A fun little quiz to test your knowledge of horror films. I only got 77%. Guess I need to hit Movie Gallery this weekend and bone up on my useless trivia.
Friday, October 29, 2004
No Curse on the Red Sox?
Fred Barnes on the “Myth” of the Curse of the Bambino:
There was no curse. But you'd never know it from following the Red Sox on TV and in the papers. After they had swept the Cardinals in four, ESPN was repeating the alleged
origin of the curse. That, as everyone knows, was the sale of Babe Ruth to the Yankees in 1919 for $100,000 so the Red Sox owner could finance the musical No, No, Nanette on Broadway, which flopped. This is a myth. The play didn't arrive on Broadway until 1925 and it was a spectacular hit.
Why did the Red Sox lose all those years? They faced better teams, that's the reason. The Yankees were the powerhouse in the American League for most of the 20th century. They had more good players than anyone else. Yes, the Red Sox got to the World Series in 1946, 1967, 1975, and 1986, losing all four. The Cardinals in 1946 were at least as good as the Red Sox and the Cardinals with pitcher Bob Gibson in 1967 and the Big Red Machine in 1975 were way better. The Mets in 1986 were luckier.
Anyone who's followed the Red Sox for any length of time is aware of the real problem they had: not a curse, but lack of pitching. The Red Sox could always match any team hitter for hitter. And Fenway Park was conducive to a lineup of right-handed sluggers. If it wasn't Manny Ramirez, it was Jim Rice or Jackie Jensen. But the pitching was never as strong.
So, that explains it. I have watched the Red Sox for years, and they have always had sluggers. The pitching has always been a problem. Theo Epstein should be the Red Sox MVP for bringing in Curt Schilling, Kevin Foulke, and getting rid of Nomar to bring in better fielding. All led to the first Red Sox World Series win in 86 years.
Now Theo just has to keep the team together for next season, which might prove to be the biggest challenge of all.
There was no curse. But you'd never know it from following the Red Sox on TV and in the papers. After they had swept the Cardinals in four, ESPN was repeating the alleged
origin of the curse. That, as everyone knows, was the sale of Babe Ruth to the Yankees in 1919 for $100,000 so the Red Sox owner could finance the musical No, No, Nanette on Broadway, which flopped. This is a myth. The play didn't arrive on Broadway until 1925 and it was a spectacular hit.
Why did the Red Sox lose all those years? They faced better teams, that's the reason. The Yankees were the powerhouse in the American League for most of the 20th century. They had more good players than anyone else. Yes, the Red Sox got to the World Series in 1946, 1967, 1975, and 1986, losing all four. The Cardinals in 1946 were at least as good as the Red Sox and the Cardinals with pitcher Bob Gibson in 1967 and the Big Red Machine in 1975 were way better. The Mets in 1986 were luckier.
Anyone who's followed the Red Sox for any length of time is aware of the real problem they had: not a curse, but lack of pitching. The Red Sox could always match any team hitter for hitter. And Fenway Park was conducive to a lineup of right-handed sluggers. If it wasn't Manny Ramirez, it was Jim Rice or Jackie Jensen. But the pitching was never as strong.
So, that explains it. I have watched the Red Sox for years, and they have always had sluggers. The pitching has always been a problem. Theo Epstein should be the Red Sox MVP for bringing in Curt Schilling, Kevin Foulke, and getting rid of Nomar to bring in better fielding. All led to the first Red Sox World Series win in 86 years.
Now Theo just has to keep the team together for next season, which might prove to be the biggest challenge of all.
The Commander-in-Chief
Hugh Hewitt’s latest at the WeeklyStandard.com about John Kerry’s attack on the 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne:
JOHN KERRY now closes his presidential campaign exactly as he opened his political life: Attacking the United States military.
Thirty-three years ago, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he indicted the soldiers of Vietnam as war criminals, the heirs of Genghis Khan.
This week he embraced an already discredited account of missing munitions to attack the reputation of the 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne. Make no mistake, that is exactly what Kerry is doing when he asserts that deadly weapons went unsecured and unreported as these two divisions rushed to liberate Baghdad. And not just these divisions, but every officer and soldier who had a hand in drawing up the war plan. If the negligence that Kerry charges the military with was real, additional troops would not have made a difference. The initial search would still have been conducted by the 3rd I.D. and the site pronounced clear. The 101st would still have spent 24 hours in the munitions complex before moving on. Kerry cannot avoid owning the latest of many slanders he has launched at the military as a means of wounding the president.
That the story was floated by a Bush foe in the U.N. bureaucracy at the IAEA did not discourage Kerry. Nor did the evident pretzel logic of condemning the war while bemoaning the huge danger of Saddam's arsenal. The facts on the myth of the missing munitions are available at The Belmont Club and Instapundit, but facts did not matter to Kerry at all, nor the reputations of the soldiers he charged with allowing massive amounts of deadly munitions to go missing.
Here is more from Hugh's website.
JOHN KERRY now closes his presidential campaign exactly as he opened his political life: Attacking the United States military.
Thirty-three years ago, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he indicted the soldiers of Vietnam as war criminals, the heirs of Genghis Khan.
This week he embraced an already discredited account of missing munitions to attack the reputation of the 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne. Make no mistake, that is exactly what Kerry is doing when he asserts that deadly weapons went unsecured and unreported as these two divisions rushed to liberate Baghdad. And not just these divisions, but every officer and soldier who had a hand in drawing up the war plan. If the negligence that Kerry charges the military with was real, additional troops would not have made a difference. The initial search would still have been conducted by the 3rd I.D. and the site pronounced clear. The 101st would still have spent 24 hours in the munitions complex before moving on. Kerry cannot avoid owning the latest of many slanders he has launched at the military as a means of wounding the president.
That the story was floated by a Bush foe in the U.N. bureaucracy at the IAEA did not discourage Kerry. Nor did the evident pretzel logic of condemning the war while bemoaning the huge danger of Saddam's arsenal. The facts on the myth of the missing munitions are available at The Belmont Club and Instapundit, but facts did not matter to Kerry at all, nor the reputations of the soldiers he charged with allowing massive amounts of deadly munitions to go missing.
Here is more from Hugh's website.
"Sir, eight out of ten soldiers support the president. Why is it so hard for the civilians to get it?"
I was greeting members of the audience and signing books after a speech to a GOTV rally in Colorado Springs, and the soldier in front of me looked 18, but told me he'd been in for 11 years. His name was Rashid
"A majority do, and the rest are figuring it out," I replied. Earlier, a veteran of the Iraq campaign, during the Q. and A. had stated he'd been assigned a brief bit of duty at a different munitions dump. "This was 10 miles by 10 miles," said. "We patrolled by helicopter. Occasionally a pick-up truck would dart in and out, but there was no looting, and there was no way to guard such places except by the air."
Tommy Franks' amazement at the charges coming from John Kerry and company about his, his planning team, and the execution of the plan by the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines he commanded is beginning to boil over. (HT to K-Lo at The Corner.) Kerry is trying to argue that all blame for all mistakes lies on George W. Bush, and that he's not slagging the troops. But that's not how the troops are hearing it. A call to the program yesterday from the proud mom of a member of the 3rd I.D. was a voice of outrage and anger directed at Kerry. "He [Kerry] has no idea how he sounds," she fumed. "My son is a brave and competent hero." Kerry thinks he's a bumbler. But how surprising is that. He also thinks the men and women he served with in Vietnam were war criminals.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Celestial Viewing
Here is a good article about the Lunar Eclipse happening tonight. If you get a chance and the skies are clear, check it out. My local weather forecaster predicted that it would clear off today and we would be able to see the eclipse. It’s still cloudy and it doesn’t look like it’s going to clear anytime soon.
Wictory Wednesday
Well, it’s the last Wictory Wednesday. Make sure you get out and vote for President Bush on November 2nd. Vote early if you want. Get your friends to vote early. Join the 72-hour Project.
Newly discovered documents show that the young John Kerry didn’t just meet with the Communist Vietnamese in Paris. He took orders from them. His activities, when he returned home and denounced his country and fellow soldiers, delighted the Vietnamese Communists and gave them hope that they could defeat America and enslave millions of Vietnamese in a genocidal slave state that persists to this day.
Is this the kind of man you want running our country?
Today is Wictory Wednesday. If you have a blog and want to participate, go to Wictory Wednesday and get yourself on the blogroll.
Blogs that participate in Wictory Wednesday:
Newly discovered documents show that the young John Kerry didn’t just meet with the Communist Vietnamese in Paris. He took orders from them. His activities, when he returned home and denounced his country and fellow soldiers, delighted the Vietnamese Communists and gave them hope that they could defeat America and enslave millions of Vietnamese in a genocidal slave state that persists to this day.
Is this the kind of man you want running our country?
Today is Wictory Wednesday. If you have a blog and want to participate, go to Wictory Wednesday and get yourself on the blogroll.
Blogs that participate in Wictory Wednesday:
Monday, October 25, 2004
Kerry Leading by 11 Points in Maine
My buddy Slublog does a great job explaining the Zogby poll numbers that show Kerry with an 11 point lead over President Bush in Maine.
Green Arrow/Outsiders Author Takes on HIV
I was watching the news this weekend, and I saw a piece about Judd Winick. Winick, who writes for DC Comics, is taking on HIV with a Green Arrow sidekick, who due to life on the streets and the lifestyle often involved with it, has contracted HIV.
In the latest issue of "Green Arrow," set for publication Wednesday, a teenage runaway named Mia -- who has been in the care of the title hero for two years -- discovers that her time spent as a street-dweller and prostitute has resulted in her picking up the virus.
Writer Judd Winick, who oversees the "Green Arrow" story line, said this is a way to explore socially conscious themes while also giving the Mia character extra motivation to make a difference in the world.
In an upcoming series in the Outsiders title, Winick enlists the help of America’s Most Wanted John Walsh to take on another serious issue: child abduction.
In the latest issue of "Green Arrow," set for publication Wednesday, a teenage runaway named Mia -- who has been in the care of the title hero for two years -- discovers that her time spent as a street-dweller and prostitute has resulted in her picking up the virus.
Writer Judd Winick, who oversees the "Green Arrow" story line, said this is a way to explore socially conscious themes while also giving the Mia character extra motivation to make a difference in the world.
In an upcoming series in the Outsiders title, Winick enlists the help of America’s Most Wanted John Walsh to take on another serious issue: child abduction.
The New Man of Steel
Brandon Routh is slated to play Superman in the upcoming 2006 movie. Brandon who you might ask?
Exactly. So he should do pretty well in the role.
Exactly. So he should do pretty well in the role.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
New England Sports
The Patriots just beat the New York Jets to go 6-0 on the season and set a new NFL record by winning 18 regular season games in a row.
The Red Sox won the first game of the World Series 11-9 against the Cardinals. What an ugly game, but moreover who decided to let Aerosmith's Steven Tyler sing the Star Spangled Banner? That was uglier than the Red Sox play in the field.
Now if only the only Bruins could win the Stanley Cup this season. Oh wait, what season? I think the NHL as we know it as done.
But the thing is, does anybody really care?
The Red Sox won the first game of the World Series 11-9 against the Cardinals. What an ugly game, but moreover who decided to let Aerosmith's Steven Tyler sing the Star Spangled Banner? That was uglier than the Red Sox play in the field.
Now if only the only Bruins could win the Stanley Cup this season. Oh wait, what season? I think the NHL as we know it as done.
But the thing is, does anybody really care?
Spider-Man Covers
Oops. I didn't realize that these were just sitting here this weekend without anything written about them. I just set up a Flickr account for hosting pictures and I'm still getting all the kinks worked out.
Now for the covers. As I was browsing the Marvel Catalog this weekend, I came across these two Spectacular Spider-Man issues that are going to be penciled by Aspen Comics very own Talent Caldwell.
The reason that I am so excited is because Talent is continuing the very stylized, cartoony drawing that Hubertos Ramos started the series with. Issuses 1-10 were drawn by Huberto Ramos, and his cartoony style complimented Spidey perfectly. Much to my dismay, issue #11 brought some horrible artist that made me stop buying the book. Huberto took over the drawing duties again with the Avengers Dissassembled series, with Paco Medina finishing up the series with #20. If the covers are any indication, Talent is going to continue this great style for the two isssues he is doing.
Now for the covers. As I was browsing the Marvel Catalog this weekend, I came across these two Spectacular Spider-Man issues that are going to be penciled by Aspen Comics very own Talent Caldwell.
The reason that I am so excited is because Talent is continuing the very stylized, cartoony drawing that Hubertos Ramos started the series with. Issuses 1-10 were drawn by Huberto Ramos, and his cartoony style complimented Spidey perfectly. Much to my dismay, issue #11 brought some horrible artist that made me stop buying the book. Huberto took over the drawing duties again with the Avengers Dissassembled series, with Paco Medina finishing up the series with #20. If the covers are any indication, Talent is going to continue this great style for the two isssues he is doing.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Friday, October 22, 2004
Six Degrees of Voter Alienation
Victor Davis Hanson is on fire as of late. His latest article over at NRO is a great treatise on why Kerry is going to lose the election.
There is a good chance that no matter what Kerry says or does in the final two weeks of this election — barring some major catastrophe in Iraq, a presidential gaffe, or massive voting irregularity — he will lose. And he may well take much of the Democrats' remaining control of government down with him. After all, Putin wants Bush, while Arafat prefers Kerry — and that is all we need to know. But besides the obvious concerns of national security and Kerry's own failure in any honest fashion to offer a coherent and principled alternative course of action to defeat the terrorists, there are more subtle, insidious factors at play that will, I think, preclude his election.
I thought John Kerry clearly won the first debate, lost the second, and did worse in the third. Most Americans, however, apparently disagreed, since many polls showed that respondents thought Kerry won all three. We hear of mayhem daily in Iraq; news on the economic front is mixed; and an entire host of surrogates has defamed George Bush in a manner not seen in decades during a political campaign. Why, then, does Kerry gain little traction, trail in most polls, and perhaps even start to slip further? After all, he is a hard campaigner, has a razor-sharp memory, speaks well, looks statesmanlike at times, raises lots of money, and has a mobilized base working hard for his election.
At least six reasons come to mind that have little to do with issues or substance, but everything to do with style, character, and judgment. First, he comes across, perhaps unfairly so, as an unfriendly sort. He seems to confirm to flyover America that the Ivy League East Coast is a cold place of holier-than-thou privileged reformers who live one life but advocate another. Kerry is a pleasant man, but he nevertheless presents himself as a ponderous aristocrat. His oratory, for all his undeniable mastery of facts and classical rhetorical tropes, is too often humorless, condescending, and pedantic. His photo opportunities that showcase hunting vests or windsurfing look forced, and they lack the natural ease of George Bush on the stump, twanging with his sleeves rolled up. Thus while Kerry does well in debates, he in some sense does not do well, since Americans feel he is either their smug professor or cranky grandfather, peeved that he had to descend from Olympus to impart knowledge to the less gifted. Somehow most would rather be wrong with Bush than right with Kerry.
The other five reasons VDH cites are definitely worth the time and effort to read.
There is a good chance that no matter what Kerry says or does in the final two weeks of this election — barring some major catastrophe in Iraq, a presidential gaffe, or massive voting irregularity — he will lose. And he may well take much of the Democrats' remaining control of government down with him. After all, Putin wants Bush, while Arafat prefers Kerry — and that is all we need to know. But besides the obvious concerns of national security and Kerry's own failure in any honest fashion to offer a coherent and principled alternative course of action to defeat the terrorists, there are more subtle, insidious factors at play that will, I think, preclude his election.
I thought John Kerry clearly won the first debate, lost the second, and did worse in the third. Most Americans, however, apparently disagreed, since many polls showed that respondents thought Kerry won all three. We hear of mayhem daily in Iraq; news on the economic front is mixed; and an entire host of surrogates has defamed George Bush in a manner not seen in decades during a political campaign. Why, then, does Kerry gain little traction, trail in most polls, and perhaps even start to slip further? After all, he is a hard campaigner, has a razor-sharp memory, speaks well, looks statesmanlike at times, raises lots of money, and has a mobilized base working hard for his election.
At least six reasons come to mind that have little to do with issues or substance, but everything to do with style, character, and judgment. First, he comes across, perhaps unfairly so, as an unfriendly sort. He seems to confirm to flyover America that the Ivy League East Coast is a cold place of holier-than-thou privileged reformers who live one life but advocate another. Kerry is a pleasant man, but he nevertheless presents himself as a ponderous aristocrat. His oratory, for all his undeniable mastery of facts and classical rhetorical tropes, is too often humorless, condescending, and pedantic. His photo opportunities that showcase hunting vests or windsurfing look forced, and they lack the natural ease of George Bush on the stump, twanging with his sleeves rolled up. Thus while Kerry does well in debates, he in some sense does not do well, since Americans feel he is either their smug professor or cranky grandfather, peeved that he had to descend from Olympus to impart knowledge to the less gifted. Somehow most would rather be wrong with Bush than right with Kerry.
The other five reasons VDH cites are definitely worth the time and effort to read.
University of Maine Ice Hockey
Since the NHL is done for, I have to get my hockey fix some where, and there is no better place than at the Alfond Arena. The Black Bears are playing a two game set against St. Lawrence this weekend, and I'm going to the game tonight. Should be a lot of fun.
Now if only they would let the players drop their gloves and let the fists fly.
Update: Not the hockey fix I was hoping for. UMaine lost 1-0 on a goal scored by St. Lawrence 20 seconds into the first period. The Black Bears had absolutely no fire. St. Lawrence skated circles around them. It was like a Pee Wee team taking on a college club. Hopefully this was a wakeup call and they will beat them tomorrow.
Now if only they would let the players drop their gloves and let the fists fly.
Update: Not the hockey fix I was hoping for. UMaine lost 1-0 on a goal scored by St. Lawrence 20 seconds into the first period. The Black Bears had absolutely no fire. St. Lawrence skated circles around them. It was like a Pee Wee team taking on a college club. Hopefully this was a wakeup call and they will beat them tomorrow.
Double Shot of HH
I usually try to point you toward Hugh Hewitt's articles on Fridays. Here are Hugh's works for the week.
First is his article from WorldNetDaily.com on how the November 2nd is shaping up for JFK.
The other article is from the WeeklyStandard.com and is titled Mama T on Moms. This article is about the reprehensible comments that Theresa Heinz-Kerry said about Laura Bush. Here is the quote to remind you what she said in a USA Today article:
First is his article from WorldNetDaily.com on how the November 2nd is shaping up for JFK.
The other article is from the WeeklyStandard.com and is titled Mama T on Moms. This article is about the reprehensible comments that Theresa Heinz-Kerry said about Laura Bush. Here is the quote to remind you what she said in a USA Today article:
"Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good," Heinz Kerry said. "But I don't know that she's ever had a real job — I mean, since she's been grown up. So her experience and her validation comes from important things, but different things."
Enjoy.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
We must be in an altered reality...
... because the Red Sox came back from a 3-0 deficit in the ALCS to beat the Yankees.
Who'd a thunk it.
I'm beginning to believe...
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Maine: The Swing State
I was watching the Today show on Tuesday morning when Matt Lauer had a segment with Chris Matthews on the swing states. I was actually able to listen to Matthews instead of launching into a complete screed that my wife would have to endure, but what completely irritated me was the fact that Maine was not gray, indicating a swing state, but a solid blue signifying that it was Democratic. Our state went that way in the last election, but we are definitely a swing state. The president has been here. Laura Bush and the Twins have been here. Even the president’s sister, who happened to stop by my buddy Slubgob’s place, has been here. Edwards has been here and his wife as well. Chris Heinz has even made a stop here in Maine. Tell me we’re not a swing state.
JFK hasn’t been here yet though.
While checking out Slate’s Swingers- A Guide to the Swing States (via Power Line), I came across this write up about Maine. There are definitely two Maines as the article points out. I jokingly say that everything below Augusta is Massachusetts and everything above Old Town is Canada. This statement is not far from the truth.
Thanks to a quirk in its state laws, Maine does not award all its electoral votes (there are four of them) to the presidential candidate who gets the most votes in the state. Instead, the candidate who wins the popular vote gets two electoral votes. The third electoral vote goes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in the 1st Congressional District and the fourth electoral vote to whoever wins the 2nd. In a very close race, the state could split its electoral vote 3-1, which makes Maine the only swing state that can truly swing both ways. (Nebraska, a mortal lock for Bush, has the same system.) Since this convoluted method was adopted in 1969, presidential candidates have never shared Maine's electoral spoils. But in November, Bush and Kerry might.
That's because there are two Maines, as residents hasten to point out. The 1st District stretches along the southern coast, from Kittery to Kennebunkport to Portland (a liberal city rife with bookstores, boutiques, art galleries, and Internet cafes), past the fishing towns and tony summer homes that speckle the long rocky fingers of the coast. Driving through it, you see busy shopping centers, out-of-state cars laden with kayaks and mountain bikes, and antique shops everywhere: Tourism is the state's biggest industry.
The 2nd District, a wooded knob of land that juts up into Canada and across to the state's northern shoreline, is enormous—bigger than New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts combined. It's much more rural, and much poorer, than the southern half of the state. People here are typically loggers, mill workers, or potato farmers. The further north of Portland I went, the more frequently logging trucks lumbered past. In 2000, Gore won comfortably in the 1st District, but his margin of victory in the 2nd was much narrower—only one percentage point, or 5,660 votes. It's quite possible that Bush could swing this district, and if he did, he'd pocket one electoral vote.
I have no doubt that District 1 will go with Kerry. As for us here in District 2, I’m thinking Bush will pull out the win. Not that this is a sure-fire bet, but as I drive the streets of our humble metropolis, I see a lot more Bush/Cheney signs on peoples’ lawns than Kedwards’ signs.
In less than two weeks we’ll see how voting in the Two Maines goes and then NBC can paint us either red or blue on the map. Not until then though.
Pessimistic Base
Even Kerry supporters think the president is going to win the election.
American voters, while split over who should be the next president, overwhelmingly predict that President Bush will vanquish Sen. John Kerry, an expectation that could affect the outcome of a close election.
While the various national polls show that voters prefer the president over Mr. Kerry by an average of four points, those same surveys place Mr. Bush some 20 points ahead on the question of which candidate is expected to win.
"This could be a big cause of concern for Kerry," professor Vicki Morwitz of New York University said. "If people really think Bush is going to win, they may have a slight tendency to shift their preference and ultimately vote for Bush, even though they were a Kerry supporter to begin with."
Way to fire up your base, Mr. Kerry. They’re all going to vote for W. because they think you are going to lose the election. Which is good.
American voters, while split over who should be the next president, overwhelmingly predict that President Bush will vanquish Sen. John Kerry, an expectation that could affect the outcome of a close election.
While the various national polls show that voters prefer the president over Mr. Kerry by an average of four points, those same surveys place Mr. Bush some 20 points ahead on the question of which candidate is expected to win.
"This could be a big cause of concern for Kerry," professor Vicki Morwitz of New York University said. "If people really think Bush is going to win, they may have a slight tendency to shift their preference and ultimately vote for Bush, even though they were a Kerry supporter to begin with."
Way to fire up your base, Mr. Kerry. They’re all going to vote for W. because they think you are going to lose the election. Which is good.
Disturbing News
Kerry, no matter what the actual election results are, is going to declare victory early (via Slublog).
Declare victory early? With complete disregard of the election? How are they going to do that?
They plan to cheat and steal the election, that’s how.
Bush supporters, you need to get out and vote. Encourage others you know to get out and vote for Bush as well. As Hugh Hewitt has written, if it’s not close, they can’t cheat.
Let’s make sure they can’t.
Declare victory early? With complete disregard of the election? How are they going to do that?
They plan to cheat and steal the election, that’s how.
Bush supporters, you need to get out and vote. Encourage others you know to get out and vote for Bush as well. As Hugh Hewitt has written, if it’s not close, they can’t cheat.
Let’s make sure they can’t.
Wictory Wednesday
There is less than two weeks to go until voting time.
This week’s focus for WW is the race for the open Senate seat in South Carolina between Republican Congressman Jim DeMint and Democrat Inez Tenenbaum. DeMint holds a slight lead and we need to give him a push over the top by donating to his campaign.
Today is Wictory Wednesday. If you have a blog and want to participate, go to Wictory Wednesday and get yourself on the blogroll.
Blogs that participate in Wictory Wednesday:
This week’s focus for WW is the race for the open Senate seat in South Carolina between Republican Congressman Jim DeMint and Democrat Inez Tenenbaum. DeMint holds a slight lead and we need to give him a push over the top by donating to his campaign.
Today is Wictory Wednesday. If you have a blog and want to participate, go to Wictory Wednesday and get yourself on the blogroll.
Blogs that participate in Wictory Wednesday:
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in
I'm planning on watching the Red Sox tonight.
After years of dedicated fandom, I finally gave up. I used to travel down to Boston for games and faithfully watch the Red Sox on tv. The heartbreak got to be too much. They always choked at a crucial point in the season.
I, like many, thought their season was over at many points during the last two games.
I'll watch tonight hoping for the best, expecting the worst. Like I have for many years.
Besides, I don't think the Bruins will be playing anytime soon.
After years of dedicated fandom, I finally gave up. I used to travel down to Boston for games and faithfully watch the Red Sox on tv. The heartbreak got to be too much. They always choked at a crucial point in the season.
I, like many, thought their season was over at many points during the last two games.
I'll watch tonight hoping for the best, expecting the worst. Like I have for many years.
Besides, I don't think the Bruins will be playing anytime soon.
Smallville this Week
I don't know if any of you have been watching Smallville, but if you haven't seen it, you should check it out. Smallville is about the youth of Clark Kent, aka Superman. Even if super heroes aren't your thing, there is something for everyone in this show.
This week's episode is going to feature Bart Allen, The Flash. Bart is the grandson of the Silver Age Flash (#2). The special effects should be amazing in this episode as Clark takes on the fastest man alive.
Make sure you watch. Check your local listings.
This week's episode is going to feature Bart Allen, The Flash. Bart is the grandson of the Silver Age Flash (#2). The special effects should be amazing in this episode as Clark takes on the fastest man alive.
Make sure you watch. Check your local listings.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Making a Difference
Special report for the Washington Times by Jed Babbin. The article features the thoughts, feelings, and reactions to the war by those in the military. Some have been severely wounded.
Sgt. Doughty was severely wounded in an ambush by insurgents when an improvised explosive device, or IED, blew up in July during his unit's secret mission inside the deadly Sunni triangle.
He lost both legs.
Today, Sgt. Doughty, 29, is recuperating and adjusting at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Northwest Washington.
Some wounded soldiers "have a chip on their shoulder," Sgt. Doughty acknowledges. "The biggest thing I would say is that I don't have any regrets, and 99 percent of the guys up here [at Walter Reed] with me don't either."
They "feel like heroes," he says.
Recent interviews with Sgt. Doughty and other troops rebutted talk in some quarters of troops' growing disillusionment with the U.S. mission in Iraq. The interviews included a Marine corporal also being treated for wounds at Walter Reed and men in a National Guard unit in northern Iraq that faced renewed attacks from insurgents in recent days.
Make sure you read the whole thing.
Sgt. Doughty was severely wounded in an ambush by insurgents when an improvised explosive device, or IED, blew up in July during his unit's secret mission inside the deadly Sunni triangle.
He lost both legs.
Today, Sgt. Doughty, 29, is recuperating and adjusting at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Northwest Washington.
Some wounded soldiers "have a chip on their shoulder," Sgt. Doughty acknowledges. "The biggest thing I would say is that I don't have any regrets, and 99 percent of the guys up here [at Walter Reed] with me don't either."
They "feel like heroes," he says.
Recent interviews with Sgt. Doughty and other troops rebutted talk in some quarters of troops' growing disillusionment with the U.S. mission in Iraq. The interviews included a Marine corporal also being treated for wounds at Walter Reed and men in a National Guard unit in northern Iraq that faced renewed attacks from insurgents in recent days.
Make sure you read the whole thing.
How Much Did You Pay the IRS?
Probably a higher percentage of your income than the Heinz-Kerrys. Check out these numbers.
Jars of Clay in Concert
I went and saw Jars of Clay play at our very own Maine Center for the Arts in Orono, Maine last night. Awesome concert. Opening for Jars was Trevor Morgan and Sarah Kelly.
Trevor Morgan started the evening with a short three song set that featured only himself on acoustic and a buddy of his with a drum. It was too bad that he only got to play three songs because he was great. On his final song he busted a string, but being a professional this didn't slow him down.
Not much to say about Sarah Kelly. She put on a good show. I was very impressed with her lead guitarist. He played a Les Paul and did some really cool slide work.
Jars was simply awesome. They played a great selection of songs that spanned their career. As a guitar player, I was enthralled watching them play. That is the problem with me an concerts. While everyone else is having a great time, I am completely focused on the guitarists to see if I can pick up some new techniques. The highlight of the evening for me was when they played "Flood". What a great song to see performed live.
The MCA concert was a very intimate setting seating only 1,600. It was a great experience. If you have a chance to get out and see Jars, I highly recommend it.
Trevor Morgan started the evening with a short three song set that featured only himself on acoustic and a buddy of his with a drum. It was too bad that he only got to play three songs because he was great. On his final song he busted a string, but being a professional this didn't slow him down.
Not much to say about Sarah Kelly. She put on a good show. I was very impressed with her lead guitarist. He played a Les Paul and did some really cool slide work.
Jars was simply awesome. They played a great selection of songs that spanned their career. As a guitar player, I was enthralled watching them play. That is the problem with me an concerts. While everyone else is having a great time, I am completely focused on the guitarists to see if I can pick up some new techniques. The highlight of the evening for me was when they played "Flood". What a great song to see performed live.
The MCA concert was a very intimate setting seating only 1,600. It was a great experience. If you have a chance to get out and see Jars, I highly recommend it.
Friday, October 15, 2004
VDH on Election 2004
Victor Davis Hanson on The Therapeutic Choice: A war for our lives, or a nuisance to our lifestyle?
This attitude is part of the therapeutic view of the present struggle that continually suggests that something we did — not the mass murdering out of the Dark Age — brought on our present bother that is now "the focus of our lives." We see this irritation with the inconvenience and sacrifice once more reemerging in the Atlantic Monthly, Harpers, and the New York Times: We, not fascists and Islamist psychopaths, are blamed for the mess in Iraq, the mess in Afghanistan, the mess on the West Bank, and the mess here at home, but never credited with the first election in 5,000 years in Afghanistan or consensual government replacing autocracy in the heart of the ancient caliphate.
All you of the therapeutic mindset, listen up. We can no more reason with the Islamic fascists than we could sympathize with the Nazis' demands over supposedly exploited Germans in Czechoslovakia or the problem of Tojo's Japan's not getting its timely scrap-metal shipments from Roosevelt's America. Their pouts and gripes are not intended to be adjudicated as much as to weaken the resolve of many in the United States who find the entire "war against terror" too big, or the wrong kind, of a nuisance.
A Kerry presidency, we know now, will go back to the tried and true institutions so dear to the therapeutic mind that please the elite and sensitive of our society. How silly that most Americans are about through with the U.N. Indeed, we Neanderthals want it relegated to something like the Red Cross tucked away at the Hague, if not on the frontlines in Nigeria or Bolivia. Yes, we dummies have seen enough of its General Assembly resolutions aimed at the only democracy in the Middle East, its promotion of rogue states such as Syria, Cuba, Iran, and Libya to human-rights watchdogs, its corrupt Oil-for-Food program, and its present general secretary and his role in nepotism and sweet-heart contracts at the expense of the Iraqi people. No surprise that a shaken perpetual-president Hosni Mubarak is calling for a U.N. conference on terror with wonderful Arab League logic: 'You kill Jews on your own soil, good; you kill them on mine and lose me money, bad.'
The artists, musicians, and entertainers have also railed against the war. In the therapeutic mindset, the refinement and talent of a Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Bruce Springsteen, or John Fogerty earn respect when they weigh in on matters of state policy. But in the tragic view, they can be little more than puppets of inspiration. Their natural gifts are not necessarily enriched by real education or learning. Indeed, they are just as likely to be high-school or college dropouts and near illiterates, albeit with good memories, voices, and looks. The present antics of these influential millionaire entertainers should remind us why Plato banished them — worried that we might confuse the inspired creative frenzies of the artisans with some sort of empirical knowledge. But you can no more sing, or write, or act al Qaeda away than the equally sensitive novelists and intellectuals of the 1930s or 1940s could rehabilitate Stalin.
Read the whole thing here.
This attitude is part of the therapeutic view of the present struggle that continually suggests that something we did — not the mass murdering out of the Dark Age — brought on our present bother that is now "the focus of our lives." We see this irritation with the inconvenience and sacrifice once more reemerging in the Atlantic Monthly, Harpers, and the New York Times: We, not fascists and Islamist psychopaths, are blamed for the mess in Iraq, the mess in Afghanistan, the mess on the West Bank, and the mess here at home, but never credited with the first election in 5,000 years in Afghanistan or consensual government replacing autocracy in the heart of the ancient caliphate.
All you of the therapeutic mindset, listen up. We can no more reason with the Islamic fascists than we could sympathize with the Nazis' demands over supposedly exploited Germans in Czechoslovakia or the problem of Tojo's Japan's not getting its timely scrap-metal shipments from Roosevelt's America. Their pouts and gripes are not intended to be adjudicated as much as to weaken the resolve of many in the United States who find the entire "war against terror" too big, or the wrong kind, of a nuisance.
A Kerry presidency, we know now, will go back to the tried and true institutions so dear to the therapeutic mind that please the elite and sensitive of our society. How silly that most Americans are about through with the U.N. Indeed, we Neanderthals want it relegated to something like the Red Cross tucked away at the Hague, if not on the frontlines in Nigeria or Bolivia. Yes, we dummies have seen enough of its General Assembly resolutions aimed at the only democracy in the Middle East, its promotion of rogue states such as Syria, Cuba, Iran, and Libya to human-rights watchdogs, its corrupt Oil-for-Food program, and its present general secretary and his role in nepotism and sweet-heart contracts at the expense of the Iraqi people. No surprise that a shaken perpetual-president Hosni Mubarak is calling for a U.N. conference on terror with wonderful Arab League logic: 'You kill Jews on your own soil, good; you kill them on mine and lose me money, bad.'
The artists, musicians, and entertainers have also railed against the war. In the therapeutic mindset, the refinement and talent of a Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Bruce Springsteen, or John Fogerty earn respect when they weigh in on matters of state policy. But in the tragic view, they can be little more than puppets of inspiration. Their natural gifts are not necessarily enriched by real education or learning. Indeed, they are just as likely to be high-school or college dropouts and near illiterates, albeit with good memories, voices, and looks. The present antics of these influential millionaire entertainers should remind us why Plato banished them — worried that we might confuse the inspired creative frenzies of the artisans with some sort of empirical knowledge. But you can no more sing, or write, or act al Qaeda away than the equally sensitive novelists and intellectuals of the 1930s or 1940s could rehabilitate Stalin.
Read the whole thing here.
A Multifront War
Senator Kerry believes that our military is stretched too thin to be effective on multiple fronts. Apparently, he hasn’t seen this:
President Bush's three-year-old strategy of fighting a multifront war on terror is stretching enemy forces thin and reducing their ability to mount attacks in Afghanistan, said U.S. officials and independent authorities.
Much of the debate in the United States has centered on U.S. forces being stressed in the global war. But military analysts are pointing to Afghanistan's near-violence-free elections on Saturday as an example of enemy forces being depleted to the point where they cannot sustain attacks.
The analysts also say some of the thousands of terrorists trained in Osama bin Laden's Afghan camps have gone to fight in other areas, such as Iraq, further stretching their capabilities.
"The terrorists are being used up, and they're losing hundreds a day in many cases," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, a military analyst. "The administration has a low profile on that. But [the terrorists] are suffering severe casualties. That's why there was success in Afghanistan, Samara, and now you have negotiations in Fallujah and Ramadi." The Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Ramadi are run, in part, by militants.
Near-violence-free Afghan elections (elections at all are a success), a war being successfully fought on multiple fronts, and terrorist numbers being depleted. And to top it of a working Bush strategy. This doesn't look good for Kerry.
President Bush's three-year-old strategy of fighting a multifront war on terror is stretching enemy forces thin and reducing their ability to mount attacks in Afghanistan, said U.S. officials and independent authorities.
Much of the debate in the United States has centered on U.S. forces being stressed in the global war. But military analysts are pointing to Afghanistan's near-violence-free elections on Saturday as an example of enemy forces being depleted to the point where they cannot sustain attacks.
The analysts also say some of the thousands of terrorists trained in Osama bin Laden's Afghan camps have gone to fight in other areas, such as Iraq, further stretching their capabilities.
"The terrorists are being used up, and they're losing hundreds a day in many cases," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, a military analyst. "The administration has a low profile on that. But [the terrorists] are suffering severe casualties. That's why there was success in Afghanistan, Samara, and now you have negotiations in Fallujah and Ramadi." The Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Ramadi are run, in part, by militants.
Near-violence-free Afghan elections (elections at all are a success), a war being successfully fought on multiple fronts, and terrorist numbers being depleted. And to top it of a working Bush strategy. This doesn't look good for Kerry.
Developments in Iraq
Prime Minister Allawi and the Iraqi government threatened Fallujah with military action if residents did not turn over Abu Musab Zarqawi to authorities:
Iraq's prime minister yesterday threatened military action against the rebel stronghold of Fallujah if residents don't hand over Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab Zarqawi.
"If they do not turn in al-Zarqawi and his group, we will carry out operations in Fallujah," Prime Minister Iyad Allawi told a meeting of the 100-member National Council. "We will not be lenient."
On the heels of those comments, talks were broken off and the U.S. Marines were turned loose:
U.S. Marines launched air and ground attacks yesterday on the rebel bastion Fallujah after city representatives suspended peace talks with the government over Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's demand to hand over terror mastermind Abu Musab Zarqawi.
The raids began hours after terrorists struck deep inside Baghdad's heavily fortified green zone, setting off bombs at a market and a popular cafe that killed at least 10 persons — including four Americans — and wounded 20 others in the compound housing foreign embassies and Iraqi government offices.
Zarqawi's terror group, Tawhid and Jihad, claimed responsibility for the suicide attacks, according to a statement posted on an Islamist Web site.
In the near future, the Marines are finally going to get the green light to go into Fallujah and wipe out all traces of any rebels or insurgents.
Iraq's prime minister yesterday threatened military action against the rebel stronghold of Fallujah if residents don't hand over Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab Zarqawi.
"If they do not turn in al-Zarqawi and his group, we will carry out operations in Fallujah," Prime Minister Iyad Allawi told a meeting of the 100-member National Council. "We will not be lenient."
On the heels of those comments, talks were broken off and the U.S. Marines were turned loose:
U.S. Marines launched air and ground attacks yesterday on the rebel bastion Fallujah after city representatives suspended peace talks with the government over Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's demand to hand over terror mastermind Abu Musab Zarqawi.
The raids began hours after terrorists struck deep inside Baghdad's heavily fortified green zone, setting off bombs at a market and a popular cafe that killed at least 10 persons — including four Americans — and wounded 20 others in the compound housing foreign embassies and Iraqi government offices.
Zarqawi's terror group, Tawhid and Jihad, claimed responsibility for the suicide attacks, according to a statement posted on an Islamist Web site.
In the near future, the Marines are finally going to get the green light to go into Fallujah and wipe out all traces of any rebels or insurgents.
Cheney Backlash
Great post over at Power Line on the growing backlash from JFK's comments about the Cheney's daughter during the presidential debate.
A Pretty Good Hand
Hugh Hewitt's latest article at the Weekly Standard on the President's perfomance at the third debate.
IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE how Bob Schieffer could have been more pro-Kerry in last night's debate--short of actually wearing a Kerry-Edwards button.
Which makes the president's win even more impressive. Despite talking points cueing questions to Kerry on jobs and minimum wage, and intended-to-put-him-on-the-defensive set-ups about "what do you say to the man who lost his job," "assault weapons," and "is sexual orientation a choice" hardballs at Bush's head, the president calmly turned the questions to the issue he wanted to get to and put Kerry in a corner he can not possibly escape from in 20 days.
It is the global test, government healthcare, do-nothing for 20 years in the Senate corner. It is the corner where Social Security is just fine, where $2.2 trillion in proposed spending doesn't have to be squared with an $800 million--at most--raising tax hike, and where the "far left bank" of the mainstream marks a boundary. Forget Kerry's blunders. (The introduction of the vice president's daughter into the debate was a huge blunder, as was the "I passed 56 bills!" howler and the uncomfortable, "I married up" moment.) For all his lawyerly eloquence, Kerry just doesn't connect, and cannot connect because the electorate knows a few things about guns and taxes and social security. Twenty years ago candidates could ignore facts because 30 minutes of nightly news didn't really push policy debates into living rooms.
Call me crazy, but I think the president is in a very good place 19 days out.Thursday, October 14, 2004
Presidential Debate #3
Sorry this post is so late. I was hoping to have this up earlier, but as you all know, life can be very upredictable.
Well, it is finally over. I thoroughly enjoy politics, but I have had enough. Bring on November 2nd so we can get on with our lives.
Now for the debate. No real devastating blows by either candidate, but I am going to give the debate win to the President. Unlike debate #1, George W. was personable, showed his experience, and connected with the people. Kerry on the other hand was stiff and looked like the walking dead. No connection with the audience or “America” whatsoever.
Bush scored big with the faith question, gay marriage, and of course with security. How do we relieve the National Guard members in Iraq? By succeeding. Great answer.
Kerry on the other hand was uncomfortable with the faith question and abortion question, and with good reason. Catholic voters aren’t going to like his answer to either one.
When it comes to jobs we have to remember a couple of things. The Bush administration inherited a recession, and then we were attacked on September 11th resulting in the loss of something like a million jobs. To have come back as far as we have, adding 1.6 million some odd jobs since then is tremendous. But remember, according to the Kerry camp everything is the Bush Administration’s fault, my leaking plumbing on Tuesday was the President’s fault. You get my drift.
I wish the president had done more with the assault weapons ban, but that is not going to be a huge deciding factor in this election. And it irritates me to no end that Kerry keeps saying that our police are going to be more threatened because the ban is gone. If someone is threatening officers with an AK-47, it is because the gun was bought illegally in the first place. These guys don’t go down to the local sportsman show and come out with an imported full auto. Previous legislation bans the sale of these weapons in the U.S. anyway. The “Assault Weapons” ban was on items that are almost cosmetic in nature. Anyway, I could see a long rant coming on about this so I will stop now.
If you haven't already, check out the real pundits here, here, here, here, and here.
Find a transcription of last night’s debate here.
We are now on the home stretch to November 2nd. And it can’t come soon enough. The President asked for my vote last night, and as I have intended all along I am gladly going to give it to him.
Update: Lynne Cheney on John Kerry: “This is not a good man.”
"Now, you know, I did have a chance to assess John Kerry once more and now the only thing I could conclude: This is not a good man," she said.
"Of course, I am speaking as a mom, and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick."
Kerry is done with moms everywhere. If there was any doubt that the Security Moms were going to vote for Bush, JFK just cinched the deal.
Well, it is finally over. I thoroughly enjoy politics, but I have had enough. Bring on November 2nd so we can get on with our lives.
Now for the debate. No real devastating blows by either candidate, but I am going to give the debate win to the President. Unlike debate #1, George W. was personable, showed his experience, and connected with the people. Kerry on the other hand was stiff and looked like the walking dead. No connection with the audience or “America” whatsoever.
Bush scored big with the faith question, gay marriage, and of course with security. How do we relieve the National Guard members in Iraq? By succeeding. Great answer.
Kerry on the other hand was uncomfortable with the faith question and abortion question, and with good reason. Catholic voters aren’t going to like his answer to either one.
When it comes to jobs we have to remember a couple of things. The Bush administration inherited a recession, and then we were attacked on September 11th resulting in the loss of something like a million jobs. To have come back as far as we have, adding 1.6 million some odd jobs since then is tremendous. But remember, according to the Kerry camp everything is the Bush Administration’s fault, my leaking plumbing on Tuesday was the President’s fault. You get my drift.
I wish the president had done more with the assault weapons ban, but that is not going to be a huge deciding factor in this election. And it irritates me to no end that Kerry keeps saying that our police are going to be more threatened because the ban is gone. If someone is threatening officers with an AK-47, it is because the gun was bought illegally in the first place. These guys don’t go down to the local sportsman show and come out with an imported full auto. Previous legislation bans the sale of these weapons in the U.S. anyway. The “Assault Weapons” ban was on items that are almost cosmetic in nature. Anyway, I could see a long rant coming on about this so I will stop now.
If you haven't already, check out the real pundits here, here, here, here, and here.
Find a transcription of last night’s debate here.
We are now on the home stretch to November 2nd. And it can’t come soon enough. The President asked for my vote last night, and as I have intended all along I am gladly going to give it to him.
Update: Lynne Cheney on John Kerry: “This is not a good man.”
"Now, you know, I did have a chance to assess John Kerry once more and now the only thing I could conclude: This is not a good man," she said.
"Of course, I am speaking as a mom, and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick."
Kerry is done with moms everywhere. If there was any doubt that the Security Moms were going to vote for Bush, JFK just cinched the deal.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Wictory Wednesday
Today we are focusing on the race between Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tom Coburn and Democrat Brad Carlson in Oklahoma, and it is a tight race. Colburn holds the lead by the narrowest of margins.
Carlson is benefiting from the Oklahoma media campaigning for him, so a few dollars can go a long way towards buying advertising that highlights Coburn’s conservatism and Carson’s liberalism. You can easily contribute to Coburn’s campaign online.
Today is Wictory Wednesday. If you have a blog and want to participate, go to Wictory Wednesday and get yourself on the blogroll.
Blogs that participate in Wictory Wednesday:
Carlson is benefiting from the Oklahoma media campaigning for him, so a few dollars can go a long way towards buying advertising that highlights Coburn’s conservatism and Carson’s liberalism. You can easily contribute to Coburn’s campaign online.
Today is Wictory Wednesday. If you have a blog and want to participate, go to Wictory Wednesday and get yourself on the blogroll.
Blogs that participate in Wictory Wednesday:
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
The Real Deal on the Assualt Weapons Ban
Before I go to the basement to confront Shelob, I wanted to post this article from Larry Elder on the assualt weapons ban.
As I was browsing the Washington Times online when I came across Elder's name on their commentary page. I have been seeing ads for Larry Elder having a daytime talk show, so I was a bit skeptical. I then clicked link for Larry, and came across this great article:
In 1994, Congress passed and President Clinton signed a 10-year ban on so-called "assault weapons." In reality, the bill outlawed certain semiautomatic weapons with cosmetic features that made them look, well, military.
The law banned the manufacture and importation of 19 specific models of military-style semiautomatic rifles, and limited the size of clips to 10 rounds. It also prohibited rifles with two or more of the following features — collapsible stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, bayonet mount or grenade launcher.
The outlawed guns featured the same power as, for example, semiautomatic deer rifles, and they functioned exactly the same. But in the real world, criminals prefer either concealable handguns or illegal automatic weapons, so the banned ones failed to deter crime. Surveys of weapons seized during arrests in California, for example, found criminals used these cosmetic "assault weapons" in approximately 2 percent of crimes.
Yet many mistakenly say the 1994 law outlawed automatic weapons — those in which rounds continue firing until the trigger is released. Some television and newspaper reports even showed videos and photos of weapons banned prior to the 1994 law, such as Uzis and AK-47s. Even the semiautomatic versions — those with one round released with each pull of the trigger — were already outlawed under a 1989 import ban and remain illegal. A 1986 law banned production of all new automatic weapons, grandfathered existing automatic weapons and established strict procedures for sale of those older guns in states that did not outlaw them altogether. Since 1934, the government has banned fully automatic weapons from civilian use without special permission from the Treasury Department.
Presidential candidate John Kerry jumped on the misinformation bandwagon. "Police officers," Mr. Kerry said, are "begging the president all across our country: Keep this ban in place so we don't have to walk into a drug bust staring down the barrel of a military machine gun, of an Uzi or an AK-47."
Make sure read read the whole article. Very informative. I've always maintained that all these bans on this weapon and that only affect the citizens that are buying guns legally for sport and recreation. Those that are looking for AKs and Uzis aren't going down to their local outfitters and buying them, and no legistlation is going to stop them from getting these illegal weapons.
As I was browsing the Washington Times online when I came across Elder's name on their commentary page. I have been seeing ads for Larry Elder having a daytime talk show, so I was a bit skeptical. I then clicked link for Larry, and came across this great article:
In 1994, Congress passed and President Clinton signed a 10-year ban on so-called "assault weapons." In reality, the bill outlawed certain semiautomatic weapons with cosmetic features that made them look, well, military.
The law banned the manufacture and importation of 19 specific models of military-style semiautomatic rifles, and limited the size of clips to 10 rounds. It also prohibited rifles with two or more of the following features — collapsible stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, bayonet mount or grenade launcher.
The outlawed guns featured the same power as, for example, semiautomatic deer rifles, and they functioned exactly the same. But in the real world, criminals prefer either concealable handguns or illegal automatic weapons, so the banned ones failed to deter crime. Surveys of weapons seized during arrests in California, for example, found criminals used these cosmetic "assault weapons" in approximately 2 percent of crimes.
Yet many mistakenly say the 1994 law outlawed automatic weapons — those in which rounds continue firing until the trigger is released. Some television and newspaper reports even showed videos and photos of weapons banned prior to the 1994 law, such as Uzis and AK-47s. Even the semiautomatic versions — those with one round released with each pull of the trigger — were already outlawed under a 1989 import ban and remain illegal. A 1986 law banned production of all new automatic weapons, grandfathered existing automatic weapons and established strict procedures for sale of those older guns in states that did not outlaw them altogether. Since 1934, the government has banned fully automatic weapons from civilian use without special permission from the Treasury Department.
Presidential candidate John Kerry jumped on the misinformation bandwagon. "Police officers," Mr. Kerry said, are "begging the president all across our country: Keep this ban in place so we don't have to walk into a drug bust staring down the barrel of a military machine gun, of an Uzi or an AK-47."
Make sure read read the whole article. Very informative. I've always maintained that all these bans on this weapon and that only affect the citizens that are buying guns legally for sport and recreation. Those that are looking for AKs and Uzis aren't going down to their local outfitters and buying them, and no legistlation is going to stop them from getting these illegal weapons.
Into the Basement I Go
Day two of a little mini-vacation finds me heading to the basement of my house that was built circa 1880 to do a little plumbing.
Let's see, 120+ year old timbers, a propane torch, and no water. Probably spiders with the same proportions of Shelob down there too.
This could be interesting.
Update: The job only took four hours longer than it should have and only four trips to the hardware store to get the parts needed to complete the project without gallons of water leaking into my basement. Nothing caught on fire and Shelob remained in the shadows. Overall, a typical home improvement job.
Let's see, 120+ year old timbers, a propane torch, and no water. Probably spiders with the same proportions of Shelob down there too.
This could be interesting.
Update: The job only took four hours longer than it should have and only four trips to the hardware store to get the parts needed to complete the project without gallons of water leaking into my basement. Nothing caught on fire and Shelob remained in the shadows. Overall, a typical home improvement job.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Return of the Jedi DVD
I have just spent a good part of the day watching the new Star Wars DVD set. I am now convinced more than ever that George Lucas, the creator of our galaxay far, far away, hates us.
The first sign of the creator's hate of us that love his creation was Episodes I and II. Potentially, they could have been the best movies ever. Anakin's beginnings, the Clone Wars, the fall of the Jedi and rise of the Sith whose greatest lord is Darth Vader. All of this had great potentional. Instead we got The Phantom Menace and The Attack of the Clones. Don't get me wrong, some parts of these movies were great. Pod Racing, Darth Maul, Jango Fett, Clone Troopers, and Sammy Jackson with a purple lightsaber. All were right. On the flip side we have, Midichlorians, Queen Amidala, Gungans, and Jar Jar Binks to name a few.
Now, some purists hate the fact the Lucas redid the original Trilogy with the Special Edition scenes. I personally loved them. The Special Editions scenes are included on these disks. They look even better now than they did in '97.
Now we get to the crux of my rant. If you intend to buy or watch the new DVDs, you might want to stop reading.
As I watched Return of the Jedi, I ranged the gambit of emotions from joy to sorrow. Luke battling his father, being drawn further and further toward the Dark Side. The hideous little Ewoks getting blasted by AT-STs. Han Solo and his small group of rebels blowing up the sheild generator exposing the Death Star making it possible for Lando and his fighter group to blow up the DS. Luke and Anakin being reconciled, because Luke sensed the good in him and fought for it. Luke burning the body of his father Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader on the funeral pyre.
And then it happens. Lucas complete comtempt for us is shown. Instead of Sir Alec Guinness, Yoda, and Anakin, who is played by Sebastion Shaw, standing there at end of the film, it's Guinness, Yoda, and friggin' Hayden Christensen. Hayden Christensen. How could Lucas do this to us? Hayden's acting in Episode II is only bearable because it is a Star Wars movie. No other reason. He was hideous.
Now on a more positive note, Lucas might actually redeem himself in Episode III (but we shouldn't hold our collective breaths). There is a featurette on the fourth disk that is about Episode III called The Return of Darth Vader. Christensen has matured and seems to fit the part much better. The saber fights between Obi-Wan and Vader look absolutely awesome. And Darth Vader will be in the film as we have known him for years: body armor and helmet on.
I can hear the haunting, raspy breathing now.
The first sign of the creator's hate of us that love his creation was Episodes I and II. Potentially, they could have been the best movies ever. Anakin's beginnings, the Clone Wars, the fall of the Jedi and rise of the Sith whose greatest lord is Darth Vader. All of this had great potentional. Instead we got The Phantom Menace and The Attack of the Clones. Don't get me wrong, some parts of these movies were great. Pod Racing, Darth Maul, Jango Fett, Clone Troopers, and Sammy Jackson with a purple lightsaber. All were right. On the flip side we have, Midichlorians, Queen Amidala, Gungans, and Jar Jar Binks to name a few.
Now, some purists hate the fact the Lucas redid the original Trilogy with the Special Edition scenes. I personally loved them. The Special Editions scenes are included on these disks. They look even better now than they did in '97.
Now we get to the crux of my rant. If you intend to buy or watch the new DVDs, you might want to stop reading.
As I watched Return of the Jedi, I ranged the gambit of emotions from joy to sorrow. Luke battling his father, being drawn further and further toward the Dark Side. The hideous little Ewoks getting blasted by AT-STs. Han Solo and his small group of rebels blowing up the sheild generator exposing the Death Star making it possible for Lando and his fighter group to blow up the DS. Luke and Anakin being reconciled, because Luke sensed the good in him and fought for it. Luke burning the body of his father Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader on the funeral pyre.
And then it happens. Lucas complete comtempt for us is shown. Instead of Sir Alec Guinness, Yoda, and Anakin, who is played by Sebastion Shaw, standing there at end of the film, it's Guinness, Yoda, and friggin' Hayden Christensen. Hayden Christensen. How could Lucas do this to us? Hayden's acting in Episode II is only bearable because it is a Star Wars movie. No other reason. He was hideous.
Now on a more positive note, Lucas might actually redeem himself in Episode III (but we shouldn't hold our collective breaths). There is a featurette on the fourth disk that is about Episode III called The Return of Darth Vader. Christensen has matured and seems to fit the part much better. The saber fights between Obi-Wan and Vader look absolutely awesome. And Darth Vader will be in the film as we have known him for years: body armor and helmet on.
I can hear the haunting, raspy breathing now.
Gotham by Gaslight: A Tale of the Batman
As I was going through my box of old comics the other day I came across this gem. I bought this book way back in 1989 because the art fascinated me and the story was about Bats taking on Jack the Ripper in 1889. I was strictly a Marvel Comics guy back then and never bought DC, but I thought it was cool that a Batman comic would be set in 1800's, so I figured I would get it.
I was very surprised when I pulled the comic out last week and happened to notice that the artist was none other than Hellboy creator Mike Mignola. I was shocked. Mike Mignola's name didn't mean much to me back in '89. It certainly does now. This book came out several years before Hellboy hit the stands, and Mignola's styling in this book is a definite precursor to Hellboy works.
This book is out of print, but if you can find a copy it is worth the read, espcecially if you are a fan of Mignola.
"The Pink Army"
Coalition Troops seized $30 million worth of Heroin intended for sale on the streets of Iraq by al-Sadr's thugs:
Coalition troops have seized $30 million worth of heroin intended for sale on Iraqi streets by rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's militia, the former commander of the 9,000-strong Polish force in south-central Iraq says.
Lt. Gen. Mieczyslav Bieniek said the militia was using the drug profits "to pay for action" against coalition forces and that some members of the Mahdi's Army were "under the influence [while] fighting us."
The Polish commander was in Washington last week and said that the heroin trade was so pervasive that militia members were known as the "pink army" — named after the red plastic bags they use to peddle the drugs.
Coalition troops have seized $30 million worth of heroin intended for sale on Iraqi streets by rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's militia, the former commander of the 9,000-strong Polish force in south-central Iraq says.
Lt. Gen. Mieczyslav Bieniek said the militia was using the drug profits "to pay for action" against coalition forces and that some members of the Mahdi's Army were "under the influence [while] fighting us."
The Polish commander was in Washington last week and said that the heroin trade was so pervasive that militia members were known as the "pink army" — named after the red plastic bags they use to peddle the drugs.
Sizing Up Iraq
The latest piece by Victor Davis Hanson on the happenings in the Middle East:
First, is the United States winning its engagements on the ground? The answer is an overwhelming yes — whether we look, most recently, at Samarra or at the thrashing of the Mahdists in Najaf. The combination of armor incursions, constant sniper attack, and GPS bombing in each case has led to decisive tactical defeat of the insurgents. Our only setback — the unfortunate pullback from Fallujah — was entirely attributable to our wrongheaded constraint, as if we somehow felt that releasing the terrorists from our death grip would either placate the opposition, empower the Iraqi government, or win accolades from the international community. (See here, here, here, and here.)
First, is the United States winning its engagements on the ground? The answer is an overwhelming yes — whether we look, most recently, at Samarra or at the thrashing of the Mahdists in Najaf. The combination of armor incursions, constant sniper attack, and GPS bombing in each case has led to decisive tactical defeat of the insurgents. Our only setback — the unfortunate pullback from Fallujah — was entirely attributable to our wrongheaded constraint, as if we somehow felt that releasing the terrorists from our death grip would either placate the opposition, empower the Iraqi government, or win accolades from the international community. (See here, here, here, and here.)
In fact, our retreat achieved the opposite effect. Thus the withdrawal from Fallujah will be taught for decades as a textbook case of what not to do when suppressing insurgents. Nevertheless, we have reestablished the fact that we can crush all the opposition on the ground, our willingness to restart real hostilities dependent only on how much flak from our critics in the Middle East and Europe we are willing to take.
Let us hope that our planners have learned that whatever ephemeral public relations or humanitarianism they achieved by sparing the terrorists in Fallujah was vastly outweighed by the death and destruction they wrought and the greater number of lives that must now be sacrificed to defeat the emboldened killers for good. The foreign killers in Fallujah are just the sort of folk who trained in Afghanistan, would like to repeat 9/11, and are psychopathic killers of innocent reformers. Instead of worrying about how they got to Fallujah, we should see it as to our advantage that they are now conveniently collected in one central place and can be dealt with en masse. Because the 4th Infantry Division never came down from Turkey during the war into the Sunni Triangle, hundreds of Baathist killers who should have been crushed were not, and instead they melted away. It is now time to finish the job.
Read the whole thing here.Saturday, October 09, 2004
The Duelfer Report
Here is the link to the Duelfer Report. Might as well download it and peruse it yourself. The media keeps reporting that the report concludes that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but Duelfer’s report also holds so much more information convicting Saddam Hussein. No matter what is said, Saddam had been a threat to the world in the past, and he was bound to be a threat in the future.
Bremer Clarifies his Comments
JFK is quick to use Paul Bremer’s comments about Iraq against President Bush. Bremer pens an op-ed column for the New York Times today setting the record straight about his remarks:
The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.
The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.
President Bush has said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. He is right. Mr. Zarqawi's stated goal is to kill Americans, set off a sectarian war in Iraq and defeat democracy there. He is our enemy.
Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.
Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.
A year and a half ago, President Bush asked me to come to the Oval Office to discuss my going to Iraq to head the coalition authority. He asked me bluntly, "Why would you want to leave private life and take on such a difficult, dangerous and probably thankless job?" Without hesitation, I answered, "Because I believe in your vision for Iraq and would be honored to help you make it a reality." Today America and the coalition are making steady progress toward that vision. (HT: Power Line)
It’s all about context and using it correctly.
The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.
The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.
President Bush has said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. He is right. Mr. Zarqawi's stated goal is to kill Americans, set off a sectarian war in Iraq and defeat democracy there. He is our enemy.
Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.
Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.
A year and a half ago, President Bush asked me to come to the Oval Office to discuss my going to Iraq to head the coalition authority. He asked me bluntly, "Why would you want to leave private life and take on such a difficult, dangerous and probably thankless job?" Without hesitation, I answered, "Because I believe in your vision for Iraq and would be honored to help you make it a reality." Today America and the coalition are making steady progress toward that vision. (HT: Power Line)
It’s all about context and using it correctly.
Saddam’s Sugar Daddy
Claudia Rosett’s runs down Saddam’s “Weapons of Mass Corruption”, which include Koffi Annan and the U.N. Oil for Food program:
Saddam followed a deliberate strategy of using bribes in such forms as contracts for cheap oil via the U.N. program, or outright gifts of vouchers for oil pumped under U.N. supervision, to gain political influence abroad. He grossly violated U.N. rules, with illicit trade agreements, oil smuggling, and arms deals (conventional, but still deadly) — and the U.N. did not stop him. By 2001, Saddam was able to thwart many of the constraints sanctions were meant to impose on his regime. His strategy, notes the Duelfer report, succeeded "to the point where sitting members of the Security Council were actively violating resolutions passed by the Security Council."
But no one has ever heard these facts from the U.N. itself, certainly not from such prime violators as France, Russia, and Syria — nor from the man most directly responsible for protecting the honor of the institution, Secretary-General Annan. Instead, Annan has to this day refused even to disclose to the public such basic details as the names of Saddam's contractors or the terms of their deals.
By greatly obscuring the specifics, this U.N. secrecy has gone far to blur the true damage and horrors of Oil-for-Food, leaving the impression that any graft — if indeed there was such a thing within the program — was allegedly committed by faceless people employing vague methods, overseen by an unwitting U.N. Secretariat, led by a Secretary-General who earlier this year professed himself ignorant of any wrongdoing by his staff, and who somehow never worked around to alerting the world that Saddam had developed a taste for doing sweet deals via states with conveniently shared borders, such as Jordan and Syria, or veto-wielding members of the Security Council: France, Russia, and China.
Blessedly, the Duelfer report clears away much of the U.N. murk. Volume I, devoted to sources of financing and procurement for Saddam's regime, provides hundreds of pages of damning details — lifting much of the cover that U.N. secrecy gave to Saddam, his business partners, and the U.N. itself (which had effectively become one of his chief business partners, thanks both to the 2.2-percent commission collected by Annan's Secretariat, and the deals parceled out by Saddam to pivotal member states). Duelfer's report, released Wednesday, includes not only general descriptions of Oil-for-Food corruption, but names, dates, methods, networks, and dollar amounts — a roster dubbed adroitly by Reuters as Saddam's There is everything here from the eye-catching list of Saddam's oil allocations to Annan's handpicked head of the program, Benon Sevan (he denies it); to specific allocations of cheap oil for French and Russian government officials; to such low-profile stuff as how Oil-for-Food gave Saddam money and maneuvering room to meddle in the presidential election of Belarus.
Oh no, Saddam wasn’t corrupt nor a threat. The U.N. an outdated dinosaur that helped Saddam get rich? Nah, this just couldn’t be.
And if you believe that...
Saddam followed a deliberate strategy of using bribes in such forms as contracts for cheap oil via the U.N. program, or outright gifts of vouchers for oil pumped under U.N. supervision, to gain political influence abroad. He grossly violated U.N. rules, with illicit trade agreements, oil smuggling, and arms deals (conventional, but still deadly) — and the U.N. did not stop him. By 2001, Saddam was able to thwart many of the constraints sanctions were meant to impose on his regime. His strategy, notes the Duelfer report, succeeded "to the point where sitting members of the Security Council were actively violating resolutions passed by the Security Council."
But no one has ever heard these facts from the U.N. itself, certainly not from such prime violators as France, Russia, and Syria — nor from the man most directly responsible for protecting the honor of the institution, Secretary-General Annan. Instead, Annan has to this day refused even to disclose to the public such basic details as the names of Saddam's contractors or the terms of their deals.
By greatly obscuring the specifics, this U.N. secrecy has gone far to blur the true damage and horrors of Oil-for-Food, leaving the impression that any graft — if indeed there was such a thing within the program — was allegedly committed by faceless people employing vague methods, overseen by an unwitting U.N. Secretariat, led by a Secretary-General who earlier this year professed himself ignorant of any wrongdoing by his staff, and who somehow never worked around to alerting the world that Saddam had developed a taste for doing sweet deals via states with conveniently shared borders, such as Jordan and Syria, or veto-wielding members of the Security Council: France, Russia, and China.
Blessedly, the Duelfer report clears away much of the U.N. murk. Volume I, devoted to sources of financing and procurement for Saddam's regime, provides hundreds of pages of damning details — lifting much of the cover that U.N. secrecy gave to Saddam, his business partners, and the U.N. itself (which had effectively become one of his chief business partners, thanks both to the 2.2-percent commission collected by Annan's Secretariat, and the deals parceled out by Saddam to pivotal member states). Duelfer's report, released Wednesday, includes not only general descriptions of Oil-for-Food corruption, but names, dates, methods, networks, and dollar amounts — a roster dubbed adroitly by Reuters as Saddam's There is everything here from the eye-catching list of Saddam's oil allocations to Annan's handpicked head of the program, Benon Sevan (he denies it); to specific allocations of cheap oil for French and Russian government officials; to such low-profile stuff as how Oil-for-Food gave Saddam money and maneuvering room to meddle in the presidential election of Belarus.
Oh no, Saddam wasn’t corrupt nor a threat. The U.N. an outdated dinosaur that helped Saddam get rich? Nah, this just couldn’t be.
And if you believe that...
Kerry’s False Claims
Hugh Hewitt lists all the mainstream media sources compiled by the RNC that point out Kerry’s erroneous claims that General Shinseki was “fired” by President Bush:
CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT JAMIE MCINTYRE: “[T]he fact that the Army chief of staff was not fired or forced to retire early is just that, Judy. It is a fact.” (CNN's “Inside Politics,” 9/24/04)
KERRY KEEPS REPEATING FALSE CLAIM
October 7, 2004: Kerry Claimed “I Will Do What The Generals Believe We Need To Do Without Having Any Chilling Effect As The President Put In Place By Firing General Shinseki.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, Englewood, CO, 10/7/04)
October 5, 2004: Kerry Claimed President “Fired His Own Army Chief Of Staff [Eric Shinseki] When His Army Chief Of Staff Said How Many Troops He'd Need [In Iraq].” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, Tipton, IA, 10/5/04)
THE FACTS
In Fact, Shinseki’s Retirement Was Announced In April 2002, Long Before He Testified About Potential Conduct Of Iraq War. “[Defense Sec. Rumsfeld] and Army Secretary Thomas White have settled on Gen. John M. Keane, Army deputy chief of staff, to succeed the current chief, Gen. Eric Shinseki. Gen. Shinseki does not retire for more than a year. Sources offer differing reasons for the early selection.” (Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, “Inside The Ring,” The Washington Times , 4/19/02)
It Was Not Until Late February 2003, More Than Ten Months Later, That Shinseki Said “Several Hundred Thousand” Troops Would Be Required For “Post-Hostilities Control” In Iraq. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): “General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?” ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF ERIC SHINSEKI: “ In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commander's exact requirements . But I think …” LEVIN: “How about a range?” SHINSEKI: “I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required.” (Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/25/03)
MEDIA CORRECTS THE RECORD
Shinseki “Completed His Full Term Of Chief Of Staff And Retired On Schedule.” BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: “John Kerry insisted today, as he has repeatedly over the past year, that the Army's former Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki was forced into early retirement for saying, in the run up to the war for Iraq, that not enough troops were set to be deployed to the region. Kerry said Shinseki is among the administration officials who, quote, ‘lost their jobs for telling the truth.’ But Shinseki was not forced out. He completed his full term of chief of staff and retired on schedule. However, his successor's name did come out a year ahead of the time, which his supporters say diminished Shinseki's influence in his final year.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 9/20/04)
Shinseki’s Retirement Was Announced Well Before He Criticized Iraq Troop Levels. WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: “Kerry also said General Shinseki was forced to retire as a result of his criticism of troop levels in Iraq, but his retirement was announced in April of 2002, and he made the statement, his criticism of troop levels, in 2003.” (CNN’s “NewsNight,” 10/1/04)
John Kerry’s Assertion That Shinseki Was Fired Is “Factual Mistake.” ED HENRY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: “Also, there was at least one factual mistake in the speech. John Kerry noted at one point that General Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, was fired for not providing the right answers that President Bush was looking for in terms of troop levels, but, in fact, Shinseki retired on his own.” (CNN’s “News From CNN,” 9/8/04)
CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT JAMIE MCINTYRE: “[T]he fact that the Army chief of staff was not fired or forced to retire early is just that, Judy. It is a fact.” (CNN's “Inside Politics,” 9/24/04)
KERRY KEEPS REPEATING FALSE CLAIM
October 7, 2004: Kerry Claimed “I Will Do What The Generals Believe We Need To Do Without Having Any Chilling Effect As The President Put In Place By Firing General Shinseki.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, Englewood, CO, 10/7/04)
October 5, 2004: Kerry Claimed President “Fired His Own Army Chief Of Staff [Eric Shinseki] When His Army Chief Of Staff Said How Many Troops He'd Need [In Iraq].” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, Tipton, IA, 10/5/04)
THE FACTS
In Fact, Shinseki’s Retirement Was Announced In April 2002, Long Before He Testified About Potential Conduct Of Iraq War. “[Defense Sec. Rumsfeld] and Army Secretary Thomas White have settled on Gen. John M. Keane, Army deputy chief of staff, to succeed the current chief, Gen. Eric Shinseki. Gen. Shinseki does not retire for more than a year. Sources offer differing reasons for the early selection.” (Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, “Inside The Ring,” The Washington Times , 4/19/02)
It Was Not Until Late February 2003, More Than Ten Months Later, That Shinseki Said “Several Hundred Thousand” Troops Would Be Required For “Post-Hostilities Control” In Iraq. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): “General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?” ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF ERIC SHINSEKI: “ In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commander's exact requirements . But I think …” LEVIN: “How about a range?” SHINSEKI: “I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required.” (Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/25/03)
MEDIA CORRECTS THE RECORD
Shinseki “Completed His Full Term Of Chief Of Staff And Retired On Schedule.” BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: “John Kerry insisted today, as he has repeatedly over the past year, that the Army's former Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki was forced into early retirement for saying, in the run up to the war for Iraq, that not enough troops were set to be deployed to the region. Kerry said Shinseki is among the administration officials who, quote, ‘lost their jobs for telling the truth.’ But Shinseki was not forced out. He completed his full term of chief of staff and retired on schedule. However, his successor's name did come out a year ahead of the time, which his supporters say diminished Shinseki's influence in his final year.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 9/20/04)
Shinseki’s Retirement Was Announced Well Before He Criticized Iraq Troop Levels. WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: “Kerry also said General Shinseki was forced to retire as a result of his criticism of troop levels in Iraq, but his retirement was announced in April of 2002, and he made the statement, his criticism of troop levels, in 2003.” (CNN’s “NewsNight,” 10/1/04)
John Kerry’s Assertion That Shinseki Was Fired Is “Factual Mistake.” ED HENRY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: “Also, there was at least one factual mistake in the speech. John Kerry noted at one point that General Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, was fired for not providing the right answers that President Bush was looking for in terms of troop levels, but, in fact, Shinseki retired on his own.” (CNN’s “News From CNN,” 9/8/04)
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Wictory Wednesday
This week, Wictory Wednesday is focusing on the dead even Senate race between Republican Richard Burr and Democrat Erskine Bowles. However, Burr needs your help. The wealthy Bowles is pouring his own money into the race and Burr needs to counter him. If you don’t want Democrats controlling the Senate, then please contribute whatever you can to Burr’s campaign.
If you have a blog and want to participate, go to Wictory Wednesday and get yourself on the blogroll.
Blogs that participate in Wictory Wednesday:
If you have a blog and want to participate, go to Wictory Wednesday and get yourself on the blogroll.
Blogs that participate in Wictory Wednesday:
The VP Debate
The debate last night was great, much better than the presidential one. And, Cheney won, despite the post debate spin. Edwards was physically flustered throughout the debate and Cheney remained calm and cool at all times. Cheney landed some decisive blows against the Kerry/Edwards camp by attacking their record in the Senate as well as the noticeable absence from the Senate, missing countless votes on things such as Medicare reform, taxes, and energy. Edwards is attempting to fast track up the political ladder while putting as little effort in as possible.
Here is another huge blow struck by Cheney last night:
The problem we have is that, if you look at his record, he doesn't display the qualities of somebody who has conviction.
And with respect to this particular operation, we've seen a situation in which, first, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed -- body armor, spare parts, ammunition -- they voted against it.
I couldn't figure out why that happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops.
Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida?
Edwards got Halliburton wrong last night, and even when refuted kept going with error. Come to find out, it was not that Halliburton got the nod on a no-bid job, but they got the contract because they were the only company that could do the job that was required and within the allotted time, not because Dick Cheney was the former CEO. In this day and age of the blogosphere and media watchdogs, it’s hard to imagine Edwards coming to the table with faulty info and trying to make it work. In the past, when people just took what the politicians and media said as truth and never questioned it, this tactic would have succeeded. I’m convinced this is what Dan Rather thought about the forged memos. Nobody will question the word of “The Dan”, as he was dubbed by Bernard Goldberg in his book Bias. These tactics will not work anymore.
Cheney was smart to call Edwards on his diminishing of the role of the Iraqi people in the war. They are giving their lives to liberate their country too, and should be counted in Iraqi Coalition as well. The Kerry camp’s desire to make this war look bad, and especially by trying to discredit Prime Minister Allawi, is going to shoot them in the foot, especially when Allawi and Iraq are going to play a prominent role in their so called “coalition”.
But did this debate do anything for the undecided? I have to say probably not. The base for both camps is secure and the debate last night continued to pump them up. But, as I believe Tim Russert said on NBC this morning, there is three weeks to go, and what is it going take make a decision.
As I have ranted on long enough, make sure to check out the real pundits here, here, here, here, and here. A debate transcript is available here.
Here is another huge blow struck by Cheney last night:
The problem we have is that, if you look at his record, he doesn't display the qualities of somebody who has conviction.
And with respect to this particular operation, we've seen a situation in which, first, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed -- body armor, spare parts, ammunition -- they voted against it.
I couldn't figure out why that happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops.
Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida?
Edwards got Halliburton wrong last night, and even when refuted kept going with error. Come to find out, it was not that Halliburton got the nod on a no-bid job, but they got the contract because they were the only company that could do the job that was required and within the allotted time, not because Dick Cheney was the former CEO. In this day and age of the blogosphere and media watchdogs, it’s hard to imagine Edwards coming to the table with faulty info and trying to make it work. In the past, when people just took what the politicians and media said as truth and never questioned it, this tactic would have succeeded. I’m convinced this is what Dan Rather thought about the forged memos. Nobody will question the word of “The Dan”, as he was dubbed by Bernard Goldberg in his book Bias. These tactics will not work anymore.
Cheney was smart to call Edwards on his diminishing of the role of the Iraqi people in the war. They are giving their lives to liberate their country too, and should be counted in Iraqi Coalition as well. The Kerry camp’s desire to make this war look bad, and especially by trying to discredit Prime Minister Allawi, is going to shoot them in the foot, especially when Allawi and Iraq are going to play a prominent role in their so called “coalition”.
But did this debate do anything for the undecided? I have to say probably not. The base for both camps is secure and the debate last night continued to pump them up. But, as I believe Tim Russert said on NBC this morning, there is three weeks to go, and what is it going take make a decision.
As I have ranted on long enough, make sure to check out the real pundits here, here, here, here, and here. A debate transcript is available here.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Comments
I have enabled the comments feature for the blog. This was done with some apprehension, not because differing opinions from mine would be expressed, but how they might be expressed.
Comments posted to this blog do not necessarily represent the opinions of the World of Tomorrow. Open conversation is encouraged, but personal attacks and vulgarity will result in the comments feature being shut off.
With that said, I look forward to hearing from some of the regulars that stop by the WoT and those who are visiting for the first time.
Comments posted to this blog do not necessarily represent the opinions of the World of Tomorrow. Open conversation is encouraged, but personal attacks and vulgarity will result in the comments feature being shut off.
With that said, I look forward to hearing from some of the regulars that stop by the WoT and those who are visiting for the first time.
The American Coalition: the U.S., Britain, Austrailia, and Poland?
The president of Poland chides John Kerry for leaving Poland out as part of the coalition in Iraq:
Reacting to John Kerry's omission of Poland’s efforts in Iraq, President of Poland Alexander Kwasniewski said, “I find it kind of sad that a senator with 20 year parliamentary experience is unable to notice the Polish presence in the anti-terror coalition.”
When asked about Kerry's derogation of non-U.S. coalition countries fighting in Iraq, Kwasniewski said: “I don't think it's an ignorance. The anti-terror coalition is larger than the USA, the U.K. and Australia. There are also Poland, Ukraine, and Bulgaria etc. which lost their soldiers there. It's highly immoral not to see our strong commitment we have taken with a strong believe that we must fight against terror together, that we must show our strong international solidarity because Saddam Hussein was dangerous to the world.”
“That's why we are disappointed that our stance and ultimate sacrifice of our soldiers are so diminished,” President Kwasniewski said. “Perhaps Mr. Kerry thinks about the coalition with Germany and France, countries which disagreed with us on Iraq.”
Ouch!
Reacting to John Kerry's omission of Poland’s efforts in Iraq, President of Poland Alexander Kwasniewski said, “I find it kind of sad that a senator with 20 year parliamentary experience is unable to notice the Polish presence in the anti-terror coalition.”
When asked about Kerry's derogation of non-U.S. coalition countries fighting in Iraq, Kwasniewski said: “I don't think it's an ignorance. The anti-terror coalition is larger than the USA, the U.K. and Australia. There are also Poland, Ukraine, and Bulgaria etc. which lost their soldiers there. It's highly immoral not to see our strong commitment we have taken with a strong believe that we must fight against terror together, that we must show our strong international solidarity because Saddam Hussein was dangerous to the world.”
“That's why we are disappointed that our stance and ultimate sacrifice of our soldiers are so diminished,” President Kwasniewski said. “Perhaps Mr. Kerry thinks about the coalition with Germany and France, countries which disagreed with us on Iraq.”
Ouch!
What’s Your Drug of Choice?
Depends on if you are attacking Coalition Troops or blowing yourself up.
Al-Sadr and his boys have been dealing in the streets of Iraq. Drugs to get the fighters pumped up to attack troops and barbiturates to calm down the suicide bombers. Drugs to finance their operations. Holy men indeed. Common street thugs are more like it.
Also of note is that there was talk of drug use by the terrorists in the spring, and only now the media is picking up the story, almost six months later.
Lt. Col. David Bellon, USMC, whose emails I often post here, had this to say about drug use in Fallujah this past spring:
Equally astounding is evidence that these "holy warriors" are taking drugs to get high before attacks. It true, as we pushed into the town in April many Marines came across drug paraphernalia (mostly heroin). Recently, we have gotten evidence of them using another drug BZ that makes them high and very aggressive. Cowards and hypocrites. They don't have the nerve to fight without calming their fear with drugs. Between highs, they are robbing people and raping young girls. Some jihad.
Al-Sadr and his boys have been dealing in the streets of Iraq. Drugs to get the fighters pumped up to attack troops and barbiturates to calm down the suicide bombers. Drugs to finance their operations. Holy men indeed. Common street thugs are more like it.
Also of note is that there was talk of drug use by the terrorists in the spring, and only now the media is picking up the story, almost six months later.
Lt. Col. David Bellon, USMC, whose emails I often post here, had this to say about drug use in Fallujah this past spring:
Equally astounding is evidence that these "holy warriors" are taking drugs to get high before attacks. It true, as we pushed into the town in April many Marines came across drug paraphernalia (mostly heroin). Recently, we have gotten evidence of them using another drug BZ that makes them high and very aggressive. Cowards and hypocrites. They don't have the nerve to fight without calming their fear with drugs. Between highs, they are robbing people and raping young girls. Some jihad.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Check it Out
New blog to check out. It is called Grape-Koolaid: Chronicling the Final Days of the American Left as We Know it and I am very happy to say that I am going to be a contributor.
Fallujah Update
Latest email from Lt. Col. David Bellon, USMC:
Right now we are finishing our rotation of units out of the area with new ones arriving and taking over. We were concerned about a spike in enemy activity as they knew we were rotating troops. Because of this we conducted a couple of operations on the front end of the rotation and put a hurting on them. Another unit here that operates with us also pulled a couple of operations at about the same time. The result is that we put the enemy back on its heels for a couple of weeks and got some breathing room. Unfortunately, if these guys are true to form, things will pick up again very soon.
It is great to see the Marines who have completed their tour come off the line. Most are now out of day-to-day operations and you can literally see the relief and the letting down as they wait for their flight out. It is hard to believe how much they have done in the past 3 years. Some of the Marines just finishing up their first contract have three combat tours under their belts (one in Afghanistan and two in Iraq). A few of these guys will be in college next year and they will look like any other freshman sitting in class. The rest of the students will have no idea what a hero the guy sitting next them is.
As you have seen from the news, Fallujah is reaching critical mass. Actually nothing has changed except for the fact that there apparently is the will to do what has to be done. We will see. The Marines are ready and the only thing they worry about is the backbone of the decision makers. If we are told to take the town again, we just cannot be ordered to stop like last time.
Read the whole thing here.
Right now we are finishing our rotation of units out of the area with new ones arriving and taking over. We were concerned about a spike in enemy activity as they knew we were rotating troops. Because of this we conducted a couple of operations on the front end of the rotation and put a hurting on them. Another unit here that operates with us also pulled a couple of operations at about the same time. The result is that we put the enemy back on its heels for a couple of weeks and got some breathing room. Unfortunately, if these guys are true to form, things will pick up again very soon.
It is great to see the Marines who have completed their tour come off the line. Most are now out of day-to-day operations and you can literally see the relief and the letting down as they wait for their flight out. It is hard to believe how much they have done in the past 3 years. Some of the Marines just finishing up their first contract have three combat tours under their belts (one in Afghanistan and two in Iraq). A few of these guys will be in college next year and they will look like any other freshman sitting in class. The rest of the students will have no idea what a hero the guy sitting next them is.
As you have seen from the news, Fallujah is reaching critical mass. Actually nothing has changed except for the fact that there apparently is the will to do what has to be done. We will see. The Marines are ready and the only thing they worry about is the backbone of the decision makers. If we are told to take the town again, we just cannot be ordered to stop like last time.
Read the whole thing here.
Palesky Tax Cap
Does it seem like a good idea to vote for a citizen initiative that was created by a person that has been convicted of embezzlement, ruled mentally insane after robbing a bank, a has filed for bankruptcy numerous times?
Besides being a mother of two, a grandmother of four and a champion of tax reform, Palesky is a convicted embezzler and forger who rankles public officials and was once charged with bank robbery.
While she rails against soaring property taxes, the taxes on her house have gone down for two consecutive years, according to Topsham records. They have fallen $141, or 5.3 percent, to $2,479.
She has declared bankruptcy at least four times. She has sued her hometown a half dozen times. On the witness stand, she once accused a detective who had searched her house of "probably...going through my underwear drawer."
I hate to consider someone’s personal history when voting for a tax initiative, but given Palesky's spotty financial history, I tend to think that this is not a good plan for Maine. Something needs to be done, because people are being taxed out of their homes and Augusta needs a wakeup call, but this is not it.
Besides being a mother of two, a grandmother of four and a champion of tax reform, Palesky is a convicted embezzler and forger who rankles public officials and was once charged with bank robbery.
While she rails against soaring property taxes, the taxes on her house have gone down for two consecutive years, according to Topsham records. They have fallen $141, or 5.3 percent, to $2,479.
She has declared bankruptcy at least four times. She has sued her hometown a half dozen times. On the witness stand, she once accused a detective who had searched her house of "probably...going through my underwear drawer."
I hate to consider someone’s personal history when voting for a tax initiative, but given Palesky's spotty financial history, I tend to think that this is not a good plan for Maine. Something needs to be done, because people are being taxed out of their homes and Augusta needs a wakeup call, but this is not it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)