot Hawley contributed to the depression by raising tarriffs? NAFTA was a reverse Smoot Hawley, passed by Republican votes because it was the right thing to do.
Reason number 4 to vote for Bush
The ownership society. The truth is that the chances that a person will work for one company for 30 years and get a company pension now approach zero. Kerry has no plan. Bush does. This group of proposals is not a government giveaway but allows tax benefits to allow people to save for their own retirement and plan for their own health care needs.
Reason number 5 to vote for Bush
The federal Marriage amendment. Speaking as a lawyer, Bush is absolutely right when he says that activist judges have made a constitutional amendment necessary. Briefly: the full faith and credit clause of the constitution requires each state to recognize the legal acts of evey other state. If you are legally divorced in Nevada, you are legally divorced in California, If you are legally married in Massachusetts, you are legally married in California. The federal defense of Marriage act exempts weddings but it is already pretty clear that some judge is going to call it unconstitutional. It takes years to amend the constitution, even if most people agree. If we wait unti lthe Supreme Court rules on this issue, and invalidates the Defense of Marriage Act, same sex marriage will become a fact of life before we can act. We have to act now.
Reason Number 6 to Vote for Bush
Education. I am not a big fan of No child left behind. But it is a beginning. The reason we have not been able to do anything about education because the Democratic party is controlled in this aspect by the teacher's unions who care only about increasing privileges and pay for teachers while simultaneously reducing any accountability whatsoever.
Reason Number 7 to Vote for Bush
Reducing government regulation. The clean water act regulations that Clinton passed at the last minute and that Bush repealed are a perfect example of the Democratic play book. Most people don't know that arsenic is a natural component in some water. Out here in California, some streams in parks or near population centers have to labeled so that people won't drink out of them. Why? Rain and snow as they melt seep into the ground and leach out arsenic deposits carrying them into streams and lakes. A very small amount of arsenic is not harmful. A large amount of arsenic will kill you. Under the Clinton regulations, which were not signed until about 60 days before he left office, the amount of arsenic permitted in water was reduced. Because most water with arsenic in it is in groundwater of streams near hills or mountains, these regulations mostly affected small rural communities who would have had to buy very expensive equipment to remove naturally occurring arsenic brom the streams and groundwater they used to provide municipal water. This was nothing but a political time bomb planted by the Clinton administration so that they could accuse the Bush administration of poisoning people.
which leads to Reason Number 8 to vote for Bush
The Democrats have ceased being serious people. Politics is nothing but a game to them. They are interested only in the jobs and the perks that go with power. They have no real program other than taking from some of the rich (not their friends) and giving to the people who keep the poor in poverty. The fact that their programs don't achieve their stated goals is immaterial to them because the real goal is to make lots of jobs for people who will owe them to the Democratic party and force Republicans to do all the heavy lifting.
Reason Number 9 to vote for Bush
Judges. We need to have judges who see themselves in a limited role -- who understand that they are not a super legislature that has the right to change any laws they don't like.
Reason Number 10 to vote for Bush
Hey-- he's smarter than Kerry-- look at who he hangs out with-- Rumsfield, Rice, Cheney, Powell. Look who Kerry hangs out with-- trial lawyers.
Inconvenient Life
Again Europe Rewards politics over beauty. The theme is that people whose life is a burden to others should be, ummm, destroyed. That seems so, well, ugly and selfish, that they give an award to someone who makes it seem downright noble.
News: "U.K. abortion drama wins top prize at Venice
VENICE (Reuters) - 'Vera Drake,' Mike Leigh's tough tale of a working-class mother who is caught performing illegal abortions in 1950s England scooped up prizes at the 61st Venice Film Festival Saturday, including the coveted Golden Lion.
Acclaimed British stage and film actress Imelda Staunton won the best actress award for her portrayal of a back-street abortionist who acts not for financial gain but out of concern for girls and women in trouble.
'Vera Drake' was competing against 21 other feature films for the top prize at the world's oldest cinema competition.
Award-winning British director Leigh raises troubling questions about abortion in a world where the wealthy have access to discreet and legal abortions and the poor throw themselves on the mercy of practitioners like Drake.
'The audience must walk away with a debate and struggle with it. These things are not black and white,' Leigh told Reuters in an interview on the Lido.
Staunton anchors the movie as a working mother who risks her close-knit family's love after a girl on whom she performs an abortion falls seriously ill and her secret activities are discovered.
Alejandro Amenabar's 'Mar Adentro' ('Out to Sea'), the true story of a Spanish sailor who fought for the right to die after a diving accident left him paralyzed, also took home its fair share of prizes Saturday.
The latest film by the director of 'The Others' won the Jury Grand Prix, while the best actor prize went to Spain's Javier Bardem for his portrayal of Ramon Sampedro, the quadriplegic and euthanasia campaigner whose wry humor seduced Spanish audiences.
"
News: "U.K. abortion drama wins top prize at Venice
VENICE (Reuters) - 'Vera Drake,' Mike Leigh's tough tale of a working-class mother who is caught performing illegal abortions in 1950s England scooped up prizes at the 61st Venice Film Festival Saturday, including the coveted Golden Lion.
Acclaimed British stage and film actress Imelda Staunton won the best actress award for her portrayal of a back-street abortionist who acts not for financial gain but out of concern for girls and women in trouble.
'Vera Drake' was competing against 21 other feature films for the top prize at the world's oldest cinema competition.
Award-winning British director Leigh raises troubling questions about abortion in a world where the wealthy have access to discreet and legal abortions and the poor throw themselves on the mercy of practitioners like Drake.
'The audience must walk away with a debate and struggle with it. These things are not black and white,' Leigh told Reuters in an interview on the Lido.
Staunton anchors the movie as a working mother who risks her close-knit family's love after a girl on whom she performs an abortion falls seriously ill and her secret activities are discovered.
Alejandro Amenabar's 'Mar Adentro' ('Out to Sea'), the true story of a Spanish sailor who fought for the right to die after a diving accident left him paralyzed, also took home its fair share of prizes Saturday.
The latest film by the director of 'The Others' won the Jury Grand Prix, while the best actor prize went to Spain's Javier Bardem for his portrayal of Ramon Sampedro, the quadriplegic and euthanasia campaigner whose wry humor seduced Spanish audiences.
"
REMEMBERING BESLAN
I have been truly consumed with the whole forged documents issue but have a deep sense of disquiet. Beslan is already out of the news. Why are we wasting so much time and energy on this forged documents issue? Because we are forced to by people who control the levers of big media power and who want to persuade us to elect their friends and darlings to office. These people don't care two cents for the children of Beslan, shot in the back as they ran for freedom.
Of all the terrorists acts, this one affected me most. I have a new grandson. To say he is the apple of my eye is to seriously understate how much I love him. There is something about the relationship that transcends parenthood. As you approach your declining years, as the inevitable wearing down of old age begins to work on you, here is this brand new person who is you and your beloved child and this other person who became a part of your family all in one. And this person is going to carry, you hope, a memory of you off into a future where you will be only in spirit. To kill these little innocents, to kill our future, is the depth of depravity and evil.
Yet one candidate and one party ignore this evil, will not call it by name, and prattle on about national guard service and 35 year old wars. So, like refugees who must answer every stupid question asked and fill out every dumb form, we impatiently try to do the necessary to win the election and protect our precious children. To the Democrats its just a game, where they win the spoils if they win the election. To me, it is the future for my grandchild, whether he will live in freedom or have to die fighting for it.
Of all the terrorists acts, this one affected me most. I have a new grandson. To say he is the apple of my eye is to seriously understate how much I love him. There is something about the relationship that transcends parenthood. As you approach your declining years, as the inevitable wearing down of old age begins to work on you, here is this brand new person who is you and your beloved child and this other person who became a part of your family all in one. And this person is going to carry, you hope, a memory of you off into a future where you will be only in spirit. To kill these little innocents, to kill our future, is the depth of depravity and evil.
Yet one candidate and one party ignore this evil, will not call it by name, and prattle on about national guard service and 35 year old wars. So, like refugees who must answer every stupid question asked and fill out every dumb form, we impatiently try to do the necessary to win the election and protect our precious children. To the Democrats its just a game, where they win the spoils if they win the election. To me, it is the future for my grandchild, whether he will live in freedom or have to die fighting for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)