Next Right

2008-02-27T16:03:00.002-05:00

McCain: I Sure Hope He Has a Better Strategy Than "Iraq"
I hope McCain has more to his national security strategy than trying to convince people to accept the war in Iraq. Right now, he comes across as an old warmonger. He sound sliek a stubborn old man, and the Amrican people will not vote for that.

2008-01-03T18:21:00.000-05:00

Iowa Predictions
I admit I am totally going out on a limb, and have no objective basis.
Democrats:
1. Edwards
2. Obama
3. Clinton
4. Biden

Republicans
1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Huckabee

2006-06-24T16:58:00.000-04:00

gonna do some more blogging. Will be using typepad.

http://forcemajeure.typepad.com

Force Majeure
an irresitable, unstoppable superior force

2005-09-05T00:55:00.000-04:00

Bush, Nagel, Blanco and Hurricane Katrina: Was the response racist and slow?
(This is in response to a posting by TVD on Bookerrising, and also all the other criticism's I have heard.)

Lets start with Hurricane Charley:
"It was the strongest hurricane to strike the area since Hurricane Donna in 1960 and the strongest hurricane to strike Florida since Hurricane Andrew in 1992."

Aug 11. It reached hurricane stregth. "Charley became the second tropical storm to strike Florida in 24 hours when Tropical Storm Bonnie struck the Florida panhandle in Apalachicola at 11 a.m. EDT on August 12, 22 hours before Charley went over the Dry Tortugas. This made 2004 the first year two named storms have struck the same state in the same 24-hour period since 1906. Mainland landfall occurred only 29 hours apart."

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13394
"Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Emergency Preparedness and Response, said the President took the action under a major disaster declaration issued this afternoon immediately after receiving FEMA's analysis of the state's expedited request for federal assistance. The declaration covers damage to private property from the storms beginning on August 11."
This was issued on August 13th, after Charley had hit.

August 15th: "Recovery Activities Shift Into High Gear For Victims Of Hurricane Charley"
That is also the day Bush visited. Two days after the hurricane hit.

August 17th: "First Disaster Aid Checks Issued As Delivery Of Resources Ramps Up"

Now let's talk about Frances:
The press release from the White House is a Sept. 6 press release.

Aug 26 it was named Hurricane Frances. 14 days after Charley had hit florida.

Sept 1. GOVERNOR JEB BUSH. declared a state of emergency, and ordered the evacuation of 500,000 people. They ended up evacuating 2.8 million people, the largest in Florida history. (way more then was need to be evacuated from NO) Notice who was leading the evacuation, and this is after charley has hit, and this is the President's brother!!

"The STATE education system also responded to the pending crisis. Many universities across Florida canceled classes....Most schools were shut down from southern West Palm Beach to just south of Melbourne two days before the hurricane."

Frances hits Florida on Sept 4th.

"September 6th - Red Cross begins action in the area providing warm meals twice a day for a week as well as water and other needs. National Guard BEGINS providing MREs, water, ice, and occasionally tarps."
That is 2 days after Frances hit, when they BEGAN to provide MRE's and water.

how many people died? 5 in Florida, and 1 in Ohio due to weather related to Frances.

Notice, two days after it hit, the MRE's were "ready" to be distributed. Not "they are being distributed". Two days after Katrina the feds were ready to distribute food and water.
Again, the feds were not expected to respond to the first 24-48 hours.

Oh yeah, Ivan: (using the link TVD gave)
"Brown urged citizens to heed all warnings and follow instructions of local authorities, especially regarding evacuations. He reiterated the advice of state officials for residents in the hurricane’s potential path to have food and water to survive for a minimum of 72 hours, a battery operated radio, flashlights and batteries."

"Once Hurricane Ivan clears impacted states, supplies and equipment WILL BE moved into the hardest hit areas as quickly as possible, especially water, ice, meals, medical supplies, tents and tarps. Due to expected FLOODING, FEDERAL AND STATE officials caution that it may be SEVERAL DAYS before supplies and emergency workers can reach all the victims of this hurricane."

"FEMA personnel remain in Florida working with the victims of the two previous hurricanes. However, some staff has been repositioned to RESPOND to STATE requests for assistance with Hurricane Ivan."

Am I the only one seeing a pattern here regarding who is responsible for what actions, and the expected time frames?

Now let's go to Katrina. Let's see if the response was different because the people were black and poor, and that Bush responded in a slow manner. We must keep in mind, that Katrina was MUCH worse than the other three hurricanes, more infrastructure was damaged. It would not be unreasonable to expect a slower response, due to the security situation and the complete devastation. (For those who seem to forget, it is the worst natural disaster in at least 100 years!) But guess what actually happened.

http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/newsrelated/katrinaheedevac.htm
"We cannot stress enough the danger this hurricane poses to Gulf Coast communities," Bush told reporters on his ranch in central Texas. A day after declaring an emergency for Louisiana, Bush declared an emergency for the state of Mississippi. Federal emergency workers were sending water, food and other supplies to staging centers in the Southeast expected to be affected by the powerful storm."
The date? August 28th (just FYI Katrina hit New Orleans on August 29th.)
Well looky there! they were responding BEFORE Katrina hit. It continues: "Bush met briefly with reporters after speaking with federal disaster management officials and with the governors of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida."

WAIT! There is more.

http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/newsrelated/katrinaroars.htm
August 28: "A monstrous Hurricane Katrina barreled toward New Orleans on Sunday with 160-mph wind and a threat of a 28-foot storm surge, forcing a mandatory evacuation of the below-sea-level city and prayers for those who remained to face a doomsday scenario."
Katrina intensified into a Category 5 giant over the warm water of the Gulf of Mexico, reaching top winds of 175 mph before weakening slightly on a path to hit New Orleans around sunrise Monday. That would make it the city's first direct hit in 40 years and the most powerful storm ever to slam the city....By evening, the first squalls, driving rains and lightning began hitting New Orleans. A grim Mayor C. Ray Nagin earlier ordered the mandatory evacuation for his city of 485,000 people, conceding Katrina's storm surge pushing up the Mississippi River would swamp the city's system of levees, flooding the bowl-shaped city and causing potentially months of misery. "We are facing a storm that most of us have long feared," he said. "This is a once-in-a-lifetime event." Conceding that as many as 100,000 inner-city residents didn't have the means to leave and an untold number of tourists were stranded by the closing of the airport, the city arranged buses to take people to 10 last-resort shelters, including the Superdome.
(It appears the mayor knew that at least 100,000 of the residents didn't have a means to leave the city. His response? Did he contact the Gov? the White House? have more buses called up?)
It does look like the city did provide SOME buses for residents to flee. Some of the buses only took people to the superdome. again, giving the impression that it would be a safe haven. It also looks like the city told people to bring supplies: "The 70,000-seat Superdome, the home of football's Saints, opened at daybreak Sunday, giving first priority to frail, elderly people on walkers, some with oxygen tanks. They were told to bring enough food, water and medicine to last up to FIVE DAYS. "I was going to the Superdome and then I saw the two-mile line," the 42-year-old musician said. "I figure if I'm going to die, I'm going to die with cold beer and my best buds."

But it does not look like they were actually prepared for the people at the superdome. The NFL can get 70,000 inside in less than an hour, but the city cannot? Sorry, but it looks like the mayor and the city said "you are on your own. If you dont bring water, you will not have water" Such compassionate Democrats. LOL. Notice they knew early Sunday morning the huge amount of people coming to the Superdome, that's the day before Katrina hit.

August 29: "Huge lines stretched over several city blocks as some 30,000 people loaded with sleeping bags and coolers waited to get inside the city's Superdome stadium, declared an emergency shelter by authorities....Officials told local radio that some 30,000 people were in the Superdome stadium and that there was room for about 70,000."
Monday, the city is still sending out the message that the Superdome is safe, and people can still come.

"...forecasters warned that Hurricane Katrina would cause potentially deadly floods in this city of 1.4 million people. It was expected to make landfall early Monday....Ashley Thomas, a 20-year-old student at Xavier University here, was among those checking in. 'I can't leave, I don't have a dependable car,' she said....She said the family also did not want to flee the coastal city as an aunt is in hospital and is not being evacuated........The mayor of Kenner, a western suburb, warned that the city's water would be turned off Sunday evening and it would take at least THREE DAYS to get it online again. Kenner Mayor Philip Capitano pleaded with residents to flee, warning that the storm swell from Lake Pontchartrain would flood the entire city, including the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport. If you're staying make sure you have a way to escape out of your attic or roof. This is clearly a killer storm. If the wind doesn't get you the water will," Capitano warned....(Four friends leaving a cruise was caught in New Orleans) "Of the four who set off for the cruise, just three remained in New Orleans. One headed for the highway in a huff and hasn't been heard from since. 'He was furious with us because he feels we did not try hard enough to get out of here,' Prisco said. "We heard from a friend of a friend he hitched a ride with some people. They made it about sixty miles in eight hours." A visitor to the city with no car found a way to get out!

My Closing Comments:
The info in those links back up my contention that the city said the right things regarding a mandatory evacuation, but it's actions told the citizens a different story. Would you leave the city with loved ones still in a hospital? How bad could it be, if the Superdome is a safe spot? Nobody expected to be living in the Superdome, it sent a message that things would blow over quickly. The fact that the city was also busing people from other areas to the Superdome, also said that it was a safe place. So why leave? I am, in no way, taking away from people their personal responsibility. It comes down to an individual making a decision. The city could not even provide enough police to secure the Superdome?

The federal government responded in a manner that is astounding to anybody other than partisans. Within 72 hours (Of begginning the main actions, and five days total) they evacuated over 100,000 people; over 5,000 more people were rescued (In addition to the 4,500 rescued within the first two days); food was brought in; medical supplies brought in and hospitals evacuated; the Convention Center evacuated (Another 20,000 people). Over 30,000 national guardsmen were mobilized; Naval ships were moved to the coast; satellite images were avaliable to the rescuers; Communications was restored for some of the city govt. This does not include all of the work that was done in Alabama and Mississippi. An area of land about the size of the UK!
This is with the worst breakdown of infrastructure caused by a natural diaster.
Look at the facts. In conditions many times worse than anything over the last 100 years, the federal government responded in the same amount of time as it did for Charley, Frances and Ivan.
FYI: The levees did not break, the flood walls broke. The levee and flood walls were suppose to be able to handle a Cat 3 hurricane. Katrina was a Cat 3 when it hit New Orleans.

The monday morning QB's who are attacking Bush need to take a good look at reality. They might even want to listen to their hero, Bill Clinton.

(I am willing to even say that Bush maybe should have stayed on the backs of the city and state officials much harder to ensure they were doing what needed to be done. That by Monday when Katrina hit, he should have probably spoken out a little sooner. At best it would have saved one day in the entire timeframe. )

Those who are excusing Nagel and his crying , whining tirade that was an embarrassment. You have to deny reality and facts to excuse him from all, or even a large majority of the fault. Most of the people probably dies from the initial flooding. That means ONLY evacuation would have truly changed in any meaningful way the loss of life due to Katrina. Isn't the loss of life the most important thing? Not discomfort.
(FYI: I have a friend who is a liberal Dem, one who loves Clinton and hates Bush. She even felt Nagel was an embarassment. All Dems do not portray this man as some beacon of courage.)

Couldn't Nagel have at least thanked the Gov of Texas, and those Texans along with the people of Baton Rouge for helping? I guess he felt they were obligated to do good things, therefore did nto deserve credit. What is also most amazing is that he can only say that the Gov. and Bush should have ignored the law and done something. Thats what he said on 60 Minutes. Not once has he visited the Superdome or the Astrodome. (But he had time to get on 60 Minutes.)
All the liberals that screamed "If Bush would just admit he made a mistake (regarding Iraq), then I could feel differently" Suddenly, they dont even see mistakes made by Democratic politicians, especially if they are black or a woman. Why can't Nagel tell us all the things he did (other than cry and curse) and that when he handed the baton to the federal people, they dropped it? (ooh, ooh, I know the answer.) I am not laying all the blame on Nagel, the Gov shares a large part, if not the largest part of the blame. She had the National Guard under her command. (FYI: Gov. Blanco ordered buses to the Superdome for the first time on Sept. 1)

What happened in New Orleans is that a corrupt police force that was already undersized for that city (Not Nagel's fault), was exposed. This is what happens when first responders fail to act properly, this shows the importance of police and firemen in reacting to any crises. Maybe we need to debate exacty how quickly the federal government should inject itself, especially with natiuonal security issues, but hindsight partisan name calling is nto accomplishing anything.

2005-08-03T19:54:00.000-04:00

How Arafat Destroyed Palestine
The Atlantic has an article that goes into detail about Arafat's use of money to enrich himself and his friends. (unfortunately the article cannot be accessed in full through the website.)

Al-Masri a leading financier of the Palestenian national movement. He made a fortune in the oil-services business. He considers Arafat a "great man". He also says some very revealing things, for those who want to blame Israel for the palestenian people's poverty. "Ah, he (Arafat) thought money was power," The money he spent to buy the loyalty of his court, al-Masri gently suggests, could easily have paid for a functioning Palestenian state instead. "With three hundred, four hundre million dollars we could have built Palestine in ten years. Waste, waste, waste. I flew over the West Bank in a helicopter with Arafat at the beginning of Oslo, and I told him how easy we could make five, six, seven towns here; we could absorb a lot of people here; and have the right of return for the refugees."

Though Arafat routinely cut his bequests to ordinary Palestenians to half or a third of what was asked, no such economies were inflicted on the petitions of his top officials.

The amounts of money stolen from the Palestenian Authority and the Palestenian people may exceed one half of the total of $7 billion in foriegn aid contributed to the Palestenian Authority. The IMF has conservatively estimated that from 1995-2000 Arafat diverted $900 million from the Palestenian Authority coffers. Arafat also made money for his friends and family members through monopolies on products sold to Palestenians and no-bid contracts.

A secret report prepared byan official Palestenian Authority committee headed by Arafat's cousin concluded that in 1996 alone, $326 million, or 43% of the state budget, had been embezzled, and that another $94 million, or 12.5% of the budget, went to the president's office, where it was spent at Arafat's personal discretion. An additional 35% of the budget went to pay for the security services, leaving a total of $73 million, or 9.5% of the budget, to be spent on the needs of the population of the West Bank and Gaza. The financial resources of the PLo were never included in the state budget. Ararfat hid his personal stash, estimated at $1 billion to $3 billion, in more than 200 seperate bank accounts around the world, the majority of which have been uncovered since his death.

2005-07-31T19:35:00.000-04:00

HRC at the DLC
Watched Hillary Rodham Clinton on C-Span, giving a speech at the DLC Annual Meeting.
One word - BORING!
Sorry, the woman has no charisma, and is boring when she speaks. If she wins the nomination in 2008 the Dems will be introuble. Mark Warner is the Democrats best chance at getting back into the White House.

2005-07-29T08:41:00.000-04:00

Response to DevP of FreedomDemocrats.org

Sean, I'm writing up a response and will have it up at FreedomDemocrats.org soon, but I wanted to make one side point for now. A big reason that you're seeing "conflicting" claims is that you're amalgamating all antiwar advocates as one, unified, mixedup "Left". In reality, the Democrats represent a lot of diverse interests, and each having their own "solution". (For example, isolationist "just get out" sentiments vs. internationalist "UN 4EVAR" sentiments.)

Really? I have found very little diversity in the antiwar bunch's comments or reasoning. Maybe there are some differences regarding when to withdraw from Iraq, but outside of that there is great uniformity in their comments. The problem is not mixed answers, but inconsistent logic and anti-Bush hatred. The answers to the questions by DevP follow the exact same logic and wording that I have heard from every anti-war person. Now to the questions.

1. Do acts of violence prove we are losing?
His answer was, no. I just want to expand on why I asked this question. Everytime there is a suicide bombing I hear the screed "see, it's a catastrophe!" from the anti-war left.

2. Should we send more troops, or begin withdrawing?
"...A big drawback of this war (and blowing off allies) is that our manpower resources are totally tapped, weakening our response power elsewhere in the world. "
So, do we start withdrawing? Honestly, not right away - an abrupt withdrawal will only create blowback. However, I most certainly do not favor the neo-con idea of setting up permanent forward stations in Iraq, either.

Where has our response been weakened? Not theoretically, but actually.
Once again an anti-war response that is more reactive than pro-active. The comment attempts to define itself more by what it does not think, in comparison to the "neo-cons", instead of on its on logic. (Please, do not use neo-con so loosely)

3. If we need to stay, then what should we do differently?
Get allies. Seriously. I know it's hard, and it's been done, but there have been some obvious diplomatic blunders that have cost us the presence of foreign manpower. Frankly, we just need more resources, and we shouldn't have to shoulder the burden. Getting foreign support means some compromises, but that is what diplomacy is all about. It diplomatic compromise free up enough resources to be more flexible and better defend our homeland, that's certainly worth it.

Not an answer. Thats like telling someone filing for bankruptcy, to get money. The assumption of this comment is that "but for Bush our allies would run to our side". It ignores their own intentions, and they did not run to Clinton on Kosovo. Maybe, you need to realize it is a weakness of those countries not our President. What compromise would bring in an ally that is not already there? what ally will run in, while we are leaving? Same oversimplified answer.

Allow gradual FDI into the country, integrating into local concerns, so that a strong local economy takes root. I'm not against foreign businesses working alongside Iraqis, but I'm concerned about our no-bid sweetheart deals to larger US businesses. Also, make sure the oil rights stay with Iraqis. They'll be hella pissed otherwise. (Maybe put an Alaskan model in place?)

FDI is already allowed. They already have control over their oil.

4. What does winning look like?
Iraq as a busy, noisy, squabbling civil democracy. Middle-class Iraqis sitting in Baghdad cafes, complaining about Iraqi politicians, rather than American ones.
Troops back home, getting well deserved time with their families.

Non answer again. The entire point of asking the questions is to make those who oppose the war actually have to think about answers, not just slogans.
All troops home? Those circumstances already exist in Iraq. They will probably always find a reason to complaina bout American politicians. No details, no real answer. If the present situation is failure, then what is success?

5. Did you support Kosovo? If so, explain how that is morally and legally different from Iraq?
Genocide: it's a big deal.
Similarly, I would support principled intervention in Darfur. There have been war crimes committed by the Baath regime in Iraq, but they are, frankly, at a different scale, which matters when we have only limited resources.
That all said: they same kinds of burdens apply in both cases. Clinton's approach to Kosovo would have benefitted from being more transnational rather than unilateral. (NATO is better than nothing, but still.) Also, note that we didn't have long-term designs on staying in the Balkan region.

There was no genocide in Iraq??? How many have to be killed in a genocide in order for it to reach the "scale" you feel is needed to qualify for American military action? We dont have long term designs on staying in Iraq. Yet, we are still in the Balkan region, so was that a failure?

6. Was Iraq a greater or lesser threat than Afghanistan before 9/11? After 9/11?
(Sidenote: we're already in some fallacy by assuming that there is some magical world-change before and after 9/11. In fact, the same trends in the world, and the same violent fundamentalists, were all around and building pre-911 and post-911. What changed then was our response, and some of the climate, but I think that for security's sake we need to be taking a longer view of these dangerous trends.)

I am not assuming anything magical happened after 9/11, i am asking for clarity.
For example. would the US have been wrong to attack afghanistan, if it knew of the 9/11 plans? we had evidence that Osama was involved in other terrorists attacks on America territory. Did they become some military threat after 9/11? Although his comment does show the idea that many anti-war people hold, that there is nothing really different after 9/11. That is like saying there was nothing different after Pearl Harbor except for America's response. There was already a war, we just joined in the battle. It is a way of minimizing any post 9/11 actions.

So, Afghanistan was explicitly harboring Al Qaeda, and strongly suspected to contain bin Laden. They were, as a nation, broken (and taking down the Taliban was a good thing, but not directly related

They were broken as a nation? what does that mean? But no genocide, right? why not just attack Al Queada? why take out an entire nation? You admit the Taliban was not directly related, then why approve of it?

7. Why are you still arguing about WMD and why the war started?
So, WMDs were, really, a big part of making the case for war when we were deciding to go to war. We had other reasons retroactively, like liberating Iraq and that wacky "buglamp" theory", but this is crucial: when we, as a civil society, were debating going to war, the greatest impetus to approving of the war was that we were under imminent danger from an Iraq containing WMDs. This deliberative process is absolutely vital for democracy.

None of those "wacky" reasons are retroactive. Just because those on the left who never supported the war, did not know all the reasons, does not mean they did not exist. You guys need to admit, that you never supported the war, therefore are not sure about the reasons why most people supported the war. You can only assume why.
There you go with the "imminent threat" comment again. (Which at this point is a lie). How many times will you on the left keep repeating something so blatantly false. Bush never claimed it was imminent, he never claimed Iraq was on the verge of creating nuclear weapons.
Also, it would not have changed your opinion about supporting the war. So why do you suddenly find it important? If it was not important enough to change your mind, why do you assume it was THE issue for those who supported the war? (Hint: it wasn't)

If the claims were honestly "misstated", but by accident, then this is a case of gross negligence, and even if it was an error in good faith, it was still a great error that deserve rebuke. This is a game with friends were you forgive the nice guy: this is about the security of the country, and we deserve only excellent security. So if the very claim that defended and entire war operation was incorrect, that reflects very poorly on the Administration's ability to use their resources to keep us secure. (And to be fair: it reflects poorly on the Senate for uncritically going along with it.)

So was Clinton negligent with the Sudan intelligence when he bombed an aspirin factory? (I have never accused Clinton of lying- about that issue). Intelligence is never 100%, you are always acting in partial darkness. when EVERY intelligence agency on earth, says that something exists. And the one person (Saddam) who can prove otherwise refuses to do that. Then how is it a lie?
The humanitarian organizations inclusding the UN claimed there would be hundreds of thousands of refugees created by the war. That turned out to be completely untrue. Does that make them liars?
The Senate was not uncritical, they read the same intelligence, and came to the same conclusions. Just because the information turned out to be partially untrue, does not automatically mean they were uncritical. Your comments suggest that more questions, would have magically made the intelligence look different. It is another oversimplified answer, that attempts to appear like a bi-partisan critique.

If the claims were purposefully misleading, to use an erroneous WMD case when this was not the core justification, then this is much, much worse. This is effectively subverting the deliberative process and taking advantage of the great trust we put into our chief executive. If we are purposefully being fed bogus data from our leadership, it makes the entire deliberative process moot, and is a strong condemnation of the Administration. (And to be fair: it reflects poorly on the Senate for uncritically going along with it.)

Let me point out, the IF in the answer is exactly the problem. There is no IF involved. We know that we were not purposefully given misleading or bogus information. There has been absolutely no evidence to the contrary. Yet, the anti-war side likes to present their attack as a question, to somehow give an impression of being open to reasoning.

Unfortunately DevP just repeated most of the same answers I have already heard from the left.

2005-07-12T15:43:00.000-04:00

Iraq Questions II:

Did you support Kosovo? If so, explain how that is morally and legally different from Iraq?

How is the Iraq War illegal? According to what statute and what legal authority?
What makes that legal authority a higher authority than the US Constitution?

Was Iraq a greater or lesser threat than Afghanistan before 9/11? After 9/11?
Please explain. Since Afghanistan had no real military, no advanced weapons, a much worse economic situation, no funds to buy or build real weapons. The Taliban protected Al Queada operatives, but the Afghanistan government never threatened the US.

Why are you still arguing about WMD and why the war started?
It is like the left is determined to make those who supported the war cry out "uncle!". The intensity that they are determined to make others admit Bush lied about WMD is as bad as any cult. They never admit that even if the case for nuclear weapons was overstated, that does not equal a lie. There is also no context regarding the illegal weapons we know Saddam had, and the fact that chemical weapons are considered WMD. (I always felt that chemical weapons threat should have been emphasized more than the nuclear.)

2005-07-10T16:57:00.000-04:00

A Few Questions for the Anti-War Faction (Part 1):
I keep hearing over and over only complaints from the left. They seem to attack everything regardless of the lack of logic or facts. Whenever I have asked for solutions, they either start name calling, accuse me of defending Bush, or go silent. That is not what patriotic real self criticism is about. Complaining is easy, being responsible and offering real answers is difficult.
I will post a few questions each day of this week, feel free to email me your response. So here are the first few questions: (Please, also tell me where my assumptions are wrong)

Do acts of violence prove we are losing?
The left seems to point to every single suicide bombing and act of violence as proof that things are going badly. Last time I checked, violent things happen in war. The very nature of war, means you are dealing with a violent conflict with the high likelihood of death.

Should we send more troops, or begin withdrawing?
I keep hearing the two contradictory ideas.

If we need to stay, then what should we do differently?
The question is what should the US do, not what the Europeans should do. We cannot make them do anything more than what they are already doing. To keep saying "get the allies involved" is really not a solution at all. It assumes that the only reason our allies are not sending troops is because we have not asked nicely enough. It ignores the internal politics of those countries and their bad economic situation.

What does winning look like?
The left seems adept at finding any and every kernel of info that might suggest we are losing, but they never put it into any context. You cannot proclaim that we are losing, without a baseline that defines in some way what winning looks like.

2005-07-08T02:20:00.000-04:00

Kanye West: Blood Diamonds
This is another celebrity thinking they are more intelligent than they really are. Wanting to prove their street credibility, since they now drive Rolls Royces.
If he was serious he would call for a boycott of all diamonds. The blood diamonds are almost impossible to track, and to keep off of the market.

2005-07-07T13:21:00.000-04:00

No Tornado Deaths in April-May-June

For the first time since record-keeping started in 1950
no one was killed by a tornado in April, May or June. Normally those
are the top months for tornadoes with an average of 52 fatalities,
sometimes many more.

"That is prime tornado time, so it's amazing," said Joe Schaefer,
director of NOAA's Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Okla.

Do you ever wander why positive weather news is never attributed to "global warming"?
I think it is also important to notice that records have only been kept since 1950! We only have 55 years of accurate records on the frequency of tornadoes. This shows how little we know about our climate and weather. The amount of information that we have is just too limited.

2005-07-06T12:48:00.000-04:00

Global Climate Change Coming! Take Heed!
This Newsweek article lays out the coming climate crises the world faces.

"There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have
begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a
drastic decline in food productionÂ? with serious political
implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food
output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. "

"The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to
accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep
up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline
by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain
production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same
time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a
fraction of a degree Â? a fraction that in some areas can mean drought
and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of
tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and
caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states."

"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any
positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to
allay its effects."

Oh yeah, the Newsweek article was published April 28, 1975. Yes, 1975. When it was predicted that within ten years the crises would begin having an impact in agriculture. Look at the FACTS that are stated regarding the temperature trends:

"A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree
in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945
and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite
photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two
NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground
in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972."

Have those facts changed, or is the global warming crises really based on looking at short term trends? Those facts have not changed. At least the scientist were a little more honest about the definiteness of their views.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a
mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at
least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of
Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely
unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the
key questions."

But, that does not stop them from making extreme recommendations to the politicians.

They concede that some of the more spectacular
solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it
with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far
greater than those they solve.

Nor does it stop them from promoting the doom of inaction.

The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they
find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim
reality.

I guess since the coming ice age crises never materialized, they had to find another crises. Seems they decided that the coming ice age was reversed, and we are now headed towards a warming disaster. Which means if we had done what scientists recommended in 1975, we would have made things even worse! This is what happens when people use partial scientific information to make a political point. No legitimate scientist would look at only 20 years of temperatures, and declare them a climate trend. Scientist today get research funds when they can generate headlines. This has created a very bad alliance between political interest groups, the media and money chasing scientist.

Shouldn't something with as large an impact, and as high a cost as the global warming crises claims, have more solid evidence to back it up? Considering that Kyoto admits that it will not actually stop the effects of global warming; Shouldn't the emphasis be on how to deal with climate change, and limit it's negative economic impact. Does it make sense to spend billions dollarsars trying to slow down something that cannot be slowed in any significant way; or to invest in ways to deal with how to adjust our agriculture and economy to be able to handle the oncoming change.

It is clear the present global warming crises is more political than scientific. Science is clear that IF there is global warming, there is really nothing we can do to stop it. Therefore, even if the environmentalists are correct about the coming global warming crises; we should be debating how to deal with that reality. It is irresponsible to just throw money at false solutions, just to "feel" like we are doing something.

2005-07-04T18:42:00.000-04:00

34 MILLION : The number of foreign-born residents in the United States in 2004; they accounted for 12 percent of the nation’s total population. Another 30 million Americans were “second-generation,” meaning that at least one of their parents was born abroad.

2005-06-30T14:05:00.000-04:00

More Global Warming Lies and Fears
The Guardian has article claiming global warming is the cause of starvation in southern African nations. The article is pure speculation and partial facts, used to promote a lie. They ignore the political situations in the countries mentioned. For example, Zimbabwe, they have had declining crops for the past five years, since Mugabe instituted his land reforms. That has nothing to do with global warming. An example of putting forth skewed info: "The 20-year average clearly shows a dramatic increase of desertification and drought," said a leading agricultural economist, Professor Giovanni Quaranta, of the University of Basilicata in southern Italy." A 20 year average! No respectable scientist would make such a dire statement based on only 20 years of data. Regarding the climate 20 years can not show much, unless looked at in greater context.

They ignore the scientific data that shows deserts retreating in other parts of Africa. Notice also, no historical context is given. Is this the driest ever? driest in one hundred years? Is this part of a cycle? Who cares, just promote global warming, and attach it to every weather event. Facts are not important on this issue.

2005-06-29T13:58:00.000-04:00

More Evidence on "Global Warming"
New studies contradict other studies, concerning if Antarctica is shrinking (or not). It is a THEORY, not a fact. Notice the use of computer models, and the scientists saying they hope to use REAL data in the future. The one thing we know for sure, is that we don't know how the climate operates, especially over long periods of time.

"Most people have heard of climate change and how rising air temperatures are melting glaciers and sea ice in the Arctic," said Dylan Powell of the University of Maryland Baltimore County. "However, findings from our simulations suggest a counterintuitive phenomenon. Some of the melt in the Arctic may be balanced by increases in sea ice volume in the Antarctic."

Powell, a doctoral student, is lead author of a paper describing the results in this month's Journal of Geophysical Research (Oceans).

For Antarctica, the new study concludes, the extra precipitation will mean deeper snow, which will suppress sea ice below, making it thicker over time.

The idea runs counter to a study earlier this year that found glaciers in part of Antarctica are melting rapidly.

"We used computer-generated simulations to get this research result," Powell cautioned. "I hope that in the future we'll be able to verify this result with real data through a long-term ice thickness measurement campaign."

2005-06-25T17:22:00.000-04:00

State of Fear: Michael Crichton Takes on Global Warming
I have just completed reading the novel "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. The basic premise of the book is that popular beliefs, that are not backed by scientific facts is dangerous. The context he uses is the present argument regarding global warming. He states fact sand gives citations throughout the book, all with the intention of shedding light on the reality of global warming: that it does not exist. It has not been tested or verified, and many of the ideas that are commonly held are misleading partial truths or complete lies. He is not kind to Hollywood stars who promote these ideas, nor the groups that claim to be environmental organizations. Those groups have become powerful and are now part of the establishment. Man is incapable of preserving any environment, he can only hope to attempt managing it. There is no such thing as pure nature, nothing remains the same for any long periods of time.
For example:
1. Sea levels are not rising, there is no consistent numbers showing any rise in the sea level over the last 20 years;
2. Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 1940-1970, while the global temperature actually went down;
3. The Antarctic is not shrinking, it is actually getting thicker;
the US temperature has risen only a third of a degree in the past 120 years.
4. The Antarctic is getting colder not warmer, from 1986 - 2000 the central Antarctic valleys cooled .7 degrees Celsius.
5. The Kyoto treaty if fully implemented would have only reduced the warming by .02 degrees Celsius.

The book documents how, even if there is warming it most likely would be beneficial for most people. He specifically states the fact that a desert in Africa has been receding, giving way to plant growth.

My biggest problems with global warming have always been:
1. It always struck me as defying common sense. If we cannot predict the weather two weeks from now, what makes us so capable of predicting the weather 100 years from now.
2. It is elitist and playing God. It is the industrialized world saying that we like things how they are, and don't want them to change.
3. The very idea that humans can somehow control the climate is laughable.

One day we will look back on the global warming craze, and wander how anybody ever believed it. It will take its place next to other false scares like the population explosion; nuclear winter and eugenics.

2005-06-25T08:55:00.000-04:00

"Obliterating a provision of the Consitution, of course, guarantees that it will not be misapplied."

Justice Clarence Thomas (dissent in Kelo)

2005-06-23T13:47:00.000-04:00

Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al.
The Supreme Court hands a defeat to private property, and gives more power to government and corporate interests. The government will seek the cheapest land avaliable to TAKE, his will effect low income areas with greater impact. This is one more example of ignoring the plain meaning of the Constitution and promoting the idea of "the common good" over the rights of individuals.

The Fifth Amendment provides: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process, of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The dissent was written by O'Connor, and a second dissent was written by Thomas.

Justice O'Connor

Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

Justice Thomas:

If such "economic development" takings are for a "public use," any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O'Connor powerfully argues in dissent. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court's error runs deeper than this. Today's decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government's eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause's original meaning, and I would reconsider them.

2005-06-23T06:01:00.000-04:00

When Will Democrats Stop Lying About the 2004 Election?
A washington post article states that Democrats have put out a report that claims "More than a quarter of voters, and more than half of black voters, experienced problems at Ohio polling places during the 2004 presidential vote"
Although they admit that the problems were not enough to change the outcome of the election.
I have a hard time believing this. I am from Ohio, most of my family and friends voted in OHIO and had NO problems at all. NONE. One person had some problems, but they were legitimate problems (they forgot to change their address when they moved)- and they were allowed to vote with the minimum amount of problems.
Just like in Florida, these comments are from outsiders with a political agenda. Just like with Florida it will end up hurting the Dems the most.

BTW- Talk about hypocrisy. Now Dems want to eleminate touch screen voting machines. Republicans were the ones saying we shouldn't rush into touch screen machines. The Rep. Sec. of State in Ohio was attacked for not rushing more touch screen machines to the polls. NOW Democrats suddenly dont want to use them! LOL.

2005-06-17T05:50:00.000-04:00

It's Time to Set a Withdrawal Timetable, and Begin Bringing Troops Home
I have been a complete supporter of the war in Iraq. I have come to the conclusion that it is time to set a timetable, and bring the troops home.

I have heard the argument that this will only encourage the insurgents to hide and wait for the US to leave. My response, so what? If they hide and wait, that will create a period where the chaos will settle down, that will also give Iraqi troops time to train and be prepared?
While the insurgents wait, their purpose for the attacks will either leave or they will have to come up with a new one. I believe they will come up with a new one, which will only alienate them more from the majority of Iraqis.

The US should first move most of our troops to the borders, to seal them. While doing this, set a timetable of 18-24 months for full withdrawal. The first troops should begin withdrawing by the end of 2005, or right after the Iraqi elections. We can still train Iraqi forces while withdrawing, and sealing the border will at prevent new insurgents from entering, and lock those in Iraq within the borders. We will continue air support, and equipment and supplies. The US military will mostly protect aid workers, and training facilities. The US will then go back to the UN and call the bluff of the French and others, by asking them to replace the US troops with UN peacekeepers, or allow Iraq to fall into chaos. We have done our job, now it is time for others to support the Iraqi people. The US should send a strong message that we will leave regardless. I also think that Iraqi forces will feel the urgency of the US leaving. They will know that soon they can no longer run, or depend on the US for actual combat support.

The beginning of the troop withdrawal will also send a message to the Middle East, US citizens and the world, that we have no desire to occupy Iraq. With the moving of our troops to the Iraqi border, it will also send a strong message to Iran and Syria. That we are watching them, and free to move militarily against them, if we need to.

In case of an emergency, we can always slow down the withdrawal. Remember Clinton promised we would not be in Bosnia-Kosovo for more than two years, yet we are still there. This will also change the domestic argument and completely deflate the looney left's arguments about the war. Bush will then be able to move forward with his domestic agenda, and the country will mentally move forward.

2005-06-16T22:26:00.000-04:00

Government Hits One-Day Tax Revenue High
Well what do you know. Revenue from taxes have increased faster than expected, without any increases in taxes.

"After totaling it all up, the Treasury Department announced Thursday that it had collected $61 billion on Wednesday. That surpassed the old one-day record of $56 billion set on Dec. 15, 2000.
The government's coffers have been swelling this year as tax receipts from both individuals and corporations have been on the rise, reflecting an improving economy. Because of those increases, this year's federal deficit is expected to fall to around $350 billion, down from the $413 billion record in dollar terms set in 2004."

2005-06-14T11:25:00.000-04:00

In Congo, 1,000 die per day: Why isn't it a media story?
The Sudan crises has finally made the news, but it is not the only humanitarian crises in Africa.

"What the world media are missing is one of the deadliest conflicts since World War II: 3.8 million people have died in the Congo since 1998, dwarfing not only the biggest of natural catastrophes, such as December's South Asia tsunami, but also other manmade horrors, such as Darfur."

The good news is that Americans are taking a closer look at Africa. "A new Zogby poll, conducted for the International Crisis Group, has revealed that 53 percent of Americans think the US doesn't pay enough attention to the problems of Africa. "

2005-06-14T11:13:00.000-04:00

Whose Asian Century?
This article argues a point I have been making for a few years now: India, not China will be the 21st Century economic powerhouse. He mentions the high level of literacy and the number of people in India who are fluent in English. Another demographic trend that favors India, is the age of their population. About half of the population is under 30, while China has a large and growing elderly population which it owes pensions to. India is also growing at a rate above replacement rate, while China's birthrate has actually fallen below the replacement rate.

The forces that will determine which nations will dominate the 21st century may yet favor India's emerging reach for global power status more than China's determined grasp for that prize.
Kamal Nath, India's energetic minister of commerce and industry, states the case with economy: "China may win the sprint, but India will win the marathon." In Nath's view, this will be the Asian Century -- but not in the ways many in the United States and Europe assume or fear.

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns speaking to a U.S.-European group in Brussels on May 26, Burns observed: "The greatest change you will see in the next three or four years is a new American focus on South Asia, particularly in establishing a closer strategic partnership with India . . . If you look at all the trends -- population, economic growth, foreign policy trends -- there's no question that India is the rising power in the East. . . . I think you'll see this as a major focus of our president and our secretary of state, and it will be the area of greatest dynamic positive change in American foreign policy."

2005-06-14T11:08:00.000-04:00

Michael Jackson:
Just a quick note to lend support to those who do believe MJ is innocent.
There was an astounding lack of any child porn found by the prosecution. This is extremely rare for any pedophile. Pedophiles almost always have child pornography. They had none on MJ's computer or any magazines, pictures.

MJ actually standing trial is also a sign of an innocent person. He had the means to leave the country and tell the system to shove it. Most of his money is made outside of the US.

FYI: Check out his website, interesting opening.

2005-06-13T16:18:00.000-04:00

Media Mania Over Gitmo
The media, Time Magazine, is once again showing it's irresponsible ability to hype a story. Once again it is a story aimed at promoting a liberal agenda.
They seem to care more about the Gitmo prisoners than other Americans who are subjected to rape and other criminal activity in our prison system. But they want the prison system dealing with terrorists suspects to be perfect.
The argument that how we treat the detainees will effect how our troops are treated is completely false and disingenuous.
Go read the interrogation notes. I guess anything short of a country club or spa atmosphere, is considered torture. The acts listed are no worse than how we treat our own soldiers during training. Sorry, but the following is not torture:

"Interrogators began telling detainee how ungrateful and grumpy he was. In order to escalate the detainee's emotions, a mask was made from an MRE box with a smily face on it and placed on the detainee's head for a few moments. A latex glove was inflated and labeled the "sissy slap" glove. The glove was touched to the detainee's face periodically after explaining the terminology to him. The mask was placed back on the detainee's head. While wearing the mask, the team began dance instruction with the detainee. The detainee became agitated and began shouting. "

"Told detainee that a dog is held in higher esteem because dogs know right from wrong and know how to protect innocent people from bad people. Began teaching the detainee lessons such as stay, come, and bark to elevate his social status up to that of a dog."

"He was laid out on the floor so I straddled him without putting my weight on him. He would then attempt to move me off of him by bending his legs in order to lift me off but this failed because the MPs were holding his legs down with their hands."

2005-06-13T16:14:00.000-04:00

Michael Jackson:
I was wrong. Not guilty on every charge!
Just like OJ, I am surprised by the emotional response I had to the verdict.

Can he have a career?
Here is my take. Yes, But.
If he continues to attempt using the old model of record sales, then he will continue to have financial problems. Michael spends too much money to put a CD together. He needs to sell close to 5 million to break even.
Very few artists have taken advantage of the new paradigm that the internet has presented.
IF I was advising him:
Michael has made about 10 songs for every one that made the final cut of the CD. This is a valuable asset that is not generating income. His fans would love to hear those songs. He could create a special package for fans. They would get access to the mp3 of his unreleased songs, and some remixes. Every 4-6 months he could then choose about 10 songs to release to club members. He could charge a monthly or a large one time fee.
(example: Lets say 1,000,000 fans sign up for $15-$20 per year; or a one time fee of $100. That would generate $15-$20 million annually mainly from an asset that is presently not generating anything. Even if you use a more conservative estimate, and assume 100,000 fans sign up. That would still produce $1.5-$2million annually. From an asset that is presently unable to produce anything. This would be mostly profit, since the distribution is through the internet.
MJ can still tour, especially around the world. He could do like Prince did, include a CD in the price of the concert ticket. In the US he should consider smaller venues (smaller for him), like some of the basketball arenas , and special locations like Disney World. This will allow him to charge a premium price and have a full house of true fans.
I think he should consider the Las Vegas offer, but only as a limited thing. He could perform one week every other month. This would keep it rare, and the intimacy would allow a seriously premium price to be charged.
Another avenue, is MJ using his name and influence to promote new acts. This could be a restarting of his failed label. ( I am not sure why it failed, the group he had did fairly well.)
I would also suggest eh focus on slower songs, aim at the audience that remembers Thriller. A great thing would be to possibly do a CD of all Duets.
Just my suggestion fo how MJ and other artists can use the new medium of the internet to produce new revenue streams.

2005-06-13T10:29:00.000-04:00

Kerry Is The Dumb One!
Kerry finally released more of his transcripts, and the media is shocked to discover that Kerry was not a very good student at Yale. George Bush had better grades than Kerry. This will not surprise Bush supporters, but Kerry supporters may need medical attention. Kerry got more D's in his first year than Bush got in his entire college career. What makes this worse is that Bush admits he didn't take college seriously, and by all reports Kerry took college more serious than others. In other words Bush wasn't even giving his best, and Kerry doing his best, still performed worse.

To sum it up: The Dem nominee was the one with lower grades, and was the richest one in the 2004 Presidential campaign. I just love how Dems attack Bush's wealth and lack of intelligence.
Let's see if the left apologizes for their name calling. Yeah, right!

2005-06-13T10:15:00.000-04:00

Spurs Dominate: But Nobody Cares.
The Spurs are completely dominating the Pistons, which is making the games even less entertaining. ( I am sticking with my prediction of this being only a 5 game series, at most.)

The initial ratings for Game 1 of the finals showed just less than 9 percent of the homes in the nation's largest television markets watching the game. That's down by almost 25 percent from last year's L.A. Lakers-Pistons final.

2005-06-12T19:42:00.000-04:00

The Downey Street Memo Conspiracy: Much Ado About Nothing
This is not just my opinion, but also Michael Kinsley's, finally a real liberal has decided to be honest about the supposedly "smoking gun" memo. The left, and many who claim to be centrist, have been ranting about the lack of media coverage of the memo.
Reality check. The personal hatred towards George Bush has reached such a level that anything is seen as bad or evil, regardless of the factual circumstances.
Here is what Kinsley says:

But even on its face, the memo is not proof that Bush had decided on war. It states that war is "now seen as inevitable" by "Washington." That is, people other than Bush had concluded, based on observation, that he was determined to go to war. There is no claim of even fourth-hand knowledge that he had actually declared this intention. Even if "Washington" meant administration decision-makers, rather than the usual freelance chatterboxes, C was only saying that these people believed that war was how events would play out.

Of course, if "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," rather than vice versa, that is pretty good evidence of Bush's intentions, as well as a scandal in its own right. And we know now that this was true. Fixing intelligence and facts to fit a desired policy is the Bush II governing style, especially concerning the Iraq war. But C offered no specifics, or none that made it into the memo. Nor does the memo assert that actual decision-makers told him they were fixing the facts. Although the prose is not exactly crystalline, it seems to be saying only that "Washington" had reached that conclusion.

Of course, you don't need a secret memo to know this. Just look at what was in the newspapers on July 23, 2002, and the day before. Left-wing Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer casually referred to the coming war as "much planned for." The New York Times reported Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's response to a story that "reported preliminary planning on ways the United States might attack Iraq to topple President Saddam Hussein." Rumsfeld effectively confirmed the report by announcing an investigation of the leak.

A Wall Street Journal Op-Ed declared that "the drums of war beat louder." A dispatch from Turkey in the New York Times even used the same word, "inevitable," to describe the thinking in Ankara about the thinking in Washington about the decision "to topple President Saddam Hussein of Iraq by force."

Now, will you guys move on. Maybe talk about how to get our troops home, or find some new tax cut or mythical education cut to hate Bush for. (Do you guys on the left really not see how similar to the Clinton-haters you are acting? Really?)

2005-06-09T13:36:00.000-04:00

NATO to Airlift African Peacekeeping Troops Into Darfur

"NATO has decided to airlift African peacekeeping troops into Sudan's war-torn Darfur region, the first mission for the Atlantic alliance in Africa, senior NATO and U.S. officials said today.

The African Union has nearly 2,300 peacekeeping troops in Darfur trying to maintain a fragile cease-fire. But the AU is hoping to add 5,000 troops, and in April asked NATO and the European Union for assistance flying peacekeepers into Darfur."

What has taken so long to get action? In a word "France". Once again France decided that it was more important for them to get credit, or weild what little power they have, than actually helping people.

"The AU's request set of a turf battle over who should provide the assistance. The United States advocated a NATO mission, while other nations — notably France — argued that the mission should operate independently of the United States and be conducted under an EU flag.

Now, officials say the two organizations will run separate airlift operations but will coordinate with each other."

2005-06-09T08:07:00.000-04:00

Sudan Update:
Saw on CNN that Rumsfeld is meeting with NATO to organize NATO troops going into Darfur. The US military will be responsible for getting the troops there, and involved in the NATO force.
(Looking for news links)

2005-06-06T06:37:00.000-04:00

Poll: Religious Devotion High in U.S.
Contrary to what many portray as a right wing religious fanaticism, a majority of Americans have strong religious beliefs.

"In the United States, you have an abundance of religions trying to motivate Americans to greater involvement," said Roger Finke, a sociologist at Penn State University. "It's one thing that makes a tremendous difference here."
The polling was conducted in May in the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, South Korea and Spain.

Nearly all U.S. respondents said faith is important to them and only 2 percent said they do not believe in God. Almost 40 percent said religious leaders should try to sway policymakers, notably higher than in other countries.

"Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian policies and religious leaders have an obligation to speak out on public policy, otherwise they're wimps," said David Black, a retiree from Osborne, Pa., who agreed to be interviewed after he was polled.

In contrast, 85 percent of French object to clergy activism Â? the strongest opposition of any nation surveyed. France has strict curbs on public religious expression and, according to the poll, 19 percent are atheists. South Korea is the only other nation with that high a percentage of nonbelievers."

2005-06-06T03:18:00.000-04:00

Class Warfare: The Newspapers Flame The Fires.
A major newspaper once again shows their liberal bias, and their irresponsible reporting in one article. Their determination to portray the wealthy in a negative manner, or at least as people who unfairly benefit from economic growth.
The biggest problem with these type of articles, is that they NEVER consider the actual people in those classes. They just refer to the top 1%. Who are those people? Is it the same people in the top 1% today, that was also in the top 1% in 1980 or 1990. This is extremely important, if there is a high rate of turnover in this class, then to make comparisons across decades gives a false impression that those people have gained while others have lost.
This is typical irresponsible reporting, to prove a political agenda. Unfortunately most people do not use basic analytical skills to challenge what they read.

2005-06-03T03:54:00.000-04:00

Nick Cannon's Pro-Life Music Video
I saw Nick Cannon's new video, for the song "Can I Live" and was shocked. He says he is not trying to judge or tell people what to do, but the message is clearly pro-life. I did not expect this strong of a message, especially from someone his age (25). It is basically the story of his mother going to an abortion clinic, and he is telling her that he wants to live. Check out some of the lyrics:

You see me in your sleep so you cant kill your dreams
300 Dollars that's the price of living what?
Mommy I don't like this clinic
Hopefully you'll make the right decision
And don't go through with the Knife Decision

I Will Always Be apart of you
Trust Your Soul Know it's always true
If I Could Talk I Would Say To You
CAN I LIVE
CAN I LIVE

I am a child of the King
Ain't no need to go fear me
And I see the flowing tears so know that you hear me
When I move in your womb that's me being scared
Cause who knows where my future holds
Yo the truth be told you ain't told a soul
Yo you ain't even showing I'm just 2 months old

Thatz a life inside you look at your tummy
What is becoming ma I am Oprah bound
You can tell he's a star from the Ultrasound
Our spirits Connected Doors Open Now
Nothing But Love And Respect Thanks For Holding Me Down She Let Me Live...

2005-06-02T23:26:00.000-04:00

Depression and the Superwoman
"Celebrity publicist by day, Terrie Williams cried herself to sleep many nights. She wore her game face for years, until finally the pain of pretending became too much. Then the real healing began. In the June issue of ESSENCE, read how Williams learned to deal with her depression through talk therapy, medication, exercise and a closer relationship with God."

This topic is being dealt with more than it used to be dealt with. Most Blacks have problems with the idea of depression. The idea of using medication for depression is almost anathema. Because of these ideas, many of African-Americans are suffering daily, from a disease they don't have to suffer from.

2005-05-30T19:04:00.000-04:00

Stem Cell Research Hype
Businessweek has an article that exemplifies the hype behind much of the talk about stem cells. The idea is to create a degree of fear, if the federal government does not offer funding for research. This is just another corporate subsidy - that is all it is.
The hype begins with the articles title "The Stem-Cell Also-Ran: America". Think the title presumes a conclusion? This is followed by the first sentence "It's a great time to be a stem-cell researcher -- unless you're working in most U.S. laboratories. " The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

"One advantage foreign scientists have is higher levels of government funding. Korea alone is estimated to be spending more than $100 million a year on embryonic stem-cell work, compared to a paltry $24 million last year from the National Institutes of Health. In addition, several countries, such as Korea and Britain, explicitly allow the creation of human embryos as a source of stem cells. In the U.S., there's a constant threat that such an approach could be banned."

Notice something missing? I do. How much private funding do Korean companies get for stem cell research? The article wants people to ignore that issue, just focus on government funding. Also, creation of human embryos is not banned in the US, there is just a "constant threat" that it "could be banned". Huh! That never stopped development of cloning technology. The article mentions the bill that the House passed to fund stem cell research, but again leaves out the amount of money that the bill would give to stem cell research.
Near the end of the article you learn some interesting facts.

"The federal government is spending several hundred million dollars on work with stem cells in mice and with adult stem cells. And some states and private funders are stepping into the void left by the federal government on human embryonic stem cells. Last November, California voted to spend $3 billion over 10 years. The Harvard Stem Cell Institute has raised $30 million from foundations and private donors, and is creating its own stem-cell lines. The Starr Foundation is giving $50 million to three New York City research centers over three years for stem-cell work."

First, what are other countries spending on adult stem cell research??
Didn't this article imply that $100 million from the Korean government was a lot of money, to the point that it put American researchers at a disadvantage? Now we learn that California alone will spend $300 million a YEAR on stem cell research. Last time I checked, 300 is more than 100. Harvard has raised $30 million, and the Starr Foundation another $50 million. This is not an all inclusive list of funding. This does not include pharmaceutical companies or other states that are creating stem cell research funds.
Where is this missing private funds that people keep screaming about? Sure looks like BILLIONS of dollars in private funds is going to be put into stem cell research just over the next 10 years. But don't tell anybody, or else they will not be able to get federal funding to subsidize their efforts. Just pretend its an emergency, and the sky is falling. Ignore that one state in the US will give three times more funding than the entire Korean government.

2005-05-18T23:59:00.000-04:00

Janice Rogers Brown:
The LA Times has an op-ed on why it does not like Janic Rogers Brown. Like most of the complaints against her, this one is more about personality and personal political ideology. They do not even try to attack her actual qualifications, or her abilities.
They say it is her "arrogant attitude", or her "snarky" comments.
HUH! Since when does that disqualify a person from the Circuit Courts?

They complain about the following comment from her:

"Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies." We get "a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."

That is the real issue, Democrats have someone who is challenging their view of government. That quote does not disqualify her for me, it makes he even more qualified!

2005-05-18T23:39:00.000-04:00

Reid, Pelosi, Boxer and Dean
The four amigos, will do more to increase the Republican majority, than Bush has done. The more they take the lead, and continue to be the Democratic face of the Party, the more they are sinking their party.

2005-05-10T18:07:00.000-04:00

Social Security Reform: Social Security's Progressive Paradox
This article explains why Democrats oppose most social security reform, including means testing. It has the best description of the social security program that I have seen:

"Social Security, in other words, is a massive Rube Goldberg device, an ornate and utterly superfluous system of transfers from the middle and upper classes to themselves, the sole purpose of which is to construct?and conceal?a much smaller welfare machine for elderly retirees nestled deep in the guts of the meta-contraption. Some defenders of the status quo are now attempting?though they scarcely seem to believe it themselves?to argue that Social Security is no less vital for the middle class. But corner a progressive over a quiet drink and he'll probably admit that, in fact, the only defensible purpose of Social Security is to ensure that nobody retires in poverty."

Also, Cato's Will Wilkinson points out "the reason SS is so untouchable is that it was designed to create the illusion of property, contract, and insurance. If fake rights are the electricity in the third rail, then real rights should pump out even more wattage. " The article concludes:

"The political vitality of Social Security-as-we-know-it was designed to be parasitic on the American commitment to property and contract. But parasites cannot be more secure than the host. If Congress fears to trespass on illusory property, it will not be bolder when encountering a real legal fence. Personal accounts -- real ownership, real rights -- offers in reality what the status quo offers only in appearance. The shadow, as Plato would remind us, is not more solid than the form.

Americans deserve real ownership, real property, and real retirement security. Unlike the slowly eroding status quo, PRAs offer Americans the real thing."

2005-05-03T10:54:00.000-04:00

About Time: Lock the Perverts Up and Throw Away the Key!
Florida passes a law that makes sense, and puts the protection of children from predators first. Anybody convicted of molesting a child under 12 year sold, will get a mandatory 25 years to life. If they are released before serving life, they will have to wear a GPS ankle bracelet for life.

2005-05-03T10:44:00.000-04:00

Defending Janice Rogers Brown
David Bernstein at The Volokh Conspiracy responds to an article by Stuart Taylor. The article repeats the standard lies that have been propogated against Judge Janice Rogers Brown. He clearly shows that she is more than qualified to be apointed to the Federal Circuit.
This is really about the Supreme Court. Janice Rogers Brown would be a candidate for the Supreme Court that would cause Dems to bend into contortions.

2005-04-30T21:54:00.000-04:00

Democrats are Losing the Social Security Debate
It appears Bush has once again backed an over zealous Democratic Party into a corner, that they will have a hard time coming out of. They are truly taking the "there is no problem, really, there isn't" approach. Long term and short term this will come back to haunt them. It leaves only undesirable options on the table. Since Dems are refusing to consider changing the benefits calculations for wealthier retires, it leaves them with one option only - Raise Taxes! That is the Democrats Social Security plan? The only tax they are looking at is the payroll tax, which is one that every person feels with every paycheck! If their issue is about making sure wealthy people don't get more than the poor, then why not support the change in benefits calculation? Why is raising taxes their only option?
In the congressional elections, the Rep Congressmen will be able to demand an answer from their Dem opponent. Saying, "There really is no problem", or "Just raise taxes" will not win any seats.
Agree or disagree with Bush, he has stepped forward and grabbed the "third rail" of politics and declared that it is not off-limits. He has shown leadership.

2005-04-03T16:46:00.000-04:00

Universal Health Care, Schiavo and the Politicians.
The Democrats are now declaring that politicians do not belong in the medical field. They are not qualified to make life and death decisions. I absolutely agree.
BUT, doesn't this create a problem for their desire to create universal health care? That would place the politicians in the middle of every medical decision. It would have been justifiable for the Republicans to intervene in Schiavo, because it would have involved a federal right.
This is actually a great opportunity for libertarians and true conservatives to make a the point that the role of government should be limited, especially in the medical field.

2005-03-25T21:40:00.000-05:00

Terry Schiavo - My Last Words
First. I want to say that BOTH parties have acted in a disgraceful manner. Congress should have never stepped in with that legislative act. (Yes, some Dems also supported the bill.) The Dems seem to be more concerned with "winning one" against the Rep and pro-life people, than with the actual issues involved in this situation.

I do think the Florida courts were wrong, but the Federal Courts acted properly by not interfering. My problem with the Florida court is not the medical issues, but with the issue of the guardianship. The courts did not allow for the husband's guardianship to be challenged. That was improper. Adultery is enough in most states and in most faiths to divorce. He was living with another woman who had his child, before he ever made the first claim that Terry didn't want to live like this. To ignore the probable conflict of interest that the husband had, was irresponsible. At the least, some type of third party should have been involved who was appointed to fight for Terry Schiavo's rights independent of her husband or family. Let's be honest, he was living with a woman who was more his "wife" than Terry Schiavo. That does not mean he intentionally acted improperly regarding the wish to end her life. It does raise enough concerns to require a high standard of proof. The issue about the money has not been clarified. His attorney's don't answer the question, about him getting the money from a lawsuit.

I am not a person who opposes assisted suicide in some situations, nor do I oppose all types of euthanasia. What bothers me, is the lack of clarifying that there is a difference between "life support" and what is happening to Terry Schiavo. I have read liberals who say "pull the plug". If she was on a respirator, had no brain waves or her organs were not functioning then it would be another issue altogether. She is being fed through a tube, her body functions properly. What is happening to her, is what would happen to any of us, if we were not fed. I do not see how people ignore the morality of letting a person starve to death.

2005-03-21T13:29:00.000-05:00

Terry Schiavo: My 2 Cents
I have serious reservations about Congress passing a bill for a specific person.
I also find it hard to reconcile many conservatives desire to protect "life", yet support the death penalty with no reservations.
The issue of "dying with dignity" is going to be a huge issue over the next decade. The best way to deal with the situation is to have a living will.
Now, the issue at hand.
I fault on the side of life, and preserving a person's right to live. Her heart and lungs still function without assistance. The only assistance is nutritional, which is required by all of us. I understand a husband's rights trump the family's rights, and I also agree. But, I think Terry Schiavo's rights trump her husband's. Without a living will, and with confusion even from the medical experts on exactly what she is aware of, I have to side with preserving life.
If she is truly that "out of it" like the husband claims, then whats the rush? Since she is not in pain or aware of her situation, then why not wait? Her parents are willing to take care of her and assume full responsibility. If she is basically dead anyway to him, then he can just move on.

2005-03-16T21:17:00.000-05:00

It's The Spending, Not The Tax Cuts!
Here are a few factoids:
Total Federal spending in 2001 was $1.8 Trillion. In 2005 it is $2.5 Trillion, an increase of 33%. (7.4% annually)
Non-discretionary spending has increased by 36% since 2001.
Compare that 1991-1998, all discretionary outlays (including defense) grew by an average of just .5% annually.
If spending had grown at only 3% annually since 2001, there would be no budget deficit.

2005-03-16T18:34:00.000-05:00

Mugabe Admits White Land Grab Has Failed

President Robert Mugabe confessed yesterday that millions of acres of prime land seized from Zimbabwe's white farmers are now lying empty and idle.

"President Mugabe expressed disappointment with the land use, saying only 44 per cent of the land distributed is being fully utilised," state television reported. "He warned the farmers that the government will not hesitate to redistribute land that is not being utilised."The Commercial Farmers' Union said that Zimbabwe grew only 850,000 tonnes of maize last year, not enough to meet domestic demand. In 1999, the last year before the land grab began, Zimbabwe grew 1.5 million tonnes. Then, Zimbabwe also earned about £263 million from tobacco exports. Last year, production had fallen by more than 70 per cent and earnings were down to £77 million.

2005-03-09T16:00:00.000-05:00

Possibility of Growing New Teeth Envisioned

Clearly, techniques that involve adding new tissue to already-existing teeth are "probably a bit closer on the horizon," perhaps within a "handful of years," Smith predicted. Techniques that grow teeth from scratch will likely take at least another 10 years to perfect

Seems interesting. I am sceptical about all the claims made regarding stem cells. I will wait and see if it actually results in anything.

2005-03-01T14:35:00.000-05:00

Black Bloggers Contract for America?
Having been disappointed with Tavis Smiley and many of the other attempts to create a "Black Contract for America", I want to offer a challenge to the blogosphere.

Let's create a basic 10 point document, that most of the moderate, conservative and libertarian black bloggers can agree on. The number 10 is not set in stone, nor is the title.

Email me (seanmccray@gmail.com) your suggestions, and I will post them, and see if we can form some agreement on certain issues.

2005-03-01T14:30:00.000-05:00

More than 2,000 people held the impromptu demonstration on front of the clinic, chanting "No to terrorism!" and "No to Baathism and Wahhabism!"

We are winning in Iraq. The enemy is killing more Muslims than Americans. The poeple are becoming more aware that the agenda is to destroy Iraq.

2005-02-26T16:37:00.000-05:00

Tavis Smiley : State of the Black Union
First. The mocerater is doing a horrible job. A moderater is suppose to ask probing questions that challenge different arguments. This moderator is asking loaded questions, with answers built in.
Second. The panel is loaded with biased people with a personal political agenda.
What a waste!

2005-02-26T13:00:00.000-05:00

Bush Was Wrong?
You cant spread democracy by force, was the screed from the left. Then how do you explain:

Afghanistan elections and a secular Constitution
Iraqi elections
Council elections in Saudi Arabia for the first time in 40 years, and an admission that women will be allowed to vote in future elections.
Palestinian elections, and a vow to crack down on the extremists. Israel withdrawing from the West Bank.
People in Lebanon are publicly demanding Syria to leave, and the Syrian backed Prime Minister has agreed to step down.
Now add, Mubaruk declaring that the Egyptian Presidential elections will be multi party, open to opositions parties.

This is just the beginning. The critics may disagree for many reasons, but does anyone really believe that any of this would have happened without the US going into Iraq, and putting pressure to democratize on these countries? There is a long way to go - Pakistan, full nationhood for Palestine, Full fair and free elections in Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait and Iran. But the Middle East is headed down a path that cannot be stopped - Democracy!

2005-02-26T12:27:00.000-05:00

HIV Infection Rate Among Blacks Doubles
This is scary. I would like to see how the numbers break down regarding the increase among homosexuals, and heterosexuals. I would also like to see more info that is regional and city specific. The worst part, is that the estimated numbers are probably understated.

The surveys look only at young and middle-aged adults who live in households, excluding such groups as soldiers, prisoners and homeless. Thus, health officials believe the numbers probably underestimate true HIV rates in this country.

Still, they show a striking rise in the prevalence of the AIDS virus from 1 percent to 2 percent of blacks. White rates held steady at 0.2 percent. Largely because of the increase among blacks, the overall U.S. rate rose slightly from 0.3 percent to 0.4 percent.

2005-02-26T09:35:00.000-05:00

Egypt's Mubarak Orders Election Reform
I am taking a wait and see attitude, but this could be monumental.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Saturday ordered a revision of the country's election laws and said multiple candidates could run in the nation's presidential elections, a scenario Mubarak hasn't faced since taking power in 1981.

He could be playing games, with intentions of fixing the election. But he may be making a bold move, believing that he can win re-election based on opening up the system and offering reforms.

2005-02-22T08:44:00.000-05:00

Togo's Struggle For Democracy
(Thanks to Oxblog)
From VOA News "The West African grouping, ECOWAS, has suspended Togo and imposed sanctions on the government of President Faure Gnassingbe, who was installed by the military after the death of his father and is refusing to step down."

The US and France have also joined in:

"France, Togo's former colonial power, gave its full support to ECOWAS' decisions, and called for a quick restoration of 'full constitutional legality.'

The State Department issued a statement backing ECOWAS' decision to impose sanctions, and said it was ending all military assistance to the country."

Let's see what happens.

2005-02-18T07:26:00.000-05:00

Capitalism & slavery
This article attacks the premise that our present wealth is based on slave labor. The writer also shows how slavery and capitalism are incompatible.
"History supports this truth: Capitalism exterminated slavery."

This is an argument I have been making for years. Slavery was not a reslut of capitalism, or an example of capitalism left unchecked. Only a person who does not understand economics and capitalism could make that argument. Slavery is a hurdle to capitalism, and obstacle of capitalism. It is not an engine of growth and properity, but of statism. Once the world shifted to industrial economies, the usefulness of slavery collapsed.
America did not even begin to be a truly capitalist country until after the Civil War. I argue that America did not truly become capitalist until after the Civil Rights movement. Whenever labor is restricted and limited by the government, and the market controlled by the government it is not truly capitalism.

2005-02-14T05:18:00.000-05:00

"Today Social Security skims off 12.4 percent of the first $90,000 earned -- one-eighth of every paycheck. There are no exemptions, no deductions. It kicks in from the very first dollar of income. It is the biggest tax the average American household faces -- 80 percent of us pay more in Social Security taxes than we do in income tax."

2005-01-30T13:24:00.000-05:00

Clinton at Davos
Clinton once again apologized and cried his way into the heart of Europeans at Davos. Amazing! They applaud a man who says he "should have" stopped the death of 800,000 Rwandans. Bravo! He is sorry. But the comment says a lot of things. What exactly is he sorry for? What would he have done? Used the military? Occupied Rwanda if needed?

Those who applauded don't really care, or want to know. Because they would not have done anything. That is why it seems brave for Clinton to make those comments. Compared to what they would do, it is brave. Look at the situation in the Sudan, nobody proposed action there! No, just our sincerest apologies. Sob, sob. We feel your pain, but don't ask us to do anything but pat ourselves on the back for saying how bad we are.

But I can't help but notice that the ex-President who apologizes for not using American power to save the lives of 800,000 people is applauded. But the American President who removed a brutal dictator responsible for the death of millions is scorned!
Bush will not have to say, I should have done something, sorry.
Wow.

2005-01-28T15:57:00.000-05:00

Chirac's Bright Idea - A World Tax

Mr Chirac's levy, in contrast, is designed to be as painless as possible; the tax would be applied, in tiny amounts such as 0.001%, to a fraction of international financial transactions such as currency sales. Mr Chirac offered two other possibilities: that the levy could be used to punish tax and bank havens, by placing it on flows of foreign capital moving across their shores. The second, just as ambitious, was a proposal to tax aviation and shipping fuel. This would have the added advantage of being seen as a green tax - although if the levy was set so low, it might not have much effect on the environment.

If the solution was as simple as writing a check, then just giving money would make sense. But then a tax would not be needed. This is an attempt for a mediocre country to have greater influence than it's economy or culture allow it to have.
Once again, America will have to stand against this foolishness.
Who would enforce the tax? (Do you want an international IRS?)
Who will write the checks, that pay people from the funds?
Think government corruption and bureaucracy will not consume most of the money? It will.
Why doesn't Mr. Chirac just encourage his French citizens to donate more money to the private organizations that already doing the work? Why doesn't he just offer what France will do, without demanding others to follow? If he so strongly believes that these causes are worth the expense, why not? Because it isn't about the poor, or HIV/AIDS. It is about power, and government controlling the money.
Why don't these countries just match what Americans are doing through private organizations? If they did that, most of the problem would be eradicated.
These countries are determined to destroy the idea of sovereignty, and individual countries autonomy to an international structure. The US must continue to insist on limitations to international law and organizational reach. We truly are the last hope of the free world, to remain free.

2005-01-28T13:52:00.000-05:00

Yeah, But! The Liberal Mantra
The liberal arguments seems to be rooted in a philosophy built on "yeah, but..". No matter how good something is, or positive the effects have been, a liberal will say "yeah, but..".
Slavery ended! Yeah, but people should have never been slaves.
Iraq is having a free and fair election! Yeah , but its not a perfect election
The cup is always half full.
Let me give you a more concrete example. The dire negative economic talk about globalization.
I decided to take a look at some factual information.
There are 6 Billion people in the world today.

3.6 Billion live in the ten largest countries : China, India, USA, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Russia, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Japan.

2.3 Billion live in China and India alone.

What is important to look at is the economic growth and the growth of democracy.
Only Pakistan and China are not democracies, this was not true just 20 years ago.

China's economy is growing at 9% annually, India's economy is growing at 8% annually.
That means, that by 2014, within 10 years, those economies will double!
China will go from $6.5 trillion to $13 trillion GDP. India will go from $3 trillion to $6 trillion. Those two countries alone will add almost $ 10 trillion GDP to the world economy.
The entire US economy is only slightly larger than $11 trillion. It will be like adding the entire GDP of the US to the world economy.
Yet, all we hear are negative reports, and how things are in the world.
Over 30% of the worlds population will double it's standard of living over the next ten years. What is so bad about that!
And that is based on very conservative numbers, and excludes the growth going on in many other secondary nations.
The best thing about this, is that the US economy will continue to grow at 2-3% annually. So we will maintain our standard of living.
I guess you will have to find a "yeah, but.." somewhere to find bad news in the facts.
But those who believe in the power of democracy and capitalism, we really are winning and gaining ground. We are the ones who promoting policies that are truly lifting people out of poverty, and allowing people to build countries that are free and peaceful.
I think the history will back us up.
Let them keep saying "yeah, but.."
We will just keeping doing the hard work, and making people's lives better.

2005-01-24T04:11:00.000-05:00

Note to Simon: Back Off Beyonce!
Usually I agree with Simon's honest, but mean comments on American Idol. But now he has gone too far. Cowell tells Esquire, "I find the whole Beyonce thing really mystifying. She's not sexy, she hasn't got a great body and she's not a great singer."

Even if he does not think she is not a great singer, he must be blind to say she is NOT sexy, and does not have a great body!

2005-01-23T11:25:00.000-05:00

Bush's Inaugural Speech
First. I look at an Inaugural speech as mostly a rhetorical statement, not a specific policy address.
Second. I do agree that the goal of "ending tyranny everywhere" is a noble and achievable goal.
Third. I don't think Bush will do what needs to be done.

If Bush got real, and took this issue to the American people, he could change the entire paradigm. He needs to talk about ending humanitarian aid to countries like N Korea, and how that aid helps maintain these dictators. Get serious about tying all of our foreign aid to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to very clear democratic reforms and timetables. Just like what Bush is asking of the PLO.

This would also mean helping democracies become prosperous. How can we reach across to the Middle east, when we ignore Haiti? I have always felt that if the US used it's financial power in Haiti, the Dominican Republic and other Caribbean island nations, that Cuba would stand out even more as a failure.

If the US gets serious, and truly uses it's financial and military power to push it's values, then there is a possibility of transforming the world.

Of course, the big question is, will the US get serious? I have to be honest and say I am not optimistic about that we will.

2005-01-23T11:22:00.000-05:00

Been real busy!
Between law school finals, and having to fly out to LA for a family emergency, I have been tied up.
Law school is turning out to be as difficult as everyone warned me it would be.

2004-11-18T08:23:00.000-05:00

Open Memo
Two words that make every law student question if law school is really what they want to do.
Working on my Open Memo, so postings have been light.
Will be back to normal next monday.

2004-11-16T06:42:00.000-05:00

Hardee’s introduces 1,420-calorie burger
It's about time! Americans like big things, and this is definitely big!

"St. Louis-based Hardee’s Food Systems Inc. on Monday rolled out its Monster Thickburger — two 1/3-pound slabs of Angus beef, four strips of bacon, three slices of cheese and mayonnaise on a buttered sesame seed bun. The sandwich alone sells for $5.49, $7.09 with fries and a soda."

2004-11-15T10:54:00.000-05:00

Powell quits as secretary of state
Not completely unexpected, but still would have preferred if he stayed. This will definitely feed new rumors of a possible run for the Presidency in 2008.

If Rice replaces him, and ends up overseeing the stabilizing of Iraq and some type of Israeli/Palestinian peace deal, her stature would increase. This would definitely put her in a good position to be a VP pick in 2008, or to run for statewide office.

2004-11-15T10:32:00.000-05:00

Study: Public-school teachers' kids go private
(from Dean Esmay)
This is an interesting study, and may be a piece of an argument to support vouchers. There are problems with the lack of information given on the details of the study. The basics given about the study are too vague to be interpreted in any clear way. It does not deal with many of the other factors involved in making the decision to send a child to a private school.

How many of those teachers are African Americans?
How many of those teachers have the household incomes to afford private school, compared to the parents in those urban schools?
How many of those teachers live in the same places that they teach? I
If these teachers live in suburban areas, and still send their kids to private schools, is it about the values of a religious private school?
The quality of suburban public schools is usually much higher than the public urban schools, but these teachers still decide to send their kids to a private school - why?

2004-11-15T09:27:00.000-05:00

Steelers!
I am a die-hard, avid, out of control Steelers fan. I have not said much on here, because I have that fear, that if I start getting too excited they will find a way to lose.
I am thoroughly impressed with Ben Roethlisberger. His poise and decision making is way beyond what is expected from a rookie. It does help to have two of the best receivers in the league, and a great offensive line and two great running backs. That Steelers defense also comes in handy.

I still have concerns about the pass defense, especially since their best CB Chad Scott is out for the season.

2004-11-15T09:19:00.000-05:00

Lawyer gives up big salary to join Army
(from lawyer resource blog)

"A chance meeting in Subway restaurant with an Army recruiter changed the life of Michael Brown, a Dallas lawyer.
Brown, 26, leaves for basic training at Fort Benning, Ga., on Thursday, cutting his annual income from $120,000 to $18,000 to serve in the Army"

I couldn't do it, but good luck to the guy. It does appear that he never really wanted to be an attorney. His father and grandfather are attorneys, and he didn't want to disappoint them.

2004-11-15T09:17:00.000-05:00

Great article about Jay Z from MSNBC:

"At the age of 34, with an estimated fortune of nearly $300 million and enough awards and platinum albums to fill even one of his several palatial homes—not to mention his romance with the bootylicious superstar Beyonce Knowles—Jay-Z, born Shawn Carter, is living a life that must have been hard to imagine when he was growing up in the crime-ridden Marcy projects in Brooklyn. Earlier this year Carter announced his retirement from recording—a move insiders saw coming—and he has now been offered the top job at Island/Def Jam Records. (According to sources familiar with the deal, he's mulling over the details.) He's also busy running his own Roc-a-Fella enterprises (including the Roc-a-Fella record label), which generates about $1 billion annually, and he's a part owner of the New Jersey Nets."

2004-11-11T13:22:00.000-05:00

What Voter Fraud? Sore Losers!
The left is salivating with their conspiracy theories about the election being stolen by Bush in Ohio and Florida. Olberman has been at the forefront of giving credibility to these wacko claims.
So here we go, lets deal with these lies!!!

The 93,000 votes in Ohio that are supposedly more than the number of registered voters, look here:

"Salon has examined some of the most popular Kerry-actually-won theories currently making the rounds online, and none of them hold up under rigorous scrutiny. For instance, there's an easy explanation for the odd results in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where Olbermann insists there were 93,000 more votes than voters. According to Kimberly Bartlett, a spokeswoman for the county, the reporting software the county uses to display the unofficial summary of election results on its Web site is simply buggy. For some reason, the software combines absentee ballots from several voting precincts into one precinct, and therefore makes it appear as if there were more votes cast in a particular area than there were registered voters there. But this bug does not affect the final election results, because the more detailed "canvass" of all the votes cast in the county shows the correct count, Bartlett told Salon. For example, this canvass indicates that in Fairview Park, where Olbermann says there were 18,472 ballots cast by 13,342 registered voters, there were actually only 8,421 votes cast in the presidential race -- fewer than the number of registered voters."

also: The county's Web site was confusing -- it lumped several precincts' absentee ballots together and then counted them several times, for each precinct. But those were glitches in vote-reporting -- not vote-counting. The "phantom" voters who mysteriously appeared and voted for Bush in the county -- which voted overwhelmingly for Kerry -- did not exist other than in the imagination of Democrats upset about Kerry's loss.

This afternoon, the Web site that first raised the questions about the Cuyahoga votes took it all back. "OK," wrote the Webmeister at "Americans 4 America," "finally had a chance to figure this out. I apologize for any anxiety that went along with these numbers. It seems that data is useless without knowing how counties arrived at the numbers and this was a particularly tricky process."

The Florida Dems who voted for Bush, here:

In regard to Lafayette County, one of the counties in question, it is true that there are far more registered Democrats in that county than Republicans (3,570 to 570, respectively), and that the county elected Bush in this year's election, but the county elected Bush in the last election, too.

Four years before that, the Republican presidential candidate, Bob Dole, won in Lafayette County as well, as did the first President Bush four years before that.

Bush won fair and square, get over it. Go ahead and move to Canada, or become a constructive part of the process.

2004-11-11T10:38:00.000-05:00

YASSER ARAFAT 1929-2004
I think Jeff Jacoby expresses my feelings:

God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich? Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil -- as indeed Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize -- but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity.

2004-11-11T08:27:00.000-05:00

Bush revives bid to legalize illegal aliens
I hope Bush fails in his attempt to offer these "guest passes". My problem with this, is that it lacks the stick. There is no proposal to increase drastically the enforcement of our borders, and the removing of illegal aliens from the country.

2004-11-09T05:44:00.000-05:00

The language from the left leaning blogs, seems hellbent on following the Michael Moore strategy of lies and exaggerations.
I only read blogs like DailyKos or Oliver Willis when I need a good laugh, or some extreme conspiracy theory. These blogs are popular, and draw lots of viewers. They are proof that blogs can be popular, and lack any real content or redemptive value. Maybe they will realize that they are only continuing the destruction of the Democratic party.

Dems have been screaming that the young support them, and in due time they would become a majority party. The problem with this ides, is that those young people, get married have children and become more educated- then become Republicans.
Not sure who to attribute this quote to, but it is a good one.

"If you are not a socialist at 20, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist at 30, you have no brain."

Canada!? Go ahead and leave, just dont come back. Interesting that the so called "caring" liberals choose to leave the country when they disagree. Typical hypocrisy. Why not stay, and help all those who cannot afford to leave? Help them make it through such rough times? LOL.
I do not remember Republicans threatening to leave when Clinton was in office. It just exposes the left's deepest thoughts, that America is inferior to other countries.

2004-11-09T05:31:00.000-05:00

Poverty does not cause terrorism, according to John F. Kennedy School of Government researcher, Associate Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie.

"Though after the 9/11 attacks most of the work in this area has focused on international terrorism, Abadie said terrorism originating within the country where the attacks occur actually makes up the bulk of terrorist acts each year. According to statistics from the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base for 2003, which Abadie cites in his analysis, there were 1,536 reports of domestic terrorism worldwide, compared with just 240 incidents of international terrorism.

Before analyzing the data, Abadie believed it was a reasonable assumption that terrorism has its roots in poverty, especially since studies have linked civil war to economic factors. However, once the data was corrected for the influence of other factors studied, Abadie said he found no significant relationship between a nation's wealth and the level of terrorism it experiences."

Duh! If terrorism was caused by poverty and oppression, then why didn't Blacks turn to terrorism during or after slavery? Those who turned towards terrorism here, were a small group of white men who used religion.

2004-11-08T01:32:00.000-05:00

Bush's Black Vote
The LA Times exit polls show a national Black vote of 14%, while CNN.com shows 11%. Both are an increase from Bush's 2000 total of 9%.

This could be the beginning of a shift away from the Democratic party. I still believe if republicans stick to their agenda and push vouchers, and social security accounts they will increase their black vote in 2008 drastically.

If the Republicans get their support up to 20%, especially in many swing states, it will change the entire electoral process.

2004-11-04T23:08:00.000-05:00

Democrats Wake Up!
I try to talk to Dems about what will help their party. I understand their lack of believing I am sincere. I want two strong parties vying for our votes. I do not want a one party oligarchy.
Since 1904, in 100 years, the Dems have had only FDR and Carter win 50% or higher of the popular vote. Carter got 50.1% against an unelected Ford.
Think about it!
You have never been a majority party.
Bush is not some abnormality of the electorate, he is the norm.
Take a look at your candidates, and your core beliefs.

2004-11-03T23:12:00.000-05:00

The Arrogance of Losers
Liberals are extremely arrogant, especially considering they lose so many elections.
I went to a meeting on campus today, with my Bush-Cheney 04 sticker on. Someone commented that Bush only won because of "those people" in the middle of the country. I laughed, and responded "That's why Kerry lost, because of the same attitude you are expressing".
They really believe they are better than thos ein the "fly-over" states. They see them selves as very "european", advanced and cultured.
I see them as losers!!!

I have developed a saying since I have arrived on the east coast. It is about the different views on religion in the different regions, but it exemplifies the cultural differences.

In the south people ask "What church do you attend?"
In the midwest people ask "How often do you go to church?"
In the east coast people ask "You go to church?!"

2004-11-03T15:23:00.000-05:00

Misc Thoughts on the Election

Is it just me, or did Edwards seem to shrink when placed on the national stage?

I know comments about the good of the process are easier for those who have supported the winner. Lets look at this election and realize that Americans stood in long lines, argued passionately about serious issues and proved to the world that we do care and have a say in our country. That is a healthy democracy!
There is nothing bad about that.

I think this will be a defining four years for both Dems and Rep. Will the Dems move towards Cliton style democrats, or Howard dean? Will the Republicans seriously attempt to at least cut the deficit?

The terrorists in Iraq should be very afraid. I am expecting complete no holds military action. Let su send the world a messgae, that we are still the most powerful nation on earth. That terrorists will truly be denied any safe havens. Lets kill them, kill them dead.

Look for tax reform and social security reform within the next six to nine months. Bush is going to go forward boldly and with big ideas.

I believe when Bush leaves office in 2008, his African-American support will be as high as 30%. this will dramatically change the Republican party.

Ken Blackwell, the Ohio Sec. of State, will be the next Governor of Ohio. He will be running in 2005, which means he could be a legitimate candidate for the Republican ticket in 2008 .

George Bush with the Republicans have a unique time to impact the country, and become a majority party for a long time. he is now the most powerful President since FDR. The candidates that he supported and chose himself, have won. His handprint is on this nation. He has coattails that Clinton and enev reagan was never able to show.
This is a huge victory, do not let the percentage of the win fool you. This is monumental!

If the dems attempt to impeach Bush or obstruct him, they will continue to lose. They must come up with a positive agenda, a vision that reaches across different groups.

The Dems claim to be diverse, but if you look at the statistics. Bush's voters crossed a greater spectrum than the dems. He got old southerners, union workers, african americans, hispanics, jews, young voters and a large portion of the first time voters.

2004-11-03T08:10:00.000-05:00

I Will Gloat, No Humility Here!
I have taken a lot of verbal abuse over my support of Bush. Having my loyalty to the race challenged, especially being light skinned. Being on the liberal east coast, at a liberal law school is an experience that open eyes.

The hypocrisy of liberals is amazing. I have a classmate who called me closed minded. But he never has any facts to back up anything he says, and anytime I state an objective fact he dismisses it. Anytime I state that I understand a position, even though I dont agree with it, he just dismisses others opinions out of hand. He pointed to a paper that someone left on a table in the lobby of the law school, and called it "religous nuts, who shouldnt pass those things out at school. It shouldn't be allowed". It was a one page paper, on why Christians should vote. It didn't attack any positions or policies. He just saw something "christian" and wanted it banned.

I was in class, and mentioned that I wasn't understanding something. A classmate looked at me and said "If you wasn't wearing that sticker (Bush Cheney '04) then you would understand things". It wasn't said with any sense of humor, but with a sneer and disgusted look.

Another student. One who doesn't understand why socialism get a bad reputation. She stated that a Professor shouldn't get tenure, because he was too conservative.
These are the people who want to call other intolerant. LMAO.
I will gloat. LOL.

BUSH WON! He has done what his father and Clinton did not do - won more than 50% of the popular vote. That is called "elected" by any definition of the word.

Kerry is a loser, Kerry is a loser.
sorry, that was a little juvenile. LOL.

2004-11-03T04:49:00.000-05:00

4 More Years! Bush.
I am looking at the numbers in Ohio, and it is looking extremely improbable that Kerry could even possibly win. Bush's lead is up to 145,000 votes. Even if there are 150,000 provisional ballots, all of them would have to be valid and for Kerry. I understand Kerry wanting to wait at least until this morning. I don't think dragging this out will be supported by the public, it could create a huge backlash against the Dem party. The Dems have no moral argument, since Bush has also won the popular vote by a comfortable margin. Al Gore was at least arguing to make the electoral vote match the popular vote. Kerry would be asking for the electoral vote to turn over the popular vote. That is a very different position.

One thing is very clear. Kerry did not connect with minority voters. Bush's African-American and Hispanic voter percentages were higher than in 2000. This is with an increased turnout. Bush in many of the exit polls almost doubled his black support. How the Dems respond to that will be interesting.

2004-11-01T22:53:00.000-05:00

Torts Mid Term
Got my torts mid term back.
Lets just say, I definitely have a lot of work to do for the final.
The highest score in the class was 60 out of 100.

2004-10-31T10:47:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-30T17:06:00.000-04:00

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.

2004-10-30T01:35:00.000-04:00

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.

2004-10-30T01:03:00.000-04:00

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!

2004-10-29T01:34:00.000-04:00

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.

2004-10-27T08:44:00.000-04:00

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.

2004-10-26T13:59:00.000-04:00

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.

2004-10-26T13:25:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-22T23:31:00.000-04:00

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.

2004-10-22T10:52:00.000-04:00

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.

2004-10-21T01:43:00.000-04:00

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.

2004-10-18T13:02:00.000-04:00

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.

2004-10-14T18:42:00.000-04:00

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.

2004-10-14T08:25:00.000-04:00

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.

2004-10-14T06:17:00.000-04:00

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?

2004-10-14T05:59:00.000-04:00

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.

2004-10-13T15:12:00.000-04:00

Misc...
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.

2004-10-13T11:01:00.000-04:00

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."