Next Right
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened." - Winston Churchill


Debate Preview:
First. Kerry will violate the rules. Bush should be prepared for Kerry violating the rules, by asking Bush a direct question. He will try to make it look like an accident based on anger, and demanding honesty from Bush.
Bush just needs to be Bush. Clarify that he understands the concerns of never ending war, and that every death pains him. Explain that he is not blind to the difficulties, but "what kind of leader brings every negative to the American people, without placing it in context?" People want positive hope, not negative pessimism - right or wrong.

Unfortunately I will be in class, so I will not get to see the debate.

posted by Sean McCray | 4:50 PM |

New Blog!
POLITOPICS: Centrist Commentary from an African American Perspective

Check it out, seems like she has lots of intelligent insight to add to the issues.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:24 AM |

Booker Rising has challenged Kerry supporters to tell why African-Americans should support Kerry.
So far they are failing miserably.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:06 AM |


I think the rookie Roethlisberger' is looking good, not great, but good. We will see as the season progresses, but I don think Mattox will ever start again.
The Steelers defense is still lookign suspect, especially the secondary. The important thing to remember is that Dick LeBeau has a complicated defensive scheme, and it usually takes time for it to begin working properly. It depends a lot on timing, and teamwork.
I don't expect a Super Bowl this year, maybe not even the playoffs, but a team that is definitely playing better and wins at least 10 games.

Basketball will be returning soon.
As a dies hard Laker fan, it will be odd rooting against them for the first time ever. But when Shaq comes to LA to play, I hope they destroy Kobe and the Lakers.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:26 AM |


A Swollen Jaw and Torts
My Torts teacher warned us at the beginning of the semester that we would never think the same way again. That is turning out to be very true. Last Thursday night my chin and jaw swelled up, seemingly out of the blue. Friday I went to the closest hospital's emergency room. I was hoping it would get looked at, and turn out to be some minor infection that just needed some antibiotics. I am new to this city (Wilmington, DE), and don't have a car.
I walk into the emergency room entrance, and the young black girl working there asked me what was wrong with the child? I looked at her and stated I was there for me, not for a child. (FYI- It was a Children's Hospital). She then told me that they could not serve me at all, and I needed to go to another hospital. I asked her to go verify that with a supervisor. She got an attitude, and responded "you mean, please go ask a supervisor?". I told her, "no, I mean, go ask a supervisor, because you are the one violating a federal law right now. She walked away and a few minutes later returned, and pointed to the poster on the wal, the one every emergency room in the country has posted, stating thatthey must stabalize a person before moving them to another facility or discharging them. "read that, we don't service adults", was her comment.
I shook my head, at the blatant ignorance of pointing at a law that she was directly violating.
Some lady came out and said she would have an ambulance transfer me to another hospital. She asked me what was wrong, by this time, it was pretty obvious, my mouth was very swollen and I had difficulty talking. My first thought was, this is what's wrong with our health care system. They will spend hundreds of dollars to transfer me by ambulance, instead of at least letting a nurse take a look at me. While that lady was talking to me a security guard came up, and started asking all kinds of questions, acting as if he was oblivious to my mouth and the difficulty I was having talking. By this time I was pissed and in pain, not a good combination. I handed him my ID, and advised him that I had no obligation to do so. (that the law thinking coming out). He walked away for about one minute, then came back, and told me "You are going to have to leave the premises, we are not going to treat you at all . You need to go to another hospital"
I just shook my head. This was unbelievable. I told him I would leave, as soon as he gave me the name of his supervisor. He refused. I told him I would go up front and speak with administration and walked out.
I went to front info desk, and they directed me to patient services. While there, the security guard returned, and stated he was calling the police on me. The people at the front desk said, I should go to patient services, and the police wouldn't do anything.
While walking to Patient Services, with a security guard behind me threatening to call the police a thought went through my head: "Are there any torts being violated? Assault, maybe if the officer was to make a more physical gesture that caused me to fear physical harm, Intentional Infliction fo Emotional Distress (IIOED) - that seems like the most likely one.
There are three main elements to IIOED, 1) The person has to act with intent to cause to emotional distress, 2) Their conduct has to extreme and outrageous - completely outside the bounds of decency and 3) emotional distress has to be the result. Intent was pretty clear, and the conduct being extreme and outrageous seemed clear to me. I dont think it would be considered acceptable to turn a person away from the emergency room, with a swollen jaw, without even attempting any help. The last part was always one of the hardest to prove. Was I suffering emotional distress, I was definitely pissed and frustrated and in a lot of pain. I truly didn't care if he called the police, I figured something might get done then.
I arrived at Patient Services, and explained what happended, they took notes. They saw my jaw, and didn't even ask for an explanationa bout what was wrong, I just pointed to it. They apoligized, then promised to have a Doctor look at me, and gave me coupons for a free lunch and drink.
I was relieved that somebody was going to help.
I have to admit, I wandered if accepting the coupons would eliminate the third element needed for IIOED? Hmmmm. LOL
Your thinking really does change in law school.

posted by Sean McCray | 11:28 PM |


Avery Tooley sparks a conversation on "black theology" with his latest post.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the sole purpose of the church is to bring the gospel to people. Everything else is bonus. That's not to say that the church should not be a factor in non-spiritual matters. Heavens, no! In Black Theology and Youths at Risk, Mitchell profiles Canaan Baptist Church in Harlem as a model for community involvement. Because of the strong emphasis on tithing, Canaan is able to be a presence in the community by way of owning 437 affordable housing units and a credit union with 1.3 million dollars in assets, as well as several businesses and internship programs, among other things. Which is all good. But if it's not primarily based on Jesus, not nebulous-ecumenical-a-possible-way-to-the-truth Jesus, but "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" Jesus, then it might as well be a political organization.
My response, which I also posted in his comments section: I think what we have with Dyson and the others is not "black theology", but "black liberation theology". Black Liberation theology is a strand of the larger "liberation theology movement", which was closely tied to socialism. It became a "christian" justification for socialism and government intervention. There was a strong movement within the Catholic church within Central and South America. Here, during the 60's it took on the cloak of the black church and civil rights, along with poverty. James Cone is one of the most well known theologians in the area. This ideaology still permeates much of black church thinking. Therefore the ability to vote for a politician because of social programs for the poor, but ignore their pro-choice and anti-Chritians stands on other issues.
Black liberation theology is the idea that God identifies with the poor and downtrodden, and actually takes their side.
I dont actually agree with it totally, because like you, I feel it relegates the message of Christ to a secondary position. Social standing becomes a sacramental thing, something that is sanctified, regardless of how or why. This is what Dyson, Cornell West and others promote. So therefore,according to them, Christ would be a gay-black-illegal immigrant in America.
Now over the past 15 years an opposite reaction has emerged, where the "wealth and prosperity" gospel teaches that with God on your side, you will see unimaginable material "blessings". Both place social standing at the center, and not Christ. I can't go on too long, but I am sure this is not the end of the discussion.

posted by Sean McCray | 4:38 PM |


FahrenHYPE 9/11
A new DVD and book produced by Dick Morris is coming out on Oct 5. It sets about debunking Moore's propaganda movie.
JunkYard Blog is trying to get as many people as possible, to buy and donate the DVD to troops in Iraq.

posted by Sean McCray | 5:46 AM |


Andrew Sullivan Likes What Kerry Has To Say.
Andrew Sullivan has been hyper critical of the Bush administration regarding Iraq, and even more so since he decided that gay marriage would be his reason to vote for Kerry. The problem I have with Sullivan is that he has no expertise in this area, but likes to speak as if he does.
Now he actually believes Kerry can get Bush on the mismanagement issue.

Kerry has been faulted for not offering an obvious alternative. But yesterday's speech had a plan; it was just a reiteration of the same kind of approach that the president has spoken about. The difference is that Bush has had 17 months to get things right and he has failed. And the bitter truth is that we have no good options in Iraq any more.
Yes, he is actually calling Kerry’s four-point plan, a real plan. No serious observer has called that plan a real plan. That plan does not address the serious issues of troop levels, and the end game, the goal. Second, if it is the same thing Bush is doing, then how can it be a good plan? Those things don’t matter to Andrew Sullivan; he has an axe to grind. There is a major point he misses, Bush does not paint a rosy picture of Iraq, read his comments. He does not say Iraq is doing well, and things are just wonderful. Bush always focuses on the end game, where we will end up, as his justification.

To claims that he isn't fit for command, Kerry simply has to ask, "You think I could run a war worse than this one?" And to every counter-sally by Bush on Kerry's own record of inconsistency, Kerry should simply say, "Stop changing the subject."

Hello! YES! Most people do feel he could run a worse war than Bush. Look at the polls and who they trust. Again, Sullivan is assuming a degree of confidence and trust in Kerry, which most people don’t have. (Only those who feel gay marriage is a greater issue than national security, lol.) He fails to realize that part of managing a war, is funding it, which Kerry failed to do with his vote on the $87 Billion. Sorry, Andrew, but Kerry’s perspective is still too negative, and too vague. NOBODY likes a person who attacks those in charge, but cannot offer clear good solutions. To most people it looks exactly like what it is, carping and nitpicking.

In the first debate, Kerry should keep hammering on specifics: Why have we spent almost no reconstruction funds? Why are we relying on the National Guard to do the army's work? How able are we to respond to other national security threats with our current troop levels? What are you going to do about Falluja? Kerry has to wrest the subject of Iraq from the past and the abstract to the present and the concrete. The American people will listen.

Kerry would also have to offer answers. The more specific his attacks, the more specific his answers will need to be. Yes, people will listen. They will hear an angry attack dog, not a President.

While there are legitimate issues about how the war has been managed, (There always are, its part of war!) You cannot attack those issues without offering a solution. Kerry refuses to do this, and therefore is pandering to those like Andrew who are pessimistic and short sighted. Will he increase troop level? Will he begin bringing them home in six months? If it is wrong to be there, then why not bring home all troops ASAP? Will he fight harder and better, even if no new allies join? What would he do differently to insure the Iraq elections take place? Or is that a priority? How do you know if you need to change strategies? Is every setback a sign of losing? Can you lose some battles and be winning the war? What will Iraq look like in the first six months of a Kerry administration? Those are questions that must be answered. No amount of attacking Bush's management will effectively discredit Bush, without a plan that would give Kerry credibility. Sullivan and Kerry supporters would like to ignore the "how and why" questions regarding the war, but they cannot be ignored. They are part of understanding and managing the war. Kerry has no credibility, because of his conflicting answers. In order to earn that credibility he has to come across as an expert on Iraq, offering more details than what would have been required, if he had not muddled the issue.

Sullivan's attacks on NRO and The Weekly Standard, saying they don’t ever comment on the war, are not just wrong but petty. The real core of his problem is with gay marriage. It is easy for people like Sullivan to attack, which is what critics do. My problem is his refusal to actually offer reasoned and balanced comments anymore. The few positive comments, he always follows with some snide put down. It is pretty clear that his feelings toward Bush are personal. His harping on the security situation is at times laughable. Sullivan assumes that as long as there are bombings, then the US is not doing its job, and things must be getting worse. He ignores that while security is partially the US's responsibility, it is ultimately the Iraqi's responsibility. We could have 500,000 troops, and it wouldn’t stop bombings, if the people do not stop them. All you have to do is look at the areas controlled by the Kurds, no bombings, and fewer American troops there. The Kurds have their own protection, so it is harder there.

Guess what? Maybe, just maybe you and the pessimists are wrong. Maybe we are winning this war, and the good news is being ignored. There will be a level of chaos, and conflict in Iraq. That does not mean we are wrong, or have lost. Like Kerry, he feels that by adding the obligatory “ I want to win this war”, that it somehow hides that his comments don’t say that.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:35 AM |


Kerry has a New, Old, New Position on Iraq.
Hell, he changes so much, I am confused. I only assume he has taken the idea that a moving target is harder to hit, to an extreme. Maybe he assumes by moving his position it becomes harder to actually attack his positions.
Now he says he wouldn't depose Saddam. (At least that's what he is saying this week)
He also announced his new four point plan for dealing with Iraq. It sounds a lot like his old four point plan, wait a minute, it is his old four point plan. Well, at least he is being consistently vague. That's a start.
This is the same old strategy Kerry used before. So what are all the Clinton advisors adding to his campaign? (Other than being involved in fake memos - Lockhart)
He is attacking Bush and hoping nobody actually asks him where his plan is.
"I will try harder" is not a clear strategy
If he has a real plan that is different than Bush's, then he should at least lay out the basics. Nobody is asking for excessive details. But at least a reasonable plan. Don't just run around talking about how bad things are, with no perspective on the realities of war. Talk about victory and winning, be positive. Offer a positive alternative.

If he hasn't noticed yet, it is getting too late to change. The images and views of the electorate are starting to become set in stone. Each new poll is showing fewer and fewer independent voters left to sway. Kerry may be hoping for a knockout in the debates, but he is setting himself up for a draw at best. Nothing he is saying puts Bush on the defensive. How about challenging to send more troops and bring them home within 12-18 months. Proclaim that you will lead the military to victory. If he is going to talk of Vietnam, use the analogy that he will not allow America to face another loss like Vietnam. We will fight and win. Every time he goes back into why we are there, and how we got into Iraq, it just leads to a muddles contradictory viewpoint from him. Stop looking back, look forward. He doesn't seem to be capable of doing this.

He will be entering the debates from a point of weakness. People still expect him to perform better than Bush. He will have to attack without being mean. He will have to show warmth and humor, two things he has so far been incapable of showing (Even when on The Daily Show). Since he has not had a press conference in over a month, all the questions about the Swiftboat vets and his multiple Vietnam stories will possibly become issues in the debate. Bush doesn't have any major questions to answer, his answers are out there. Bush just cant show his irritable side, or get too short. I can see Bush repsonding "It is too difficult to respond directly to my opponents view, because he has so many on the subject. So I will just tell you what I think.."
But what happens if the moderator asks both candidates how they feel about the others service during Vietnam? This would place Kerry in an uncomfortable position. Bush will give the answer he has always given, "My opponent served honorably and heroically in Vietnam". Will Kerry respond with an attack about Bush missing a physical? That would make him look petty and definitely less "presidential" than Bush. If he says Bush served honorably, then he will be asked about his comments regarding Cheney's deferments. What will he say? Will he dare say anybody who got educational deferments deserve scorn? Of course not. Kerry has painted himself into a corner that most good politicians would never have done. On so many issues he has backed himself into a Catch-22. Whatever he says will likely lose him votes. Bush just has to maintain status quo.

posted by Sean McCray | 2:44 AM |


TBN Troubles - LA Times raises questions about TBN and it's founders Paul and Jan Crouch.
The LA Times has written two articles recently about TBN and its founders, Paul and Jan Crouch.
One article is about a reported deal to keep a person who was making allegations quiet, and the other just goes into detail about the wealth of the network.
There are some things that are very disturbing in these articles regarding TBN.
One. Why would you pay anybody $435,000 to not talk about accusations that are blatantly false? Just makes no sense. That is a lot of money. $50,000 I might be able to ignore. But $435,000 to a former drug addict who was also convicted of sex with minors. That guy's credibility would have been shot to start with, what would make you pay them that much money to agree not to talk about a homosexual encounter that didn't happen? Not saying its true, but sure looks odd to me.

I am not personally saying anything against TBN, but there are some issues that need to be looked at.

This theme - that viewers will be rewarded, even enriched, for donating - pervades TBN programming.
"When you give to God," Crouch said during a typical appeal for funds, "you're simply loaning to the Lord and He gives it right on back."

This has been one of my biggest pet peeves with many of these property ministries. It has always bothered me, because its easy to ask others to give or sacrifice. I have one question for them, If YOU believe that God will return money given to help his message, then why don't YOU give money to others and trust God to return it to you?
Why don't you lead by example?

Paul and Jan earn a combined salary of $764,000. Wow. Their spokesperson says it is justified because for the first 21 years they only received a $75,000 salary. I don't know about you, but $75,000 is good money, and was really good money 20 years ago.
I thought it was suppose to be about the ministry, not personal wealth. This is not some stock or wall street investment, this is the Gospel!. Most ministers would be very happy with $75,000 per year.
I have no problems with the $7.2 million private jet, that they use to fly around the world. That can be justified to some extent by the needs of the business ( I am being generous here). But lets remember that Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the world has called these type of private jets a waist of corporate money. He only recently purchased one and he named it the "Indefensible".
BUT. How do you explain :
In all, the network owns 30 residences in California, Texas, Tennessee and Ohio - all paid for in cash, property records show.

These include two Newport Beach mansions in a gated community overlooking the Pacific. One of them was recently on the market for an asking price of $8 million. A real estate advertisement said it featured "11,000 square feet of opulent European luxury with regulation tennis courts and a rambling terraced hillside orchard with view of the blue Pacific."

In Costa Mesa, the ministry owns 11 homes in a gated development adjacent to Trinity Christian City International.

In Sky Forest, a resort community in the San Bernardino National Forest, the network owns a four-bedroom, five-bath home.

or how do you explain:
Credit card receipts show that in December 1994, TBN bought about 40 items from Cool Springs Antiques in Brentwood, Tenn., including a three-piece wine cabinet for $10,000, a $2,800 candelabrum, a $350 birdbath and a seven-piece bedroom suite that cost $3,995.

At Harris Antiques and Imports in Forth Worth, Texas, TBN spent $32,851 in a single day in 1995. The purchases included two French chests for about $1,900 each, a $1,650 brass planter and a $1,095 bronze urn.

TBN officials said the items were reproductions, not antiques, and were used to furnish studio sets and network-owned houses.

Does it really matter if the items were used for the TV studio? I don't think so. When you look at the finances, you realize how a few thousand dollars can seem like a small amount of money. The numbers are astounding!
"Though it carries no advertising, the network generates more than $170 million a year in revenue, tax filings show. Viewer contributions account for two-thirds of that money.

TBN has posted surpluses averaging nearly $60 million a year since 1997. Its balance sheet for 2002, the most recent available, lists net assets of $583 million, including $238 million in Treasury bonds and other government securities and $31 million in cash. It has 400 employees across the country."

Yes, $538 million dollars in assets. That is an astounding amount, especially when you add that they are still adding to that amount. They still raise money twice per year and charge minitsries for their airtime.
This type of info makes me shake my head. I just am shocked to see things like this. Is this really representing the Gospel that Jesus preached? Really? There are too many hurting people in this world to be waiting thousands of donated dollars on making a studio set look nice.

I know the media is biased, and many times attacks Christian organizations for a multitude of reasons. That's why I always read these type of articles with lots of skepticism.
Let me give you some of my background for more perspective on how I approach an issue like TV preachers. I got my undergrad degree from Oral Roberts University in Biblical Literature. We were required to attend chapel twice a week. Every major television minister usually made a visit to the campus at some time, either for our chapel services or for the many church conferences. As a student I had the opportunity to also help with transportation and seating at some of these events. I am very aware how sometimes an image to outsiders that all TV ministers are living lives of high luxury is not always true. Coming into close contact with some of these ministers, I got to see that for many the stereotype was unfortunately true.
The issue of wealth and how much was too much was a constant issue discussed among students. Many of the theology students were considered too critical by other students. We would often question the emphasis on wealth, and the showmanship and theatrics we saw that was not followed with sound biblical teaching. Even recently I was in LA and met with some graduates who are now in the ministry. One made a comment regarding their nice vehicle, that "God has blessed me". Comments like that always make me say something,I just have to. Left alone it implies a lot, and unfortunately those implications are accepted by many. So I pointed at a Lexus 430 that another one of our friends was driving, and asked "Is he more blessed than you?" My friend got my point and smiled, while saying "no".
Well that is some background on where I am coming from when I speak about the issues involving TBN. I have no animosity or any opposition to the idea of using television to promote the Gospel.
My question is, what gospel are you promoting? and for what purpose?

posted by Sean McCray | 1:17 AM |


This graphic comparing the memo CBS used, to another known to authentic memo, is astounding. It would take complete reckless disregard for truth, to ignore the differences. It wouldn't take an expert to make you question its authenticity. Just looking at it, you can see the signatures,format, typeset are very different. Imagine if Fox News had done this regarding Kerry's record.

posted by Sean McCray | 7:01 PM |


I emailed a friend of mine about my complete frustration with how most blacks view and react to the political process. I told him I was losing hope, that we would actually change. I want to post part of his response to me, because I feel he summed up the issue in a very clear and concise way.

"The largest looming issue is that we don't think politically about politics. We think historically, then emotionally about politics. Now those two ideas change hands given the question. But the point is not being able to think politically. Do you know what I think our worst dis-enfranchisement is? I honestly believe it's our thinking process. Our values are skewed because we want money, more than anything. Our morals are degraded because we have accepted societal norms. Our strength is questionable because we will not stand together, nor speak the same thing. We don't get along because we have too many opposing opinions (that we've learned from others) that we will defend to the death. Fundamentally, the vast majority of African-Americans still think in terms of goods and services not power and influence. That's why the promises made by politicians, usually Democrats, to the African-American Community are about goods and services. Consequently, we wont' follow any leader of our own, because he can't give those things. That's oppressed thinking. Oppressed people need a leader, but we don't think we are still oppressed. "

posted by Sean McCray | 8:38 PM |


Kerry's words and actions in front of black audiences is offensive. The reaction of the crowds and the so-called black liberal leadership is even more appalling.
Kerry decides he has to quote scripture in front of black audiences, and misquotes it at that. Why does he decide to only quote the Bible when speaking to black audiences. Isn't that trying to copy the traditional black ministers verbal style? Isn't that offensive coming from a secularist from Massachusetts? At what point does blasphemy and talking down to blacks become bad enough to challenge?

As Peter Kirsinow noted, he speaks to the NAACP and Urban League about Section 8 not home ownership. Government handouts.

Then he proclaims that the Republicans are going to suppress the black vote. (hat tip to Lashawn Barber) Maybe I am naive, but how exactly would Republicans do that? I don't understand. Most blacks vote in areas that are majority black, and the poll workers are usually black. How exactly will Republicans sneak in and suppress the black vote? Are we that weak and stupid? This is a sign that Kerry's internal polling is showing that blacks are not excited about him, and may stay home. So he has to come up with a way to incite blacks to show up, instead of actually offering an agenda.
This is a man who deserves 90% of the black vote?
Sorry, you cannot give me a rational explanation for that.

posted by Sean McCray | 11:57 AM |


New blog on alternative energy.

It has lots of interesting items.

This is an area I will be doing more posting on, I feel it is a part of the war on terrorism. It is also an area I feel Bush has not been aggressive in. The govt subsidies of some hydrogen research is not a good start. I think we need to use the marketplace, and emphasize practical ideas that can be transisitions.
If China makes hybrids their default type of automobile, and Japan also. Then the US will be playing catch up, again, in the auto market. It is a necessity to be competitive and lead the markets. If the Republicans fail to address the issue in a manner that is favorable to the market, we may end up allowing the left to take the issue and enforce one of their solutions on the country.
It will have an effect on the military also. Remember much of the supply lines involved in war are for fuel. Reducing that, also reduces our vulnerability and increases our military flexibility.
We need to be as bold in this area as we were with going into Iraq. The old paradigm is failing, and we must push forward for a new one. If we believe in American ingenuity and creativity as much as we say we do, then it can be done.

posted by Sean McCray | 6:05 PM |

Note to Dems: The National Guard issue is a loser!
Wake up. It only shows the desperation of the campaign. It still does nothing to help define Kerry to the voters.

Let me give you an example you might understand. The attacks on Clinton's sexual morals had no effect in 1996. People had already heard them and discounted or factored them into their view of him.

If you support Bush on the war, his Guard service from 30 years ago is not going to change your mind. Especially when a person has to look at Kerry's positions.

I think Bush is setting the Kerry campaign up for a big fall. Remember Kerry never fulfilled his guard duty, and his records are incomplete. Maybe during the debates would be a good time to point that out! With everybody watching, and Kerry forced to admit they have not been released or tell a lie, which would then be exposed.

They just keep letting that dummy Bush outsmart their genius candidates at every turn. LMAO

posted by Sean McCray | 2:11 PM |

Attack of the Liberal Law Students
It became pretty obvious to me that my professors are operating from a liberal bias, in my first classes. I know I am on the east coast, which is even more liberal than the Midwest (Ohio, where I am from). But, I was still surprised by the reaction from fellow BLSA (Black Law Students Association) to my political affiliation. I guess what shocked me the most, was how ignorant and baseless their arguments were. I expected more from law students. Now I see how so many attorneys and judges are so blind to that thing called a Constitution.
Let me explain what happened.
We were over a black professors house, having a social meeting. Some people were talking to me about not doing law for the money, but for altruistic reasons. I told them, that my altruism begins with me and my family first, I want to make money, and lots of it. One girl jokingly commented "trickle down economics", and I responded "yep, that's right".
At that point both of the females looked at me, and said
you aint no republican are you?" "Please, tell me you don't support Bush"
I smiled, and said "yep, sure do. 100%"
The entire house went into convulsions. Everybody decided to focus on me, people came into the room (about 20 people), sat in their chairs all facing me. I gave them my standard pre-warning "Do not start on this topic, unless you can handle what I have to say. Don't come at me with no silliness, and no unsubstantiated stuff." Not that it ever works, because , they always start with the unsubstantiated stuff, and this was no different. I am not even going to go into all the comments, I am sure most of you could rattle them off by heart. "They not for us" "what have they done for us" "they don't like blacks" "they cut funding" etc...

I don't think they expected me to actually be able to respond to them with information and facts. I added some humor in there also. I stood up at the beginning and told them "go ahead, give me my sellout, uncle tom card now."
One person looked at me and seriously asked "White people really like you don't they? I bet they love you?" HUH!
One of the final questions asked was. "seriously, what do you expect Bush to do for you ?"
My answer:"I can't answer your direct question because it is based on assumptions that I don't hold. Your question assumes that I would want him to do something for me, or us. It also assumes that I need him to do something for me or us. I just want the government to leave me alone, and leave us alone. Leave our money alone. We will be fine, we don't need your pandering help, or handout. We have survived slavery, now you think we cant survive the modern world without the goodness of white folks? I reject that idea completely"
Most of the students realized I was no idiot, and had to at least respect me. Many made the comment, you were all by yourself, but you handled yourself well"
A few had attitudes, but that's on them. One girl in my class, who was not even at the get together but heard about it, had a little attitude. She said " I heard about you. You are my nemesis" I said "ok, but it will only be in your mind, because I don't have enemies. Nobody can hate me." SMILE. She had gotten upset previously when she found out I had picked up information on the Federalist Society. I told her, like I tell everybody. "you don't bother me. I know what I believe and why, and that is all that matters"

It actually has motivated me to do better than them. I know that sounds silly, but law school is competitive, and your credibility is based on your performance.

I will be attending the first meeting of the year for the Federalist Society tonight, should be interesting.

posted by Sean McCray | 7:28 AM |


I am going to stay away from posting the rest of the weekend. I have a lot of studying to do. Anybody have any advice for Civil Procedure, please let me know.

I have not commented on the Bush guard memo's, because I really don't care. I think its a losing issue for Dems. It will just keep kerry's record, and lack of guard duty as an issue, and with him not doing interviews, the issue will come out during the debates. Only a plus for Bush.

posted by Sean McCray | 10:07 AM |

What Do You Expect From A Bush Second Term?
I would like to hear others opinions on this.

Reagan, Nixon, and Clinton all had second terms that were limited by scandals. I think the term limitations Presidents have, creates an environment where second terms usually have very limited effectiveness. There are some good points to this, after all, Washington doing nothing might not be a bad idea. I think the term limits should be lifted, or at least allow a President 3 terms. ( Come on, wouldn't you love to see Bill and W go at it in 2008?)

Back to a Bush second term. I don't expect him to accomplish everything, or even close to everything. What matters to me, is the direction he takes things in. Here is my list:
Stop the spending increases
2) Social security reform and/or some type of privatized retirement.
3) Simplified tax code.
4) Deal with Iran, Syria and North Korea. ( I would prefer regime change, but we will see.)
5) Afghanistan and Iraq stabilized to some reasonable degree.
6) Continued reshaping of military, by reducing foreign bases.
7) Continued pressure on a democratic process in Palestinian territory.
8) Increase market forces in the health care marketplace. Let's bury the socialized medicine arguments once and for all.

That would be a very successful second term, actually it would be historical. It would definitely help shape and define the modern conservative agenda.
Tax cutting, deficit reducing spending limits, democracy spreading, free-market superiority, strong defense.

I would love to see Bush also deal with a serious energy plan to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. I think only Bush could actually accomplish that, the same way only Clinton could end welfare. It is a part of the War on Terror. As much as I disdain government actions interfering in the marketplace, the marketplace for oil is already very controlled. We need to increase domestic drilling, increase the amount of power from nuclear power plants (triple output by 2010), and encourage the sales of hybrid vehicles (Goal of 1 million on the streets by 2008).

There is another area of the energy issue that would fit nicely with the "ownership society" agenda. The idea of energy self sufficient homes, that actually produce a surplus of energy. They would use personal generators, solar power, and other design features to accomplish this. This could actually help keep the housing boom going, as people begin to upgrade and make changes.

The hybrid cars, is actually an easy one. I don't think the car companies need much incentive. They have just done a bad job of marketing the hybrid vehicles. They have started by placing the hybrid in the lowest end vehicles. That makes no sense, since those who buy the cheapest vehicles are less likely to be able to afford the $2,000-$4,000 added to the price for a hybrid. They should have emphasized the mid range luxury sedans
and the smaller SUV's (Lexus 300, Infiniti GS and FX, Acura, cadillac CTS and SRX, Chevy Trailblazer). Those are the people with the ability to pay the extra money, and by branding it as a luxury item, it would actually create demand. Americans buy status. My point is proven by the new 2005 Lexus RX 400h hybrid SUV, is already breaking pre-sales records. Having the federal and state governments buying hybrids to replace any fleet vehicles they purchase, especially for non-emergency and non-police vehicles, would be incentive enough. I don't want to see tax credits or other gimmicks used.

posted by Sean McCray | 8:45 AM |

Ban Box Cutters not AK-47's
John Kerry says allowing assault weapons ban to expire, will help terrorists.

I say that the left should use the same logic on this issue, that they have demanded on the Iraq War. We should only be concerned with weapons used by Al Queada and directly tied to 9-11. Anything outside of that is just extremist. Acting to ban them based on the idea that terrorists might use assault weapons, or some terrorists other than Al Queada have used them, would be a pre-emptive act. You shouldn't make pre-emptive actions without iron clad evidence that Al Queada, and those directly tied to 9-11, plan on using them. Unless you have specific intelligence about a particular plan, then you would be acting in haste.
Right? Isn't that the same logic?

So I propose all those who oppose the war, should be asking - no demanding a ban on all box cutters.

posted by Sean McCray | 8:15 AM |


Blogs! Blogs! Blogs! Blogs!
Bloggers and blogs have tranformed the entire news business since 9-11.
They are on top of the forged Bush memo story. Holding traditional media to the fire. Be warned. They are going to fight back. So dont be surprised when you see major media start trying to "expose" bloggers.
These are exciting times we live in. We are at a point where history pivots. When paradigms are smashed, and new ones created.

posted by Sean McCray | 2:09 PM |


Warning: Angry Rant Ahead
Someone sent me an email saying "I can`t go anywhere with out being hated as an American...I dont remember a time in our history where most of the people of the world hated America."

I usually ignore people who say that, because the statement itself is based on a lot of assumptions, that most thinking people would not have.
But I will respond just to blow some hot air.

First. Since when did your personal experience become the representation of all Americans everywhere?

Second. How many places have you actually been to? before the war, and after?

Third. You may not remember a time in our history, because you aint that OLD!! How can you talk in historical terms. and you are only 30-40 years old? What arrogance and ignorance. A bad combination.

Fourth. Why should I care if it is true? The assumption is that others opinions of the US are somehow automatically valid. Also they are more valid than Americans opinions of America. To make that statement without any qualifications, is like putting a dunce cap on your head. If you would stop for five seconds and actually think about what you are saying, you wouldn't say it.

Fifth. It's a damned lie!! If it isn't, then prove it.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:26 AM |


Kerry's Athletic Activities:
Kerry has made his athletic activities a major part of his image. The conventional wisdom is that he is doing it to be seen as "macho' or "tough".
Robert Musil brings up a point that I had been thinking about: His health.
It just seems so blatant, the attempt to be seen as athletic. He hasn't released his medical records.
Eerily reminds me of JFK, hiding his addisons disease, by looking athletic and tanned.

posted by Sean McCray | 11:28 PM |

What Defeat Looks Like:
I have watched very closely the 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000 elections.
In all of those, the losing candidates campaign takes on a feel that defeat is imminent. This usually happens after Labor Day. It seems all the news they get is bad news, that all the small comments are taken wrong. They seem to be unable to get their feet under them.
I remember the Bush 41 campaign still struggling with direction, vision and energy. I remember the Dole campaign struggling, and fighting the perception that defeat was imminent.
I am seeing the same thing with the Kerry campaign.
What happens is all the weaknesses that have been buried until Labor Day become exposed. Because of the greater scrutiny. Think about it. Nothing new really happened, only things that affirmed what people already thought.
I am seeing the same thing with the Kerry campaign. His frantic attacks, the disorganized structure, and ineffective message. Sound familiar? It is the sound of losing.
He may get some good news, and make a move forward in the polls, but it will be temporary.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:42 PM |

I had a dream, but it was only a dream.

That I turned on the news and saw the following:

Islamic clerics from all over the world have taken to the streets. They are leading one of the largest non-violent rallies in the world. They have demanded that terrorists and extremists stop using their peaceful religion, to incite violence. They are demanding that Muslims want democracy and human rights now. The Arab nations are frightened. They cannot quelch the marches, but if they ignore them, their dictatorships may be on verge of collapse. They have called the marches a tool of American and Jewish Imperialist.
The protesters were carrying signs that stated in Arabic "No violence. Allah is peace" The streets of Syria, the Palestinian territories, Iran, Saudi Arabia and all over Iraq are full of people demanding that the world listen to them.
President Bush has gone on the air and given a statement in support of the marchers. He has asked the world to listen and respond. To remember that these people have a God-given right to liberty. He then challenged the UN and Europe to stand on the right side of history. Stating that "America was slow to respond to the Civil Rights movement in the sixties, and slow to demand apartheid end, but in this century of liberty America will stand with all who seek freedom." In response the US has moved its troops from out of Iraqi cities, and repositioned many on the borders of Syria and Iran. The US claims they are there to offer protection for humanitarian aid workers.
Colin Powell was immediately sent to Europe to rally our allies. Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to issue a strong statement of support later today. Powell was met with protesters as he arrived. One protester commented "they just want the oil, and want to build McDonalds and Starbucks" After leaving the UK, Powell will travel to Italy, Germany, Spain and France over the next few days. Then he is expected to head towards the middle east. French leader Chirac along with the leaders of Syria and Iran have called on the UN to stop America from inciting this violence. Kofi Annan issued a statement " I am very concerned about America's actions". Hamas and Arafat have called on all the faithful to destroy Israel. He has called for those who believe, to martyr themselves for the real cause. This latest fatwa from Arafat was issued from inside his headquarters, because the streets are not safe for him to go outside right now. He is expected to meet with France's Chirac within the next few days, to discuss the situation.
But I woke up, and noticed this: The terrorists in Russia are never reported to be Islamic by the media. I wander why? If the religion is so peaceful, where is the outrage over holding children hostage and killing them?

And this.
Terrorists in Iraq have called on the Association of Muslim Scholars to declare a "fatwa" and let them know if the kidnapping and killing of foreigners who work for the occupation forces is acceptable under Islam. The Association of Muslim Scholars have not responded. What do they have to think about?? Since it is a religion of peace.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:41 PM |

They Don't Get It (Cont)
Boston Globe's James Carroll has just informed the public that : "So the final truth about this war is that there is no real enemy (although we are creating enemies by the legion). There will be no victory."

How any mind can conceive those words, is astounding to me. And he gets paid for it!!!!
There's more:
It's the Christians fault! They are projecting this terrorism onto Islam, its their imagination. "Even though the war on terrorism is indeed, as the president said, a "crusade," it has nothing real to do with Islam either, although Islam is surely its target. Not Islam as it actually exists in dozens of different settings and cultures across the globe, but an imagined Islam that exists only in the troubled minds of a people who project "evil" outward and then attack it. Alas, it is an old Christian habit."
<>Oh, and we must not forget the leftist anthem, we are such an oppressed people here in the US. Its amazing that they never see that by writing those words, they disprove them!!
"The war, meanwhile, answers the Bush administration's need to justify an unprecedented repressiveness in the "homeland," and simultaneously prompts widespread docile submission to the new martial law. But more deeply still, by understanding ourselves as a people at war, we Americans find exemption from the duty to face the grotesque shame of what we are doing in the world."

Martial Law!! Where? How do you answer people like this? Would finding WMD really change this persons' mind? I doubt it. They have a fundamental paradigm, that sees America as the root of all problems, and Bush as the lead Devil.

posted by Sean McCray | 10:00 AM |


Blogroll : finally updated my blogroll, added some folks.

posted by Sean McCray | 6:53 PM |


January 7, 1946 issue of Life magazine, that Bush mentioned.
(By way of Jessica's Well)
There are two articles: Link for first one , Link for second one

Some quotes:
"The troops returning home are worried. “We’ve lost the peace,” men tell you. “We can’t make it stick.”

"A tour of the beaten-up cities of Europe six months after victory is a mighty sobering experience for anyone. Europeans. Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. "

"We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease."

posted by Sean McCray | 7:44 AM |

This is a must read article in USA Today: "For many fallen soldiers, day of terror was something else: A call to serve"
Cory Geurin was just starting his senior year in high school when, only a week after Sept. 11, he told his mother: "They're messin' with my generation, and I'm not gonna let it happen. I want to join the Marines."

Darlene Geurin had detected a change in her only son ever since the morning she roused him from bed to watch reports of the attacks. In the days that followed, her son and his friends would congregate at their house in Santee, Calif. — but instead of watching MTV, they turned on the news. A few weeks later, a recruiter was sitting in their living room.

"He grew up after 9/11. He went from a teenager who was worried about who his next date was and wrestling matches to somebody who wanted to do something about the way the world was," Darlene Geurin says. "And he did."

Because Cory was just 17, his parents had to grant permission for him to enlist. In November 2001, on a school day, he took the oath. A month after his high school graduation, on July 15, 2002, the surfer boy who was voted most valuable player of the wrestling team went off to boot camp.

He died exactly one year later, after falling 60 feet from the roof of an Iraqi palace he was guarding.

The knock. The chaplain at the door. The words: "I'm sorry to inform you ..." The images haunt Darlene Geurin now, along with the tragic day that started it all.

"Last Sept. 11 was two months after he died. I was at work that day, and the feelings I had ... I had to leave," she recalls. "It just brought it all back: This is why my son died.

"I always wonder, if it hadn't happened — if 9/11 hadn't happened — would he have gone to college? Would he still be alive? It's a very hard day for us."

What the Geurin family doesn't question is President Bush's rationale for going to war — rooted in part on assertions that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist group behind the attacks on New York and Washington. The commission that investigated the plot has since concluded there was no collaborative relationship between the former Iraqi dictator and al-Qaeda.

"People say, 'Do you have regrets that your son went?' No, because I know in my heart my son had no regrets," says Cory's father, Dennis Geurin. "We fight because of one reason: We believe we're doing the right thing at the time for our country. Cory signed up to defend this country. He didn't say, 'I'm only going to fight the war I believe in.'"

As President Bush stated "where does that strength come from?"

posted by Sean McCray | 7:34 AM |


11 point bounce!
Both Newsweek and Time are showing and 11 point lead by Bush/Cheney. The bounce is actually 13-16% bounce.
To put that in perspective. The largest bounce was by Clinton, and that was from Perot dropping out of the race. His bounce was 14-15%. Gore had a 10% bounce.
So an 11% bounce is exceptional.
Look for the media to try to explain it away, and try real hard to destroy it.

posted by Sean McCray | 5:59 PM |

Andrew Sullivan is a true girlie man
He cant support Bush because Mary Cheney, Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter, didnt get on stage with the rest of the family.
How silly and absolutely judgemental. Thats exactly the type of attitude that turns people off from the "gay activists".
MAYBE. She chose not to go onstage. MAYBE. It was HER choice, because she is tired of people like Sullivan and those on the right using her. MAYBE. Just maybe.
Cheney has never hidden his daughter, or in any way disclaimed her. She has played a prominent role in the campaigns. Funny, people who say they should be left alone, dont want to leave her alone.

posted by Sean McCray | 2:57 PM |

Democrats are "girlie men"
For over a year they have called Bush and Republicans everything they could imagine. Liar. racist. Nazi. Drunk. Imbecile.

But after the Republican Convention, they are whining about the names they were called. How the Republicans are using dirty tricks. LOL.
What is worse than accusing a President of lying to send people to war, just to make his oil friends rich? that is the greatest of betrayals.
But when Republicans actually start questioning John Kerry's military record, suddenly they are the ones using dirty tricks.

I can just hear how gleaful the Dems would have reacted of Bush's commander in National Guard had come out and questioned his stories.
If you cant take the heat get out of the kitchen.

posted by Sean McCray | 2:47 PM |


" Commandos stormed a school Friday in southern Russia and battled separatist rebels holding 1,200 hostages, as crying children, some naked and covered in blood, fled through explosions and gunfire. An official said the death toll could be significantly higher than 150."

sick bastards, using children as a shield.

Any doubts the enemy we are dealing with is dangerous, ruthless and at war with the WORLD?

posted by Sean McCray | 1:34 PM |

After checking out Kerry's screed, I am now convinced that Bush will win this election and it will not be close. Middle America will be turned off by anger.

Kerry is in self destruct mode. He is the anti-Clinton.
Its like Kerry has looked at Clinton, and decided to do the opposite of what Clinton would have done. The first thing Clinton did when attacked was smile. He knew anger wouldn't look good, at least not overtly expressed.

Is the Bush campaign secretly running Kerry's campaign? Because he seems to hand the President a gift almost daily.

All that "dummy" Bush has to do, is nothing. Let that "genius" Kerry talk and talk and talk. The Bush campaign just needs to keep smiling and talking about the future and saying Kerry served honorably.

Let that be a contrast to Kerry's screeds and non-stop talk about Vietnam. That was 30 years ago!! The Kerry people attacked Zell Miller saying he got personal. LOL. I guess mentioning his 20 year record in the Senate is getting personal. Notice, Kerry, nor his people have denied a single thing being said about his record. They are not even trying to talk about his record. He is still trying to run as Lt Kerry, reporting for duty. LOL
Bush doesn't have to do anything to win this election. Only a catastrophe in Iraq will derail Bush.
Wait until the debates, when the personality contrast will be even more stark. What is Kerry going to do? Mention Vietnam with every answer.
"I fought in Vietnam, therefore, social security will be safe with me. Trust me when I say I will not raise taxes or cut benefits, but will save social security. Just like I saved my fellow soldiers"
That actually sounds like something he would say.
If I was a Dem, I would be pissed off right now at the Party for rushing the primaries. They had a chance to beat Bush, if they had nominated the right candidate.
Had a chance.
The Dems have convinced Kerry that if he looks mad, it means he looks tough. But you cant say bring it on, then go whining when somebody runs a negative ad. Kerry believes that he didn't respond fast enough to the Swiftboat Vets, and with enough force. WRONG.
He didn't respond fast enough, but he responded with too much force, too much defensiveness.
Kerry could have neutralized them in five seconds. He could have responded.
" There are those who see some events differently than I do. That's understandable, but the official records are clear. Some don't like what I did when I returned from the war. I just ask that they remember we were all young, and we were living in a divisive time. Sure, I would have done some things differently, definitely would not have said anything that I thought would hurt other soldiers. In my youthful zeal and frustration I lashed out, maybe not always with the greatest wisdom, but trust me when I say I did it with the best intentions. I am not going to attack my fellow Veterans, they have a right to disagree with me on policies. I don't question their service, they are honorable men, I hope we can move forward and not allow ourselves to be caught off guard debating an old war. I am proud of my service, but today we are in a new war. Therefore..."
But what did he do? Ran to the media screaming about Bush is using them to attack me, and tell Bush to call them off. Wow. You really look tough Senator.
Then he built McCain up more, by talking about what happened in 2000. Nobody remembers 2000, does he not understand that. He only gave McCain greater credibility, so when McCain defended the President his endorsement carried more weight.
And anybody who is paying any attention knows the Vets are mad about what Kerry did when he came back, not his fighting. Thats why Kerry tries to keep the focus on his tours of duty. Even McCain publicly stated that Kerry's activities after returning were legitimate questions.

posted by Sean McCray | 5:32 AM |


Bush's Speech - First Thoughts
Very Clintonian, with the programs. Not sure how that will go over, did people listen or turn the channel?
Surprised that he threw out so much red meat for conservatives. Abortion, Gay Marriage.

Started slow, didn't like the list of programs. Should have focused on maybe 2 or 3, hit them and kept going.

The last 15 minutes, was a great closing!

posted by Sean McCray | 11:15 PM |


That's the key word for Bush. Like Dick Morris, I don't feel Bush needs to spend too much time on detailing a domestic agenda. He just needs to give people some direction and focus.
Mostly he needs for people to see that he understands their frustrations. Their concerns and fears regarding the war not ending, and the economy stalling.
People need to see that he has a heart, that he feels the pain of sending young people to war. That it is a struggle for him. They already know he believes it is right. One well told story about a young soldier would serve the purpose.

What a lot of people don't understand about those of us who support the war, is that we don't revel in the idea of war. We don't think its some great thing to send our 20 year olds half way around the world to die in some horrid desert. That does upset us and makes us pause.
Each death pains us.

We just blame the right people, and focus our anger at the right target. The terrorists and Saddam. Not our troops and Bush.

posted by Sean McCray | 3:59 PM |

Kerry is doing everything he can to lose this election....
First, will somebody please tell him how goofy he looks saluting all the time.

Kerry refuses to let the whole Vietnam thing die down and to stop his blatantly hypocritical statements about Iraq. Its as if, he hopes people honestly don't expect him to give a real response. He is really going to try to get through Nov 2, without a real plan, and just by attacking Bush. How stupid!

He just keeps attacking the policy in Iraq, without ever offering any real solutions. He claims Bush didn't listen to senior military people, didn't have a plan for the peace and didn't involve allies. Yawn!!
Everybody that believes those things are already voting for Kerry. Because you have to deny reality and facts to believe them. Gen Franks, THE most senior military advisor created the war plan for speed, that's why the troop level is not higher. Kerry will not say how much higher, and he contradicts himself. If he really believes that, then why is promising to start bringing troops home in six months. That will leave the remaining troops even more vulnerable.

A smart politician would spend a lot of time praising our troops, praising our military. A smart candidate would not just say we don't have enough troops, but commit to send a lot more. Then make the case, that by sending more now, we can leave sooner.

Now this stupidity about Bush saying we cant win the war on terror. They really believe that people will buy that, and that Kerry can take advantage of it.
And they call Bush dumb. LOL.

I cannot wait for the debates, I want to see Kerry explain his votes and twisted positions. He keeps digging a hole, hoping nobody notices until after Nov 2.

posted by Sean McCray | 3:46 PM |
to open links in new window
Contact Me