Election maps from the last 2 elections
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Judge not lest ye be juged democrats...
Well, after all the democrats yelling about election fraud after Bush won in 2004 this is very refreshing, very refreshing indeed.
Five East St. Louisans were found guilty on all counts they faced in federal court Wednesday for participating in a vote-buying scheme to get Democrats elected during the Nov. 2 election.
When added to the guilty pleas of three committeemen and an election worker in March that resulted from the same FBI investigation, it's the largest bust of vote fraud in the city's recent past, and, perhaps, ever.
While much of the bluster during the monthlong trial concerned shaky witness testimony, it was the secret recordings that ultimately doomed the five, according to the lone juror who agreed to talk afterward.
"The recordings were the evidence that really struck me the most," said Lamont Reed Jr., 23, of East St. Louis.
Advertisement
Reed, a student at Southwestern Illinois College, said other jurors shared that opinion, though "certain people took time to convince."
The jury deliberated for more than five hours and asked to hear recordings and see transcripts of the recordings before reaching a decision.
Defense attorneys vowed to continue the fight through motions, and possibly appeals.
"All I can say is it's not over," said Paul Sims, who represents Democratic precinct committeewoman Sheila Thomas.
The most prominent of those convicted Wednesday is East St. Louis Democratic Party leader Charles Powell Jr., 61. He was found guilty of participating in a conspiracy to commit voter fraud. He was caught on tape Oct. 13 telling the Democratic committeemen to calculate their budget requests from the county Democratic Party based on $5 per vote.
He declined to comment after the verdict.
Convicted of joining that conspiracy and also aiding and abetting voter fraud were:
Thomas, 31, who also served as the party secretary for the city's Democratic Party.
Kelvin Ellis, 55, former head of Regulatory Affairs for East St. Louis.
Yvette Johnson, 46, an election worker for Ellis.
Jesse Lewis, 56, a precinct committeeman.
Witnesses testified that all five paid voters or directed others to do so, with the price ranging from $5 to $10, although Powell was not charged with abetting voter fraud.
Prosecutors said the conspiracy's purpose was to maximize the turnout for prominent Democrats, including then-Belleville Mayor Mark Kern, who was elected St. Clair County Board chairman in the election; state Sen. Barack Obama of Chicago, who won a U.S. Senate seat; and U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was defeated by President George W. Bush.
Kern could not be reached for comment but has denied any wrongdoing.
During the trial, prosecutor Mike Carr questioned witnesses about $79,000 transferred from the county Democratic Party to most of the city's 44 Democratic precinct committeemen just before the election. Those convicted on Wednesday received a total of $7,900 on Oct. 30.
The longstanding St. Clair County Democratic chairman, Robert Sprague, personally handed the checks to the committeemen, testimony stated. He could not be reached for comment.
While jurors were still deliberating, attorney Bruce Cook said he believed changes were in order in the way the party's campaign money was handled in East St. Louis, no matter what the jury's decision. Cook represents Powell and has been active in the Democratic Party in the past.
"I am going to recommend that a blue-ribbon panel of Democrats work to enhance our base, which is mainly the working poor," he said. "And that they do it within the confines of not tempting organizers to do something illegal."
Those measures, such as hosting more dinners and picnics, or hiring additional campaign workers, would end up costing the party more money, he said.
U.S. Attorney Ron Tenpas was asked if the verdict would deter vote fraud in future St. Clair County elections.
"We hope it will have a substantial effect," he said. "We'd like to think that any time you successfully bring a prosecution that it will deter crime."
Responding to allegations by the defense that the charges from a Republican U.S. attorney were prompted by politics, Tenpas said: "The fact that the jury unanimously brought back verdicts of guilty on all counts shows what prompted this - the actions of the defendants."
The trial had been liberally attended by those supporting the five accused and their political rivals.
Will McGaughy, a Democratic precinct committeeman who had been politically allied with Powell's opponents, said he believed the case would do some good.
"Whether (the defendants) did it intentionally or not, this will open up the eyes of others and make them think twice," he said.
Witnesses said repeatedly at the trial that vote buying has been going on for decades in the city and it's not hard to find examples. In 1931, when the standard price for a vote was $2, five voters were convicted of taking money in exchange for voting.
But a quick look at past investigations showed none has led to nine or more convictions.
A sentencing date for the five who were convicted on Wednesday was not immediately set. All are free without bond except for Ellis, who is detained while awaiting trial on tax evasion counts and charges that he attempted to have a witness in the vote fraud investigation killed.
Each charge carries a maximum of five years in prison. U.S. District Judge G. Patrick Murphy will probably have a wide range of possibility for punishment, including probation.
But before that, Murphy must consider motions by the defense for a directed verdict of not guilty, which would trump the jury's finding. Murphy indicated he wanted several days to consider that.
Attorney John O'Gara, who represents Ellis, said he and others may file for a new trial based on the testimony from the government's witnesses.
Defense attorneys directed much of their efforts throughout the trial at discrediting those witnesses: FBI agent John Jimenez; former East St. Louis Deputy Police Chief Rudy McIntosh, a Democratic precinct committeeman who worked in secret with the FBI; and Dannita Youngblood, a City Hall employee who worked for Ellis.
Reed, the juror, agreed that they appeared to have credibility issues, but said he found them to be believable nonetheless.
Jimenez, the FBI agent who helped build the case, said authorities had caught Kern on tape agreeing to buy votes, but recanted the next day.
"Jimenez shocked me," said Reed, speaking to reporters outside the courthouse. "As an FBI agent, he should be sure of his answers. One day he says yeah, we got him. The next day he says something completely different."
Five East St. Louisans were found guilty on all counts they faced in federal court Wednesday for participating in a vote-buying scheme to get Democrats elected during the Nov. 2 election.
When added to the guilty pleas of three committeemen and an election worker in March that resulted from the same FBI investigation, it's the largest bust of vote fraud in the city's recent past, and, perhaps, ever.
While much of the bluster during the monthlong trial concerned shaky witness testimony, it was the secret recordings that ultimately doomed the five, according to the lone juror who agreed to talk afterward.
"The recordings were the evidence that really struck me the most," said Lamont Reed Jr., 23, of East St. Louis.
Advertisement
Reed, a student at Southwestern Illinois College, said other jurors shared that opinion, though "certain people took time to convince."
The jury deliberated for more than five hours and asked to hear recordings and see transcripts of the recordings before reaching a decision.
Defense attorneys vowed to continue the fight through motions, and possibly appeals.
"All I can say is it's not over," said Paul Sims, who represents Democratic precinct committeewoman Sheila Thomas.
The most prominent of those convicted Wednesday is East St. Louis Democratic Party leader Charles Powell Jr., 61. He was found guilty of participating in a conspiracy to commit voter fraud. He was caught on tape Oct. 13 telling the Democratic committeemen to calculate their budget requests from the county Democratic Party based on $5 per vote.
He declined to comment after the verdict.
Convicted of joining that conspiracy and also aiding and abetting voter fraud were:
Thomas, 31, who also served as the party secretary for the city's Democratic Party.
Kelvin Ellis, 55, former head of Regulatory Affairs for East St. Louis.
Yvette Johnson, 46, an election worker for Ellis.
Jesse Lewis, 56, a precinct committeeman.
Witnesses testified that all five paid voters or directed others to do so, with the price ranging from $5 to $10, although Powell was not charged with abetting voter fraud.
Prosecutors said the conspiracy's purpose was to maximize the turnout for prominent Democrats, including then-Belleville Mayor Mark Kern, who was elected St. Clair County Board chairman in the election; state Sen. Barack Obama of Chicago, who won a U.S. Senate seat; and U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was defeated by President George W. Bush.
Kern could not be reached for comment but has denied any wrongdoing.
During the trial, prosecutor Mike Carr questioned witnesses about $79,000 transferred from the county Democratic Party to most of the city's 44 Democratic precinct committeemen just before the election. Those convicted on Wednesday received a total of $7,900 on Oct. 30.
The longstanding St. Clair County Democratic chairman, Robert Sprague, personally handed the checks to the committeemen, testimony stated. He could not be reached for comment.
While jurors were still deliberating, attorney Bruce Cook said he believed changes were in order in the way the party's campaign money was handled in East St. Louis, no matter what the jury's decision. Cook represents Powell and has been active in the Democratic Party in the past.
"I am going to recommend that a blue-ribbon panel of Democrats work to enhance our base, which is mainly the working poor," he said. "And that they do it within the confines of not tempting organizers to do something illegal."
Those measures, such as hosting more dinners and picnics, or hiring additional campaign workers, would end up costing the party more money, he said.
U.S. Attorney Ron Tenpas was asked if the verdict would deter vote fraud in future St. Clair County elections.
"We hope it will have a substantial effect," he said. "We'd like to think that any time you successfully bring a prosecution that it will deter crime."
Responding to allegations by the defense that the charges from a Republican U.S. attorney were prompted by politics, Tenpas said: "The fact that the jury unanimously brought back verdicts of guilty on all counts shows what prompted this - the actions of the defendants."
The trial had been liberally attended by those supporting the five accused and their political rivals.
Will McGaughy, a Democratic precinct committeeman who had been politically allied with Powell's opponents, said he believed the case would do some good.
"Whether (the defendants) did it intentionally or not, this will open up the eyes of others and make them think twice," he said.
Witnesses said repeatedly at the trial that vote buying has been going on for decades in the city and it's not hard to find examples. In 1931, when the standard price for a vote was $2, five voters were convicted of taking money in exchange for voting.
But a quick look at past investigations showed none has led to nine or more convictions.
A sentencing date for the five who were convicted on Wednesday was not immediately set. All are free without bond except for Ellis, who is detained while awaiting trial on tax evasion counts and charges that he attempted to have a witness in the vote fraud investigation killed.
Each charge carries a maximum of five years in prison. U.S. District Judge G. Patrick Murphy will probably have a wide range of possibility for punishment, including probation.
But before that, Murphy must consider motions by the defense for a directed verdict of not guilty, which would trump the jury's finding. Murphy indicated he wanted several days to consider that.
Attorney John O'Gara, who represents Ellis, said he and others may file for a new trial based on the testimony from the government's witnesses.
Defense attorneys directed much of their efforts throughout the trial at discrediting those witnesses: FBI agent John Jimenez; former East St. Louis Deputy Police Chief Rudy McIntosh, a Democratic precinct committeeman who worked in secret with the FBI; and Dannita Youngblood, a City Hall employee who worked for Ellis.
Reed, the juror, agreed that they appeared to have credibility issues, but said he found them to be believable nonetheless.
Jimenez, the FBI agent who helped build the case, said authorities had caught Kern on tape agreeing to buy votes, but recanted the next day.
"Jimenez shocked me," said Reed, speaking to reporters outside the courthouse. "As an FBI agent, he should be sure of his answers. One day he says yeah, we got him. The next day he says something completely different."
Our state government is retarded...
For those of you who live outside MN (tshsmom is an exception obviously) you probably have no idea what I'm talking about. Well, tommorow, or tonight at midnight, the government will partially shut down because the GOP and DFL can't reach an agreement on the state budget. I'm taking no prisoners on this one, both sides are to blame for this mess, nothing can get done with the houses divided so evenly, Republicans have the Senate by like 2 seats and the DFL has the House by 3 seats. Get over yoursleves and get this goddamn thing done guys! This is insane, our local government is a microcosom of what's going on in DC. Both sides will not negociate with each other, so there's only one soultion. I need to make sure our side beats the other side (fairly mind you, I wish I could literally do it...) so bad in the next election cycle that they won't get in the way of progress, because we all know that the Democrats are the party of "NOOOOO" and really have no original idea themselves, outside of socialized medicine, and literally refuse to do anything or come up with new ideas in every level of government. After 2006 they shouldn't be much of a problem though... tshsmom, feel free to comment on this considering your the only one who knows what the hell I'm talking about.
My dream could come true...
This is very encouraging for people like me who are technically a moderate as defined by the Republican party.
Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:38 p.m. EDT
Karl Rove Coaching Rudy Giuliani?
White House political guru Karl Rove is reportedly coaching former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani on a campaign strategy to use against Hillary Clinton when she runs for president in 2008.
"Giuliani has been working closely with Rove to build a presidential platform against presumed Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton," reports Radar Magazine, citing "well placed sources."
"There's been talk on Capitol Hill for months about Rove's 'secret meetings' in New York with Giuliani," claims "a D.C. operative."
There's a catch, however.
Radar says Rove doesn't see Rudy at the top of the GOP's 2008 ticket, but rather as "the kind of middle-of-the-road Republican (i.e. pro-choice and not anti-gay) who would look good in the VP slot next to a fire-breather like Bill Frist."
I want to see him run for Prez!!!!
Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:38 p.m. EDT
Karl Rove Coaching Rudy Giuliani?
White House political guru Karl Rove is reportedly coaching former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani on a campaign strategy to use against Hillary Clinton when she runs for president in 2008.
"Giuliani has been working closely with Rove to build a presidential platform against presumed Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton," reports Radar Magazine, citing "well placed sources."
"There's been talk on Capitol Hill for months about Rove's 'secret meetings' in New York with Giuliani," claims "a D.C. operative."
There's a catch, however.
Radar says Rove doesn't see Rudy at the top of the GOP's 2008 ticket, but rather as "the kind of middle-of-the-road Republican (i.e. pro-choice and not anti-gay) who would look good in the VP slot next to a fire-breather like Bill Frist."
I want to see him run for Prez!!!!
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Stupid news: Edition 4
This falls into the category of you can't make this shit up.
Cops Called After Another Employee Noticed Driver Speeding
Jun 28, 2005 11:56 am US/Eastern
MORRISTOWN (AP) You can't drive with alcohol in your system, even if the vehicle is a four-ton ice-cleaning machine at a skating rink.
Zamboni operator John Peragallo was charged with drunken driving after a fellow employee at the Mennen Sports Arena in Morristown called police and reported that the machine was speeding and nearly crashed into the boards.
Police arrived after Peragallo had parked the machine after grooming the ice during a break in a public skating session.
Police said Peragallo's blood alcohol level was 0.12 percent. Levels of 0.08 percent and above are considered legally drunk.
Zamboni privileges were revoked for Peragallo, 63, of Randolph, who has worked for the Morris County park system since 1994.
Also, we just got issued a Torando Watch, fun evening ahead...
Cops Called After Another Employee Noticed Driver Speeding
Jun 28, 2005 11:56 am US/Eastern
MORRISTOWN (AP) You can't drive with alcohol in your system, even if the vehicle is a four-ton ice-cleaning machine at a skating rink.
Zamboni operator John Peragallo was charged with drunken driving after a fellow employee at the Mennen Sports Arena in Morristown called police and reported that the machine was speeding and nearly crashed into the boards.
Police arrived after Peragallo had parked the machine after grooming the ice during a break in a public skating session.
Police said Peragallo's blood alcohol level was 0.12 percent. Levels of 0.08 percent and above are considered legally drunk.
Zamboni privileges were revoked for Peragallo, 63, of Randolph, who has worked for the Morris County park system since 1994.
Also, we just got issued a Torando Watch, fun evening ahead...
This is getting sadistic...
Ok, looking out west there is another M****F*cking line of storms headed our way. This is getting beyond nuts. I don't remember anything like this EVER since I've lived here (we moved here in 1990). And a few weather channel guys say there is a chance of a tornado outbreak in Minnesota (once again, I don't remeber that happening ever, or at least in 10 years). Ok God, enough with the weather, we get it dude! Send some of this shit out west where they need the rain. I'll post about this later tonight, if the power is on (yes they're supposed to be that bad).
good quote from Regan...
With the 4th of July less than a week away I thought it would be a good time to post something about freedom.
"Freewdom is never more the one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same or one day we will spend our sunset years telling children and our children's chidren what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
What the hell why I'm at it I'll throw in a FDR quote.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." This was said in 1933, as true then as it is today.
"Freewdom is never more the one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same or one day we will spend our sunset years telling children and our children's chidren what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
What the hell why I'm at it I'll throw in a FDR quote.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." This was said in 1933, as true then as it is today.
site look...
Ok, for those of you who check my blog daily (there's at least 40 of you) I have changed the format of my blog a little, as you can obviously see. I got a defective link that was screwing things up and this is the only way I could get it to work, I've been messing around with this damn thing for nearly 2 hours and just figured it out. Enjoy the new look everyone!
dems are losing it...
I had to do a double-take on this one, its amazing how desperate and how low they have sunk, then again I wouldn't expect anything less from the people who blame america first and compare Bush to Hitler.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005 11:39 a.m. EDT
Dems Eye Impeachment Strategy
Left-wing Democrats in the House are working on a plan to compel the House Judiciary Committee to launch an impeachment inquiry into what they say are "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed by President Bush in the run-up to the Iraq war.
"If you read the record of the writing of the Constitution, ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ had a very particular meaning at the time of the drafting of the Constitution," Rep. Zoe Lofgren said at a forum held by Rep. John Conyers earlier this month.
"It certainly didn’t mean lying about sex," she complained, in quotes picked up by the Hill newspaper. "But it might well mean lying to the Congress about a large public purpose such as Iraq."
Driving the push for an impeachment inquiry is the so-called Downing Street memo, which Democrats say shows Bush lied about pre-war intelligence.
"We would like to see a member of Congress look into whether or not the president committed impeachable offenses," said John Bonifaz, a constitutional lawyer who co-founded the group AfterDowningStreet.org. "We’ve been having that discussion with a number of [congressional] offices," he explained.
Bonifaz has a receptive ear in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who talked about "the case" against Bush last week and praised the Downing Street Memo as "very important" new evidence.
"The case is that going into the war was a grotesque mistake," she told the left wing web site Raw Story. "It was predicated on a lie . . . the intelligence did not support the claim, the threat that they said."
Persuading the House to investigate allegedly impeachable crimes by the president may be a tall order, however, since the GOP-controlled Congress isn't likely to be convinced by arguments from partisan Bush-haters.
Still, Democrats like Rep. Barbara Lee are searching for a way to get the impeachment ball rolling.
A co-chairwoman of the Out of Iraq Caucus and a member of the International Affairs Committee, Lee is circulating a letter calling for a resolution of inquiry. Such a resolution, the Hill explained, would be referred to the committee of jurisdiction, which would then have to vote it down in a set number of days or it would proceed to a floor vote.
Rep. Conyers himself has so far been cautious, at least in public. "My inclination at this time is not to do something like [impeachment]," Conyers told The Hill - explaining instead that he wants to investigate further.
Yea, to bad the "evil" Republicans control the White House, House, and Senate for the first time since like 1928, if they didn't this could gain momentum. This is just a desperate strategy by a desperate group of people who haven't figured out that they are totally out of touch with the American people.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005 11:39 a.m. EDT
Dems Eye Impeachment Strategy
Left-wing Democrats in the House are working on a plan to compel the House Judiciary Committee to launch an impeachment inquiry into what they say are "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed by President Bush in the run-up to the Iraq war.
"If you read the record of the writing of the Constitution, ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ had a very particular meaning at the time of the drafting of the Constitution," Rep. Zoe Lofgren said at a forum held by Rep. John Conyers earlier this month.
"It certainly didn’t mean lying about sex," she complained, in quotes picked up by the Hill newspaper. "But it might well mean lying to the Congress about a large public purpose such as Iraq."
Driving the push for an impeachment inquiry is the so-called Downing Street memo, which Democrats say shows Bush lied about pre-war intelligence.
"We would like to see a member of Congress look into whether or not the president committed impeachable offenses," said John Bonifaz, a constitutional lawyer who co-founded the group AfterDowningStreet.org. "We’ve been having that discussion with a number of [congressional] offices," he explained.
Bonifaz has a receptive ear in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who talked about "the case" against Bush last week and praised the Downing Street Memo as "very important" new evidence.
"The case is that going into the war was a grotesque mistake," she told the left wing web site Raw Story. "It was predicated on a lie . . . the intelligence did not support the claim, the threat that they said."
Persuading the House to investigate allegedly impeachable crimes by the president may be a tall order, however, since the GOP-controlled Congress isn't likely to be convinced by arguments from partisan Bush-haters.
Still, Democrats like Rep. Barbara Lee are searching for a way to get the impeachment ball rolling.
A co-chairwoman of the Out of Iraq Caucus and a member of the International Affairs Committee, Lee is circulating a letter calling for a resolution of inquiry. Such a resolution, the Hill explained, would be referred to the committee of jurisdiction, which would then have to vote it down in a set number of days or it would proceed to a floor vote.
Rep. Conyers himself has so far been cautious, at least in public. "My inclination at this time is not to do something like [impeachment]," Conyers told The Hill - explaining instead that he wants to investigate further.
Yea, to bad the "evil" Republicans control the White House, House, and Senate for the first time since like 1928, if they didn't this could gain momentum. This is just a desperate strategy by a desperate group of people who haven't figured out that they are totally out of touch with the American people.
American people waking up
This poll confirms what I've been yelling about the last 30 months.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:53 p.m. EDT
Poll: Media Weakening U.S. Defenses
A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows that a rising number of Americans are now concerned that media criticism of the military is hurting the U.S.'s ability to defend itself.
Nearly half - 47 percent - say that by criticizing the military so frequently, news organizations are weakening the nation's defenses.
Forty-four percent say, on the other hand, that the media's criticism keeps the nation militarily prepared.
More than two-thirds of Republicans - 67 percent - objected to the way the press covers the military, while only 36 percent of Democrats disapproved of the media's anti-military coverage.
The number of those now saying that the press is anti-military has increased dramatically since the 9/11 attacks, when only a little more than a third of those surveyed thought the press was too critical.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:53 p.m. EDT
Poll: Media Weakening U.S. Defenses
A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows that a rising number of Americans are now concerned that media criticism of the military is hurting the U.S.'s ability to defend itself.
Nearly half - 47 percent - say that by criticizing the military so frequently, news organizations are weakening the nation's defenses.
Forty-four percent say, on the other hand, that the media's criticism keeps the nation militarily prepared.
More than two-thirds of Republicans - 67 percent - objected to the way the press covers the military, while only 36 percent of Democrats disapproved of the media's anti-military coverage.
The number of those now saying that the press is anti-military has increased dramatically since the 9/11 attacks, when only a little more than a third of those surveyed thought the press was too critical.
removing the poll...
Ok, I have applied and they say it will take 2-3 days for it to take hold. Thanks for the input everyone, even the ones that thought I was a capitalist pig, eat me you socialist bastards.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
BTK should DIE and die painfully...
Ok here's a nice little rant I just have to get off my chest (and these seem to get the most comments anyway so what the hell). The BTK (Bind, Torture, Kill) killer can't be killed. I can't describe him any better than what Jeff Davis called him (his mother was a victim of this sick bastard) Davis called Rader a "classic, textbook sociopath" who had "no conscience, just a black hole inside the shell of a human being." To be fair I don't even see the shell of a human being, I see a monster, not a human, an inhumane sick monster who needs to be dragged out into the street and shot, multiple times, and the first one shouldn't be fatal. I mean isn't it only fair for the 10 people he randomly killed? Hell, I'd do it myself and have no remorse, in order for it to be murder I have to kill a human, he isn't a human. The one line in the CNN story kills me (hmmm, probably not the best choice of words, oh well).
Under Kansas law Rader can be sentenced to life in prison for each charge.
Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston said Monday she will ask for the maximum sentence possible -- and for each of those sentences to be served consecutively.
Boy, I hope that he gets what's coming to him in prison. As a final note for those who bring up Cruel and Unusal Punishment, to them I say, was what he did to his victims not cruel and unusual? I mean since he took away those people's rights why can't we take away his? I hope that he gets murdered in prison but he first needs a few human booster shots from inmates. I hope that they can be as creative in killing him as he was with his victims. May he rot in hell for all eternity.
Under Kansas law Rader can be sentenced to life in prison for each charge.
Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston said Monday she will ask for the maximum sentence possible -- and for each of those sentences to be served consecutively.
Boy, I hope that he gets what's coming to him in prison. As a final note for those who bring up Cruel and Unusal Punishment, to them I say, was what he did to his victims not cruel and unusual? I mean since he took away those people's rights why can't we take away his? I hope that he gets murdered in prison but he first needs a few human booster shots from inmates. I hope that they can be as creative in killing him as he was with his victims. May he rot in hell for all eternity.
Monday, June 27, 2005
storms, storms and more storms...
Ok, this is about the third time in the last week that we have had nasty storms come through the Twin Cities Metro Area. This is getting annoying, of course the high has been at least 85 each of the past 7-10 days. We didn't have a single 90 degree day here in May and were seriously making up for it. I like living here but sometimes the weather can get really annoying. and yes ZS it does get hot here in the summer and cold in the winter, very cold. But not to bad recently.
Another reason to be cautious of the Chinese
Monday, June 27, 2005 8:57 p.m. EDT
Defector: China Has U.S. Spy Network
Chinese spies in the U.S. are busy stealing whatever information, military or otherwise, they can get their hands on, and are under orders to gather information "no matter how trivial," a top defector says.
Speaking by phone to the Washington Times intelligence savvy reporter Bill Gertz, Chen Yonglin, until recently a senior political officer at the Chinese Consulate in Sydney, Australia, said, "The United States occupies a unique place in China's diplomacy."
According to Chen, now hiding in Australia after defecting from Beijing, "The United States is considered by the Chinese Communist Party as the largest enemy, the major strategic rival.”
He said that all Chinese government officials are ordered to gather information about the United States.
In fact, Chen said that most Chinese government activity in the United States involves information-gathering carried out by military-related intelligence officers or civilians linked to the Ministry of State Security.
And he also revealed that Chinese owned companies work hand in hand with their military complex – perhaps more disturbing in light of China’s bid for American oil giant Unocal.
"I know that China once got a heavy load of confidential documents from the United States and sent it back to China through the Cosco ship," Chen said, referring to the state-owned China Ocean Shipping Co. The information was "very useful" to China's military and related to "aircraft technology," he added.
Cosco long has been at the center of U.S. national security worries. Its efforts to buy port facilities in Long Beach, Calif. were rebuffed after concerns were raised. Still, the company operates at of many American ports, including in New York, Boston, Baltimore and Miami.
In the 90s a Cosco ship was caught by U.S. Customs attempting to smuggle 20,000 automatic machine guns – enough weaponry to outfit more than a division of troops. Authorities claimed the Chinese planned to sell the guns to street gangs, but others found that explanation lacking.
Among Chen's other revelations:
Beijing dispatches political police abroad to keep a close eye on overseas Chinese and anyone else in North America who they consider opponents of the regime.
There are political tensions between President Hu Jintao and his predecessor former President Jiang Zemin. Hu, Chen said, is not fully in control of the government and military, and Jiang continues to wield power behind the scenes through allies in the armed forces. "Hu is still in the shadow of Jiang and will be until Jiang dies," Mr. Chen said.
Hu launched his own version of Chinese ideology at the end of last year that calls for education in advancing the Communist Party. He said the Chinese leader is the beneficiary of the dictatorship and, therefore, is unlikely to make changes loosening party control. "For the past 16 years, a lot of people have been looking to see if the Communist Party can change from the top down to the low levels, but nothing changes," Chen told Gertz.
Beijing is trying to influence Australia's government through high-level political visits and favorable trade and by offering contracts on energy-related products. Their goal, he explained, is to force Australia to become part of a China-dominated "grand neighboring region" in Asia and to "force a wedge between the U.S. and Australia."
Beijing is following the strategy of former leader Deng Xiaoping, who urged China to "bide our time, build our capabilities" - military as well as economic and political. "What that means is that when the day is mature, the Chinese government will strike back." He added that the danger of a war over Taiwan is growing. "That is possible as Chinese society is getting more unstable," he said. "Once any serious civil disobedience occurs, the government may call for a war across the Taiwan Strait to gather [political] strength from people."
Despite his insider information, Chen has been treated as a pariah by Australian authorities. Upon learning of his defection, Australian authorities refused to meet with him and instead contacted the Chinese authorities to inform them. Press reports indicated that the Australian government feared embracing Chen lest it draw the ire of communist China and harm trade relations.
Chen also requested asylum from the U.S. embassy. He was similarly rebuffed.
Wow, I smell the beginning of WWII here people, here's another reason to boycott Chinese goods. Unless of course you want China to be #1 in the world. I'm sure they would be as kind to the rest of the world as we are, I mean their communists, they allow free speech...
Defector: China Has U.S. Spy Network
Chinese spies in the U.S. are busy stealing whatever information, military or otherwise, they can get their hands on, and are under orders to gather information "no matter how trivial," a top defector says.
Speaking by phone to the Washington Times intelligence savvy reporter Bill Gertz, Chen Yonglin, until recently a senior political officer at the Chinese Consulate in Sydney, Australia, said, "The United States occupies a unique place in China's diplomacy."
According to Chen, now hiding in Australia after defecting from Beijing, "The United States is considered by the Chinese Communist Party as the largest enemy, the major strategic rival.”
He said that all Chinese government officials are ordered to gather information about the United States.
In fact, Chen said that most Chinese government activity in the United States involves information-gathering carried out by military-related intelligence officers or civilians linked to the Ministry of State Security.
And he also revealed that Chinese owned companies work hand in hand with their military complex – perhaps more disturbing in light of China’s bid for American oil giant Unocal.
"I know that China once got a heavy load of confidential documents from the United States and sent it back to China through the Cosco ship," Chen said, referring to the state-owned China Ocean Shipping Co. The information was "very useful" to China's military and related to "aircraft technology," he added.
Cosco long has been at the center of U.S. national security worries. Its efforts to buy port facilities in Long Beach, Calif. were rebuffed after concerns were raised. Still, the company operates at of many American ports, including in New York, Boston, Baltimore and Miami.
In the 90s a Cosco ship was caught by U.S. Customs attempting to smuggle 20,000 automatic machine guns – enough weaponry to outfit more than a division of troops. Authorities claimed the Chinese planned to sell the guns to street gangs, but others found that explanation lacking.
Among Chen's other revelations:
Beijing dispatches political police abroad to keep a close eye on overseas Chinese and anyone else in North America who they consider opponents of the regime.
There are political tensions between President Hu Jintao and his predecessor former President Jiang Zemin. Hu, Chen said, is not fully in control of the government and military, and Jiang continues to wield power behind the scenes through allies in the armed forces. "Hu is still in the shadow of Jiang and will be until Jiang dies," Mr. Chen said.
Hu launched his own version of Chinese ideology at the end of last year that calls for education in advancing the Communist Party. He said the Chinese leader is the beneficiary of the dictatorship and, therefore, is unlikely to make changes loosening party control. "For the past 16 years, a lot of people have been looking to see if the Communist Party can change from the top down to the low levels, but nothing changes," Chen told Gertz.
Beijing is trying to influence Australia's government through high-level political visits and favorable trade and by offering contracts on energy-related products. Their goal, he explained, is to force Australia to become part of a China-dominated "grand neighboring region" in Asia and to "force a wedge between the U.S. and Australia."
Beijing is following the strategy of former leader Deng Xiaoping, who urged China to "bide our time, build our capabilities" - military as well as economic and political. "What that means is that when the day is mature, the Chinese government will strike back." He added that the danger of a war over Taiwan is growing. "That is possible as Chinese society is getting more unstable," he said. "Once any serious civil disobedience occurs, the government may call for a war across the Taiwan Strait to gather [political] strength from people."
Despite his insider information, Chen has been treated as a pariah by Australian authorities. Upon learning of his defection, Australian authorities refused to meet with him and instead contacted the Chinese authorities to inform them. Press reports indicated that the Australian government feared embracing Chen lest it draw the ire of communist China and harm trade relations.
Chen also requested asylum from the U.S. embassy. He was similarly rebuffed.
Wow, I smell the beginning of WWII here people, here's another reason to boycott Chinese goods. Unless of course you want China to be #1 in the world. I'm sure they would be as kind to the rest of the world as we are, I mean their communists, they allow free speech...
poll...
I will seriously determine weather or not to activate this adsense thing on this blog by the results of this poll. FYI people everything that is on here now isn't making any money, I choose to put all this stuff up.
And while I'm at it I'll do a videogame and movie (2 actually) review
Tiger Woods 2005 for the PS2 is an amazing game, the most amazing part is that it only cost me $30 for it. Well worth the money, I've been up all weekend playing it, very addictive.
On sunday I went to go see Mr and Mrs. Smith. I have to say I was surprised. There was a little bit of a love story but it was mainly an intense action movie that actually had an interesting plot line. The best part had to be the car chase scene, best one I've seen sicne Matrix: Reloaded. It was actually a semi-comedy too, because Brad and Angelina find out that their marriage is a sham as a result of them both being hitmen and having to hide that from each other. I didn't have high expectations going in but I will give it a 9/10. In other words go see it, in the afternoon, don't pay full price for it.
Later last night I saw Get Shorty, very bizzare movie. It was all kind of a blur and it was funny. 7/10, worth a rental if you haven't already seen it.
I will review more videogames and movies in the future and later this week I need to do a CD review of Seether. Good CD.
And while I'm at it I'll do a videogame and movie (2 actually) review
Tiger Woods 2005 for the PS2 is an amazing game, the most amazing part is that it only cost me $30 for it. Well worth the money, I've been up all weekend playing it, very addictive.
On sunday I went to go see Mr and Mrs. Smith. I have to say I was surprised. There was a little bit of a love story but it was mainly an intense action movie that actually had an interesting plot line. The best part had to be the car chase scene, best one I've seen sicne Matrix: Reloaded. It was actually a semi-comedy too, because Brad and Angelina find out that their marriage is a sham as a result of them both being hitmen and having to hide that from each other. I didn't have high expectations going in but I will give it a 9/10. In other words go see it, in the afternoon, don't pay full price for it.
Later last night I saw Get Shorty, very bizzare movie. It was all kind of a blur and it was funny. 7/10, worth a rental if you haven't already seen it.
I will review more videogames and movies in the future and later this week I need to do a CD review of Seether. Good CD.
Stupid News: Edition 3... actually kind of sad
Boys' Baseball Team Benched for Being Good Sun Jun 26,11:04 PM ET
CANAL WINCHESTER, Ohio - A baseball team of 11- and 12-year-olds kicked out of a league in this Columbus suburb is fielding offers from all over to play.
The Columbus Stars were removed from their league last month because they were too good. In some of their last games, the Stars beat the Red Sox 18-0, World Harvest 13-0, Sugar Grove II 24-0 and Sugar Grove I 10-2.
Other teams began complaining — and canceling.
Michael Mirones, board chairman for the Canal Winchester Joint Recreation District, pulled the Stars from the league and returned their $150 entry fee. He suggested the Stars play in a travel league against better teams.
Now the Stars have received offers from teams all over central Ohio and in other states.
Clay Branch, a parent in a youth league in Atlanta, said he offered to arrange for the team to play in Georgia.
"I'd never heard of anything like that, and it blew my mind," he said. "I wish we were closer."
The Stars already have a couple of games coming up against teams in central Ohio. They also plan on playing in two tournaments next month.
Georgian Heights, a team from the Columbus area, defeated the Stars 5-4 last week to give them their first loss this season. The Stars had defeated Georgian Heights in two earlier meetings this year.
Stars pitcher Josh Dameron, 12, said the team learned from the loss.
"The mood of our team is the same," he said. "We don't care about the loss. The next time we play them, we hope we win."
CANAL WINCHESTER, Ohio - A baseball team of 11- and 12-year-olds kicked out of a league in this Columbus suburb is fielding offers from all over to play.
The Columbus Stars were removed from their league last month because they were too good. In some of their last games, the Stars beat the Red Sox 18-0, World Harvest 13-0, Sugar Grove II 24-0 and Sugar Grove I 10-2.
Other teams began complaining — and canceling.
Michael Mirones, board chairman for the Canal Winchester Joint Recreation District, pulled the Stars from the league and returned their $150 entry fee. He suggested the Stars play in a travel league against better teams.
Now the Stars have received offers from teams all over central Ohio and in other states.
Clay Branch, a parent in a youth league in Atlanta, said he offered to arrange for the team to play in Georgia.
"I'd never heard of anything like that, and it blew my mind," he said. "I wish we were closer."
The Stars already have a couple of games coming up against teams in central Ohio. They also plan on playing in two tournaments next month.
Georgian Heights, a team from the Columbus area, defeated the Stars 5-4 last week to give them their first loss this season. The Stars had defeated Georgian Heights in two earlier meetings this year.
Stars pitcher Josh Dameron, 12, said the team learned from the loss.
"The mood of our team is the same," he said. "We don't care about the loss. The next time we play them, we hope we win."
final results of first poll...
Conservative Republican 51% 28
Liberal Democrat 7% 4
Moderate Republican 7% 4
Moderate Democrat 4% 2
Moderate 5% 3
Libertarian 11% 6
Communist 4% 2
Socialist 2% 1
Marxist 9% 5
55 votes total
I have to say it was mildly surprising results. Ok everyone the next poll is very important. It will determine the future of how I run this blog and how it will look.
Liberal Democrat 7% 4
Moderate Republican 7% 4
Moderate Democrat 4% 2
Moderate 5% 3
Libertarian 11% 6
Communist 4% 2
Socialist 2% 1
Marxist 9% 5
55 votes total
I have to say it was mildly surprising results. Ok everyone the next poll is very important. It will determine the future of how I run this blog and how it will look.
Gordon SInclair views of America (positive for once)
Ok, thanks to ZS I have dug up an old article I posted on here probably god nearly 2 months ago.
Background on this guy: On
June 5 1973, Canadian radio commentator Gordon Sinclair decided he'd had enough of the stream of criticism and negative press recently directed at the United States of America by foreign journalists (primarily over America's long military involvement in Vietnam, which had ended with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords six months earlier). When he arrived at radio station CFRB in Toronto that morning, he spent twenty minutes dashing off a two-page editorial defending the USA against its carping critics which he then delivered in a defiant, indignant tone during his "Let's Be Personal" spot at 11:45 AM that day.
The unusualness of any foreign correspondent — even one from a country with such close ties to the USA as Canada — delivering such a caustic commentary about those who would dare to criticize the USA is best demonstrated by the fact that even thirty years later, a generation of Americans too young to remember Sinclair's broadcast doubt that this piece (which has been circulating on the Internet in the slightly-altered form quoted above as something "recently" printed in a Toronto newspaper) is real. It is real, and it received a great deal of attention in its day. After Sinclair's editorial was rebroadcast by a few American radio stations, it spread like wildfire all over the country. It was played again and again (often superimposed over a piece of inspirational music such as "Battle Hymn of the Republic" or "Bridge Over Troubled Waters"), read into the Congressional Record multiple times, and finally released on a record (titled "The Americans"), with all royalties donated to the American Red Cross. (A Windsor/Detroit radio broadcaster named Byron MacGregor recorded and released an unauthorized version of the piece which hit the record stores before Sinclair's official version; an infringement suit was avoided when MacGregor agreed to donate his profits to the Red Cross as well).
Sinclair passed away in 1984, but he will long be remembered on both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border — both for his contributions to journalism, and for his loudly proclaiming a friendship that few at the time were willing to embrace.
Good reading, from a Toronto newspaper's editorial page!
Widespread, but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:
This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.
Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.
When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it. When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.
The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States Dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar, or the Douglas 10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American planes?
Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon — not once, but several times - and safely home again.
You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the American who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.
I can name you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.
Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those.
Background on this guy: On
June 5 1973, Canadian radio commentator Gordon Sinclair decided he'd had enough of the stream of criticism and negative press recently directed at the United States of America by foreign journalists (primarily over America's long military involvement in Vietnam, which had ended with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords six months earlier). When he arrived at radio station CFRB in Toronto that morning, he spent twenty minutes dashing off a two-page editorial defending the USA against its carping critics which he then delivered in a defiant, indignant tone during his "Let's Be Personal" spot at 11:45 AM that day.
The unusualness of any foreign correspondent — even one from a country with such close ties to the USA as Canada — delivering such a caustic commentary about those who would dare to criticize the USA is best demonstrated by the fact that even thirty years later, a generation of Americans too young to remember Sinclair's broadcast doubt that this piece (which has been circulating on the Internet in the slightly-altered form quoted above as something "recently" printed in a Toronto newspaper) is real. It is real, and it received a great deal of attention in its day. After Sinclair's editorial was rebroadcast by a few American radio stations, it spread like wildfire all over the country. It was played again and again (often superimposed over a piece of inspirational music such as "Battle Hymn of the Republic" or "Bridge Over Troubled Waters"), read into the Congressional Record multiple times, and finally released on a record (titled "The Americans"), with all royalties donated to the American Red Cross. (A Windsor/Detroit radio broadcaster named Byron MacGregor recorded and released an unauthorized version of the piece which hit the record stores before Sinclair's official version; an infringement suit was avoided when MacGregor agreed to donate his profits to the Red Cross as well).
Sinclair passed away in 1984, but he will long be remembered on both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border — both for his contributions to journalism, and for his loudly proclaiming a friendship that few at the time were willing to embrace.
Good reading, from a Toronto newspaper's editorial page!
Widespread, but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:
This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.
Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.
When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it. When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.
The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States Dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar, or the Douglas 10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American planes?
Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon — not once, but several times - and safely home again.
You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the American who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.
I can name you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.
Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
our "allies" perfer China over us...
This is both sad and very stupid on our allies part.
courtesy of Newsmax
Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:11 p.m. EDT
Poll: Allies Prefer China to U.S.
WASHINGTON - The United States' image is so tattered overseas two years after the Iraq invasion that communist China is viewed more favorably than the U.S. in many long-time Western European allies, an international poll has found.
The poor image persists even though the Bush administration has been promoting freedom and democracy throughout the world in recent months -- which many viewed favorably - and has sent hundreds of millions of dollars in relief aid to Indian Ocean nations hit by the devastating December 26 tsunami.
"It's amazing when you see the European public rating the United States so poorly, especially in comparison with China," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, which surveyed public opinion in 16 countries, including the United States.
In Britain, almost two-thirds of Britons, 65 percent, saw China favorably, compared with 55 percent who held a positive view of the United States.
In France, 58 percent had an upbeat view of China, compared with 43 percent who felt that way about the U.S. The results were nearly the same in Spain and the Netherlands.
The United States' favorability rating was lowest among three Muslim nations which are also U.S. allies - Turkey, Pakistan and Jordan - where only about one-fifth of those polled viewed the U.S. in a positive light.
Only India and Poland were more upbeat about the United States, while Canadians were just as likely to see China favorably as they were the U.S.
The poll found suspicion and wariness of the United States in many countries where people question the war in Iraq and are growing wary of the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism.
"The Iraq war has left an enduring impression on the minds of people around the world in ways that make them very suspicious of U.S. intentions and makes the effort to win hearts and minds far more difficult," said Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
The overseas image of the United States slipped sharply after the Iraq invasion in 2003, the Pew polling found, and it has not rebounded in Western European countries like Britain, France, Germany and Spain.
However the U.S. image has bounced back in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country which benefited from U.S. aid to tsunami victims, as well as in India and Russia.
Support for the U.S.-led war on terror has dipped in Western countries like Britain, France, Germany, Canada and Spain, while it remains low in the Muslim countries surveyed like Pakistan, Turkey and Jordan.
"The position of the United States as the one surviving superpower is to be assertive in responding in a world of terrorism. But in the rest of the world, there is a great wariness about that," said John Danforth, the former Republican senator from Missouri who also was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He is now a St. Louis attorney.
The poll found a positive reaction in European countries to President George W. Bush's campaign for more democracy in countries around the world. People in Muslim countries were wary of the U.S. campaign, but supportive of the idea of democracy in their own countries.
Danforth said the attitudes in the Mideast about democracy were a bright spot.
"We should keep plugging away on democracy," Danforth said. "But we need to do a better job of communicating what we're trying to do."
The survey found that a majority of people in most countries say the United States does not take the interests of other countries into account when making international policy decisions.
It also found most would like to see another country get as much military power as the United States, though few want China to play that role.
People in most countries were more inclined to say the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. Non-U.S. residents who had unfavorable views of the United States were most likely to cite Bush as the reason rather than a general problem with America.
The polls were taken in various countries from late April to the end of May with samples of about 1,000 in most countries, with more interviewees in India and China and slightly less than 1,000 in the European countries. The margin of sampling error ranged from 2 percentage points to 4 percentage points, depending on the sample size.
You know really what is wrong with cutting off all foreign aid at this point, we can't win in the world so we should at least be spending all our money INSIDE OUR BORDERS. Oh and a note to our "allies" the American people won't forget this, we can be kind or we can be very vengful, I won't either.
courtesy of Newsmax
Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:11 p.m. EDT
Poll: Allies Prefer China to U.S.
WASHINGTON - The United States' image is so tattered overseas two years after the Iraq invasion that communist China is viewed more favorably than the U.S. in many long-time Western European allies, an international poll has found.
The poor image persists even though the Bush administration has been promoting freedom and democracy throughout the world in recent months -- which many viewed favorably - and has sent hundreds of millions of dollars in relief aid to Indian Ocean nations hit by the devastating December 26 tsunami.
"It's amazing when you see the European public rating the United States so poorly, especially in comparison with China," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, which surveyed public opinion in 16 countries, including the United States.
In Britain, almost two-thirds of Britons, 65 percent, saw China favorably, compared with 55 percent who held a positive view of the United States.
In France, 58 percent had an upbeat view of China, compared with 43 percent who felt that way about the U.S. The results were nearly the same in Spain and the Netherlands.
The United States' favorability rating was lowest among three Muslim nations which are also U.S. allies - Turkey, Pakistan and Jordan - where only about one-fifth of those polled viewed the U.S. in a positive light.
Only India and Poland were more upbeat about the United States, while Canadians were just as likely to see China favorably as they were the U.S.
The poll found suspicion and wariness of the United States in many countries where people question the war in Iraq and are growing wary of the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism.
"The Iraq war has left an enduring impression on the minds of people around the world in ways that make them very suspicious of U.S. intentions and makes the effort to win hearts and minds far more difficult," said Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
The overseas image of the United States slipped sharply after the Iraq invasion in 2003, the Pew polling found, and it has not rebounded in Western European countries like Britain, France, Germany and Spain.
However the U.S. image has bounced back in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country which benefited from U.S. aid to tsunami victims, as well as in India and Russia.
Support for the U.S.-led war on terror has dipped in Western countries like Britain, France, Germany, Canada and Spain, while it remains low in the Muslim countries surveyed like Pakistan, Turkey and Jordan.
"The position of the United States as the one surviving superpower is to be assertive in responding in a world of terrorism. But in the rest of the world, there is a great wariness about that," said John Danforth, the former Republican senator from Missouri who also was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He is now a St. Louis attorney.
The poll found a positive reaction in European countries to President George W. Bush's campaign for more democracy in countries around the world. People in Muslim countries were wary of the U.S. campaign, but supportive of the idea of democracy in their own countries.
Danforth said the attitudes in the Mideast about democracy were a bright spot.
"We should keep plugging away on democracy," Danforth said. "But we need to do a better job of communicating what we're trying to do."
The survey found that a majority of people in most countries say the United States does not take the interests of other countries into account when making international policy decisions.
It also found most would like to see another country get as much military power as the United States, though few want China to play that role.
People in most countries were more inclined to say the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. Non-U.S. residents who had unfavorable views of the United States were most likely to cite Bush as the reason rather than a general problem with America.
The polls were taken in various countries from late April to the end of May with samples of about 1,000 in most countries, with more interviewees in India and China and slightly less than 1,000 in the European countries. The margin of sampling error ranged from 2 percentage points to 4 percentage points, depending on the sample size.
You know really what is wrong with cutting off all foreign aid at this point, we can't win in the world so we should at least be spending all our money INSIDE OUR BORDERS. Oh and a note to our "allies" the American people won't forget this, we can be kind or we can be very vengful, I won't either.
Stupid News: Edition 2
wow once again this is just freaking weird.
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Move over Smokey the Bear. In California, thousands of goats are helping prevent wildfires.
From hilly San Francisco to more rural settings, California landowners, business and officials have hired the voracious animals to devour the grass and brush that fuels wildfires.
Last year, more than 5,500 fires blackened over 168,000 acres in the most populous U.S. state.
"Goats are just another tool in the toolbox for California and we try to use as many tools as possible," California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection spokesman Michael Jarvis said in an interview last week.
Goats are munching on vegetation that is thriving throughout the state after an exceptionally wet winter.
Some herds are doing double duty: preventing fires and protecting homeland security.
Bob Blanchard, a rancher in Cayucos, California, near the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, said his herds of Spanish meat goats devour brush around the plant and on the rugged hillsides under high-voltage power lines.
"Fire safety is one part and plant security is the other part. The security people there want to be able to see over the whole area," Blanchard said.
His herds, ranging in size from 300 to 700 goats, are working under a 10-year contract with Diablo Canyon owner PG&E Corp.
Diablo Canyon spokesman Jeff Lewis said, "The goats give us a good firebreak under the transmission lines and we don't have to rely on any insecticides or controlled burns."
Three shepherd dogs are assigned to each herd to foil attacks by coyotes or cougars looking for a meal.
Goatherds have been deployed in urban settings as well.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission hired herds from Goats R Us, of Orinda, California, to keep the land around the city's 13 reservoirs tidy and to chow down on dried flammable brush, PUC spokeswoman Maureen Barry said.
"Did you know that goats once grazed on Russian Hill before it was built up?" Barry asked. "Well, now they're back and the city is getting excellent results."
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Move over Smokey the Bear. In California, thousands of goats are helping prevent wildfires.
From hilly San Francisco to more rural settings, California landowners, business and officials have hired the voracious animals to devour the grass and brush that fuels wildfires.
Last year, more than 5,500 fires blackened over 168,000 acres in the most populous U.S. state.
"Goats are just another tool in the toolbox for California and we try to use as many tools as possible," California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection spokesman Michael Jarvis said in an interview last week.
Goats are munching on vegetation that is thriving throughout the state after an exceptionally wet winter.
Some herds are doing double duty: preventing fires and protecting homeland security.
Bob Blanchard, a rancher in Cayucos, California, near the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, said his herds of Spanish meat goats devour brush around the plant and on the rugged hillsides under high-voltage power lines.
"Fire safety is one part and plant security is the other part. The security people there want to be able to see over the whole area," Blanchard said.
His herds, ranging in size from 300 to 700 goats, are working under a 10-year contract with Diablo Canyon owner PG&E Corp.
Diablo Canyon spokesman Jeff Lewis said, "The goats give us a good firebreak under the transmission lines and we don't have to rely on any insecticides or controlled burns."
Three shepherd dogs are assigned to each herd to foil attacks by coyotes or cougars looking for a meal.
Goatherds have been deployed in urban settings as well.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission hired herds from Goats R Us, of Orinda, California, to keep the land around the city's 13 reservoirs tidy and to chow down on dried flammable brush, PUC spokeswoman Maureen Barry said.
"Did you know that goats once grazed on Russian Hill before it was built up?" Barry asked. "Well, now they're back and the city is getting excellent results."
movie review...
Well, last night I sat down with mom and dad and watched Be Cool. It is the sequel to Get Shorty and is a very entertaining but long film. John Travolta and The Rock walk away with the movie. Vince Vaughn does a great job playing a wigger (white guy who thinks he's black) and Cedric the Entertainer does a good job with his odd role. Overall it was a very funny movie but dragged on wayyyy to long and the Steven Tyler "cameo" (he was in there for like 10 mintues) was ok but overdone. 7 out of 10, worth the rental but if you saw it in the theaters you would want a refund. Also, ZS are you planning on seeing Land of the Dead by George A. Romero? It's picking up decent reviews.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Word of the day: Sedition...
First of all we shall define sedition. Sedition is defined as: The federal crime of advocacy of insurrection against the government or support for an enemy of the nation during time of war, by speeches, publications and organization. Sedition usually involves actually conspiring to disrupt the legal operation of the government and is beyond expression of an opinion or protesting government policy. Sedition is a lesser crime than "treason," which requires actual betrayal of the government, or "espionage." Espionage involves spying on the government, trading state secrets (particularly military) to another country (even a friendly nation), or sabotaging governmental facilities, equipment or suppliers of the government, like an aircraft factory. During U.S. participation in World War II (1941-1945) several leaders of the German-American Bund, a pro-Nazi organization, were tried and convicted of sedition for actively interfering with the war effort. Since freedom of speech, press and assembly are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and because treason and espionage charges can be made for overt acts against the nation's security, sedition charges are rare.
They may be rare but then again so are speeches like Dickhead Turbin's. I urge people to follow up on this and continue to go at it, screw the flag burning amendment we don't really need it. People may say that this is a disraction tool, so what? If Turbin didn't want this heat to come on him he could have refrained or at least toned down his insane speech. Turbin shall face the wrath of all US military loving americans so help me God! Also his 2 "apologies" don't count, he didn't apologize for anything.
They may be rare but then again so are speeches like Dickhead Turbin's. I urge people to follow up on this and continue to go at it, screw the flag burning amendment we don't really need it. People may say that this is a disraction tool, so what? If Turbin didn't want this heat to come on him he could have refrained or at least toned down his insane speech. Turbin shall face the wrath of all US military loving americans so help me God! Also his 2 "apologies" don't count, he didn't apologize for anything.
liberals flip out... again...
Well if this aint the pot calling the kettle black.
NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, June 24, 2005
Democrats said Thursday that White House adviser Karl Rove should either apologize or resign for accusing liberals of wanting "therapy and understanding" for the Sept. 11 attackers, escalating partisan rancor that threatens to consume Washington.
Rove's comments — and the response from the political opposition — mirrored earlier flaps over Democratic chairman Howard Dean's criticism of Republicans, a House Republican's statement that Democrats demonize Christians and Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin's comparison of the Guantanamo prison to Nazi camps and Soviet gulags.
Ok, so everyone lets get this straight. Dickhead Turbin should NOT have to resign or even apologize (according to some liberals) for his comments that are seditious (I'll post on that word later) but Karl Rove needs to resign for pointing out an ACCURATE TRUTH about liberals in this country. Wow once again lighten up people, my god you can't stand criticism at all, you are always right 100% of the time. I hope more people find this out. Liberalism is a Mental Disorder people, and for those non-believers I will continue to prove my case. Because those within the beltway speak often and are the worst cases, and fortunately the media picks up on it the majority of the time.
NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, June 24, 2005
Democrats said Thursday that White House adviser Karl Rove should either apologize or resign for accusing liberals of wanting "therapy and understanding" for the Sept. 11 attackers, escalating partisan rancor that threatens to consume Washington.
Rove's comments — and the response from the political opposition — mirrored earlier flaps over Democratic chairman Howard Dean's criticism of Republicans, a House Republican's statement that Democrats demonize Christians and Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin's comparison of the Guantanamo prison to Nazi camps and Soviet gulags.
Ok, so everyone lets get this straight. Dickhead Turbin should NOT have to resign or even apologize (according to some liberals) for his comments that are seditious (I'll post on that word later) but Karl Rove needs to resign for pointing out an ACCURATE TRUTH about liberals in this country. Wow once again lighten up people, my god you can't stand criticism at all, you are always right 100% of the time. I hope more people find this out. Liberalism is a Mental Disorder people, and for those non-believers I will continue to prove my case. Because those within the beltway speak often and are the worst cases, and fortunately the media picks up on it the majority of the time.
Spurs win...
Man, the rest of the country missed a great series, granted this was the first time in probably 8-9 years I didn't watch the NBA playoffs loyally. Too bad too, no superstars but great basketball the way it was meant to be played, with DEFENSE! Hats off to the San Antonio Spurs winning 81-74. They deserve the title and Tim Duncan deserves the MVP trophy.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
For all those out there that think the media isn't liberal...
please explain
1985 too, wow I'm surprised...
freaking hot out...
Well today is the hottest day in the Twin Cities Metro area since 1995. And of course I worked 12-6 today, 2 of those hours outside. It was so hot coming in that even the breeze was warm when you were out in the sun. It got to 98 (at least) and with the heat index it felt close to 110. It was 90 before noon and even as I'm typing here at 6:30 it's still 95 out/ It was insane, I am so happy to be home, air conditioning has to be one of the best inventions of the 20th century. Also there is a very important basketball game tonight, 8pm CST Pistons at Spurs. It should be a great game, its game 7 and thats the first time its happened since 1994. Watch it even if your not a basketball fan.
tracking this tag thing...
Well its 2:30 am here and I have to work in less than 10 hours, I think I am an offical blog nerd now. Anyway this whole tag thing had me facinated, and I decided to backtrack it, it turns out it started right here and has spread like a computer virus. It moved on and one of its next "victims" werethis one then here here, here,here,here,here,said, ZS and me. Now, of course there were many other layers and more people and this originally started out with 5 things you miss from childhood but eventually it transformed into what are your top 5 books to what can you not live without; books, movies, or music? Kinda reminds me of that stupid telephone game we played when we were kids (creepy connection huh?) we said something and then by the time it got to the end it usually wasn't even close. Seriously this thing might be all over blogspot by the end of the month. It would be interesting to see what the question is then, anyone else up for tracking it for fun?
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
A light story for once...
Ok, I have just determined that I need 2-3 lighthearted stories a week because people need to laugh, its very good for you. The posts will be called Stupid News, this is volume one.
Largest ice pop has its moment
Like Icarus flying too close to the sun, a giant Snapple kiwi-strawberry pop couldn't take the heat.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The world's largest ice pop had a brief moment in the sun Tuesday.
But the dream of beverage company Snapple and its partners quickly melted away when the enormous frozen pop turned into slush and spilled onto the streets of New York City.
Snapple was trying to beat the 10-ton mark for world's largest ice pop, set in 1997 in the Netherlands, said Lauren Radcliffe, a spokeswoman for the company.
The area was closed off because the substance was sticky, Radcliffe said, and the Fire Department had to hose down the street after the incident.
The kiwi-strawberry bar was about 35,000 pounds, well above the roughly 20,000 pounds of the existing record-holder, Radcliffe said.
But a representative of Guinness World Records said the sculpture needed to be free-standing in order to qualify. " We couldn't deem it worthy, as it were," said Stuart Claxton, the Guinness representative.
"Maybe we should have done it on New Year's Eve," Radcliffe said.
People overthink things, I heard this on the news and I thought they were kidding at first. I guess it is true what they say; "Truth is stranger than Fiction"
Largest ice pop has its moment
Like Icarus flying too close to the sun, a giant Snapple kiwi-strawberry pop couldn't take the heat.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The world's largest ice pop had a brief moment in the sun Tuesday.
But the dream of beverage company Snapple and its partners quickly melted away when the enormous frozen pop turned into slush and spilled onto the streets of New York City.
Snapple was trying to beat the 10-ton mark for world's largest ice pop, set in 1997 in the Netherlands, said Lauren Radcliffe, a spokeswoman for the company.
The area was closed off because the substance was sticky, Radcliffe said, and the Fire Department had to hose down the street after the incident.
The kiwi-strawberry bar was about 35,000 pounds, well above the roughly 20,000 pounds of the existing record-holder, Radcliffe said.
But a representative of Guinness World Records said the sculpture needed to be free-standing in order to qualify. " We couldn't deem it worthy, as it were," said Stuart Claxton, the Guinness representative.
"Maybe we should have done it on New Year's Eve," Radcliffe said.
People overthink things, I heard this on the news and I thought they were kidding at first. I guess it is true what they say; "Truth is stranger than Fiction"
I've been tagged by ZS...
ok I'm semi-new to this blog thing but what the hell, once again I yearn to do a non-political post.
Trivia: If I had to choose between books, movies or music; I could only have one of these for the rest of my life…I’d choose music. What would you choose?
After about a minute of thought I have to choose books; reasoning they said music not talk radio, I love turning on Savage, Hewitt, Coast to Coast, or Loveline (and a few others) and reading a book, usually conservative based. I could wean myself off music granted it would not be easy. I didnt start listening to music 2 years ago and have made up for it. My first CD was Meteora by Linkin Park, it is still one of my favorite CD's. Movies I rarely watch, I perfer TV shows.
Total # of books owned:
I own probably about 100-150, they range from sports, to UFO and government conspiracy stuff to heavy conservative thought to light conservative thought. I tried reading Franken's and Moore's books but I wanted to punch someone/something 10 pages into each so I threw them out, literally.
Last Book I bought:
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage. Even though he is right the first chapter critiques the Bush admin. Very well written book that I swallowed in about 5 sittings. Even if your to the left of the political spectrum you would be surprised by his views on some issues, oh and by the way he has the #3 rated talk show in the country, I listen 5 nights a week.
Last Book I read:
Well I'm reading It's my party too by Christine Tood Whitman now but I recently finished Winning The Future: A 21st Century Contract with America by Newt Gingrich
Five books that have special meaning to me:
wow tough
Debt of Honor by Tom Clancy: Clancy's best, and most disturbing, piece. A 747 is flown into the capitol and Jack Ryan (who literally 10 mintues ago was sworn in as VP) has to take over a shaken country after the crash wiped out the president, both the houses of Congress, all the Joint Chiefs, and all 9 Supreme Court judges. Scariest part is, it's a little too real. You have to read the first 6 Clancy books for this to make sense and it took me from jan-july '04 to get through these first 6 and this one and I still have two that I have to get back to. Very good, but long read; serious reading effort required, ZS I am recommending this to you barring that you haven't already read it.
Executive Orders by Tom Clancy: The follow-up to Debt of Honor, have to read first 7 but once again amazing read. Clancy provides a very real post terrorist attack scenario that seems like you could almost be reading a history book (btw EO was written in 1996, think about that) of what would happen if this doomsday scenario came true. Once again ZS I recommend this book for you unless you haven't already read it.
To Kill A Mockingbird: One of the best books I've ever read, I will never forget how well written it was and what meaning it had. A 9th grader (which I was at the time) can't really appreciate it unless he/she has a grasp on history. Great book recommended to all even if you have read it, re-read it.
Animal Farm: A book I read in 9th grade also. Once again an amazing piece of literature, and possibly one of the best quotes of all-time; "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others." I mean holy shit, how unbelieveably true is that?!?!
Savage Nation: Yes this book has permanently set me on the course to conservatism, this made me feel happy that someone else out there had the same views I did and others must too. I mean 3 consecutive NYT Bestsellers in 3 years!?! Al Franken couldn't do that if he sold his soul. Plus not to mention NO ONE (not even Fox News) mentions his books. He has a loyal following and I am proud to be a part of it.
Oh for the hell of it here's a list of bands that I own at least one cd of (did that make and sense?).
Seether
NIN
Audioslave
Linkin Park
Nirvana
Nickelback
Green Day (surprise I know)
Offspring
Papa Roach
Lost Prophets
and the list will grow...
also I have to mention one last Clancy book...
The Sum of All Fears by Tom Clancy: I will not say to much about this book except for the fact that if you saw the movie, don't worry it's not even close. All I will say about it is nuke goes off in Superbowl: Vikings vs. Chargers. Read it. Also, the movie was probably the most inaccurate portrayal of a book I HAVE EVER SEEN.
Alright I guess I will tag tshsmom and slade, go for it people!
Trivia: If I had to choose between books, movies or music; I could only have one of these for the rest of my life…I’d choose music. What would you choose?
After about a minute of thought I have to choose books; reasoning they said music not talk radio, I love turning on Savage, Hewitt, Coast to Coast, or Loveline (and a few others) and reading a book, usually conservative based. I could wean myself off music granted it would not be easy. I didnt start listening to music 2 years ago and have made up for it. My first CD was Meteora by Linkin Park, it is still one of my favorite CD's. Movies I rarely watch, I perfer TV shows.
Total # of books owned:
I own probably about 100-150, they range from sports, to UFO and government conspiracy stuff to heavy conservative thought to light conservative thought. I tried reading Franken's and Moore's books but I wanted to punch someone/something 10 pages into each so I threw them out, literally.
Last Book I bought:
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage. Even though he is right the first chapter critiques the Bush admin. Very well written book that I swallowed in about 5 sittings. Even if your to the left of the political spectrum you would be surprised by his views on some issues, oh and by the way he has the #3 rated talk show in the country, I listen 5 nights a week.
Last Book I read:
Well I'm reading It's my party too by Christine Tood Whitman now but I recently finished Winning The Future: A 21st Century Contract with America by Newt Gingrich
Five books that have special meaning to me:
wow tough
Debt of Honor by Tom Clancy: Clancy's best, and most disturbing, piece. A 747 is flown into the capitol and Jack Ryan (who literally 10 mintues ago was sworn in as VP) has to take over a shaken country after the crash wiped out the president, both the houses of Congress, all the Joint Chiefs, and all 9 Supreme Court judges. Scariest part is, it's a little too real. You have to read the first 6 Clancy books for this to make sense and it took me from jan-july '04 to get through these first 6 and this one and I still have two that I have to get back to. Very good, but long read; serious reading effort required, ZS I am recommending this to you barring that you haven't already read it.
Executive Orders by Tom Clancy: The follow-up to Debt of Honor, have to read first 7 but once again amazing read. Clancy provides a very real post terrorist attack scenario that seems like you could almost be reading a history book (btw EO was written in 1996, think about that) of what would happen if this doomsday scenario came true. Once again ZS I recommend this book for you unless you haven't already read it.
To Kill A Mockingbird: One of the best books I've ever read, I will never forget how well written it was and what meaning it had. A 9th grader (which I was at the time) can't really appreciate it unless he/she has a grasp on history. Great book recommended to all even if you have read it, re-read it.
Animal Farm: A book I read in 9th grade also. Once again an amazing piece of literature, and possibly one of the best quotes of all-time; "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others." I mean holy shit, how unbelieveably true is that?!?!
Savage Nation: Yes this book has permanently set me on the course to conservatism, this made me feel happy that someone else out there had the same views I did and others must too. I mean 3 consecutive NYT Bestsellers in 3 years!?! Al Franken couldn't do that if he sold his soul. Plus not to mention NO ONE (not even Fox News) mentions his books. He has a loyal following and I am proud to be a part of it.
Oh for the hell of it here's a list of bands that I own at least one cd of (did that make and sense?).
Seether
NIN
Audioslave
Linkin Park
Nirvana
Nickelback
Green Day (surprise I know)
Offspring
Papa Roach
Lost Prophets
and the list will grow...
also I have to mention one last Clancy book...
The Sum of All Fears by Tom Clancy: I will not say to much about this book except for the fact that if you saw the movie, don't worry it's not even close. All I will say about it is nuke goes off in Superbowl: Vikings vs. Chargers. Read it. Also, the movie was probably the most inaccurate portrayal of a book I HAVE EVER SEEN.
Alright I guess I will tag tshsmom and slade, go for it people!
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
A more realistic view of modern conservatism...
A great article from the WSJ...
Cheer Up, Conservatives!
You're still winning.
BY JOHN MICKLETHWAIT AND ADRIAN WOOLDRIDGE
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
The second-century physician Galen observed famously: "Triste est omne animal post coitum." So perhaps it was inevitable that such a lusty beast as American conservatism should fall prey to unhappiness sometime after its greatest electoral seduction. All the same, the droopy state of the American right these days is unnatural.
Last November, American conservatives were full of grand visions of a permanent revolution, with spending brought back under control, Social Security privatized, conservatives filling the federal bench, and a great depression visited on the lawsuit industry. Six months later, listening to conservatives is as uplifting as reading William Styron's "Darkness Visible." Larry Kudlow bemoans "the dreariest political spring." John Derbyshire worries about the "twilight of conservatism" as the Republicans go the way of Britain's Tories. For Pat Buchanan "the conservative movement has passed into history"--much as, some would say, Mr. Buchanan himself has done.
Conservatives whinge that George Bush has presided over a huge increase in federal spending. Social Security reform is stalled. A plan to deprive the Democrats of the power to filibuster Supreme Court nominees failed at the 11th hour, when seven Republican Senators defected. America is confronting protracted resistance in Iraq. And, needless to say, liberals remain firmly in charge of the commanding heights of American culture, from the Ivy League to the Hollywood studios.
All true. But it is time for conservatives to cheer up. Fixate on a snapshot of recent events and pessimism makes sense. Stand back and look at the grand sweep of things and the darkness soon lifts. There are two questions that really matter in assessing the current state of conservatism: What direction is America moving in? And how does the United States compare with the rest of the world? The answer to both questions should encourage the right.
The Republicans have by far the most powerful political machine in the country. Last November, the Democrats threw everything they had at George Bush, from the pent-up fury of a "stolen election" to the millions of George Soros. Liberals outspent and out-ranted conservatives, and pushed up Democratic turnout by 12%. But the Republicans increased their turnout by a fifth.
Crucially, George Bush won as a conservative: He did not "triangulate" or hide behind a fuzzy "Morning in America" message. Against the background of an unpopular war and an arguably dodgy economy, he positioned himself to the right, betting that conservative America was bigger than liberal America. And it was: The exit polls showed both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry won 85% of their base, but self-described "conservatives" accounted for nearly a third of the electorate while liberals were only a fifth. Mr. Bush could afford to lose "moderates" to Mr. Kerry by nine points--and still end up with 51% of the vote, more than any Democrat has got since 1964.
It is true that, since those glory days, the Republican Party has lost some of its discipline. Once-loyal members of Congress have defied a threat of a presidential veto on both highway spending and stem-cell research. It is also true that the liberal wing of the party is enjoying an Indian Summer. Opinion polls suggest that John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are the two favorites for the Republican nomination in 2008.
But is this loss of steam really all that remarkable? All second-term presidents face restlessness in the ranks. And the noise is arguably a sign of strength. The Democrats would give a lot to have a big-tent party as capacious as the Republicans'. One of the reasons the GOP manages to contain Southern theocrats as well as Western libertarians is that it encourages arguments rather than suppressing them. Go to a meeting of young conservatives in Washington and the atmosphere crackles with ideas, much as it did in London in the heyday of the Thatcher revolution. The Democrats barely know what a debate is.
Moreover, it is not as if the Republican moderates really pose a long-term threat to the conservatives. The High Command of the party--Messrs. Bush, Cheney, Frist, Hastert and DeLay--are all from the right. Even Messrs. McCain and Giuliani are better described as mavericks rather than liberals. Mr. Giuliani is as resolute on terrorism as Churchill would have been; Mr. McCain mixes social conservatism with media-pleasing iconoclasm. Both these alleged RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) are further to the right than Ronald Reagan on plenty of issues.
Political success is not everything, of course. Reassure conservatives about the Republican Party, and you get an inevitable retort: that the Republicans are doing well, but conservatism, either of the fiscal or social sort, is not. Stand back a little, however, and this, too, looks over-pessimistic.
Consider, for instance, Mr. Bush's failure to control public spending. The White House points out that some of the splurge is thanks to Clinton-mandated programs. This can hardly apply to the prescription-drug benefit or the pork-stuffed farm bill. All the same, other bits of big-government conservatism have a decidedly ideological edge. Schools have been given more money, but only in return for tougher standards. Money has gone into social programs, but with a clear attempt to encourage self-discipline. The Bush administration is trying to practice "statecraft as soulcraft" (to borrow a phrase from George Will): to use government for conservative ends--to reinforce family values and individual self-discipline, and to give poorer Americans the skills they need to rise in a market economy.
The essential conservatism of Mr. Bush's approach is all the clearer if you compare it with the big-government liberalism of the 1960s--or with the big-government reality of European countries that American liberals are so keen to emulate. Mr. Bush is not using government to redistribute wealth (unless you own an oil company), to reward sloth or to coddle the poor. And government in America remains a shriveled thing by European standards. Some 40 years after the Great Society, America still has no national health service; it asks students to pay as much as $40,000 a year for a university education; it gives mothers only a few weeks of maternity leave.
What about values? Back in the 1960s, it was axiomatic amongst the elite that religion was doomed. In "The Secular City" (1965), Harvey Cox argued that Christianity had to come to terms with a secular culture. Now religion of the most basic sort is back with a vengeance. The president, his secretary of state, the House speaker and Senate majority leader are all evangelical Christians. Ted Haggard, the head of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals, jokes that the only disagreement between himself and the leader of the Western world is automotive: Mr. Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas he prefers a Chevy.
Rather than dying a slow death, evangelical Protestantism and hard-core Catholicism are bursting out all over the place. Who would have predicted, back in the 1960s, the success of "The Passion of the Christ," the "Left Behind" series or "The Purpose Driven Life"? To be sure, liberals still control universities, but, thanks to its rive droite of think tanks in Washington and many state capitals, the right has a firm control of the political-ideas business.
Indeed, the left has reached the same level of fury that the right reached in the 1960s--but with none of the intellectual inventiveness. On everything from Social Security to foreign policy to economic policy, it is reduced merely to opposing conservative ideas. This strategy may have punctured the Bush reforms on Social Security, but it has also bared a deeper weakness for the left. In the 1960s, the conservative movement coalesced around several simple propositions--lower taxes, more religion, an America-first foreign policy--that eventually revolutionized politics. The modern left is split on all these issues, between New Democrats and back-to-basics liberals.
The biggest advantage of all for conservatives is that they have a lock on the American dream. America is famously an idea more than a geographical expression, and that idea seems to be the province of the right. A recent Pew Research Center Survey, "Beyond Red Versus Blue," shows that the Republicans are more optimistic, convinced that the future will be better than the past and that they can determine their own futures. Democrats, on the other hand, have a European belief that "fate," or, in modern parlance, social circumstances, determines people's lot in life. (And judging by some recent series in newspapers on the subject, the party appears to have staunch allies in American newsrooms at least.)
If the American dream means anything, it means finding a plot of land where you can shape your destiny and raise your children. Those pragmatic dreamers look ever more Republican. Mr. Bush walloped Mr. Kerry among people who were married with children. He also carried 25 of the top 26 cities in terms of white fertility. Mr. Kerry carried the bottom 16. San Francisco, the citadel of liberalism, has the lowest proportion of people under 18 in the country (14.5%).
So cheer up conservatives. You have the country's most powerful political party on your side. You have control of the market for political ideas. You have the American dream. And, despite your bout of triste post coitum, you are still outbreeding your rivals. That counts for more than the odd setback in the Senate.
Cheer Up, Conservatives!
You're still winning.
BY JOHN MICKLETHWAIT AND ADRIAN WOOLDRIDGE
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
The second-century physician Galen observed famously: "Triste est omne animal post coitum." So perhaps it was inevitable that such a lusty beast as American conservatism should fall prey to unhappiness sometime after its greatest electoral seduction. All the same, the droopy state of the American right these days is unnatural.
Last November, American conservatives were full of grand visions of a permanent revolution, with spending brought back under control, Social Security privatized, conservatives filling the federal bench, and a great depression visited on the lawsuit industry. Six months later, listening to conservatives is as uplifting as reading William Styron's "Darkness Visible." Larry Kudlow bemoans "the dreariest political spring." John Derbyshire worries about the "twilight of conservatism" as the Republicans go the way of Britain's Tories. For Pat Buchanan "the conservative movement has passed into history"--much as, some would say, Mr. Buchanan himself has done.
Conservatives whinge that George Bush has presided over a huge increase in federal spending. Social Security reform is stalled. A plan to deprive the Democrats of the power to filibuster Supreme Court nominees failed at the 11th hour, when seven Republican Senators defected. America is confronting protracted resistance in Iraq. And, needless to say, liberals remain firmly in charge of the commanding heights of American culture, from the Ivy League to the Hollywood studios.
All true. But it is time for conservatives to cheer up. Fixate on a snapshot of recent events and pessimism makes sense. Stand back and look at the grand sweep of things and the darkness soon lifts. There are two questions that really matter in assessing the current state of conservatism: What direction is America moving in? And how does the United States compare with the rest of the world? The answer to both questions should encourage the right.
The Republicans have by far the most powerful political machine in the country. Last November, the Democrats threw everything they had at George Bush, from the pent-up fury of a "stolen election" to the millions of George Soros. Liberals outspent and out-ranted conservatives, and pushed up Democratic turnout by 12%. But the Republicans increased their turnout by a fifth.
Crucially, George Bush won as a conservative: He did not "triangulate" or hide behind a fuzzy "Morning in America" message. Against the background of an unpopular war and an arguably dodgy economy, he positioned himself to the right, betting that conservative America was bigger than liberal America. And it was: The exit polls showed both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry won 85% of their base, but self-described "conservatives" accounted for nearly a third of the electorate while liberals were only a fifth. Mr. Bush could afford to lose "moderates" to Mr. Kerry by nine points--and still end up with 51% of the vote, more than any Democrat has got since 1964.
It is true that, since those glory days, the Republican Party has lost some of its discipline. Once-loyal members of Congress have defied a threat of a presidential veto on both highway spending and stem-cell research. It is also true that the liberal wing of the party is enjoying an Indian Summer. Opinion polls suggest that John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are the two favorites for the Republican nomination in 2008.
But is this loss of steam really all that remarkable? All second-term presidents face restlessness in the ranks. And the noise is arguably a sign of strength. The Democrats would give a lot to have a big-tent party as capacious as the Republicans'. One of the reasons the GOP manages to contain Southern theocrats as well as Western libertarians is that it encourages arguments rather than suppressing them. Go to a meeting of young conservatives in Washington and the atmosphere crackles with ideas, much as it did in London in the heyday of the Thatcher revolution. The Democrats barely know what a debate is.
Moreover, it is not as if the Republican moderates really pose a long-term threat to the conservatives. The High Command of the party--Messrs. Bush, Cheney, Frist, Hastert and DeLay--are all from the right. Even Messrs. McCain and Giuliani are better described as mavericks rather than liberals. Mr. Giuliani is as resolute on terrorism as Churchill would have been; Mr. McCain mixes social conservatism with media-pleasing iconoclasm. Both these alleged RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) are further to the right than Ronald Reagan on plenty of issues.
Political success is not everything, of course. Reassure conservatives about the Republican Party, and you get an inevitable retort: that the Republicans are doing well, but conservatism, either of the fiscal or social sort, is not. Stand back a little, however, and this, too, looks over-pessimistic.
Consider, for instance, Mr. Bush's failure to control public spending. The White House points out that some of the splurge is thanks to Clinton-mandated programs. This can hardly apply to the prescription-drug benefit or the pork-stuffed farm bill. All the same, other bits of big-government conservatism have a decidedly ideological edge. Schools have been given more money, but only in return for tougher standards. Money has gone into social programs, but with a clear attempt to encourage self-discipline. The Bush administration is trying to practice "statecraft as soulcraft" (to borrow a phrase from George Will): to use government for conservative ends--to reinforce family values and individual self-discipline, and to give poorer Americans the skills they need to rise in a market economy.
The essential conservatism of Mr. Bush's approach is all the clearer if you compare it with the big-government liberalism of the 1960s--or with the big-government reality of European countries that American liberals are so keen to emulate. Mr. Bush is not using government to redistribute wealth (unless you own an oil company), to reward sloth or to coddle the poor. And government in America remains a shriveled thing by European standards. Some 40 years after the Great Society, America still has no national health service; it asks students to pay as much as $40,000 a year for a university education; it gives mothers only a few weeks of maternity leave.
What about values? Back in the 1960s, it was axiomatic amongst the elite that religion was doomed. In "The Secular City" (1965), Harvey Cox argued that Christianity had to come to terms with a secular culture. Now religion of the most basic sort is back with a vengeance. The president, his secretary of state, the House speaker and Senate majority leader are all evangelical Christians. Ted Haggard, the head of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals, jokes that the only disagreement between himself and the leader of the Western world is automotive: Mr. Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas he prefers a Chevy.
Rather than dying a slow death, evangelical Protestantism and hard-core Catholicism are bursting out all over the place. Who would have predicted, back in the 1960s, the success of "The Passion of the Christ," the "Left Behind" series or "The Purpose Driven Life"? To be sure, liberals still control universities, but, thanks to its rive droite of think tanks in Washington and many state capitals, the right has a firm control of the political-ideas business.
Indeed, the left has reached the same level of fury that the right reached in the 1960s--but with none of the intellectual inventiveness. On everything from Social Security to foreign policy to economic policy, it is reduced merely to opposing conservative ideas. This strategy may have punctured the Bush reforms on Social Security, but it has also bared a deeper weakness for the left. In the 1960s, the conservative movement coalesced around several simple propositions--lower taxes, more religion, an America-first foreign policy--that eventually revolutionized politics. The modern left is split on all these issues, between New Democrats and back-to-basics liberals.
The biggest advantage of all for conservatives is that they have a lock on the American dream. America is famously an idea more than a geographical expression, and that idea seems to be the province of the right. A recent Pew Research Center Survey, "Beyond Red Versus Blue," shows that the Republicans are more optimistic, convinced that the future will be better than the past and that they can determine their own futures. Democrats, on the other hand, have a European belief that "fate," or, in modern parlance, social circumstances, determines people's lot in life. (And judging by some recent series in newspapers on the subject, the party appears to have staunch allies in American newsrooms at least.)
If the American dream means anything, it means finding a plot of land where you can shape your destiny and raise your children. Those pragmatic dreamers look ever more Republican. Mr. Bush walloped Mr. Kerry among people who were married with children. He also carried 25 of the top 26 cities in terms of white fertility. Mr. Kerry carried the bottom 16. San Francisco, the citadel of liberalism, has the lowest proportion of people under 18 in the country (14.5%).
So cheer up conservatives. You have the country's most powerful political party on your side. You have control of the market for political ideas. You have the American dream. And, despite your bout of triste post coitum, you are still outbreeding your rivals. That counts for more than the odd setback in the Senate.
Dickhead Turbin "apologizes"...
I haven't really posted on this yet but this disgrace (Dick Durbin) in the Senate recently compared Gitmo to Soviet Gulags, Nazi Death camps, and Pol Pot's death camps. I mean come on people, zero people have died at Gitmo and more than 10 million (and that's being conservative) people died in those 3 places. He has "apologized" twice but honestly if he wants to make things right he should resign from the Senate NOW! This kind of slander on our troops is absolutely unacceptable and is borderline treasonous in a time of war (to all the liberals out there we ARE at war like it or not) to compare our troops to those scum. I would strongly urge everyone out there to call their senators and congressmen/women to demand his resignation. Let me be clear, I am all for dissent and debate but this is too extreme. Espically now the fact that the Left is endorsing it, blame America first and always try and underrrsstaanddd your enemies. I'll end this post the way I do most political posts; Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.
Monday, June 20, 2005
One final post...
Ok this is huge, apparently another person came to the same conclusion I just did literally 20-30 minutes ago. Read
ARE THE DOWNING STREET MEMOS FAKE?
FrontpageMag ^ | 20 June 05 | Jonah Goldberg
Posted on 06/20/2005 1:22:12 PM PDT by stm
The media and the Leftists have had a field day with the Downing Street memos that they claim imply that the Bush administration lied about the intelligence on WMD in order to justify the attack on Iraq. Despite the fact that none of the memos actually say that, none of them quote any officials or any documents, and that the text of the memos show that the British government worried about the deployment of WMD by Saddam against Coalition troops, Kuwait and/or Israel, the meme continues to survive.
Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper):
The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.
Readers of this site should recall this set of circumstances from last year. The Killian memos at the center of CBS' 60 Minutes Wednesday report on George Bush' National Guard service supposedly went through the same laundry service as the Downing Street Memos. Bill Burkett, once he'd been outed as the source of the now-disgraced Killian memos, claimed that a woman named Lucy Ramirez provided them to him -- but that he made copies and burned the originals to protect her identity or that of her source.
Why would a reporter do such a thing? While reporters need to protect their sources, at some point stories based on official documents will require authentication -- and as we have seen with the Killian memos, copies make that impossible. The AP gets a "senior British official" to assert that the content "appeared authentic", which only means that the content seems to match what he thinks he knows.
This, in fact, could very well be another case of "fake but accurate", where documents get created after the fact to support preconceived notions about what happened in the past. One fact certainly stands out -- Michael Smith cannot authenticate the copies. And absent that authentication, they lose their value as evidence of anything.
Besides, as the AP report makes clear, the two governments sincerely worried about the deployment of WMD despite the allegations of those who fixate on one sentence of one memo. The latest issue coming from the memos, according to its proponents, is the alleged statement by Blair that WMD programs had not progressed. However, it also points out why 9/11 made all the difference in the approach to Iraq:
The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.
"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."
All of the Western nations had intelligence that matched with the Bush/Blair determination that Saddam had not disposed of his WMD stocks. Prior to 9/11, the Western approach of waiting Saddam out appeared adequate. After 9/11, the existence of those WMD stocks clearly was intolerable, given Saddam's involvement with terrorist groups in the past -- including hosting an al-Qaeda convention, of sorts, in 1999.
Even if these memos could be authenticated, they're still meaningless. They could only excite the kind of idiots that would hold mock impeachment hearings with four witnesses and no authority whatsoever.
UPDATE and BUMP to top: Welcome to Instapundit and The Corner readers! I'll let this ride to the top all morning today.
UPDATE II: Marc at USS Neverdock says that the story gets even more bizarre at Rawstory:
“I first photocopied them to ensure they were on our paper and returned the originals, which were on government paper and therefore government property, to the source,” he added. [...]
“It was these photocopies that I worked on, destroying them shortly before we went to press on Sept 17, 2004,” he added. “Before we destroyed them the legal desk secretary typed the text up on an old fashioned typewriter.”
Why an old-fashioned typewriter? Why not just retype them on a computer, if you've already decided not to work from the originals? It looks like an attempt to fake people into believing that the documents produced by Smith were the originals.
This story gets nuttier and nuttier.
UPDATE III: Despite what Truck says in the comments, a lack of protest from Downing Street after being asked to authenticate retyped copies of alleged minutes of secret meetings does NOT constitute verification. The same exact argument came up with the Killian memos in Rathergate and the Newsweek Qu'ran-flushing report last month. In both cases, the documents or sources turned out to be fakes. It's the reporters' job to provide verification, not simply a demurral by officials to opine on their authenticity. If that isn't obvious, then centuries of evidentiary procedure in American and English common law have gone for naught, as well as traditions of journalistic responsibility and professionalism. After all, this argument just means that reporters can type out anything they like and the burden of proof shifts from the accuser to the accused in proving them false -- hardly the process endorsed in libel and slander cases in the US, at least.
UPDATE IV: The port side of the blogosphere seems a bit unhappy to hear that the DSM are fakes, but I'm not making this up. The reporter himself says that he retyped the memos on an old-style manual typewriter and destroyed either the originals (AP) or working copies from which he worked (Rawstory). In effect, he created mock-ups -- and that means the memos provided by the Times in PDF format are fakes.
John at Power Line says that the memos would make more ridiculous claims if they were fakes. However, there's a difference between fakes and frauds. Giving Smith the full benefit of the doubt and assuming the originals really exist and that he transcribed them perfectly, they're fakes but the information could, indeed, be accurate. The problem is that we can't authenticate them, and a series of demurrals from Tony Blair and other British officials don't amount to authentication, either. It doesn't help that Smith went to such weird lengths -- such as the manual typewriter and artificially aging the appearance through multiple copying -- to produce the information.
The Killian memos were both fakes and frauds, as even CBS's expert stated in their final report, although laughingly Kevin's commentors continue to argue that they're neither. We know for certain the DSMs are fakes -- and because of that, we can't help but assume the DSMs are fraudulent absent positive authentication
Wow, we have uncovered something huge, it's amazing what those anti-bushies out there will stoop to. I am most likely done for the day, back to the uncovering tommorow. Who knows, maybe a paper picked up the story (not likely though).
ARE THE DOWNING STREET MEMOS FAKE?
FrontpageMag ^ | 20 June 05 | Jonah Goldberg
Posted on 06/20/2005 1:22:12 PM PDT by stm
The media and the Leftists have had a field day with the Downing Street memos that they claim imply that the Bush administration lied about the intelligence on WMD in order to justify the attack on Iraq. Despite the fact that none of the memos actually say that, none of them quote any officials or any documents, and that the text of the memos show that the British government worried about the deployment of WMD by Saddam against Coalition troops, Kuwait and/or Israel, the meme continues to survive.
Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper):
The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.
Readers of this site should recall this set of circumstances from last year. The Killian memos at the center of CBS' 60 Minutes Wednesday report on George Bush' National Guard service supposedly went through the same laundry service as the Downing Street Memos. Bill Burkett, once he'd been outed as the source of the now-disgraced Killian memos, claimed that a woman named Lucy Ramirez provided them to him -- but that he made copies and burned the originals to protect her identity or that of her source.
Why would a reporter do such a thing? While reporters need to protect their sources, at some point stories based on official documents will require authentication -- and as we have seen with the Killian memos, copies make that impossible. The AP gets a "senior British official" to assert that the content "appeared authentic", which only means that the content seems to match what he thinks he knows.
This, in fact, could very well be another case of "fake but accurate", where documents get created after the fact to support preconceived notions about what happened in the past. One fact certainly stands out -- Michael Smith cannot authenticate the copies. And absent that authentication, they lose their value as evidence of anything.
Besides, as the AP report makes clear, the two governments sincerely worried about the deployment of WMD despite the allegations of those who fixate on one sentence of one memo. The latest issue coming from the memos, according to its proponents, is the alleged statement by Blair that WMD programs had not progressed. However, it also points out why 9/11 made all the difference in the approach to Iraq:
The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.
"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."
All of the Western nations had intelligence that matched with the Bush/Blair determination that Saddam had not disposed of his WMD stocks. Prior to 9/11, the Western approach of waiting Saddam out appeared adequate. After 9/11, the existence of those WMD stocks clearly was intolerable, given Saddam's involvement with terrorist groups in the past -- including hosting an al-Qaeda convention, of sorts, in 1999.
Even if these memos could be authenticated, they're still meaningless. They could only excite the kind of idiots that would hold mock impeachment hearings with four witnesses and no authority whatsoever.
UPDATE and BUMP to top: Welcome to Instapundit and The Corner readers! I'll let this ride to the top all morning today.
UPDATE II: Marc at USS Neverdock says that the story gets even more bizarre at Rawstory:
“I first photocopied them to ensure they were on our paper and returned the originals, which were on government paper and therefore government property, to the source,” he added. [...]
“It was these photocopies that I worked on, destroying them shortly before we went to press on Sept 17, 2004,” he added. “Before we destroyed them the legal desk secretary typed the text up on an old fashioned typewriter.”
Why an old-fashioned typewriter? Why not just retype them on a computer, if you've already decided not to work from the originals? It looks like an attempt to fake people into believing that the documents produced by Smith were the originals.
This story gets nuttier and nuttier.
UPDATE III: Despite what Truck says in the comments, a lack of protest from Downing Street after being asked to authenticate retyped copies of alleged minutes of secret meetings does NOT constitute verification. The same exact argument came up with the Killian memos in Rathergate and the Newsweek Qu'ran-flushing report last month. In both cases, the documents or sources turned out to be fakes. It's the reporters' job to provide verification, not simply a demurral by officials to opine on their authenticity. If that isn't obvious, then centuries of evidentiary procedure in American and English common law have gone for naught, as well as traditions of journalistic responsibility and professionalism. After all, this argument just means that reporters can type out anything they like and the burden of proof shifts from the accuser to the accused in proving them false -- hardly the process endorsed in libel and slander cases in the US, at least.
UPDATE IV: The port side of the blogosphere seems a bit unhappy to hear that the DSM are fakes, but I'm not making this up. The reporter himself says that he retyped the memos on an old-style manual typewriter and destroyed either the originals (AP) or working copies from which he worked (Rawstory). In effect, he created mock-ups -- and that means the memos provided by the Times in PDF format are fakes.
John at Power Line says that the memos would make more ridiculous claims if they were fakes. However, there's a difference between fakes and frauds. Giving Smith the full benefit of the doubt and assuming the originals really exist and that he transcribed them perfectly, they're fakes but the information could, indeed, be accurate. The problem is that we can't authenticate them, and a series of demurrals from Tony Blair and other British officials don't amount to authentication, either. It doesn't help that Smith went to such weird lengths -- such as the manual typewriter and artificially aging the appearance through multiple copying -- to produce the information.
The Killian memos were both fakes and frauds, as even CBS's expert stated in their final report, although laughingly Kevin's commentors continue to argue that they're neither. We know for certain the DSMs are fakes -- and because of that, we can't help but assume the DSMs are fraudulent absent positive authentication
Wow, we have uncovered something huge, it's amazing what those anti-bushies out there will stoop to. I am most likely done for the day, back to the uncovering tommorow. Who knows, maybe a paper picked up the story (not likely though).
Michael Smith=Nutjob
Ok, after being hesitant before I'm declaring the DSM's fake. There in NO WAY IN HELL this Michael Smith guys is trustworthy. This is off FreeRepublic, yes it is conservative but there is proof here that this guy equals a nutjob.
Posted on 06/16/2005 9:00:52 AM PDT by kristinn
Michael Smith, the reporter for the Sunday Times of London who has been fed leaked documents from the highest levels of the British government from 2002 regarding discussions about how to remove Saddam Hussein from power, today called for the impeachment of President Bush.
Smith's call for impeachment came in an online discussion on The Washington Post's Website.
In response to a question that noted domestic commentators believe impeachment is not realistic, Smith says, "I do think that the pressure now is such that it could go that way but only with continued pressure from us journalists and you the people. I firmly believe that Congress will turn against this awful ill-conceived war."
Elsewhere in the online chat, Smith says, "There is no doubt in my mind that the administration lied and distorted the truth, one (sic) Congress begins to realise the scale of it, Bush could be in serious trouble."
In response to another question about impeachment, Smith said, "I personally believe there are grounds for it..."
Smith responded to a question that asked if President Bush staged the war to ensure his reelection, "Undoubtely (sic) so. Nothing unites a country behind its leader like a war."
While Mr. Smith's honesty as to his bias is refreshing, his openly stated opinions serve to discredit the trustworthiness of his reporting. Mr. Smith has an agenda, and he's encouraging others in the media and the public to run with it. Sadly, many in the United States are heeding his call.
If Mr. Smith gets his way, we will lose the war on terrorists and both his country and ours will suffer immensely--not to mention that the Iraqi people will be put through hell all over again. But what does he care. He hates Preisdent Bush. That's all that matters.
I need to get this out to news sources, this HAS to be exposed nationally.
Posted on 06/16/2005 9:00:52 AM PDT by kristinn
Michael Smith, the reporter for the Sunday Times of London who has been fed leaked documents from the highest levels of the British government from 2002 regarding discussions about how to remove Saddam Hussein from power, today called for the impeachment of President Bush.
Smith's call for impeachment came in an online discussion on The Washington Post's Website.
In response to a question that noted domestic commentators believe impeachment is not realistic, Smith says, "I do think that the pressure now is such that it could go that way but only with continued pressure from us journalists and you the people. I firmly believe that Congress will turn against this awful ill-conceived war."
Elsewhere in the online chat, Smith says, "There is no doubt in my mind that the administration lied and distorted the truth, one (sic) Congress begins to realise the scale of it, Bush could be in serious trouble."
In response to another question about impeachment, Smith said, "I personally believe there are grounds for it..."
Smith responded to a question that asked if President Bush staged the war to ensure his reelection, "Undoubtely (sic) so. Nothing unites a country behind its leader like a war."
While Mr. Smith's honesty as to his bias is refreshing, his openly stated opinions serve to discredit the trustworthiness of his reporting. Mr. Smith has an agenda, and he's encouraging others in the media and the public to run with it. Sadly, many in the United States are heeding his call.
If Mr. Smith gets his way, we will lose the war on terrorists and both his country and ours will suffer immensely--not to mention that the Iraqi people will be put through hell all over again. But what does he care. He hates Preisdent Bush. That's all that matters.
I need to get this out to news sources, this HAS to be exposed nationally.
Wikipedia's take...
to the best of my knowledge wikipedia is a non-partisan site which makes this all the more interesting;
The "Downing Street memo", sometimes described by critics of the 2003 Iraq War as the "smoking gun memo", is a document obtained from an undisclosed source containing minutes taken during a meeting, on July 23, 2002, among United Kingdom government, defence and intelligence figures, discussing the build-up to the war. The memo was printed in The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005, and is available in full on Wikisource (http://wikisource.org/wiki/Downing_Street_Memo). Its authenticity has neither been confirmed nor denied by the British government. There have been repeated requests for clarification, from the media and from a contingent of United States Congressmen, led by Representative John Conyers of Michigan.
46,000 UK troops were sent to join the US-led action, the largest non-US contingent of the Iraq invasion. The memo gets its name from London's Downing Street, where the official residence of Prime Minister Tony Blair is located (at 10 Downing Street). It is a metonym for the UK government in the same way that "Washington" is a metonym for the United States government.
On June 18th, 2005, the Associated Press reported that Michael Smith, the reporter who first obtained the memos, said that he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by photocopying them, returning the original documents to the source, retyping the documents from the photocopies, and finally destroying the photocopies. Retyping documents on a typewriter, rather than a computer, is a common security practice among reporters, but the complexity of the process has led some to question the documents' authenticity. [1]
notice how they have smoking gun in quotation marks. Man I am not seeing the flames yet but the temperature is rising people.
The "Downing Street memo", sometimes described by critics of the 2003 Iraq War as the "smoking gun memo", is a document obtained from an undisclosed source containing minutes taken during a meeting, on July 23, 2002, among United Kingdom government, defence and intelligence figures, discussing the build-up to the war. The memo was printed in The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005, and is available in full on Wikisource (http://wikisource.org/wiki/Downing_Street_Memo). Its authenticity has neither been confirmed nor denied by the British government. There have been repeated requests for clarification, from the media and from a contingent of United States Congressmen, led by Representative John Conyers of Michigan.
46,000 UK troops were sent to join the US-led action, the largest non-US contingent of the Iraq invasion. The memo gets its name from London's Downing Street, where the official residence of Prime Minister Tony Blair is located (at 10 Downing Street). It is a metonym for the UK government in the same way that "Washington" is a metonym for the United States government.
On June 18th, 2005, the Associated Press reported that Michael Smith, the reporter who first obtained the memos, said that he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by photocopying them, returning the original documents to the source, retyping the documents from the photocopies, and finally destroying the photocopies. Retyping documents on a typewriter, rather than a computer, is a common security practice among reporters, but the complexity of the process has led some to question the documents' authenticity. [1]
notice how they have smoking gun in quotation marks. Man I am not seeing the flames yet but the temperature is rising people.
good editorial for the DSM's
So British Prime Minister Tony Blair met with aides on July 23, 2002, one of whom wrote a memo recording the gist of what was said.
It seems that Sir Richard Dearlove, an intelligence official, "reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Thus the most damning passage in the "Downing Street Memo." The memo is now touted as the smoking gun by those who believe the Iraq war is based on lies and deceit and not, primarily, erroneous intelligence. But read the passage again.
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam . . ." Of course he did. It had been U.S. policy since 1990 to favor regime change in Iraq.
"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable." Actually, the idea the administration's attitude had shifted and military action was now seen as inevitable contradicts the theories of those who've claimed George Bush came into office determined to oust Saddam Hussein and only seized upon 9/11 as an excuse. No matter. The fact is we have no idea whose opinions Dearlove was relating, let alone whether he did so accurately.
By July 2002, in any case, the media were running many stories about U.S. preparations for a possible invasion of Iraq. Why is it a surprise that some officials, whether they wanted war or not, by then saw it as "inevitable"?
Ah, but the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Well, so says one man. But that's not what the 9/11 Commission and other probes have concluded. It's not what Bill Clinton's administration believed about Iraq's alleged possession of WMDs, or what the Germans or French thought, either.
The Downing Street Memo is an interesting document and more grist for historians. But it is no smoking gun.
read it at Rocky Mountain News Opinion
Well, so even if these turn out to be legit the left doesn't have a whole lot of credible evidence.
It seems that Sir Richard Dearlove, an intelligence official, "reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Thus the most damning passage in the "Downing Street Memo." The memo is now touted as the smoking gun by those who believe the Iraq war is based on lies and deceit and not, primarily, erroneous intelligence. But read the passage again.
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam . . ." Of course he did. It had been U.S. policy since 1990 to favor regime change in Iraq.
"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable." Actually, the idea the administration's attitude had shifted and military action was now seen as inevitable contradicts the theories of those who've claimed George Bush came into office determined to oust Saddam Hussein and only seized upon 9/11 as an excuse. No matter. The fact is we have no idea whose opinions Dearlove was relating, let alone whether he did so accurately.
By July 2002, in any case, the media were running many stories about U.S. preparations for a possible invasion of Iraq. Why is it a surprise that some officials, whether they wanted war or not, by then saw it as "inevitable"?
Ah, but the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Well, so says one man. But that's not what the 9/11 Commission and other probes have concluded. It's not what Bill Clinton's administration believed about Iraq's alleged possession of WMDs, or what the Germans or French thought, either.
The Downing Street Memo is an interesting document and more grist for historians. But it is no smoking gun.
read it at Rocky Mountain News Opinion
Well, so even if these turn out to be legit the left doesn't have a whole lot of credible evidence.
The story gets weirder...
Ok before people go on partisan attacks on me, I am not trying to prove the downing street memos false, I am trying to verify if they are legit in teh first place (remember rathergate and the bloggers that exposed it?). Once again, Captain Ed
Downing Street Memos were Destroyed
The authentic copies, if they existed, were retyed and then destroyed by Times Reporter Michael Smith. The AP reports,
The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
Captain Ed comments:
Why would a reporter do such a thing? While reporters need to protect their sources, at some point stories based on official documents will require authentication -- and as we have seen with the Killian memos, copies make that impossible. The AP gets a "senior British official" to assert that the content "appeared authentic", which only means that the content seems to match what he thinks he knows.
Once again, the story gets more and more unusual. I smell smoke but don't see any fire yet but things are getting warm...
Downing Street Memos were Destroyed
The authentic copies, if they existed, were retyed and then destroyed by Times Reporter Michael Smith. The AP reports,
The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
Captain Ed comments:
Why would a reporter do such a thing? While reporters need to protect their sources, at some point stories based on official documents will require authentication -- and as we have seen with the Killian memos, copies make that impossible. The AP gets a "senior British official" to assert that the content "appeared authentic", which only means that the content seems to match what he thinks he knows.
Once again, the story gets more and more unusual. I smell smoke but don't see any fire yet but things are getting warm...
screw my self-imposed ban, this is too important
Ok, I found this on a blog called captins quarters, I haven't even read the Downing Street Memos, (I plan to later today) and I will do some investigating of my own to see if there is any credibilty to this. You know FACTS (such a dirty word eh liberals?) to back up STATEMENTS. Smells like Rathergate II though...
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
June 19, 2005
The media and the Leftists have had a field day with the Downing Street memos that they claim imply that the Bush administration lied about the intelligence on WMD in order to justify the attack on Iraq. Despite the fact that none of the memos actually say that, none of them quote any officials or any documents, and that the text of the memos show that the British government worried about the deployment of WMD by Saddam against Coalition troops, Kuwait and/or Israel, the meme continues to survive.
Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper):
The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.
Readers of this site should recall this set of circumstances from last year. The Killian memos at the center of CBS' 60 Minutes Wednesday report on George Bush' National Guard service supposedly went through the same laundry service as the Downing Street Memos. Bill Burkett, once he'd been outed as the source of the now-disgraced Killian memos, claimed that a woman named Lucy Ramirez provided them to him -- but that he made copies and burned the originals to protect her identity or that of her source.
Why would a reporter do such a thing? While reporters need to protect their sources, at some point stories based on official documents will require authentication -- and as we have seen with the Killian memos, copies make that impossible. The AP gets a "senior British official" to assert that the content "appeared authentic", which only means that the content seems to match what he thinks he knows.
This, in fact, could very well be another case of "fake but accurate", where documents get created after the fact to support preconceived notions about what happened in the past. One fact certainly stands out -- Michael Smith cannot authenticate the copies. And absent that authentication, they lose their value as evidence of anything.
Besides, as the AP report makes clear, the two governments sincerely worried about the deployment of WMD despite the allegations of those who fixate on one sentence of one memo. The latest issue coming from the memos, according to its proponents, is the alleged statement by Blair that WMD programs had not progressed. However, it also points out why 9/11 made all the difference in the approach to Iraq:
The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.
"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September, " said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."
All of the Western nations had intelligence that matched with the Bush/Blair determination that Saddam had not disposed of his WMD stocks. Prior to 9/11, the Western approach of waiting Saddam out appeared adequate. After 9/11, the existence of those WMD stocks clearly was intolerable, given Saddam's involvement with terrorist groups in the past -- including hosting an al-Qaeda convention, of sorts, in 1999.
Even if these memos could be authenticated, they're still meaningless. They could only excite the kind of idiots that would hold mock impeachment hearings with four witnesses and no authority whatsoever.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
June 19, 2005
The media and the Leftists have had a field day with the Downing Street memos that they claim imply that the Bush administration lied about the intelligence on WMD in order to justify the attack on Iraq. Despite the fact that none of the memos actually say that, none of them quote any officials or any documents, and that the text of the memos show that the British government worried about the deployment of WMD by Saddam against Coalition troops, Kuwait and/or Israel, the meme continues to survive.
Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper):
The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.
Readers of this site should recall this set of circumstances from last year. The Killian memos at the center of CBS' 60 Minutes Wednesday report on George Bush' National Guard service supposedly went through the same laundry service as the Downing Street Memos. Bill Burkett, once he'd been outed as the source of the now-disgraced Killian memos, claimed that a woman named Lucy Ramirez provided them to him -- but that he made copies and burned the originals to protect her identity or that of her source.
Why would a reporter do such a thing? While reporters need to protect their sources, at some point stories based on official documents will require authentication -- and as we have seen with the Killian memos, copies make that impossible. The AP gets a "senior British official" to assert that the content "appeared authentic", which only means that the content seems to match what he thinks he knows.
This, in fact, could very well be another case of "fake but accurate", where documents get created after the fact to support preconceived notions about what happened in the past. One fact certainly stands out -- Michael Smith cannot authenticate the copies. And absent that authentication, they lose their value as evidence of anything.
Besides, as the AP report makes clear, the two governments sincerely worried about the deployment of WMD despite the allegations of those who fixate on one sentence of one memo. The latest issue coming from the memos, according to its proponents, is the alleged statement by Blair that WMD programs had not progressed. However, it also points out why 9/11 made all the difference in the approach to Iraq:
The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.
"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September, " said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."
All of the Western nations had intelligence that matched with the Bush/Blair determination that Saddam had not disposed of his WMD stocks. Prior to 9/11, the Western approach of waiting Saddam out appeared adequate. After 9/11, the existence of those WMD stocks clearly was intolerable, given Saddam's involvement with terrorist groups in the past -- including hosting an al-Qaeda convention, of sorts, in 1999.
Even if these memos could be authenticated, they're still meaningless. They could only excite the kind of idiots that would hold mock impeachment hearings with four witnesses and no authority whatsoever.
baseball, the great american pasttime...
Today, for fathers day I went to go see a Twins game with my dad. It was awsome we got to see Johan Santana pitch (best pitcher in baseball) and we won this thing called the 'row of fame' where we got free hot dogs for being in the correct row. We lost 5-1 but it was still fun, and once again made me proud to be an American. Nothing restores your faith in this country or the people in it when you see 31,00+ people singing the National Anthem or God Bless America (liberals, of course, would want to change it to God Bless the World, but I digress...). Anyone else do something cool for Fathers Day?
Saturday, June 18, 2005
PETA employees charged with animal cruelty
Man this story would be very funny if it wasn't so sad and true (ironic too if I might add) the story from CNN.com PETA employees charged with animal cruelty. Now this is the ultimate form of irony, and hypocricy for that matter. Shouldn't PETA not want to euthanize animals? But apparently I'm too dumb to understand the inner workings of this thorughly retarded (and mentally disabled) group. Oh by the way hippies I just had ribs and 1.5 lbs of a rib roast. Suck on it.
9/11 conspiracy show recap...
Well, last night from 12-5am (CST) was probably some of the most entertaining hours of talk radio I have listened to since I started listening back in 1998 (yes I'm an addict). Before I go into detail I will do a quick background of the 4 participants there were last night. Some of this is courtesty of Coast to Coast AM click here to see what I am talking about.
Peter Lance and Mike Levine David Ray Griffin and Alex Jones were the participants.
Alex Jones, a documentary filmmaker and political researcher, pointed towards a "shadow" government above Pres. Bush as orchestrating the attacks. The hijackers, he suggested, were government trained operatives, who believed they were part of a drill on September 11th and not on a suicide mission. The planes themselves, he continued, were flown by remote control into the WTC towers. Jones created a special page to accompany the discussion, which includes a video clip from his latest work Martial Law 9-11. For Alex's sites click here and here.
Peter Lance countered that Jones' theories were preposterous, and that by blaming a "shadow government" the effectiveness of al Qaeda is underestimated. Lance does believe that the U.S. government was negligent in its failure to detect the plot, and criminally culpable in its subsequent cover up of the facts. To see Peter's site click here
Radio host Mike Levine said there is enough evidence to put people in front of a grand jury, to face charges related to the deceptions and ineptitudes perpetrated by governmental agencies. Specifically he cited a case where the FBI stopped Joe Weber, head of the Houston office of Homeland Security, from investigating al Qaeda fundraising efforts. Mike's site can be found here
David Ray Griffin, Professor Emeritus at Claremont, argued that there is much that is disprovable about the official story of 9-11, and that a number of the government's explanations over specific events have changed over time. He noted that the Bush administration has referred to 9-11 as an "opportunity," and that the attacks could have been organized by them as a way of subsequently securing funding for such programs as the trillion-dollar weaponization of space. For David Ray Griffin's book (he does not have a site) click here
This was a very interesting argument and I wish you all could sit down and hear what I heard. George Noory, (and me) was most surprised by the fact that dispite all their different views that they all said SOMETHING WAS VERY WRONG WITH 9/11! Weather it be cover-up, incompetence, or full-blown responsibility. Mike Levine even said multiple times that it was a matter of WHEN not if nuclear bombs explode in our cities. And not just one, 5-6 at ONCE! That, everyone, kept me up most of the night.
Peter Lance and Mike Levine David Ray Griffin and Alex Jones were the participants.
Alex Jones, a documentary filmmaker and political researcher, pointed towards a "shadow" government above Pres. Bush as orchestrating the attacks. The hijackers, he suggested, were government trained operatives, who believed they were part of a drill on September 11th and not on a suicide mission. The planes themselves, he continued, were flown by remote control into the WTC towers. Jones created a special page to accompany the discussion, which includes a video clip from his latest work Martial Law 9-11. For Alex's sites click here and here.
Peter Lance countered that Jones' theories were preposterous, and that by blaming a "shadow government" the effectiveness of al Qaeda is underestimated. Lance does believe that the U.S. government was negligent in its failure to detect the plot, and criminally culpable in its subsequent cover up of the facts. To see Peter's site click here
Radio host Mike Levine said there is enough evidence to put people in front of a grand jury, to face charges related to the deceptions and ineptitudes perpetrated by governmental agencies. Specifically he cited a case where the FBI stopped Joe Weber, head of the Houston office of Homeland Security, from investigating al Qaeda fundraising efforts. Mike's site can be found here
David Ray Griffin, Professor Emeritus at Claremont, argued that there is much that is disprovable about the official story of 9-11, and that a number of the government's explanations over specific events have changed over time. He noted that the Bush administration has referred to 9-11 as an "opportunity," and that the attacks could have been organized by them as a way of subsequently securing funding for such programs as the trillion-dollar weaponization of space. For David Ray Griffin's book (he does not have a site) click here
This was a very interesting argument and I wish you all could sit down and hear what I heard. George Noory, (and me) was most surprised by the fact that dispite all their different views that they all said SOMETHING WAS VERY WRONG WITH 9/11! Weather it be cover-up, incompetence, or full-blown responsibility. Mike Levine even said multiple times that it was a matter of WHEN not if nuclear bombs explode in our cities. And not just one, 5-6 at ONCE! That, everyone, kept me up most of the night.
Friday, June 17, 2005
dickheads driving...
Spending about an hour on the highway today it occured to me, people in Minnesota are complete jackasses when their driving on the highway. Not only jackasses but dangerous ones; the ones that if your not paying attention will run you off the road (literally) if your not paying attention. Even though you might expect me to be one of these dangerous people on the road I'm not. I am "nice" on the road, granted I do usually flip the bird to at least one car per highway trip and I yell at people as I'm letting them merge but that's still better than 80% of the drivers here in this goddamn state. I believe in karma, you know what goes around comes around, so I figure if I'm good to people on the road something good will happen to me in another aspect of my life sometime in the future. Also I listen to a show called Coast to Coast AM every night from 12-4 and there is a roundtable discussion on weather or not 9/11 was a conspiracy, I will post with the main points from both sides tommorow and comment on it.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
big game tommorow, I mean later today...
Well I got 10 hours until the state tournament starts for the BSM boys baseball team. It should be fun, it's being played at the St.Paul Saints stadium. It's called Midway Stadium and it's on by the state fairgrounds. On a slightly different note I will be doing a major shift to try and do things that are local in the MSP area. I know this may be annoying to most (if not all) of you but I'm trying to possibly get in the circle of local bloggers and bring in more readers.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
One last post before bed...
Ok, this will be the LAST political related post I will put up for 7-10 days, during that time I will talk about sports, news, videogames, and anything else I can find that doesn't have to do with politics. Even I get burnt out after a certain point, there is only so much that can be said before you want to scream and punch something/someone. With that said here I go. Reasons to boycott Chinese goods:
China's labor practices encourage outsourcing and drive down American wages. Aren’t you tired of manufacturing jobs leaving the US? #1 way to slove outsourcing, stop buying Chinese goods! Cut off their lifeline that keeps them going.
China has an atrocious human rights track record, including its illegal occupation of Tibet. This occupation has been marked by religious oppression of Tibet’s proud Buddhist population, political imprisonment, torture and murder. Yes see us conservatives have a heart too people. Were just not rabid at the mouth about freeing them.
China is a threat to regional stability, and threatens to destroy and takeover peaceful Taiwan, if Taiwan ever sought independence, because we all know that this can't possibly happen...
Why contribute to the rapid military buildup of a violent and abusive Communist regime that is secretly trying to destroy us, don't laugh people they want our top spot. Let's keep it away from them buy buying products made in the USA!
I know it may be hard but I will commit myself to trying to buy as many American goods as possible, even if it means spending a little bit more for that good. I mean don't you hate American flags that say "Made in China" or "Tiawan". I cringe whenever I see "Made in China" on a product our family has or about to buy. Do everything in your power to buy American!
China's labor practices encourage outsourcing and drive down American wages. Aren’t you tired of manufacturing jobs leaving the US? #1 way to slove outsourcing, stop buying Chinese goods! Cut off their lifeline that keeps them going.
China has an atrocious human rights track record, including its illegal occupation of Tibet. This occupation has been marked by religious oppression of Tibet’s proud Buddhist population, political imprisonment, torture and murder. Yes see us conservatives have a heart too people. Were just not rabid at the mouth about freeing them.
China is a threat to regional stability, and threatens to destroy and takeover peaceful Taiwan, if Taiwan ever sought independence, because we all know that this can't possibly happen...
Why contribute to the rapid military buildup of a violent and abusive Communist regime that is secretly trying to destroy us, don't laugh people they want our top spot. Let's keep it away from them buy buying products made in the USA!
I know it may be hard but I will commit myself to trying to buy as many American goods as possible, even if it means spending a little bit more for that good. I mean don't you hate American flags that say "Made in China" or "Tiawan". I cringe whenever I see "Made in China" on a product our family has or about to buy. Do everything in your power to buy American!
A little quiz for you all...
This is taken from the book I just recently finished reading, it is called Winning The Future: a 21st century contract with America, by Newt Gingrich. It is 10 questions, put 10 if you strongly agree and 1 if you strongly disagree and 5 if you're neutral. I will also show how the American people feel, results are taken from recent polls.
1. We should be allowed to say "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (91% of Americans agree)
2. Able-bodied people on welfare should be required to work (87% agree)
3. Men who assault pregnant women and kill the unborn child should be prosecuted for assault and murder (84% agree)
4. The US should put its own interest first and cooperation with international organizations second (73% agree)
5. Believe in God (92% agree)
6. Proud to be an American (91% agree)
7. Schoold should teach new immigrants about American values (88% agree)
8. Everyone should learn English (81% agree)
9. Personal injury lawyers should get no more than 15% of ANY reward (75% agree)
10. It is possible to use new techonolgy and new science to devlop clan, renewable energy that protects the environment and the economy (88% agree)
I scored a 98, the only one where I didn't put 10 was #3, I'm still not entirely sure about that.
1. We should be allowed to say "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (91% of Americans agree)
2. Able-bodied people on welfare should be required to work (87% agree)
3. Men who assault pregnant women and kill the unborn child should be prosecuted for assault and murder (84% agree)
4. The US should put its own interest first and cooperation with international organizations second (73% agree)
5. Believe in God (92% agree)
6. Proud to be an American (91% agree)
7. Schoold should teach new immigrants about American values (88% agree)
8. Everyone should learn English (81% agree)
9. Personal injury lawyers should get no more than 15% of ANY reward (75% agree)
10. It is possible to use new techonolgy and new science to devlop clan, renewable energy that protects the environment and the economy (88% agree)
I scored a 98, the only one where I didn't put 10 was #3, I'm still not entirely sure about that.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
at least liberals are entertaining...
They're just so entertaining. They got spanked in the last election and my goodness I knew they were sore losers but they've officially gone above an beyond what I would have suspected from them after this last election.
Examples:
"Voter Fraud Conspiracies" .........Wahhhh... Boo Hoo.... Wahhhh
"Bush is Hitler" ................. Wahhhh.... Boo Hoo.... Wah
"No Blood for Oil and gas prices are too high" (I know, I don't get this one either) "Blame Bush!!!" Wahhhhhhh... Boo Hoo...
"Tax cuts for the rich (and everyone else) that have helped the economy, Bush Sucks..." Wahhhhh...
"Bush can't say nuclear properly... Impeach him!!" Boo Hoo..
"Bush was a 'C' student... so was Kerry, but he's not Bush... Bush is dumb... Sign my petition."
"Gas prices are high, Blame Bush and don't drill in the vast wasteland of Alaska." Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....
"I'm a liberal, I don't know what I'm talking about most of the time so I'll just tell you to go to this 'link' which proves I'm right although the 'link' is about as reliable as Dan Rather doing a story that involves a memo." Boo Hoooooo
"The Downing Street Memo... read it... it proves Bush 'fixed' the intelligence on Iraq in 2002. See what I did there in my vast liberal wisdom... I took the work 'fixed' that is used in the memo and took it out of context (see... I'm not going to tell people that the British use of the word 'fix' is not the same as the way we use it in America. Even Tony Blair said this... but hey, what would someone from Great Britain know about his culture, right?) and now everyone will think that the intelligence was fixed (as long as they don't read the whole memo, of course.)" Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....
Examples:
"Voter Fraud Conspiracies" .........Wahhhh... Boo Hoo.... Wahhhh
"Bush is Hitler" ................. Wahhhh.... Boo Hoo.... Wah
"No Blood for Oil and gas prices are too high" (I know, I don't get this one either) "Blame Bush!!!" Wahhhhhhh... Boo Hoo...
"Tax cuts for the rich (and everyone else) that have helped the economy, Bush Sucks..." Wahhhhh...
"Bush can't say nuclear properly... Impeach him!!" Boo Hoo..
"Bush was a 'C' student... so was Kerry, but he's not Bush... Bush is dumb... Sign my petition."
"Gas prices are high, Blame Bush and don't drill in the vast wasteland of Alaska." Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....
"I'm a liberal, I don't know what I'm talking about most of the time so I'll just tell you to go to this 'link' which proves I'm right although the 'link' is about as reliable as Dan Rather doing a story that involves a memo." Boo Hoooooo
"The Downing Street Memo... read it... it proves Bush 'fixed' the intelligence on Iraq in 2002. See what I did there in my vast liberal wisdom... I took the work 'fixed' that is used in the memo and took it out of context (see... I'm not going to tell people that the British use of the word 'fix' is not the same as the way we use it in America. Even Tony Blair said this... but hey, what would someone from Great Britain know about his culture, right?) and now everyone will think that the intelligence was fixed (as long as they don't read the whole memo, of course.)" Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....
well here's my response to part of the essay..
By Richard Rahn
If you spent more each month than you made and got deeper and deeper into debt, but had an asset equal to your debts, like a big expensive boat you never used, what would you do? If you were rational, you would sell the boat.
The U.S. government has spent more than it receives in tax revenue for most of the last 75 years, and, as a result, the national debt and the associated interest payments have gotten bigger and bigger. But what is not well known is that the U.S. government also has many trillions of dollars of assets, which may exceed the value of the debt. I say "may" because, in fact, no one knows because the government has no accurate balance sheet of what it owns and what it owes.
For instance, the federal government owns somewhere between 600 and 700 million acres of land, or over 30 percent of all U.S. land. But again, no one knows for certain if the federal government owns 630 million acres or 670 million acres or some other amount. Private companies are required to produce accurate balance sheets for their stockholders, and, if they do not, their executives might be sent to jail.
We American citizens and taxpayers are the "stockholders" of our government, and hence we should expect and have the right to receive accurate accounting statements. It is a bit tiring to hear sanctimonious and hypocritical public officials say corporate managers should be punished for deliberate or even accidental accounting mistakes, when the most important legal entity for most Americans -- the government -- produces financial information so incomplete and inaccurate it would embarrass even an Enron accountant.
This issue of proper government accounting is important for many reasons. As one example, the current debate about Social Security involves whether the government will raise taxes or cut benefits. The current system is a Ponzi scheme in which the taxes from the workers have been spent on both the current retirees and other government programs, and hence there is no money in the "trust fund."
If a private businessman set up such a scheme, he would (rightly) go to jail for fraud. Like all Ponzi schemes, the time on this one has run out as Americans live longer and have fewer children. To prevent this type of fraud in the future, Americans must move to individual trust accounts that cannot be raided by the politicians, whether managed by the government, or privately or some combination.
In the meantime, there is the multi-trillion-dollar problem of the "transition" (or more correctly, replacing funds taken from the trust accounts by the politicians) from the current fiscally unsound to a fiscally sound system. To take care of this "transition," there may be an alternative to either reducing benefits or increasing taxes, and that is for the government to begin selling assets, like land. However, before you can begin to sell your assets in a responsible manner, you must know what they are, which requires a correct government balance sheet.
The federal government owns less than 5 percent of the land in the Eastern and Middle Western states but about 57 percent of the land in the Western states (this does not count all the land owned by state and local governments).
Some environmentalists believe the government should own all of this land (because they have yet to figure out socialism does not work); but, in fact, only a small portion of it is needed for parks, environmentally sensitive areas, and military bases. I live in Virginia where we have many fine federal, state and local parks, and several very large military bases, but the federal government owns less than 5 percent of the state. Yet we are able to protect our environment.
There are hundreds of well-researched studies that clearly show it is a myth that the government better protects and manages the land than the private sector. Land prices have been driven up in the West because of the artificial shortage created by government ownership, making housing less affordable, which is particularly hard on low-income people. Most government land has not been put to its highest and best use -- or any use -- thus negatively affecting the economy and the environment.
Selling 1 percent or 2 percent of land the government holds per year over the next 50 years might well cover the Social Security transition problem (or at least greatly reduce it), thus avoiding either tax increases or benefit cuts. How much the government can obtain for land sales, of course, depends on what land is sold, and when and how. But the future value of such sales cannot even be reliably estimated until the government has an accurate inventory of what it owns.
Ask your family and friends if they would prefer the government to: (a) Increase their taxes; (b) cut their benefits; or (c) sell surplus government land.
I personally would take c, this doesn't mean we get rid of all the park land, just 5-10% of it. Still probably more than those damn hippies would like.
If you spent more each month than you made and got deeper and deeper into debt, but had an asset equal to your debts, like a big expensive boat you never used, what would you do? If you were rational, you would sell the boat.
The U.S. government has spent more than it receives in tax revenue for most of the last 75 years, and, as a result, the national debt and the associated interest payments have gotten bigger and bigger. But what is not well known is that the U.S. government also has many trillions of dollars of assets, which may exceed the value of the debt. I say "may" because, in fact, no one knows because the government has no accurate balance sheet of what it owns and what it owes.
For instance, the federal government owns somewhere between 600 and 700 million acres of land, or over 30 percent of all U.S. land. But again, no one knows for certain if the federal government owns 630 million acres or 670 million acres or some other amount. Private companies are required to produce accurate balance sheets for their stockholders, and, if they do not, their executives might be sent to jail.
We American citizens and taxpayers are the "stockholders" of our government, and hence we should expect and have the right to receive accurate accounting statements. It is a bit tiring to hear sanctimonious and hypocritical public officials say corporate managers should be punished for deliberate or even accidental accounting mistakes, when the most important legal entity for most Americans -- the government -- produces financial information so incomplete and inaccurate it would embarrass even an Enron accountant.
This issue of proper government accounting is important for many reasons. As one example, the current debate about Social Security involves whether the government will raise taxes or cut benefits. The current system is a Ponzi scheme in which the taxes from the workers have been spent on both the current retirees and other government programs, and hence there is no money in the "trust fund."
If a private businessman set up such a scheme, he would (rightly) go to jail for fraud. Like all Ponzi schemes, the time on this one has run out as Americans live longer and have fewer children. To prevent this type of fraud in the future, Americans must move to individual trust accounts that cannot be raided by the politicians, whether managed by the government, or privately or some combination.
In the meantime, there is the multi-trillion-dollar problem of the "transition" (or more correctly, replacing funds taken from the trust accounts by the politicians) from the current fiscally unsound to a fiscally sound system. To take care of this "transition," there may be an alternative to either reducing benefits or increasing taxes, and that is for the government to begin selling assets, like land. However, before you can begin to sell your assets in a responsible manner, you must know what they are, which requires a correct government balance sheet.
The federal government owns less than 5 percent of the land in the Eastern and Middle Western states but about 57 percent of the land in the Western states (this does not count all the land owned by state and local governments).
Some environmentalists believe the government should own all of this land (because they have yet to figure out socialism does not work); but, in fact, only a small portion of it is needed for parks, environmentally sensitive areas, and military bases. I live in Virginia where we have many fine federal, state and local parks, and several very large military bases, but the federal government owns less than 5 percent of the state. Yet we are able to protect our environment.
There are hundreds of well-researched studies that clearly show it is a myth that the government better protects and manages the land than the private sector. Land prices have been driven up in the West because of the artificial shortage created by government ownership, making housing less affordable, which is particularly hard on low-income people. Most government land has not been put to its highest and best use -- or any use -- thus negatively affecting the economy and the environment.
Selling 1 percent or 2 percent of land the government holds per year over the next 50 years might well cover the Social Security transition problem (or at least greatly reduce it), thus avoiding either tax increases or benefit cuts. How much the government can obtain for land sales, of course, depends on what land is sold, and when and how. But the future value of such sales cannot even be reliably estimated until the government has an accurate inventory of what it owns.
Ask your family and friends if they would prefer the government to: (a) Increase their taxes; (b) cut their benefits; or (c) sell surplus government land.
I personally would take c, this doesn't mean we get rid of all the park land, just 5-10% of it. Still probably more than those damn hippies would like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
