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


FLOHPA (Florida- Ohio- Pennsylvania)
Those three are still the major prizes in this election. Whoever wins two of the three, will have an electoral college advantage. If Bush wins two of the three, then Kerry's options are very limited. Bush has other options if he wins only one of the three. He would have to take WI, Minn and Iowa while holding onto AZ, CO and Nevada.
I think Kerry will take PA, and Bush will take FL. This means Ohio becomes the state to watch, whoever wins there will have an edge.

posted by Sean McCray | 10:47 AM |


Black Democratic Mayor for Bush : Four-term Mayor Carl Officer of East St. Louis announced before local supporters today that he has accepted the position as head of the Illinois Steering Committee of "Democrats for Bush," founded earlier this year by Democratic Senator Zell Miller of Georgia. A life long Democrat, Officer is a third generation African-American entrepreneur and mayor of America's poorest city.

posted by Sean McCray | 5:06 PM |

NRO's Kerry Spot has early good news on Bush's election:

Among early and absentee votes cast already, Bush has huge lead in FL, bigger than his advantage in Florida in 2000.

There’s a great contrast in the respective get-out-the-vote operations for Bush and Kerry. Around 25 percent of registered voters report being contacted by a Bush-Cheney volunteer, most often members of their church or community organization or neighbor. About 19 percent of registered voters have been contacted on behalf of the Kerry-Edwards campaign, but the vast majority of these contacts are by paid temps of the campaign, the DNC, or a related 527. Will the personal touch have an effect?

In Hawaii, the Bush campaign has quietly had its eye on this state for a while, and been building a surprisingly strong statewide organization with more than 2,000 volunteers. Kerry put up ad about how bad the economy was, while Hawaii has one of the lowest unemployment rates in country.

In New Mexico, Bush is only few thousand behind in early/absentee ballots in Bernalillo county, a heavy Democrat county.

In Florida, the campaign expects Bush to end up with an estimated 100,000 vote advantage among early and absentee voters.

In Nevada, there is little expectation that this state will be all that competitive. Bush is competitive in Clark County (which includes Las Vegas). Right now Kerry leads 44 percent Bush 41 percent. Kerry needed over 50 percent out of Clark county to win NV. But Bush within a few thousands votes of heavy Dem county.

Finally, a big point of enthusiasm for the GOP is their deep bench of Bush surrogates who can garner big crowds and lots of media attention. The President is in New Hampshire and Ohio today, vith Ah-nuld. Cheney is going to Hawaii. Tommy Franks is in Florida, as is John McCain and former President Bush. Rudy Giuliani is in Iowa, Mitt Romney is in Michigan, and former President Bush will also be in Pennsylvania later.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:35 AM |

Black Voter Suppression : My Challenge
I will be more than glad to admit I am wrong, if I am shown real evidence. Not assumptions that require a lot of guessing.
Show me the evidence. Anybody that has a link to an article or ANY evidence of black voter suppression, let me know.
Put up, or shut up!

posted by Sean McCray | 1:03 AM |


What Black Voter Suppression?
This is an issue I am having a hard time believing. I am sure some groups don't want certain people to vote. BUT. In my entire life, I do not know of a single incident where anybody I knew, or knew of was turned away from a voting booth.
Once again, the dumb poor blacks need to be saved by liberal whites. We cant be expected to follow the rules to vote, and vote in the right precint. Anybody offended that the assumption from Democrats is that is a ballot was not correctly filled out, or a person votes at the wrong place, they are probably black? White folks don't do things like that, I guess, not in the Democratic worldview.
Are African-Americans so weak and fearful that we run from polling places if we see "poll watchers"? If we are that weak and scared then we shouldn't vote. Sorry, I just don't buy it. We have died trying to vote, now suddenly we can't do it without help?
I have lived in many places within a short period of time, and have never had a hard time finding my correct polling place. It isn't rocket science.
Do these so-called black organizations realize that they are feeding into a stereotype by crying wolf? They are saying we are too dumb to punch a freaking hole in a card.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:34 AM |


Why George W. Bush?
It may sound like rhetoric to say Bush gets the 'big things" right, but it is true. He does have a vision and a plan for dealing with the biggest issues this country now faces: terrorism, social security reform, military reform, and tax reform. Kerry's answer in all of those areas is more of the same class warfare and demagoguery.

Saddam was a threat. There is no way around the fact that sooner or later, in order to deal with terrorism in the Middle east, Saddam would have to be dealt with. The longer we wait, the stronger he would have become. The sanctions were being circumvented and were not going to be kept in place by the French and Chinese.
Terrorism needed to be attacked offensively. This is a simple idea that Bush understands. There is no way we can completely secure the homeland from a defensive posture only. If we take that strategy, while allowing the terrorists freedom to plan and train in other nations, then we are making ourselves a sitting target. The US is at war, we can go on the offensive and force our agenda on them, or we wait for them to set the agenda.

Sooner or later the US must take on and win urban guerilla warfare - liberals are ok, with the idea that America can’t win guerilla wars. That myth must die, in the dessert of Iraq. Every country will know that the US is capable of sustaining losses, and defeating a guerilla insurgency when this war is done. Every nation will know that the US will act without the UN approval, if necessary. No enemy of America is heartened by this idea.

The old paradigm needed to be changed. The paradigm where we accepted stability and oil, while ignoring our own contributory policies to the ill treatment of people in the Middle East.

Arafat is a terrorist, and has not changed. Bush understands that until Arafat is removed from the peace process, there will be no peace process. Bill Clinton put the entire energy of his administration during his second term towards a peace deal. Arafat was offered 90% of what he wanted, by Clinton. Arafat responded by rejecting the offer, making no counter offer and declaring a fatwa against Israel. Arafat increased the support for terrorist attacks against Israel. He felt that it would lead to him getting more than 90% of what he wanted. Bush will not sacrifice Israel at the altar of the EU, UN and France.

Afghanistan, which was known as the “graveyard of empires”, was defeated in a historically quick manner. The US war plan was ingenious and effective. Afghanistan is now a democratic country. Iraq, with all of its problems is on track for January elections. Things will still be ugly there, but they are on the road to democracy. They have the foundations of democratic institutions, economic and social. These are not minor feats, to be dismissed due to disagreements with style or strategy. A region bereft of any signs of democracy is now awakening to a new era. Two democracies with over 50 million people now exist, in less than three years. Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other nations are all in the process of implementing democratic reforms. Egypt and Libya have heirs to the leadership talking openly about the need to become democratic in their transitions. Both Mubarak's and Khaddaffi's son are openly saying they want to see their countries become democratic. This is the greatest change since the explosion of democracies in Asia.

Has Bush made mistakes? Of course. He has failed to be both bold and relevant in areas other than terrorism. He has not taken the deficit seriously, which does lead to a shifting of the tax burden to the future, not a true tax cut. The tax cuts he pushed were too complicated and not large enough, especially for the middle class. The spending on Homeland security should have been larger. The deficit could still have been kept much smaller, through freezing all non-security government spending. Tell the people we are at war, and this requires sacrifice.

Be relevant with small initiatives like lifting the amount a person can borrow in student loans. Pushing hybrid vehicles and other market based ways to cut our use of foreign oil. We must deal with the use of oil by this country, if we plan on successfully dealing with the Middle Eastern dictators. Bush has not acted in any way that is bold here. The US is allowing Japan and China to set the pace in hybrid cars. Instead of it becoming a way for our automakers to take the lead worldwide. This would also have an effect on our military developing vehicles and weapons that use alternative fuels. Keeping tanks and equipment filled with oil, is a major supply line issue for the military.
There should have been more troops in Iraq, or available for use in Iraq. Just in case they were needed for emergency reasons, or for temporary duties. They could have sealed the borders, and also put direct pressure on Syria and Iran. This would also have given the US a lot more flexibility, regarding bringing troops home, which would signal that we do not want to occupy Iraq. Even now, I think we need a greater carrot and stick approach to Iraq. Let the Iraqi people know that for every two or three trained and active Iraqi battalions, the US will withdraw one of our own. This would send a strong signal, and also give greater motivation for public support of the Iraqi military rebuilding.

We have to change the paradigm that we have used during the cold war with N Korea and other countries, where the US kept responsibility for their security. Time to actually use this as a catalyst to withdraw direct security for other nations. Promote democracy, free markets and help them build stable militaries. If a country is not insecure then they have no need for nuclear weapons.

More direct aid and lifting of all tariffs with African countries and make the US irreplaceable to India. I have been amazed by our constant infatuation with China, and second-class status we give to India and Brazil. I know it goes back to the cold war, where both showed friendliness to the USSR. These are two important countries that can take a large load of having a world with balanced military and economic powers.

I am still convinced once we get beyond the Iraq war, Bush will leave office more popular among African Americans. The economy will get better, and the values issues are more closely aligned. As much as the media attacks Bush, and he has done some stupid moves (the amicus brief near MLK holiday, not going on BET, NAACP). I hope he will make himself available to the black press on a regular basis. I would hope he would invite a lot more African American leaders to the White House, especially younger leaders from different areas and fields, like medicine, business. Social security reform will be a huge boom for African Americans.
John Kerry only offers the same useless band-aids. A promise that he will somehow change our conditions, with the same old programs and some vague Affirmative Action. Kerry will have blacks in his cabinet in secondary positions and traditional (housing, health, etc..) positions.

John Kerry. The man who still does not admit he made a mistake meeting with the enemy during Vietnam. Still has admitted no mistakes regarding his multiple answers on Iraq. The man who still feels the Clinton bilateral talks with North Korea were a success, and should be used again (alongside multilateral talks. how confusing!). Iran should be given nuclear material and dealt with the same way North Korea was dealt with, since it was such a smashing success. The man who has denigrated every major ally who has fought with the US. People like Andrew Sullivan say, "he talked tough during the convention!” as if that is enough. That type of answer is naive and silly on its face. Kerry, the man who had 386 economists decry his economic plan. His playing the "outsourcing" card as if protectionism is a legitimate solution. His answer for Social Security is, well no answer. He has offered to do nothing but continue the Social Security program on the present path of excessive spending and bankruptcy. The same Kerry who actually somehow beyond all reason thinks Clinton's talks with Arafat were a success.

Sorry, but I don't see a man with any strengths that are greater than Bush's, or with fewer weaknesses than Bush. A person has to deny reality to claim either.

The choice is very clear. A person with values, a real vision of clarity and the boldness to address the major issues we face as a country, George W. Bush.

posted by Sean McCray | 8:44 AM |


Rat brain cells in a dish, fly fighter plane

An array of rat brain cells has successfully flown a virtual F-22 fighter jet. The cells could one day become a more sophisticated replacement for the computers that control uncrewed aerial vehicles or, in the nearer future, form a test-bed for drugs against brain diseases such as epilepsy.

Enzymes were used to extract neurons from the motor cortex of mature rat embryos and cells were then seeded onto a grid of gold electrodes patterned on a glass Petri dish. The cells grew microscopic interconnections, turning them into a “live computation device”, explains Thomas DeMarse, a biomedical engineer at the University of Florida in Gainesville, US, who carried out the research.
Wow! Not sure if this is progress, or something scary.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:59 PM |

Over 100 African American and Latino Superintendents Voice Their Support for the Accountability Provisions in Title I (NCLB)

The superintendents, many from districts struggling with the toughest challenges, all recognize that rigorous accountability is good for public education. They know that, while challenging, the new expectations in Title I are especially good news for the disadvantaged students, including students of color and students living in poverty, whose underachievement has been swept underneath overall averages for too long. After watching mounting political attacks on accountability, these educators felt compelled to explain how the accountability provisions are helping them to bring about long-overdue conversations about how we can do things differently to better public education

posted by Sean McCray | 1:25 PM |


Oxblog has decided to vote for Kerry. I understand reasonable people may choose to make the same decision. I only point out his decision, because one MAJOR point he makes, I have to challenge.

"I'm not at all worried about Kerry's response to another attack -- no president could resist striking back hard, and I see no reason to think that Kerry would even want to resist striking back hard. Moreover, Kerry will not, I think, be able to pull out of Iraq any time soon."
His comments are common among those who do feel security is a major issue, but choose to still vote for Kerry. Personally, it is both wishful thinking and dismissive of what Bush has really accomplished in Afghanistan alone.
Yes, any President will "strike back hard". But, hasn't Iraq taught us that the goal alone is not sufficient. The actual plan and strategy is as important, if not more important than just having a goal. How can people who have no confidence in the ability of the US military, be trusted to respond in a manner that is decisive?
Bush's resposne to Afghanistan is historically one of the best military plans ever conceived and implemented. Afghanistan was known as the "graveyard of empires". Many superpowers had met defeat there.
I feel that a President Gore or Clinton would have allowed those fears to effect their plans. They would have responded on one of two ways that would have possibly had very different results. They would have used the same plan for Gulf War 1, massive troops invading, or they would have used the Kosovo model. There are huge issues about the effectiveness of both of those strategies.
Kerry will never send American troops into battle, unless the US is attacked and he is forced to by world events. I don't see how this differs from the pre-9/11 mindset. The entire world will know and understand that the US is a sitting target, and if you hit hard enough, you can hurt her.
Not the kind of country I want to live in.

posted by Sean McCray | 11:31 PM |

Kerry's Cabinet
National Journal has an article on what a possible Kerry cabinet will look like. For all my Democratic friends, please read the list, there are at least 50 names mentioned for various positions and MAYBE about 3-5 are African-Americans. No African-Americans are mentioned in any positions of significance.

In contrast, Larry Thompson may be the first African-American Attorney General under a Bush second term.

posted by Sean McCray | 10:52 AM |


Andrew Sullivan : My last commenst on him, really.
I know I keep saying I will not read him anymore, but I try to give him another chance every now and then. His cynical and increasingly shrill and overwhelmingling biased (against Bush) comments are just undermining his reputation. His writing has become predictable.
Besides acting like he is the gay god, and the epitome of the "gay voice". he dismisses anybody who disagrees with him on any "gay issue". The guy is actually still arguing that Kerry's comment about Mary Cheney was legitimate. How out of touch can you be? Anybody who disagrees is just homophobic or uncomfortable with gays in public, according to him. The idea that NOBODY should bring ANYBODY'S child into a political issue. Kerry does not know Mary Cheney, but spoke as if he knew her thoughts. How tacky, and low down. Period.
His criticism of Bush are getting to the point of being blatantly false. He comments

"All this shows is that Bush really did believe the "cakewalk" stuff, and had no inkling of the possibility of an insurgency. (But we knew that already from the aircraft carrier embarrassment.) It also reveals Bush's gut-instinct as a war-leader: never, ever make war seem hard or difficult or risky. Always talk up the war, because you don't have the strength to tell the public what the war will really cost and what it really entails. That's why he's been so unimpressive when things went wrong. He has no internal mechanism to deal with trouble or failure, except denial, arrogance or an attack on his critics. Just what you need in a commander-in-chief, no?
How absolutely false and ridiculous. Bush never claimed it would be a "cakewalk", even on the aircraft carrier Bush made it very clear that lots of hard work was ahead. He has never even implied that it would be "no problems".
My problem is with Andrew Sullivan's intellectual dishonesty. Instead of admitting it is about gay marriage, and that he is supporting Kerry. He chooses to play a game, pretending to be an honest critic. It is pandering to his audience, maybe thats why kerry's commenst didnt bother him.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:43 AM |


ADR Competition
The Alternative Dispute Resolution organization at my school held a competition this past weekend. Teams competed in two rounds of mock negotiations, and the top 17 teams out of 32, are offered membership. The top four teams, then compete for two spots in the regional competition.
My partner and I signed up, because it is one of the few things 1L's are allowed to do.
Somehow we made a mistake, and had only prepared for one of the rounds. Early Saturday before the competition started we had to hurry up and come up with a plan for the second round.
We were able to pull it together, and did well.
They announced the teams by name, in front of everybody.
They called my team, as one of the final four. We were shocked!
We didn't win the final round, but were the only 1L's in the final four.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:02 PM |


Andrew "hypocritical gay guy" Sullivan astounds me with his twisted logic.
Is it really that hard for him to understand that family members of politicians are off limits, unless they put themselves in the public eye.
Andrew Sullivan misses his hypocrisy when he states "But there is an obvious solution to this debate: let Mary speak. She's running the veep's campaign. She's an adult. Why can't she tell us if she's upset by Kerry's and Edwards' remarks? Give her a microphone, guys. What are you afraid of?"
Astounding. The twisted and selfish logic behind that thought.
The reason Kerry's comments are below the belt, is because Mary Cheney has not spoken out on any issues. That is the right a private citizen has. Andrew wants it both ways. If she speaks out, then its not an issue - he insinuates. But if she speaks out on the issues, then she does become an issue.
Why is it so hard for Andrew's selfish twisted mental process to understand a basic ides - leave her alone.
I have lost all respect for Sullivan over the last few months, his arrogant, narcissistic, deceitful writings have gone into never-ever land.

posted by Sean McCray | 6:42 PM |

Webads and Kerry
One area I think the Dems are definitely ahead of Rep is using webads. The dems have done a very good job using web ads to follow up the debates. Every news website I have gone to, has prominent Kerry ads, proclaiming him the victor. I think this has helped with his post debate spin.

posted by Sean McCray | 8:25 AM |

Bush v Kerry 3
I have to be honest, I was bored to death watching that debate. Three debates are too many. Nothing new was said, just the same things said differently.
Kerry looked tired and out of energy. Bush made his points, and looked good. I don't think anyone changed their minds.
Yes, Bob Schieffer was extremely biased in his questions and remarks. BUT, i don't want to hear Bush supporters complaining. Bush could have objected and demanded a more conservative moderator for at least one of the debates. Stop, letting the left run the media agenda, then get mad when they keep abusing that privilege.
If the polls don't begin to move for Bush over the next week, we may have to seriously start accepting the idea of a President Kerry. If so, there is really nobody to blame but Bush, for running such a bad campaign. Imagine if he wasn't running against Kerry, and his horribly run campaign?

posted by Sean McCray | 6:17 AM |

Andrew "I am gay and will vote for Kerry" Sullivan makes more silly remarks to attack Bush, while ignoring the gaping holes in Kerry. Of course, it has to do with gay marriage, what else is important to him? This is regarding Mary Cheney, and Kerry's weird and slimey invocation of her name during the debate.

I keep getting emails asserting that Kerry's mentioning of Mary Cheney is somehow offensive or gratuitous or a "low blow". Huh? Mary Cheney is out of the closet and a member, with her partner, of the vice-president's family. That's a public fact. No one's privacy is being invaded by mentioning this. When Kerry cites Bush's wife or daughters, no one says it's a "low blow." The double standards are entirely a function of people's lingering prejudice against gay people. And by mentioning it, Kerry showed something important. This issue is not an abstract one. It's a concrete, human and real one.
Maybe because it had nothing to do with the question that was asked? Maybe thats why it was inappropriate and slimey. Just because Andrew "Hey I'm gay" Sullivan wants to wear it like a badge or a wound for victimhood doesn't mean Mary Cheney does. How she deals with it, and her family is their business, not a political issue. Especially when you deal with the reality that Dick Cheney does not oppose gay marriage, Bush does. How Mary Cheney's sexuality relates to Bush is beyond me, and is only for token appeal. I guess it works for those who use victimhood and narrow definitions of themselves, like Sullivan. I find it hypocritical to proclaim that you are not different, then demand to be treated differently. Mentioning Bush's wife or daughters is completely different. Their sexuality and/or sexual proclivities are not attached to mentioning them.
Here is a question for the Andrew Sullivan crowd. In responding to a question on affirmative action, what if Kerry had stated " John McCain has a child that is a person of color, and I am sure they would want to have that opportunity" ?
Seems pretty tacky doesn't it?
It is awful convenient how gays want to use race to parallel the "gay struggle", but only when it is convenient. Which is why most African-Americans reject the gay rights = black civil rights argument.

posted by Sean McCray | 5:59 AM |


I will be spending most of today working on a paper that's due tomorrow, for my Legal Methods class. But, I will probably watch the debate tonight. I don't have high expectations. I think Bush supporters need to accept the fact that Bush is not a good debater. I just hope he gives good clear answers like he did about abortion and stem cell in the last debate.

I watched Tony Blair on C-SPAN today respond to a challenge that he apologize. Bush could definitely take some pointers from Blair. He is really good, and lays it out very clearly.
He stated that the war was justified because Saddam was not in compliance with UN resolutions and the cease fire agreement. That was always the main justification for the war. This is something Bush has not done. He has not focused on that as a main point. That the WMD was just part of the explanation for why Saddam was not in compliance, but all the reports about no WMD also verify that Saddam was not in compliance with the UN resolutions.
By arguing that, it shifts the argument away from the WMD issue, to the issue of how to deal with a nation that violates a peace agreement.
Bush needs to call Kerry on his 1991 vote against the first Gulf War. How Kerry made the same claims then, that the US rushed into war. He needs to remind people of Kerry's record on domestic issues, and go beyond his votes on taxes. I think he should really push that Kerry is against parental notification and supports partial birth abortions. Challenge Kerry on why he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. Put Kerry on the defensive, by simply using his record. Don't exaggerate, just lay it out there. It would be nice to see Bush make a direct play for African-American voters, by pointing out Kerry's lack of hiring black staffers.

posted by Sean McCray | 3:12 PM |

LMAO. Sixteen obvious points that George W. Bush should make during the Wednesday night debate. by P.J. O'Rourke.
Here are a few of his points:

(1) My opponent, Massachusetts senator John Kerry--or, as I like to think of him, Teddy Kennedy with a designated driver . . .

(7) You say that we won the war, but we're losing the peace because Iraq is so unstable. When Iraq was stable, it attacked Israel in the 1967 and 1973 wars. It attacked Iran. It attacked Kuwait. It gassed the Kurds. It butchered the Shiites. It fostered terrorism in the Middle East. Who wants a stable Iraq?

(10) You say I didn't have a plan for the post-war problem of Iraq? I say we blew the place to bits--what's the problem?

(11) Yes, blowing a place to bits leaves a mess behind. But it's a mess without a military to fight aggressive wars. A mess without the facilities to develop dangerous weapons. A mess that can't systematically kill, torture, and oppress millions of its own citizens. It's a mess with a message--don't mess with us!

(15) Senator Kerry, you say you were in favor of threatening to use force on Saddam Hussein, but that actually using force was wrong. The technical term for this in political science is "bullshit."

posted by Sean McCray | 11:01 AM |

Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge
This article raises legitimate and serious concerns regarding Kerry's discharge. The Kerry campaign refuses to sign the form to release his military records. It is odd that he had to have his medals reissued in 1985, after he became a Senator.
The media is too busy chasing fake memo's regarding how many hours Bush flew, and if he tooka physical. Bush has signed the fomr to release all of his military records.

posted by Sean McCray | 10:43 AM |


Nobel laureate calls for steeper tax cuts in US
He verifies what many Bush supporters believe, that larger tax cuts would have boosted the economy faster, and with greater results.
Edward Prescott, who picked up the Nobel Prize for Economics, said President George W. Bush's tax rate cuts were "pretty small" and should have been bigger.

"What Bush has done has been not very big, it's pretty small," Prescott told CNBC financial news television.
"Tax rates were not cut enough," he said.

The American analyst, who is a professor at Arizona State University and a researcher at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, said a large tax cut in 1986 had lowered rates while collecting the same revenue.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:47 PM |

UN Fears Bombmakers May Get Iraq Nuke Items

The U.N. nuclear watchdog is worried the U.S.-led war aimed at disarming Iraq may have unleashed a proliferation crisis if looters have sold equipment that can be used to make atomic weapons, Western diplomats said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which monitored Saddam Hussein's nuclear sites before last year's Iraq war, said on Monday equipment and materials that could be used to make atomic weapons have been disappearing from Iraq but neither Baghdad nor Washington had noticed.

"If some of this stuff were to end up in Iran, some people would be very concerned," a diplomat close to the IAEA told Reuters. "The IAEA's big concern would be profiteering, people who would sell this stuff with no regard for who is buying it."
Maybe I am just stupid or slow. BUT, how can they be mad about the US letting "equipment that can be used to make atomic weapons" get into the wrong hands in Iraq.
According to them, Saddam was not a threat and had no programs, and wouldn't ever consider selling the technology to terrorists. But, the equipment was in Iraq, and is now available on the market. If that doesn't sound contradictory, then I am truly missing something.
Seems like it verifies that Saddam was a THREAT!
He had equipment that could easily help terrorists gain nuclear capabilities.

posted by Sean McCray | 10:07 AM |

Boxers and Briefs Show
Politically incorrect and conservative African-American talk radio show. Check them out, show some support.

The Boxers & Briefs Show is the first show of its kind—a radio talk show geared towards discussing everyday issues from the perspective of the intellectual black man in America. For those who don’t know, they do exist. This format plays right into our motto, which is, “We seek to inform, educate, and entertain you through intelligent conversation.” The Boxers & Briefs Show is available **LIVE** Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 7:00 to 9:00 Eastern Standard Time VIA Internet only at this time.

posted by Sean McCray | 7:12 AM |


President Kerry
It is a real possibility. What would a Kerry administration look like?
Here are a few things that would be different.

He will go to the UN and the EU and make a speech, declaring a new direction for America's foreign policy.
The war in Iraq, will no longer focus on winning, but on getting out.
Government funding of abortions, not just in the US but also the US funding abortions in Mexico and China.
A new agreement with North Korea, similiar to the Clinton agreement. We will give N. Korea billions of dollars and they will agree to stop developing nuclear weapons.
The US will seek to engage Iran in conversations, maybe even Kerry visiting Iran to meet with the Mullahs there.
Taxes will be raised. He will attempt to get around raising taxes on those earning less than $200,000 through fees and eliminating deductions. The economy will slow down due to these policies.
The deficit will grow, and grow.
Arafat will once again become a regular at the White House. Expect the Palestenian/Israeli problem to become worse.
He will expand government health care initiatives. Which will add to the deficit, and slow the economy.
Social Security taxes will be raised on everyone, this will be another way around the promise to not raise taxes. He may even cut some of the future benefits.

I see nothing in Kerry's Senate record that shows a person who will be forward thinking, or even have a clear vision. It will be four long years of talk, conferences and promoting the UN. He will make Jimmy Carter look like a good President. After four years he would be run out of office, and very unpopular.
This would effectively mean Hillary would never be able to run for President. That is one good thing.

posted by Sean McCray | 8:21 AM |

Kerry's Plan (WYSIWYG: What You See Is What You Get)
Everyone keeps saying that Kerry does not have a plan. He does. It is very clear what his plan is, he has laid it out many times. Nobody accepts it as a plan, because when you look at it, no responsible serious person would offer it. So excuses are made that he has not been "clear yet", or "detailed enough".
Guess what?
His plan is a vague one! That's it.
He believes that he can by force of his personality and through a summit, change the entire dynamics of the war. He believes that building coalitions, like a Senator does in the Senate, will lead to answers. Nevermind the fact that he has not done a good job building coalitions in the Senate, and that Edwards has more legislative accomplishments in 3 years than Kerry has in 20. He doesn't have an answer, but truly believes that during a Summit and other negotiations, a successful plan will emerge. By listening to Chirac and others, he will be able to come up with a valid plan, that has everyone on board.
Read his speeches, every time he has stated he has a plan, that is exactly what he says.
Believe him!!
He does think the UN and conferences with foreign leaders will solve the problem. It is the crux of all of his foreign policy statements. Look at his record, it is based on "talking" and "meeting" with everyone. From normalizing the US relationship with Vietnam, to how Reagan should have dealt with the USSR. His answer for North Korea and Iran, is to "open the lines of communications", to talk. Talk, is his policy.
Believe him!

When a person shows you who they are, believe them.

posted by Sean McCray | 3:48 AM |


Mistakes! Admit Mistakes?
This is one argument I just do not understand. Those who complain that Bush should admit mistakes. First, which mistakes? Once he lists one mistake, people will see a hundred more. It is a silly question, of course a President makes mistakes. I don't think any President would admit to making mistakes, they may imply it (Which is what Bush has done).
He admitted in an interview with Time magazine that "mistakes" were made. He said in the debate that "tactical mistakes" were made.
Please, explain to me how going into detail about mistakes is a good thing? He has access to information that we don't, he makes decisions based on information that is mostly classified. This whole line of questioning is silly.

posted by Sean McCray | 8:55 AM |

Why do some people think Kerry flip-flops?
To quote Bush, "because he does", for example during the debate:

Kerry stated ”Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary.”

Then later, when speaking about Iran: "And what's interesting is, it's a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat.

And he wanders why people think he flip-flops.

posted by Sean McCray | 8:52 AM |


Bush v Kerry II : Poll Internals
Looking at the details of the USA Today poll, regarding the debate, supports what I have said regarding Bush winning on the major issues.

And on who could better handle the three key issues of the 2004 campaign — the economy, Iraq and the war on terror — Bush more than held his own.

On the economy, debate watchers said Bush and Kerry tied at 49% each.

But they said Bush came off as better able to handle the war in Iraq, 53% to 46%.

And Bush was rated higher than Kerry on managing the overall war on terror, 56% to 39%.

posted by Sean McCray | 3:28 AM |


Bush v Kerry II
The number one way to know Bush won, is that the media pundits are calling it a draw.
Kerry looked tired halfway through, and was on the defensive most of the debate. He answered maybe 2 questions with clarity.
Bush gave muffled answers on the Supreme Court, and didn't directly answer the one about his mistakes. Other than that, I think he gave the answers that will connect with people most.

Keith Olbermann gave 15 rounds to Kerry, and 4 to Bush. HUH! Here is the question I have. After the last debate, in which Bush performed extremely bad, his favorability rating remained pretty steady in most polls. Bush's lead was reduced, but he maintained his lead in most polls. This was after a horrible performance by Bush. SO,even if you assume a draw in this debate, how doesn't it help Bush? I don't see where Kerry made inroads into Bush's strong points - security, Iraq, Commander in Chief. Kerry offered no specifics regarding domestic policies, and I think many people are surprised to find Bush comfortably able to discuss domestic issues.

Therefore. Kerry made no inroads into Bush's strengths, and at best was a draw on the domestic issues. That is not a win, or even a draw for Kerry.

posted by Sean McCray | 10:45 PM |


Democracy Expanding
Between now and the end of Jan, the US, Australia, Afghanistan and Iraq will hold national elections.
These elections will determine the nature of the war on terrorism and the Middle East.
But really think about it, regardless of how you may feel about Bush. How can it be a bad thing, that Afghanistan and Iraq will be holding democratic elections!

This is monumental. Who actually thought in 2000, that by 2004 multiple democracies would be birthed in the Middle East. Indonesia just elected their first directly elected President. Reform is taking place in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia.

The world is changing before our eyes, in a way that is as significant as the wall falling in Germany.

posted by Sean McCray | 6:10 AM |

Cheney v Edwards
I really have not had much to say about the VP debate. It is the VP debate after all, so how much it matters is questionable.
Edwards didn't look as lightweight as many have assumed, but he did look like a lightweight. Definitely not ready to be President.
Cheney is a very intelligent person, and didn't come across as the evil persona they have portrayed him.
Edwards did seem "too lawyerly" when he kept wanting "to go back" to the prior question.
I think both of them gave disgraceful answers to the AIDS question. No excuse for either of them to be so out of touch.

posted by Sean McCray | 6:02 AM |

Kerry has never hired an African-American for his Senate staff, in over 20 years!!!

posted by Sean McCray | 2:38 AM |


Air Force pursuing antimatter weapons

The energy from colliding positrons and antielectrons "is 10 billion times ... that of high explosive," Edwards explained in his March speech. Moreover, 1 gram of antimatter, about 1/25th of an ounce, would equal "23 space shuttle fuel tanks of energy." Thus "positron energy conversion," as he called it, would be a "revolutionary energy source" of interest to those who wage war.

It almost defies belief, the amount of explosive force available in a speck of antimatter -- even a speck that is too small to see. For example: One millionth of a gram of positrons contain as much energy as 37.8 kilograms (83 pounds) of TNT, according to Edwards' March speech. A simple calculation, then, shows that about 50-millionths of a gram could generate a blast equal to the explosion (roughly 4,000 pounds of TNT, according to the FBI) at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

posted by Sean McCray | 11:37 PM |

Finding choice in choosing not to vote
This article, argues what I have argued, that choosing not to vote is a valid choice. Having the freedom to vote, also includes the freedom to not vote. There is a difference between, not voting out of ignorance and apathy, and choosing to not vote because you see no valid choice to vote for. The latter means that you are still involved in the process, still willing to vote when offered a good choice.

Those of us who choose not to vote are rarely given the opportunity to discuss this option. We are routinely dismissed as uninformed or just plain stupid. The venom leveled against us ironically prevents those who do plan to vote from thinking critically about what going to the ballot box actually means. Although I can't speak for others, after looking at the presidential voting process, I've concluded that there is little to vote for. It isn't apathy driving me away from the polling places, but passion of a different sort.

In the black community today, voting is associated with everything that is good; it is not seen as one course of action among many. Over the years, I have found other ways of expressing my commitment to advancing the lot of fellow African-Americans: by running writing seminars and conducting reading groups; by holding gatherings to discuss the meaning of African-American history and our cultural festivals.

Is there anybody to vote for? President Bush was correct when he spoke before the National Urban League and suggested that Democrats take the black vote for granted. Oh, the Democrats have done a good job of persuading African-Americans that they are our "friends." But with friends like these, there is no need for enemies. With Democrats believing they have blacks in their pocket, they fail to put a high priority on our concerns and thus fall short as an affirmative choice.

posted by Sean McCray | 11:27 PM |

Kerry Losing Black Support

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry has seen a 10 percent decline in his support among black voters in the past month that has forced him to devote more campaign resources to energize one of his party's most loyal constituencies.

Pew said that in a head-to-head matchup with President Bush, Mr. Kerry's support among black voters has fallen from 83 percent in August to 73 percent now, while Mr. Bush's black support has doubled, from 6 percent to 12 percent.

But the Dems are not worried, Donna Brazile, who managed the Gore campaign in 2000 reminds them: "I would not worry about the so-called erosion, because in the end, [the black vote] is going to come back,"

Kerry who has been a Massachusetts Senator for over 20 years, and has lived in Boston most of that time. Considering Harvard is part of his constituency, one would assume that Sen. Kerry would have a very strong relationship with the nations premier "black studies" department. Just as a point of pride.
But Mr. West since has called Mr. Kerry "milquetoast and mediocre" and "ambivalent" toward blacks. He told National Public Radio earlier this year that he did not "know anybody at all who's close to John Kerry."

Get ready to hear more accusations of "voter suppression" and other tactics to use fear of Republicans to get blacks to the poll. Isn't it a shame, that the party that has recieved 90% of the black vote, cannot actually offer a positive and clear agenda or reason to vote for them?
And they want to question the intelligence and loyalty of Black Republicans??? LOL

posted by Sean McCray | 11:10 PM |


Torts Mid- Term
Took torts mid-term, it was the hardest test I have ever taken in my life.
Most law schools do not have any mid-term exams, you only get the one final at the end of the semester. My school gives all 1L's a mid-term in Torts, to allow people to get a better idea of what is expected. So they are actually doing us a favor.

posted by Sean McCray | 11:06 PM |


FYI: Winning the first debate doesn't seem to mean much. An LA Times article, has this interesting bit of info:

A series of snap polls taken immediately after the debate judged Kerry the clear winner. But those types of surveys offer just a quick sampling of opinion and do not necessarily prove anything; the Gallup organization has asked the question in five previous White House races, and in four of them the candidate said to have won the first debate lost the election in November.

Perhaps most famously, President Reagan stumbled in the first debate of his 1984 reelection bid, only to bounce back smartly in the second round and effectively seal the race against Democrat Walter F. Mondale.

posted by Sean McCray | 2:51 PM |

Debunking the Myth: That Blacks are dying at a higher rate in Iraq than others.

Gifford found that blacks, who make up about 20 percent of all active-duty personnel, represented 16.7 percent of all casualties during the war phase and 12.2 percent of deaths after the occupation phase began. Gifford and others agree that a black death rate lower than their proportional representation in the military is relatively easy to explain. African Americans have historically regarded the military as an economic steppingstone and picked relatively safe "support" occupations - medical units, computers, air traffic control - that translate well in the civilian economy.

"All the studies show that the military was the first to integrate and is regarded by African Americans as the most fair institution in the country," says Woodruff, the West Point researcher. "So African Americans are very savvy about using the military for advancement."
It is a really good article with lots of good info in it. Hispanics are dying at a higher rate.

posted by Sean McCray | 5:18 AM |

Here is some interesting historical information. Just FYI.

Roosevelt’s actions essentially placed the United States at war but FDR refused to acknowledge the danger, often responding with evasive answers to press queries about the difference between the nation being “short of war” and at war. Finally, FDR often proved a confusing, frustrating, and spotty administrator as he directed the nation’s military and industrial preparations for war. Prominent members of his cabinet and staff found all these failures exasperating.

posted by Sean McCray | 5:10 AM |


Torts Mid Term
Not going to do much posting this weekend, I have to study for my mid-term in Torts.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:37 PM |

Debate - Round 1
I only saw maybe 45 minutes of the debate. The first 30 minutes, and the last 15 minutes.

Bush did well. I think his supporters have to just accept the fact that Bush in person, is much better, than Bush on TV. There is no logical reason for this. This is also why Kerry should not underestimate Bush in the town hall meeting format. They should not have agreed to 3 debates, and should have allowed for longer answers. Bush missed many opportunities to really put Kerry on the defensive, regarding 9-11 and his excessive talk of "more allies".

Kerry did a good job of speaking clearly, and projecting a "Presidential" image. I thought he was going to take a risk, and finally try to offer specifics regarding Iraq. He didn't, and it will cost him the election. He still is offering more rhetoric than substance. A challenger cannot expect to win, by offering rhetoric in place of substance, especially when the incumbent is well liked. Kerry and the Dems seem to still be operating from the assumption that most people do not want Bush, and all Kerry has to do is offer a reasonable alternative. They are completely wrong. I am reminded of the Dem convention when looking at Kerry's debate performance. The pundits and experts were falling over themselves with praise of kerry's speech. They were predicting a bounce, and a closing of the gap with Bush on security issues. They were wrong. Same thing is going to happen here. He MAY get a small bounce ( But I doubt it.), if he does it will not last. He did not close the sale.

posted by Sean McCray | 1:24 PM |

Alan Keyes' Daughter
There is something called a line. One thing the Clinton's and Bush's have done is help establish that the children of politicians are off-limits. They did not run for office, and should never be used as pawns just because of who their parents are. Also, we have this great tradition in America, where children OFTEN don't agree with their parents on political issues.
Some bloggers seem to think they are doing a service, by trying to make an issue of Keyes' 19 year old daughter being a lesbian. This is something (like Cheney) that Keyes seems to be aware of, but chooses not to make a public issue. What decent parent would make their child's sexuality or sex life part of the political process?
I think these tactics are disgusting, and below scum.
What next? Politicians who believe abstinence should be taught, will have their children's virginity challenged?

Those on the left ( and Andrew Sullivan ) hold the false assumption that having a gay child should change a person's politics or spiritual perspective on the issue of homosexuality. This is a view based on ignorance and intolerance itself. A parent can love their child, and not think homosexuality is a proper moral lifestyle. A parent can love their child and not support gay marriage.

I am not a big fan of Alan Keyes, never have been. But his daughter should be off limits. For God's sake she is only 19 years old!!!

posted by Sean McCray | 11:57 AM |
to open links in new window
Contact Me