Now, however, we can add some actual figures to the overheated debate. The Government Accountability Office has issued its first review of the data, and one undeniable conclusion to be drawn from it is that outsourcing is not quite the job-destroying tsunami it's been made out to be. Of the 1.5 million jobs lost last year in "mass layoffs"—that is, when 50 or more workers are let go at once—less than 1 percent were attributed to overseas relocation; that was a decline from the previous year. In 2002, only about 4 percent of the money directly invested by American companies overseas went to the developing countries that are most likely to account for outsourced jobs—and most of that money was concentrated in manufacturing.
The data did show that from 1997 to 2002, annual imports of business, technical and professional services increased by $16.3 billion. However, during that same half-decade, exports of those services increased by $20.5 billion a year. In 2002 alone, the United States ran a $27 billion trade surplus in business services, the sector in which jobs are most likely to be outsourced. The G.A.O. correctly stressed that it is impossible to compute exactly how many jobs are lost because of outsourcing, but unless its figures are off by several orders of magnitude, there's no crisis here.
An excellent read. Also thanks to Peter W. Schramm at the Ashbrook center.
A study released yesterday by the "nonpartisan" Center for Public Integrity has revealed that over 40% of Pentagon contracts have been awarded without competitive bidding.
Halliburton Co. has come under severe fire for the no-bid contract they were awarded last year for work in rebuilding Iraqi oil fields. But alongside Halliburton are major defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp. and General Dynamics Corp., both of which received a majority of their defense income through no-bid contracts.
The Democrates have implied that Halliburton obtained their Iraq contract due to the Vice President's former employment with Halliburton. But what of all these other contractors getting no-bid approval? Political influence? Friends in Pentagon? Sister (or brother) in Congress?
When one considers that the Defense Department has over $900 billion in open contracts, Halliburton is a mere drop in the bucket. All defense contractors spend a lot of time and money to keep their name at the top of the list. Why should Halliburton be criticized for playing the game exactly like all the other big corporations?
Pollster David Hill has a sharp analysis of how John Edwards may be pulling down the poll numbers for Mr. Kerry.
"Focusing just on polls of likely voters, I found that 10 polls asked their trial heats using both the presidential and vice-presidential candidates’ names. Nine other polls read only the presidential candidates’ names.
On average, when Edwards’s name was added to the ballot, Kerry trailed President Bush by an average of 6.6 percentage points. But when Kerry alone ran against Bush, the Democrat was losing by only 1.7 percentage points, on average."
Travel with me back in time to Christmas 2003. The Iowans For Dean folks gave Mr. Kerry an interesting Christmas present - a pair of flip-flops.
"Sen. Kerry has been flip-flopping on issues throughout his career and campaign, and we thought we could make things a little more comfortable for him," said Dean spokeswoman Sarah Leonard.
Sheriff Charlie Morris of Okaloosa County, Florida has filed two lawsuits against Ford Motor Company.
In the first, a class-action suit, he claims the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor is subject to burst into flames if rear-ended at high speeds.
In the second suit, he asked Florida Judge G. Robert Barron to coerce Ford to sell his department more of the same vehicles. The judge has the good sense to deny the sheriff's motion.
See "Judge: Ford Can Refuse to Sell Cars to Police Suing Company", AP/TampaBayOnline, Sept. 28 for the full story.
Tonight, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush will face off in the first of three debates. Both parties have great expectations for their man. The partisans and political operatives are out in full force, cornering any media folks to chat up how well their side will do tonight.
Most people know that these debates are not really "debating," at least not in the classic definition of the word, but putting aside all the media hype and spin, and especially all the partisan nonsense, what real difference will these debates have on the outcome of the election?
Most of the polling results show a rough average of undecided voters at 7%. With only 33 days left to Election '04 will either candidate be persuasive enough to move this group into their camp?
What can Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush say tonight that will be any different than what has already been said over and over throughout this campaign? Do we really expext to hear any major policy changes tonight?
Lacking a major gaffe by either canidate tonight I just don't see poll numbers moving by any large percentage.
"To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker." & nbsp; &n bsp; &nb sp; &nbs p; ; Abolitionist and author Frederick Douglas
"When a hero is injured, they must often spend months upon months in the hospital going through multiple surgeries and physical rehabilitation. José Martinez has been in the hospital for 16 months and is expected to remain as an outpatient at Brooke Army Medical Center for approximately 18 more months.
Our government pays for two family members to visit the wounded in the hospital – one time. After that, the family has to pay for all travel expenses themselves and often has to pay for hotel lodging as well.
This can become an incredible burden on the families of wounded heroes.
The Coalition is building a network that can provide travel and lodging support for these families. They already have enough to face – they should not have to worry about spending their savings to be with their loved ones."
A little league debate between the Green Party candidate for president, David Cobb, and the Libertarian Party candidate for president, Michael Badnarik, will be held at the Holiday Inn in Miami at 5 p.m. tomorrow...just hours before the Major League dust-up between the two candidates who actually have a chance to win on November 2.
We hope Badnarik takes some time to further expand on his contention, made just a few days ago, that former President Jimmy Carter was an International Man of Genius and that the United States should cut-and-run in Iraq the way we did in Vietnam. And maybe he'll tell us exactly what he did to earn the Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz Malcolm X Award for which he is so proud.
"I suppose, indeed, that in public life, a man whose political principles have any decided character and who has energy enough to give them effect must always expect to encounter political hostility from those of adverse principles." & nbsp; &n bsp; &nb sp; &nbs p; ; Thomas Jefferson
Have you received the following email from the "nonpartisan" Rock the Vote folks?
YOU HAVE BEEN DRAFTED!
action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=906763&l=4476
This is not a real draft, but a real one may happen soon if the current situation doesn't improve.
As it is, our military is stretched almost to the breaking point trying to maintain troop levels in Iraq and around the world. If Pakistan, North Korea or other nations begin to pose new military threats, how would we expect to meet the demand for troops?
Did you know that:
* It would only take two to three days for Congress and the President to authorize a draft and set the Selective Service System's plans in motion?
* Twenty-year-olds would be the first to be inducted?
* Women are very likely to be included in the next draft?
It's up to us to educate ourselves. In the event of a draft, we won't have much time to form an opinion. And with just 34 days left until the election and only a few days left before many state registration deadlines, we need to take a stand now by registering to vote:
action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=906763&l=4476
Copy this URL into your web browser to get the facts about a potential draft, and to find out what you can do:
action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=906763&l=4476
Sincerely, Rock The Vote and Alliance For Security
This email has been sent to thousands of young people. As mentioned previously, the only draft legislation in either the House or Senate is sponsored by Democrats. If you follow the link in the above e-mail you will be able to link over to the "Alliance For Security" web page. From there you can link to the following information:
Debunking the Myths: Getting the Draft Story Straight
Numerous myths and conjectures have been floating around over the internet and airwaves regarding the possibility of a draft. While there are plenty of reasons to be talking about a draft, let’s make sure the debate is based on credible information.
Myth #1: Congress is poised to pass legislation authorizing a draft Well, not exactly. Indeed, there are two draft-related bills sitting in congressional committees at the moment: HR163 introduced by Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) on the House side and companion bill S89 introduced on the Senate side by Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC). Both bills contain the same content and carry the same name, The Universal National Service Act of 2003. This proposed legislation calls for all citizens and residents of the United States between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, either in the military/reserves or in a civilian capacity that promotes the “national defense.”
The Universal National Service Act of 2003 calls for women to be included in the draft and would not allow for any exemptions by college students or married people. Deferments would be allowed only in cases of extreme hardship or physical or mental disability. Congressman Rangel introduced this legislation to try to address serious concerns about the inequities that lead to a disproportionate number of African Americans and poor people fighting and dying on the country’s behalf. He also hoped that the threat of a draft might sway lawmakers to stop the march to war in Iraq. As it turns out, though, the bill is effectively stuck in committee in both houses of Congress, with little apparent hope of seeing the light of day on either the House or Senate floor. The fact that Congress has not acted on this particular legislation does not mean that a draft is out of the question. In fact, if Congress deemed a draft to be necessary, it could pass legislation within a matter of hours. Were Congress to move forward on a bill authorizing conscription, it would not necessarily look anything like the Rangel/Hollings legislation that is currently stalled in committee.
Myth #2: The DoD is reconstituting draft boards in preparation for a draft Actually, the Department of Defense (DoD) does not manage draft boards. That comes under the purview of the Selective Service System (SSS), which is an independent agency. The draft boards that exist around the country were created in 1980 when President Carter re-instituted draft registration. People on those boards were to serve a twenty-year term. For the past few years, the Selective Service has been trying to replace board members whose terms have expired.
The DoD did post a notice on its website for a few days last year suggesting that people join draft boards. While this may qualify as a public relations blunder, it does not necessarily mean that the DoD is making special preparations for an imminent draft.
For the record, not only is the DoD not in charge of filling draft boards, but military members and retirees are not allowed to serve on draft boards. There are about 350 members of the National Guard and reserves who perform their duty with the national Selective Service System (not as members of draft boards). These reservists would shift over to active duty and work full-time to enhance the capacity of the civilian administration of the SSS should a draft be authorized by Congress.
Myth #3: Special Selective Service report to the President Another rumor in the mill is that the Selective Service System delivered a special report to the President announcing that the SSS would be prepared to implement a draft by the spring of 2005. In fact, each year the Selective Service submits an annual plan and an annual report. And each year the Selective Service says that it will be ready to implement a draft—that’s what it is supposed to say, because being prepared for a draft is its job. If it delivered a report saying it wasn’t ready for a draft, the SSS would not be fulfilling its mandate and would be at increased risk of losing its funding, a legitimate concern given that Congress has moved to do away with the SSS in the past.
Myth #4: $28 million extra for the Selective Service Rumors abound that Congress recently gave the Selective Service System an additional $28 million to step up its preparations for a draft. False. In fact, the Selective Service requested $28,290,000 for its regular annual operating budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004, which would have represented roughly a $2 million increase over the previous year’s budget. According to the SSS, “This ‘mark-up’ included the funds necessary to support the President’s Management Agenda initiatives, to increase automation security, and to procure and deploy an integrated financial management system” to SSS FY03 Annual Report). However, lawmakers did not approve the increase but instead chose to retain the same level of funding that the SSS received in FY03. By the time the SSS FY04 budget was finally approved, it was down to $26,100,000. Alas, there was no special additional funding of $28 million approved for the SSS and the funding for FY05 is expected to be the same as, or lower than, this year’s funding. http://www.allianceforsecurity.org/myths" title="http://www.allianceforsecurity.org/myths" target="_blank"http://www.allianceforsecurit...
No further commentary necessary! The 'Alliance' has shot down their own rumor!
MoveOn.org published the following in a full page ad in the New York Times. Now we know that the "devout evangelical Christians" are to blame for Gallup's poll results. Of course, back in the days when Gallup was showing the Democrats leading in the polls the silence from the left was deafening. Maybe we should send boxes of Kleenex to Move On headquarters to help them wipe away their tears.
WHY DOES AMERICA’S TOP POLLSTER KEEP GETTING IT WRONG?
If John Kerry believed in the Gallup poll, he might as well give up.
A couple of weeks ago, a highly publicized Gallup poll of “likely voters” showed President Bush with a staggering 14-point lead.
But wait a minute. Seven other polls of likely voters were released that same week. On average, they showed Bush with just a three-point lead. No one else came close to Gallup’s figures. And this isn’t the first time the prestigious Gallup survey has been out on a limb with pro-Bush findings.
What’s going on here? It’s not exactly that Gallup’s cooking the books. Rather, they are refusing to fix a longstanding problem with their likely voter methodology.
Simply put, Gallup’s methodology has predicted lately that Republican turnout on Election Day is likely to exceed Democrats’ by six to eight percentage points. But exit polls show otherwise: in each of the last two Presidential elections, Democratic turnout exceeded Republican by four to five points. That discrepancy alone can account for nearly all of Bush’s phantom 14-point lead.
This is more than just a numbers game. Poll results profoundly affect a campaign’s news coverage as well as the public’s perception of the candidates.
Two media outlets, CNN and USA Today, bear special responsibility for this problem. They pay for many of Gallup’s surveys, in exchange for the right to add their names to the polls and trumpet the results first. They wind up acting as unquestioning promotional partners, rather than as critical journalists.
The public would be better served if journalists asked some tough questions, beginning with the Gallup Organization, which has been asked to select the audience for the Bush-Kerry “town meeting” debate on October 8.
George Gallup Jr., son of the poll’s founder, was the longtime head of the company and now directs its non-profit research center. Why hasn’t he pushed for an update of the company’s likely voter modeling, which his own father pioneered in the 1950s?
Gallup, who is a devout evangelical Christian, has been quoted as calling his polling “a kind of ministry.” And a few months ago, he said “the most profound purpose of polls is to see how people are responding to God.” [ FYI - George Gallup Jr. no longer runs the polling division of Gallup Polls]
We thought the purpose is to faithfully and factually report public opinion
WHAT KERRY SAYS HE VOTED FOR: “I Voted To Threaten The Use Of Force To Make Saddam Hussein Comply With The Resolutions Of The United Nations…” (Sen. John Kerry As Quoted In Gloria Borger, “Learning The Lessons Of Gore,” U.S. News & World Report, 9/15/03)
WHAT KERRY ACTUALLY VOTED FOR: THE WASHINGTON POST: "The House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally, remove Saddam Hussein from power and abolish that country's nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry. ... The president needs no further congressional approval to deploy troops, order airstrikes and wage a ground war with Iraq." (Jim VandeHei and Juliet Eilperin, "Congress Passes Iraq Resolution," The Washington Post, 10/11/02)
THE WASHINGTON POST: "Buoyed by congressional approval of an attack on Iraq, the Bush administration attempted yesterday to break an impasse over a toughened weapons inspections regime at the U.N. Security Council and began to talk publicly about American plans for Iraq -- including the possibility of U.S. military rule -- should President Saddam Hussein be overthrown." (Dana Milbank, "Bush Bids To End Impasse At U.N., Outlines Iraq Plan," The Washington Post, 10/12/02)
LOS ANGELES TIMES HEADLINE: "Congress Backs War on Iraq." (Janet Hook and Nick Anderson, "Congress Backs War On Iraq," Los Angeles Times, 10/11/02)
CHICAGO TRIBUNE: "Congress voted overwhelmingly to allow President Bush to embark on war if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein fails to abandon his biological, chemical and nuclear arms programs. The Democrat-led Senate approved the war resolution 77-23 early Friday. It authorizes Bush to unilaterally launch a pre-emptive strike. A somber House voted for the resolution 296-133 on Thursday." (Jill Zuckman, "Congress OKs Iraq Mandate," Chicago Tribune, 10/11/02)
CBS' JON FRANKEL: "The United States is one step closer to war with Iraq as Congress overwhelmingly passed a resolution supporting the president." (CBS' "The Early Show," 10/11/02)
ABC'S ROBIN ROBERTS: "President Bush says America has spoken with one voice. Early this morning, the Senate voted 77 to 23 to clear the way for the President to use force against Iraq if necessary. The vote came hours after the house also gave overwhelming approval." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 10/11/02)
REP. ROBERT MATSUI (D-CA): "This was actually a resolution to go to war …" (CNN's "Lou Dobbs Moneyline," 10/1/02)
In Australia, Kelly Rae Hennessey is suing McDonald's claiming she suffered a loss of libido after biting into a cheeseburger that contained a rock, according to a report in the Melbourne Herald Sun. As a result of the contaminated burger, purchased from a drive-through in Adelaide in 2000, "Hennessey says she's suffered a loss of libido, as well as depression, nightmares, anxiety, nausea, palpitations, diarrhea, shortness of breath and toothache." UPI http://interestalert.com/bran...;Sys=siteia&Fid=LATEB RKN&Type=News&Fil ter=Late%20Breaking
Want to win a free latte? Neal Boortz has a wager for you:
"I am now and have been for years a firm advocate of developing a system to limit the people who can vote in this country. We need to find a way to restrict the number of people who can vote. If we don't weed out the chaff soon it may well be too late. Don't give me that 'democracy' nonsense. In spite of what you hear from your government school teacher, your leftist college professor, or that smiling talking head on television, we are not a democracy. Never were. Weren't supposed to be. You won't find the word 'democracy' in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States or in any constitution of any of the 50 States. There's a reason for that. Our Founding Fathers hated the idea of democracy. They knew that a government of majority rule would dissolve into a tyranny of plunder and chaos. In anticipation of yet another knee-jerk response to my proposal that we limit voting, let me remind you that there is absolutely no constitutional guarantee of your right to vote in any federal election. Do some reading. It isn't there. A latte to the person who can find anything in our Constitution that sounds remotely like 'each citizen shall have the right to vote in a federal election.' Happy hunting." --Neal Boortz
Click on the link below or to the left to go to the web page of the Commission on Presidential Debates. Their debate history section has transcripts and video of presidential debates back to Kennedy vs Nixon in 1960. Also good information on this year's debates.
The "Financial Times" quotes both French and German officials as saying they won't change their hands off policies. From the lead paragraph:
"French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2."
Then this:
"I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president," Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview...
... Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last week that France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops "either now or later"...
...A French government official said: "People don't expect that much would change under a Kerry administration, even if things can only get better. We do not anticipate a sudden honeymoon in the event Kerry replaces Bush...
...In a speech hammering Mr Bush for his decision to lead the US into Iraq, Mr Kerry said last week that in Afghanistan "I will lead our allies to share the burden." ...
...He continued: "the Bush administration would have you believe that when it comes to our allies, it won't make a difference who is president. They say the Europeans won't help us, no matter what. But I have news for President Bush: just because you can't do something, doesn't mean it can't be done.""
" [L]ast week, just after Kerry's major speech on the war in which he insisted that the United States "must make Iraq the world's responsibility" and that others "should share the burden," [German Chancellor Gerhard] Schröder's sense of courtesy collided with reality and he drove a spike into the notion. He told reporters, "We won't send any German soldiers to Iraq, and that's where it's going to remain."
Clear? A faint irony slips in at this point. For many Europeans, the problem in making sense of Kerry's speech was not Schröder's rather predictable reply, but how much delusion or candor there was in the Democrat's campaign promise to enlist countries opposed to the war to bail out the United States militarily. Add to that the candidate's linked idea of leveraging a notional European military presence into a pullout by some American troops as early as next summer. It seemed enough to make Kerry's continental friends cringe."
Digging deep into the vault - all the way back to 1971 - for this quote from a man that would someday be running for President of the United States:
“We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans’ Day waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who died for the “greater glory of the United States.” We will not accept the rhetoric. We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars - in fact, we will find it hard to join anything at all and when we do, we will demand relevancy such as other organizations have recently been unable to provide. We will not take solace from the creation of monuments or the naming of parks after a select few of the thousands of dead Americans and Vietnamese. We will not uphold traditions which decorously memorialize that which was base and grim.”
Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25.
Fairly straightforward. What the above statement does not say is the only proposals for a new draft are being sponsored in Congress by Democrats, for example, Charles Rangel (D-NY 15th).
The United States has relied on a volunteer military for most of its history. However, the Cold War transformed a number of American institutions, including the armed services. Washington retained conscription after World War II and did not abandon the practice until 1973.
Despite a rocky start, the All-Volunteer Force (AVF) now works exceedingly well, providing America with the best military in its history and in the world today. Yet recruiting and retention problems have begun to appear; moreover, the war against Yugoslavia has heightened concerns about the fairness of a volunteer military. The result has been an increasing number of calls for a return to conscription.
The draft was bad policy during the Cold War and would constitute amazing foolishness today. For instance, renewed conscription would reduce the quality of new service personnel.
Returning to the draft would also increase the costs of raising a military force. Conscription is an expensive process—for individuals, government, and society. For the armed services, a draft would yield higher turnover, thus increasing training costs. Also, because few conscripts choose to make the military a career, the Pentagon would have to hike reenlistment benefits. A draft would not improve the retention rate of skilled personnel or inculcate civic virtue. The military does have some serious personnel problems; however, such problems could be solved by returning to a foreign policy that is proper for a republic. The Clinton administration's promiscuous use of military force in conflicts irrelevant to U.S. security drives many potential recruits away from and current career personnel out of the service. Furthermore, policymakers should adjust compensation and benefits to more successfully attract both new recruits and skilled personnel in the years ahead.
A renewed draft would be bad for the military. But more important, conscription would be unfair and unjust—sacrificing the very constitutional liberties that the military is charged to defend.
Come and listen to my story 'bout a man named Dan, The documents were fake and he didn't give a damn; He put 'em on the air, an' he thought he'd done the job, But up from the web come a howlin' mob.
Blogs, that is. Web logs. Checkin' facts.
Well, the first thing you know ol' Dan's a-runnin' fast; Made a false report an' it bit him in the ass; He said 'dog-gonnit, I done thought I'd get away!' But it turned out to be his a-reckonin' day.
Busted, that is. Red-faced. Mud in the eye.
Well, now it's time to say goodbye to Dan and all his men; And they would like to shoot you folks for turnin' them in; You're all invited back next week to watch the Evening News, And see which correspondent's picked to fill Dan's empty shoes.
Poor John Kerry: He throws away someone else's medals. He drives someone else's SUV. He marries someone else's wife. And he inherits someone else's money.
I think we should all vote for him to go be president of someone else's country.
Thanks to Chuck Muth's "News and Views" September 27, 2004 www.citizenoutreach.com
Remember Jimmy Carter? You know, he was that guy that played president after Ford and before Ronald Reagan.
Mr. Carter writes an Op-Ed for todays Washington Post where he predicts fraud in the election on November 5. In his column, Still Seeking a Fair Florida Vote, http://www.washingtonpost.com... Mr. Carter says The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair."
He goes on to say that there just can't be a fair election in Florida because they lack "A nonpartisan electoral commission or a trusted and nonpartisan official who will be responsible for organizing and conducting the electoral process before, during and after the actual voting takes place." and Florida lacks "Uniformity in voting procedures, so that all citizens, regardless of their social or financial status, have equal assurance that their votes are cast in the same way and will be tabulated with equal accuracy."
Mr. Carter, where will you find this "nonpartisan" commission or official? Most Americans are either Democrat or Republican and bring to the table their particular bias. Are you suggesting this commission should be made up of equal numbers of left, right, and center? Should we also include members of the Communist Party USA? How about the KKK? Just where do we draw the line on "nonpartisan"?
Your second point regarding "uniformity in voting procedures" is just silly. I have lives in several different states, and when election time rolled around I was always provided a sample ballot and instructions on how to vote. I have used punch cards, optical scanner forms, and new this year touch screen electronic voting machines. I have always be able to vote correctly - regardless of my social class or financial status. If a voter is too lazy or unwilling to read the directions or ask for help at the polling station then maybe, just maybe they shouldn't be voting at all.
But wait! There's more! Mr. Carter whines about Ralph Nader's name being "included on absentee ballots even before the state Supreme Court ruled on the controversial issue" and blames it on the dark partisan plotting of Glenda Hood, the Florida Secretary of State.Ms Hood was, according to Mr. Carter, a "...highly partisan elector for George W. Bush in 2000." Mr. Carter mentions how Ralph Nader drew potential Gore votes in 2000, implying that Mr. Kerry will also lose votes if Nader is on the ballot. Silly me! I thought the Democrats were the party of choice. And inclusiveness. Well . . . maybe not. The Democrats are so afraid of Nader's presence on the ballot that they will do (and have done) almost anything to keep him off any ballot, anywhere.
I received the following by e-mail this afternoon. The sender didn't mention who the author is, but I liked it so much I thought I'd share it here:
Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star
Wishing to encourage her young son's progress on the piano, a mother took her boy to a Paderewski concert. After they were seated, the mother spotted an old friend in the audience and walked down the aisle to greet her.
Seizing the opportunity to explore the wonders of the concert hall, the little boy rose and eventually explored his way through a door marked "NO ADMITTANCE."
When the house lights dimmed and the concert was about to begin, the mother returned to her seat and discovered that the child was missing Suddenly, the curtains parted and spotlights focused on the impressive Steinway on stage.
In horror, the mother saw her little boy sitting at the keyboard, innocently picking out "Twinkle,Twinkle Little Star."
At that moment, the great piano master made his entrance, quickly moved to the piano, and whispered in the boy's ear, "Don't quit.""Keep playing."
Then, leaning over, Paderewski reached down with his left hand and began filling in a bass part. Soon his right arm reached around to the other side of the child, and he added a running obbligato. Together, the old master and the young novice transformed what could have been a frightening situation into a wonderfully creative experience. The audience was so mesmerized that they couldn't recall what else the great master played. Only the classic, " Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star."
Perhaps that's the way it is with God.
What we can accomplish on our own is hardly noteworthy.
We try our best, but the results aren't always graceful flowing music. However, with the hand of the Master, our life's work can truly be beautiful.
The next time you set out to accomplish great feats, listen carefully. You may hear the voice of the Master, whispering in your ear, "Don't quit." "Keep playing."
May you feel His arms around you and know that His hands are there, helping you turn your feeble attempts into true masterpieces.
Remember, God doesn't seem to call the equipped, rather, He equips the 'called.'
Life is more accurately measured by the lives you touch than by the things you acquire. So touch someone by passing this little message along.
The mighty New York Times weighs in today about bloggers. MATTHEW KLAM, in the magazine section of todays rag, manages to write ten pages of liberal looney tunes about blogs. In all those pages he cannot bring himself to say one word about conservative bloggers like Powerline, Little Green Footballs, or the host of others out there. No, Mr. Klam raves about the looney liberal blogs. He just can't say enough good things about those liberal wacko bloggers.
A quote: "The blogs that succeed, like Kaus's, are written in a strong, distinctive, original voice. In January, a serious-minded former editor at The Chronicle of Higher Education named Ana Marie Cox reinvented herself online as the Wonkette, a foulmouthed, hard-drinking, sex-obsessed politics junkie. Joshua Micah Marshall, in his columns for The Hill and articles for The Washington Monthly, writes like every other overeducated journalist. But on his blog, Talking Points Memo, he has become an irate spitter of well-crafted vitriol aimed at the president, whom he compared, one day, to Tony Soprano torching his friend's sporting-goods store for the sake of a little extra cash. When Marshall's in a bad mood, he portrays mainstream journalists as a bunch of ''corrupt,'' ''idiotic'' hacks, mired in ''cosmopolitan and baby-boomer self-loathing,'' whose bad habits have become ''ingrained and chronic, like a battered dog who cowers and shakes when the abuser gives a passing look.'' Moulitsas's site, Daily Kos, teems with information -- sophisticated analysis of poll numbers, crystal-ball babble, links to Senate, House and governor ''outlook charts.'' But what pulls you in is not the data; it's his voice. He's cruel and superior, and he knows his side is going to win."
Notice the first line? The blogs that succeed ...? And what does he call success? Why, ... liberals only! Amazing! Tell me Mr. Klam, is there not one single successful conservative blog? Not one?
Is the Washington Post about to endorse Mr. Kerry? In a somewhat rambling and contradictory editorial today the Post seems to be laying the groundwork for their endorsement of JFK.
They start out saying ". . . we don't accept Mr. Kerry's assertion that America is "less secure and weaker in the war on terrorism" . . ." then proceed to "Still, Mr. Kerry's indictment of the Bush administration's execution of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is powerful and mostly irrefutable."
"It must have been tough for Kerry to watch his Democratic buddies give Iraq's Prime Minister Allawi standing ovations as he spoke to a joint session of Congress, Wednesday. Think of the anguish JFK, too, must have gone through seeing his liberal colleagues indirectly congratulate George Bush."
Bill O'Reilly takes the spotlight this week with his interview of President Bush. The three part chat begins Monday and concludes Wednesday. Mr. O'Reilly has spent a great amount of time patting himself on the back since he announced this interview. It wouldn't suprise me if he wagged the number 1 sign in front of the camera while saying repeatedly "I'm number one!"
I am not a fan of Bill O'Reilly. I watch him from time to time and alway wonder where he really stands. His claim of being a "no spin zone" is incorrect. I say it is the "O'Reilly Spin Zone." Everything on his show is spun to his outlook. His so-called "Talking Points Memo" at the top of his show is nothing less than spinning Bill's way.
Conservative seem to have adopted Bill as one of their own. Liberals attack him on a regular basis. So just where is he on the issues?
The other night Bill was interviewing a liberal feminist type - unfortunately I was not paying close attention and did not catch her name. As I was passing through the TV room I heard Bill say he was a "big government type of guy." Score one for the liberals.
In the past Bill has always taken a position for more gun control. It is certain that he does not define gun control as hitting what you're aiming at. Conservatives 0 - Liberals 2
Mr. O'Reilly has make statements that favor government regulation of private business, especially the airlines. Conservatives 0 - Liberals 3
His book "Who's Looking Out For You?" has to be a joke. Even the name of this book is patronizing! Is Bill really looking out for you? Do you need him to look out for you? Isn't there an assumption here that only Bill can point out all of life's pitfalls and help you on your way? Do I fall to my knees and thank Mr. O'Reilly for "looking out" for me? I think not! Bill, I've been looking out for myself for many years - long before I ever heard of you. Most Americans are a hardy and free-thinking lot, both liberals and conservatives, and seem to be doing quite well without Bill "looking out" for them.
If you live in Nevada this website is a must read. Nevada trial lawyers are trying to make an end-run around current law on malpractice suits. Check out the lastest information and tell the trial lawyers NO this November!
As much as I hate to admit this, I do watch a little television now and then. The MTV sponsored "Rock The Vote" ads are nothing short of idiotic! Their goal? Twenty million uninformed voters.
MTV puts on young people who seemly know nothing about politics, candidates, or any issues in our current election cycle. Yet they tell us to "vote for something." Heaven forbid they encourage these young voters to go out and study the issues, get informed and vote wisely. Why, that might damage their fragile brains! Instead, MTV tells all you new voters out there to just go vote for something - anything - it doesn't matter if you know anything at all about what you're voting for. Like ... yaknow ... let's vote, dude.
Lobbyists are salivating at the prospects of entertaining political insiders at major league baseball games in Washington. The most daunting obstacle is Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos, who has argued for years that a team in the nation’s capital would negatively affect his bottom line. But the handwriting is on the wall. Baseball will return to Washington and it’s just a matter of paying the Orioles off. After Angelos secures tens of millions from Major League Baseball, look for the league over the next several years to decide if Angelos’ Orioles are financially impacted so it can adjust its payments accordingly.
I am willing to bet the lobbyists are not the only ones "salivating" about this. All those Congress Critters will be lining up for the best seats in the house. I just wonder how many taxpayer dollars are going to be flushed for this foolishness.
Just wondering … Much has been said about bloggers in pajamas by the liberal establishment. Since I don’t own any pajamas, is it okay to blog in sweatpants and flannel shirts?
Is Joe for real? A quote from the Kerry Kamp advisor via the Los Angeles Times:
"While Kerry was relatively restrained in disputing [Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad] Allawi's upbeat portrayal, some of his aides suggested that the Iraqi leader was simply doing the bidding of the Bush administration, which helped arrange his appointment in June. 'The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips,' said Joe Lockhart, a senior Kerry adviser." (Ronald Brownstein, "Allawi Effectiveness Hinges On Credibility," Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/n...,1,7081693.story?coll=la-home-headli nes, 9/24/04)
The democrats have no shame!
UPDATE 9/27/04: Has the Kerry campaign hit "rock bottom"?
I hope this thing works! Being new to this game I hope anyone that takes the time to read this will forgive any mistakes I make. I am learning as I go.
Having said that, my main interest is in political and current events commentary. I live near the capital of Nevada - Carson City - and will deal with topics both of state and national issues.
A tip of the hat to Washington Post writer Richard Cohen for the title of my new blog. Mr. Cohen's rant in todays WP (http://www.washingtonpost.com... - subscription required) is a basic liberal diatribe against all things conservative, especially Fox News, bloggers (vultures sitting on the Internet), and "the criminally insane on talk radio."
I would like to thank Mr. Cohen for his inspiration. Without his help I probably would still be sitting on the sidelines.
