Caffeine Low

Jon Gruber: "This Is How Apple Rolls"

2010-05-16T06:51:00.001-07:00

Jon Gruber of Daring Fireball has a pretty good writeup on Macworld regarding Apple and their history of product development. Grubes points out that Apple never releases a blockbuster product. They start off well enough, but always with enough problems/missing features that there's work to be done. Over the course of the next few years, Apple will polish that pearl until it shines. This is obvious when you consider something like the iPhone, which was far from perfect with the original product: no 3rd party software, no 3g service, etc. Now, as we look to the summer's iPhone 4G (or HD, as it will probably be called), so many features have been added that it's miles better than the original, which was only 3 generations ago. In his article, Gruber points out that Apple has done much the same with OS X:

One example is Apple’s oldest core product: Mac OS X. It took four difficult years from Apple’s acquisition of NeXT in 1997 until Mac OS X 10.0 was released in March 2001. Needless to say, those four years were… well, let’s just say it was a difficult birth. But from that point forward, Mac OS X’s major releases have appeared regularly (especially by the standards of major commercial PC operating systems), each better than the previous version, but none spectacularly so. Snow Leopard is vastly superior to 10.0 in every conceivable way. It’s faster, better-designed, does more, and looks better. (And it runs exclusively on an entirely different CPU architecture than did 10.0.) But at no point between the two was there a release that was markedly superior to the one that preceded it.

Well put; I've never considered any one release of OS X essential, but they've all added useful features that build it into a stronger, more coherent OS. Windows, on the other hand, slowly axes older machines with each OS release (OS X only 2 years ago finally cut out non-Intel Macs.) Each Microsoft OS feels markedly different from the last and fixes so many problems that everyone wants it, whether they pay for it or not, in the hopes that it will be the amazing product Microsoft has been promising all this time. While it does appear they might have finally gotten something right with Windows 7, they couldn't afford not to have done so; Apple's market share is holding steady and the iPhone has caused many to consider change.

The iPad, as I see it currently, is inessential. I felt the same way about the original iPhone, thus my waiting a year before buying in. Once the iPhone 3G launched, there was no way I could consider not getting one. The 3GS was a minor upgrade, but to someone who still has a 3G, the new iPhone will be an easy sell, due to all the features it has that they can't use. Apple has a history of slowly, methodically, dragging their users into new devices/OSes. I can forgive them, though, as their old products continue to work and are still utterly useable. I just passed down an 2004 iMac to my parents as I finally upgraded, after 6 years, to a glorious 27" iMac. Six years from now, I'll probably repeat the process, unless an iPad has become my computer of choice. Given Apple's track record, that doesn't seem far-fetched.

Back From the Dead

2010-05-16T06:48:00.000-07:00

Five years later, I feel it's time I returned to the blogging world. I've got things to say and maybe someone out there wants to listen. As previously, I'll link to stories I find interesting and music I think is awesome. I'll try not to get too political; I'm usually fairly good at this outside of election years. :)

Welcome to my world, I hope you find something you like!

Guantanamo Tactics Revealed

2005-01-27T23:12:00.000-08:00

Just when you thought it had gone away that travesty of a prison they call Guantanamo Bay has come back into the news. A former translator at the infamous prison detailed the twisted tactics the US is using to interrogate suspected terrorists:

[ed: Emphasis Added] Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man's face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider's written account.

A draft manuscript obtained by The Associated Press is classified as secret pending a Pentagon review for a planned book that details ways the U.S. military used women as part of tougher physical and psychological interrogation tactics to get terror suspects to talk.

It's the most revealing account so far of interrogations at the secretive detention camp, where officials say they have halted some controversial techniques.

"I have really struggled with this because the detainees, their families and much of the world will think this is a religious war based on some of the techniques used, even though it is not the case," the author, former Army Sgt. Erik R. Saar, 29, told AP.

Saar didn't provide the manuscript or approach AP, but confirmed the authenticity of nine draft pages AP obtained. He requested his hometown remain private so he wouldn't be harassed. Saar, who is neither Muslim nor of Arab descent, worked as an Arabic translator at the U.S. camp in eastern Cuba from December 2002 to June 2003. At the time, it was under the command of Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who had a mandate to get better intelligence from prisoners, including alleged al-Qaida members caught in Afghanistan.

Saar said he witnessed about 20 interrogations and about three months after his arrival at the remote U.S. base he started noticing "disturbing" practices.

One female civilian contractor used a special outfit that included a miniskirt, thong underwear and a bra during late-night interrogations with prisoners, mostly Muslim men who consider it taboo to have close contact with women who aren't their wives.

Beginning in April 2003, "there hung a short skirt and thong underwear on the hook on the back of the door" of one interrogation team's office, he writes. "Later I learned that this outfit was used for interrogations by one of the female civilian contractors ... on a team which conducted interrogations in the middle of the night on Saudi men who were refusing to talk."

Some Guantanamo prisoners who have been released say they were tormented by "prostitutes."

In another case, Saar describes a female military interrogator questioning an uncooperative 21-year-old Saudi detainee who allegedly had taken flying lessons in Arizona before the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Suspected Sept. 11 hijacker Hani Hanjour received pilot instruction for three months in 1996 and in December 1997 at a flight school in Scottsdale, Ariz.

"His female interrogator decided that she needed to turn up the heat," Saar writes, saying she repeatedly asked the detainee who had sent him to Arizona, telling him he could "cooperate" or "have no hope whatsoever of ever leaving this place or talking to a lawyer.'"

The man closed his eyes and began to pray, Saar writes.

The female interrogator wanted to "break him," Saar adds, describing how she removed her uniform top to expose a tight-fitting T-shirt and began taunting the detainee, touching her breasts, rubbing them against the prisoner's back and commenting on his apparent erection.

The detainee looked up and spat in her face, the manuscript recounts.

The interrogator left the room to ask a Muslim linguist how she could break the prisoner's reliance on God. The linguist told her to tell the detainee that she was menstruating, touch him, then make sure to turn off the water in his cell so he couldn't wash.

Strict interpretation of Islamic law forbids physical contact with women other than a man's wife or family, and with any menstruating women, who are considered unclean.

"The concept was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain strength," says the draft, stamped "Secret."

The interrogator used ink from a red pen to fool the detainee, Saar writes.

"She then started to place her hands in her pants as she walked behind the detainee," he says. "As she circled around him he could see that she was taking her hand out of her pants. When it became visible the detainee saw what appeared to be red blood on her hand. She said, 'Who sent you to Arizona?' He then glared at her with a piercing look of hatred.

"She then wiped the red ink on his face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged forward" — so fiercely that he broke loose from one ankle shackle.

"He began to cry like a baby," the draft says, noting the interrogator left saying, "Have a fun night in your cell without any water to clean yourself.

Events Saar describes resemble two previous reports of abusive female interrogation tactics, although it wasn't possible to independently verify his account.

...Sexual tactics used by female interrogators have been criticized by the FBI (news - web sites), which complained in a letter obtained by AP last month that U.S. defense officials hadn't acted on complaints by FBI observers of "highly aggressive" interrogation techniques, including one in which a female interrogator grabbed a detainee's genitals.

About 20 percent of the guards at Guantanamo are women, said Lt. Col. James Marshall, a spokesman for U.S. Southern Command. He wouldn't say how many of the interrogators were female.

Marshall wouldn't address whether the U.S. military had a specific strategy to use women.

"U.S. forces treat all detainees and conduct all interrogations, wherever they may occur, humanely and consistent with U.S. legal obligations, and in particular with legal obligations prohibiting torture," Marshall said late Wednesday.

But some officials at the U.S. Southern Command have questioned the formation of an all-female team as one of Guantanamo's "Immediate Reaction Force" units that subdue troublesome male prisoners in their cells, according to a document classified as secret and obtained by AP.

In one incident, dated June 19, 2004, "The detainee appears to be genuinely traumatized by a female escort securing the detainee's leg irons," according to the document, a U.S. Southern Command summary of videotapes shot when the teams were used.

...At Guantanamo, Saar said, "Interrogators were given a lot of latitude under Miller," the commander who went from the prison in Cuba to overseeing prisons in Iraq, where the Abu Ghraib scandal shocked the world with pictures revealing sexual humiliation of naked prisoners.

Several female troops have been charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Saar said he volunteered to go to Guantanamo because "I really believed in the mission," but then he became disillusioned during his six months at the prison.

After leaving the Army with more than four years service, Saar worked as a contractor briefly for the FBI.

The Department of Defense has censored parts of his draft, mainly blacking out people's names, said Saar, who hired Washington attorney Mark S. Zaid to represent him. Saar needed permission to publish because he signed a disclosure statement before going to Guantanamo.

The book, which Saar titled "Inside the Wire," is due out this year with Penguin Press.

Guantanamo has about 545 prisoners from some 40 countries, many held more than three years without charge or access to lawyers and many suspected of links to al-Qaida or Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime, which harbored the terrorist network.

It's not hard to imagine that these female squadrons are being formed, since US officials obviously don't care much for "playing by the rules." Certainly, I understand that females exist in the military and are just as likely to be sent on certain detail. But when they are used in this manner, to apparently humiliate prisoners, many who are wrongfully imprisoned in the first place, only because their religion is different from ours is just outrageous. I hope they realize they're going to burn in hell for what they've done. I've never imagined such vile acts could ever be committed by someone attached to the United States.

Battle Won Over Gonzales

2005-01-26T11:01:00.001-08:00

Well, we've won the battle, but we haven't won the war just yet. KOS is where I first read that many a dem on the judiciary committee voted against confirming Gonzales, though the Republicans had enough votes to push him through for a full house vote. Of note, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted against Gonzales despite his past record. Feingold has always given deference to a President's cabinet nominees; he even voted for Ashcroft, even though he didn't necessarily like the guy. Here's what he had to say about Gonzales:

As all of my colleagues on this Committee know, I believe that Presidents are entitled to a great deal of deference in their cabinet nominations. I have voted in favor of a number of this President's nominees, including the current Attorney General, with whom I had serious disagreements on matters of policy and general ideology. My votes may not have always pleased my political supporters, or my party's leadership. But in carrying out my part in the constitutional scheme, as one who is asked to advise on and consent to a President's nominations, I am guided by my conscience, and by the history and practices of the United States Senate. Rejecting a cabinet nominee is a very rare event. The decision to do so must never be taken lightly.

Mr. Chairman, I have reached the conclusion, after a great deal of thought and careful consideration, that I cannot support Judge Gonzales's nomination.

As usual, the best news bits aren't in US papers, but found over at this article from the UK:

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., called Gonzales on Tuesday to tell him that he would voting against him.

Bush said that he chose Gonzales ``because of his sound judgment and role in shaping the administrations policies in the war on terrorism,'' Leahy said. ``Based on the glimpses of secret policy formulations and legal rationales that have come to light, I believe his judgments not to have been sound.''

``His judgment is defective,'' added Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del.

Democrats complain that Gonzales was evasive with his answers to their questions about White House policies in the war on terror. They have used his nomination and that of secretary of state nominee Condoleezza Rice to criticize the Iraq war and the treatment of foreign prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

``The continuing effort to pin the blame for the torture scandal on a few bad apples among our soldiers while ignoring or even rewarding Mr. Gonzales and others responsible for the policy has sent the wrong message to our nation and the world,'' said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. ``I cannot support a nominee who has done so much to harm America's basic interests and fundamental values.''

Republicans said Gonzales shouldn't be the scapegoat for what happened to foreign prisoners.

``Most of these allegations have nothing to do with Judge Gonzales and in any event have been thoroughly discussed,'' said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

Gonzales, who served as White House counsel during President Bush's first term, would replace John Ashcroft if confirmed. He would be the nation's first Hispanic attorney general.

Even if Gonzales is approved by the committee, Democrats say they will require several hours of debate on the Senate floor before allowing a confirmation vote.

``I think that a man who gave the legal advice to the president to allow this to take place is someone that deserves to be talked about on the Senate floor,'' Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Tuesday.

Gonzales has said he supported extending the expired federal assault weapons ban. He also told senators he wanted Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act this year, despite complaints that it is too intrusive.

I suppose we can only dream of actually keeping him out of the cabinet, but stranger things have happened.

Gonzales TKO?

2005-01-25T23:52:00.000-08:00

Well, the movement against Alberto Gonzales has grown quickly and I dare say it is possible (not probable) that he will be turned down for his post. KOS posted a list, which I would like to add my name to, of bloggers who are against Gonzales's Nomination:

Unprecedented times call for unprecedented actions. In this case, we, the undersigned bloggers, have decided to speak as one and collectively author a document of opposition. We oppose the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the position of Attorney General of the United States, and we urge every United States Senator to vote against him.

As the prime legal architect for the policy of torture adopted by the Bush Administration, Gonzales's advice led directly to the abandonment of longstanding federal laws, the Geneva Conventions, and the United States Constitution itself. Our country, in following Gonzales's legal opinions, has forsaken its commitment to human rights and the rule of law and shamed itself before the world with our conduct at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The United States, a nation founded on respect for law and human rights, should not have as its Attorney General the architect of the law's undoing.

In January 2002, Gonzales advised the President that the United States Constitution does not apply to his actions as Commander in Chief, and thus the President could declare the Geneva Conventions inoperative. Gonzales's endorsement of the August 2002 Bybee/Yoo Memorandum approved a definition of torture so vague and evasive as to declare it nonexistent. Most shockingly, he has embraced the unacceptable view that the President has the power to ignore the Constitution, laws duly enacted by Congress and International treaties duly ratified by the United States. He has called the Geneva Conventions "quaint."

Legal opinions at the highest level have grave consequences. What were the consequences of Gonzales's actions? The policies for which Gonzales provided a cover of legality - views which he expressly reasserted in his Senate confirmation hearings - inexorably led to abuses that have undermined military discipline and the moral authority our nation once carried. His actions led directly to documented violations at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and widespread abusive conduct in locales around the world.

Michael Posner of Human Rights First observed: "After the horrific images from Abu Ghraib became public last year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted that the world should 'judge us by our actions [and] watch how a democracy deals with the wrongdoing and with scandal and the pain of acknowledging and correcting our own mistakes.'" We agree. It is because of this that we believe the only proper course of action is for the Senate to reject Alberto Gonzales's nomination for Attorney General. As Posner notes, "[t]he world is indeed watching." Will the Senate condone torture? Will the Senate condone the rejection of the rule of law?

With this nomination, we have arrived at a crossroads as a nation. Now is the time for all citizens of conscience to stand up and take responsibility for what the world saw, and, truly, much that we have not seen, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. We oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States, and we urge the Senate to reject him.

Add to this all the other stories about Gonzales's "selective memory" regarding his past actions and his ultra-cocky attitude and you have the recipe for what should be a good battle, at least if some of the dems out there have the guts.

Got a little free time? Email your local senator, quickly, and tell them that you don't support the nomination of Alberto Gonzales.

Swank + Eastwood * Freeman = Oscar

2005-01-25T23:27:00.000-08:00

I attended a media screening for Million Dollar Baby last night and was absolutely blown away. It's rare to see a movie which brought out so many emotions. It brought out so many emotions you could barely keep up. The chemistry between Freeman and Eastwood (two real-life friends, and it shows) makes for some strikingly hilarious moments, in a movie that isn't billed as a comedy. The story of Swank's rags-to-riches character will lift your spirit, even if you're not a fan of boxing (and I am not). But most importantly, the movie expresses a deep emotion of sadness and regret that will haunt you, even after you've left the theatre. Swank, Eastwood and Freeman all excelled in their roles, but Swank in particular, as a championship calibur boxer who experiences downfall at the height of her career, shines like few before her. I've always been a fan of her work, but she is capable of showing world's of emotion through simple facial expressions.

Perhaps I've talked the movie up too much, but the ratings at Rotten Tomatoes seem to back me up. Roger Ebert summed it up as well as I ever could:

Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" is a masterpiece, pure and simple, deep and true. It tells the story of an aging fight trainer and a hillbilly girl who thinks she can be a boxer. It is narrated by a former boxer who is the trainer's best friend. But it's not a boxing movie. It is a movie about a boxer. What else it is, all it is, how deep it goes, what emotional power it contains, I cannot suggest in this review, because I will not spoil the experience of following this story into the deepest secrets of life and death. This is the best film of the year.

...Movies are so often made of effects and sensation these days. This one is made of three people and how their actions grow out of who they are and why. Nothing else. But isn't that everything?

Bush's DUI, Record Deficits & Evolution

2005-01-25T18:30:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Notes From a Different Kitchen I ran into an interesting story about the man running for attorney general Alberto Gonzales. Seems Mr. Gonzales memory got hazy during questioning about how he supposedly helped his boss get off the hook about his DUI:

...Gonzales's most surprising answer may have come on a different subject: his role in helping President Bush escape jury duty in a drunken-driving case involving a dancer at an Austin strip club in 1996. The judge and other lawyers in the case last week disputed a written account of the matter provided by Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It's a complete misrepresentation," said David Wahlberg, lawyer for the dancer, about Gonzales's account.

Bush's summons to serve as a juror in the drunken-driving case was, in retrospect, a fateful moment in his political career: by getting excused from jury duty he was able to avoid questions that would have required him to disclose his own 1976 arrest and conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in Kennebunkport, Maine—an incident that didn't become public until the closing days of the 2000 campaign. (Bush, who had publicly declared his willingness to serve, had left blank on his jury questionnaire whether he had ever been "accused" in a criminal case.) Asked by Sen. Patrick Leahy to describe "in detail" the only court appearance he ever made on behalf of Bush, Gonzales—who was then chief counsel to the Texas governor—wrote that he had accompanied Bush the day he went to court "prepared to serve on a jury." While there, Gonzales wrote, he "observed" the defense lawyer make a motion to strike Bush from the jury panel "to which the prosecutor did not object." Asked by the judge whether he had "any views on this," Gonzales recalled, he said he did not.

While Gonzales's account tracks with the official court transcript, it leaves out a key part of what happened that day, according to Travis County Judge David Crain. In separate interviews, Crain—along with Wahlberg and prosecutor John Lastovica—told NEWSWEEK that, before the case began, Gonzales asked to have an off-the-record conference in the judge's chambers. Gonzales then asked Crain to "consider" striking Bush from the jury, making the novel "conflict of interest" argument that the Texas governor might one day be asked to pardon the defendant (who worked at an Austin nightclub called Sugar's), the judge said. "He [Gonzales] raised the issue," Crain said. Crain said he found Gonzales's argument surprising, since it was "extremely unlikely" that a drunken-driving conviction would ever lead to a pardon petition to Bush. But "out of deference" to the governor, Crain said, the other lawyers went along. Wahlberg said he agreed to make the motion striking Bush because he didn't want the hard-line governor on his jury anyway. But there was little doubt among the participants as to what was going on. "In public, they were making a big show of how he was prepared to serve," said Crain. "In the back room, they were trying to get him off."

Gonzales last week refused to waver. "Judge Gonzales has no recollection of requesting a meeting in chambers," a senior White House official said, adding that while Gonzales did recall that Bush's potential conflict was "discussed," he never "requested" that Bush be excused. "His answer to the Senate's question is accurate," the official said.

Very convenient, how he insists that his recolection is the right one, while everyone else remembers it completely different. I dislike this man more and more every day.

Next up, no matter where you heard it, the national deficit grows larger still, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. Funny, four years ago, when Bush stepped in office, we had a record surplus, now we've got this:

he White House will project that this year’s federal deficit will hit $427 billion, a senior administration official said Tuesday, a record partly driven by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

advertisement
The official, among three who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, said the estimate was a conservative one that assumed some higher spending than other analysts use. Last February, the White House projected that the 2004 shortfall would hit $521 billion, only to see it come in at $412 billion.

The official said the figure represented progress because it would be smaller than last year’s record $412 billion shortfall when compared to the size of the growing U.S. economy. That ratio is a key measure of the deficit’s potency.

“Our projections will show we remain on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009,” one of President Bush’s budget goals, the official told reporters.

Even so, the number was among a blizzard of figures released Tuesday that illustrated how federal deficits remain a problem that Bush and Congress must reckon with.

Scarier still is that Bush is asking for even more in war funding from congress, as well:

Underscoring budget pressures hounding lawmakers, senior administration officials invited reporters to the White House to outline their upcoming request for an additional $80 billion, or slightly more, to help pay this year’s costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

...There is little doubt lawmakers will follow Bush’s lead, as they have repeatedly since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The latest proposal would bring war spending so far to about $308 billion, including $25 billion to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Congressional Research Service, which provides reports to lawmakers.

Nice. But, worry not, fellow Americans. Our finances may be in a bind, but at least our kids are getting excellent educations, places like Cobb County Georgia excluded. I mean, who's the nutbag who came up with this:

One line of attack - on display in Cobb County, Ga., in recent weeks - is to discredit evolution as little more than a theory that is open to question. Another strategy - now playing out in Dover, Pa. - is to make students aware of an alternative theory called "intelligent design," which infers the existence of an intelligent agent without any specific reference to God. These new approaches may seem harmless to a casual observer, but they still constitute an improper effort by religious advocates to impose their own slant on the teaching of evolution.
•

The Cobb County fight centers on a sticker that the board inserted into a new biology textbook to placate opponents of evolution. The school board, to its credit, was trying to strengthen the teaching of evolution after years in which it banned study of human origins in the elementary and middle schools and sidelined the topic as an elective in high school, in apparent violation of state curriculum standards. When the new course of study raised hackles among parents and citizens (more than 2,300 signed a petition), the board sought to quiet the controversy by placing a three-sentence sticker in the textbooks:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Although the board clearly thought this was a reasonable compromise, and many readers might think it unexceptional, it is actually an insidious effort to undermine the science curriculum. The first sentence sounds like a warning to parents that the film they are about to watch with their children contains pornography. Evolution is so awful that the reader must be warned that it is discussed inside the textbook. The second sentence makes it sound as though evolution is little more than a hunch, the popular understanding of the word "theory," whereas theories in science are carefully constructed frameworks for understanding a vast array of facts. The National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific organization, has declared evolution "one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have" and says it is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus.

The third sentence, urging that evolution be studied carefully and critically, seems like a fine idea. The only problem is, it singles out evolution as the only subject so shaky it needs critical judgment. Every subject in the curriculum should be studied carefully and critically. Indeed, the interpretations taught in history, economics, sociology, political science, literature and other fields of study are far less grounded in fact and professional consensus than is evolutionary biology.

A more honest sticker would describe evolution as the dominant theory in the field and an extremely fruitful scientific tool. The sad fact is, the school board, in its zeal to be accommodating, swallowed the language of the anti-evolution crowd. Although the sticker makes no mention of religion and the school board as a whole was not trying to advance religion, a federal judge in Georgia ruled that the sticker amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion because it was rooted in long-running religious challenges to evolution. In particular, the sticker's assertion that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" adopted the latest tactical language used by anti-evolutionists to dilute Darwinism, thereby putting the school board on the side of religious critics of evolution. That court decision is being appealed. Supporters of sound science education can only hope that the courts, and school districts, find a way to repel this latest assault on the most well-grounded theory in modern biology.

What I don't get is how all these Creationist zealots can completely overlook the honest scientific proof that supports evolutionary theory. Certainly, it's possible to believe in a "Creator" as well as evolution, but these people seem wholy incapable. I should point out that an NPR story last week stated that the Cobb Co. board had lost a case and was told to remove the stickers, but they had so far not done as much. What a wonderful world.

The Day After

2005-01-21T23:17:00.000-08:00

Wish this was a joke, but apparently the Federal Emergency Management Agency decided that it would be a good idea to make a game for kids involving Tsunami cleanup. Crazy old me, I'd call it a tiny bit insensitive, considering the major disaster that just hit Asia, but what do I know?

Mr. P sent me a nice link to Thom Friedman's latest OpEd over at the New York Times. Here's an excerpt from An American in Paris:

Why are Europeans so blue over George Bush's re-election? Because Europe is the world's biggest "blue state." This whole region is a rhapsody in blue. These days, even the small group of anti-anti-Americans in the European Union is uncomfortable being associated with Mr. Bush. There are Euro-conservatives, but, aside from, maybe, the ruling party in Italy, there is nothing here that quite corresponds to the anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-tax, anti-national-health-care, anti-Kyoto, openly religious, pro-Iraq-war Bush Republican Party.

If you took all three major parties in Britain - Labor, Liberals and Conservatives - "their views on God, guns, gays, the death penalty, national health care and the environment would all fit somewhere inside the Democratic Party," said James Rubin, the Clinton State Department spokesman, who works in London. "That's why I get along with all three parties here. They're all Democrats!"

While officially every European government is welcoming the inauguration of President Bush, the prevailing mood on the continent (if I may engage in a ridiculously sweeping generalization!) still seems to be one of shock and awe that Americans actually re-elected this man.

Before Mr. Bush's re-election, the prevailing attitude in Europe was definitely: "We're not anti-American. We're anti-Bush." But now that the American people have voted to re-elect Mr. Bush, Europe has a problem maintaining this distinction. The logic of the Europeans' position is that they should now be anti-American, not just anti-Bush, but most Europeans don't seem to want to go there. They know America is more complex. So there is a vague hope in the air that when Mr. Bush visits Europe next month, he'll come bearing an olive branch that will enable both sides to at least pretend to hold this loveless marriage together for the sake of the kids.

...Funnily enough, the one country on this side of the ocean that would have elected Mr. Bush is not in Europe, but the Middle East: it's Iran, where many young people apparently hunger for Mr. Bush to remove their despotic leaders, the way he did in Iraq.

An Oxford student who had just returned from research in Iran told me that young Iranians were "loving anything their government hates," such as Mr. Bush, "and hating anything their government loves." Tehran is festooned in "Down With America" graffiti, the student said, but when he tried to take pictures of it, the Iranian students he was with urged him not to. They said it was just put there by their government and was not how most Iranians felt.

Iran, he said, is the ultimate "red state." Go figure.

Next up, Democratic Underground was nice enough to point out the most memorable comment about the inauguration over at Salon's War Room:

Meanwhile, our favorite TV nugget of the day so far came courtesy of Barbara Walters, who matter-of-factly informed viewers that Laura Bush recently had her hair done by famed New York City stylist Sally Hershberger, who charges $700 for a haircut. Just take a moment to think back to the go-go '90s, and try to imagine what the press' hysterical reaction would have been if word ever leaked out that Hillary Clinton had sat down for a $700 trim."

Now, I'd rather not speculate about what might have been said, had this happened several years ago. However, I can honestly say that not only does $700 seem just a bit excessive, you have to wonder how that sort of thing is approved, and how often it happens.

More importantly, I don't think an inauguration and its festivities should cost over $50 million dollars:

Estimates on the cost of the Bush inauguration have wavered in the $30 million to $40 million range, maybe as high as $50 million for three or four days of events.

...The inauguration festivities will be supported by private donations from oil companies, insurance companies, investment and mortgage companies and other companies that will be opening up their checkbooks out of the goodness of their hearts, expecting nothing in return, just looking for a chance to jitterbug at any one of nine balls in the nation’s capital, watch fireworks displays, listen to a youth concert, see a parade — and, oh yeah, there’s a swearing-in ceremony, too.

Organizers say the festivities would have a solemnity missing from other inaugurals because the country remains at war.

“There have been 55 inaugurations and very few have taken place during wartime, and this inaugural will reflect that,” said Steve Schmidt, spokesman for the inaugural committee.

Part of that “solemnity” will likely come at the Commander-in-Chief Ball, a new event this time around.

It will be free of charge to 2,000 members of the armed services and their families, featuring those who have recently returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, or those who will be deployed there soon.

Don’t get too comfortable, taxpayer; you will be paying something. How about a little thing called security?

The $40 million for the inaugural gala doesn’t include the cost of security. While the string quartets fiddle, ball-goers can look at the windows and see evidence of millions being spent for security.

The District of Columbia anticipates spending $8.8 million in overtime pay for about 2,000 D.C. police officers; $2.7 million to pay 1,000-plus officers being sent by other jurisdictions across the country; $3 million to construct reviewing stands; and $2.5 million to place public works, health, transportation, fire, emergency management and business services on emergency footing.

Somehow, I failed to see any sort of "solemnity" in all those huge balls they were throwing. Solemn people would have the swearing-in, hold a somber dinner and then gone back to work helping our troops and rebuilding our poor, broken economy. This was one huge party that lasted a whole three days.

After the party ended, Republicans decided they needed to get back on the offensive. Their target this time: Spongebob Squarepants:

On the heels of electoral victories barring same-sex marriage, some influential conservative Christian groups are turning their attention to a new target: the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants.

"Does anybody here know SpongeBob?" Dr. James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, asked the guests Tuesday night at a black-tie dinner for members of Congress and political allies to celebrate the election results.

SpongeBob needed no introduction. In addition to his popularity among children, who watch his cartoon show, he has become a well-known camp figure among adult gay men, perhaps because he holds hands with his animated sidekick Patrick and likes to watch the imaginary television show "The Adventures of Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy."

Now, Dr. Dobson said, SpongeBob's creators had enlisted him in a "pro-homosexual video," in which he appeared alongside children's television colleagues like Barney and Jimmy Neutron, among many others. The makers of the video, he said, planned to mail it to thousands of elementary schools to promote a "tolerance pledge" that includes tolerance for differences of "sexual identity."

..."We see the video as an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids," he said. "It is a classic bait and switch."

We all remember how Bert and Ernie were accused of being gay. I don't know if I speak for the rest of you, but I know growing up watching them made me queer as a three dollar bill.

Lastly, let's all relax for a moment and thank these patriots, who have stood up for true freedom and the liberty we all hold so dear. They are the true Patriots.

Return of the Low

2005-01-20T23:11:00.000-08:00

Just a note: I've returned. Reading some liberal non-fiction as well as this amazing inauguration have possessed me to take back up my former pastime of blogging. Welcome to the new and soon to be hopping Caffeine Low. It may take me a few weeks to get my feet back on the ground, but if you're looking for links to pertinent news about politics, with a few stories about gaming, technology and music thrown in, here's the place to be. Sign up over on the right if you'd like to be emailed anything I post, in case my posts get sporadic, as they sometimes are.

Just a quickie to get you going, ever wonder what it'd be like to have a truly dissenting voice on FoxNews? Here's how it might go:

http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/view/1695

FoxNews just doesn't know how to properly screen their guests, I suppose, as this isn't the first time they've been had. Can't say I mind, though. It makes for some good TV.

Bush Inaugural Approval Appalling

2005-01-20T21:43:00.000-08:00

The link to Air America probably won't be active for much longer. This is referring to their "Top Stories" section, which doesn't seem to have any sort of permalink. Anyway, I'll link as much stuff as I can, as it's all very pertinent.

Here we stand, at the dawn of a new Bush Era. The country is in shambles, our economy is getting fucked over by the Shrub and hundreds of thousands(perhaps millions?) have died in Iraq, though we've not found a single WMD. So, what do the American people, a not-quite-majority of who re-elected this nut, think of where we're going? Well, perhaps this CBS/NYTimes poll has the answer:

Fifty-eight percent of Americans say their outlook on a second Bush term is generally optimistic – a low number when compared to Mr. Bush's approval rating before his first term or Bill Clinton's before his second. At the same time, 56 percent say the country is on the wrong track, versus 39 percent who say it is on the right track.

Looking four years down the line, most Americans see very little changing, despite the ambitious agenda Mr. Bush is laying out for his second term.

Most expect they will be as safe from terror at the end of a second Bush term as they are today, but not safer. They think the economy and education system will be the same, but not better.

Despite Mr. Bush's focus on tax cuts, 41 percent of Americans say their taxes will be higher in four years, while just 9 percent say their taxes will be lower; 47 percent expect their taxes to be the same.

While Mr. Bush has a stated goal of cutting the national deficit in half, two-thirds of Americans expect the deficit to be higher after four years.

A slight plurality of Americans, 38 percent, say there will be fewer U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of a second Bush term. But 30 percent say there will be more, and 28 percent say the number will be the same.

As for the most ambitious and controversial item on Mr. Bush's agenda – overhauling Social Security - Americans expect to see big changes by 2008. But 50 percent say Mr. Bush's call for private retirement savings accounts is a bad idea, versus 45 percent who say it's a good idea.

Perhaps best is the last part, where a pure majority of American's feel that Mr. Bush's biggest issue, Social Security reform, is a terrible idea. Of course, don't expect him to take notice of that fact. He'll never have any idea of what the "average American" thinks, from inside that little bubble of his. Moving on...

Apparently foreigners continue to hate America, as shown by this poll:

A poll of 21 countries published yesterday - reflecting opinion in Africa, Latin America, North America, Asia and Europe - showed that a clear majority have grave fears about the next four years.

Fifty-eight per cent of the 22,000 who took part in the poll, commissioned by the BBC World Service, said they expected Mr Bush to have a negative impact on peace and security, compared with only 26% who considered him a positive force.

The survey also indicated for the first time that dislike of Mr Bush is translating into a dislike of Americans in general.

The numbers get worse by the day. As the election date passes, and things get worse in Iraq(we all know they will), perception will darken and eventually it won't be safe to travel abroad. Good thing I got my European vacation out of the way long ago.

Of course, we all know Condi Rice is moving up in the world. Thank God, because she certainly doesn't need to be looking out for our security anymore. I mean, could the memo have been any more plainly-worded? Anyway, big ups to Barbera Boxer for showing she's got some sense(as well as Mr. Kerry) and here's David Corn's excellent take on the situation, even if it's basically "old news."

This just in from the "ironic offings" department, check out what happened in Iraq, according to the LA Times:

An American contractor gunned down last month in Iraq had accused Iraqi Defense Ministry officials of corruption days before his death, according to a report in Thursday's Los Angeles Times. "Dale Stoffel, 43, was shot to death Dec. 8 shortly after leaving an Iraqi military base north of Baghdad, an attack attributed at the time to Iraqi insurgents. Also killed was a business associate, Joseph Wemple, 49," the LA Times reports. The killings came after Stoffel alerted senior U.S. officials in Washington "that he believed Iraqi Defense Ministry officials were part of a kickback scheme involving a multimillion-dollar contract awarded to his company."

Of course, a little more blood on the hands of Bush(or whoever ordered this execution) shouldn't matter. I mean, their hands are already so fucking red they'll never even notice.

An Iraqi girl screams after her parents were killed when U.S. Soldiers fired on their car during a dusk patrol January 18, 2005 in Tal Afar, Iraq. The car held an Iraqi family of seven of which the mother and father were killed.

Photographer Chris Hondros

Agency: Getty Images

Photo Date: JANUARY 18

Lastly, you can read Rick Perlstein's new article, Eve of Destruction, in the Village Voice, but only if you're in for a bit of a downer:

It shows up in the tautological narcissism of Bush's National Security Strategy document, which actually uses the phrase "the best defense is a good offense," and artfully constructs a vision in which whatever the United States does to preserve its interest is always already "peaceful," even when it requires war, is always already "democratic," even when it requires installing governments by fiat, is always already selfless, even as it establishes only two categories of states, those who cooperate and those who do not, in a situation of crisis defined unilaterally and whose time horizon stretches to infinity.

...The next four years? Anticipate another possible terrorist attack, certainly. Tommy Thompson, leaving his post as secretary of Health and Human Services, used his newfound freedom to wonder aloud why his bosses hadn't done anything to prevent an attack on "our food supply, because it's so easy to do." The EPA said an attack on any of 123 chemical plants would threaten over a million people—then the Department of Homeland Security took over the job, changed the measurements, and found that only two would do that. The chemical industry gives a hell of a lot of money to the Republicans.

Horray. God Bless our troops in harms way and God HELP this country.

PSP Caveats (or How I Learned To Love the DS)

2004-11-29T19:34:00.001-08:00

A friend of mine emailed me the other day, mentioning that he was rather excited about Sony's new portable, the PSP. I'm a Nintendo fanboy, but I've never written a console off until I had solid information about it and in most cases had actually played it. Most recently, I realized the N-Gage was a complete and utter waste of plastic/silicon. Mind you, Penny Arcade just the other day mentioned that they may have found a few games that play well on it, but it took them long enough.

Nintendo has just released it's newest piece of hardware, the DS. I've played the system. It's a fun piece of hardware with an interesting concept and wireless multiplayer. That's a start, but having Mario 64 as your flagship title and with intriguing titles like Feel The Magic to back it up, I know it's gonna be a good one in a few months. The DS has come out of the gate on fire. They're selling out everywhere(even at Target, where we had a surplus of units) and it benefits from a built in software library of over 500 titles(it plays Gameboy Advance carts).

Next up will be Sony and their fabled PSP. This isn't a gaming unit. It'll play music, play movies, play games, even give you a backrub. It's an all-in-one gaming-wonder machine. The size of it is comparable to the DS and the button configuration is relatively similar as well. However, this is where the comparisons end.

The DS runs on cartridges, has a rather long battery life(a proposed 10 hour limit from Nintendo, but many people insist it does much better) and an innovative way to play are all included. It seems the PSP may not even include a battery. I'm convinced this thing is a flop in the waiting and and here are my reasons (quoted from my email:

1: Battery Life
There has been nothing to disprove the reports that battery life of the unit is MAX about 7 hours. But here's the kicker, that's assuming the DVD-drive isn't running much. But if you play a game, watch a movie, whatever, you're GOING to run that drive, a lot, which seems to suck the battery down immensely. So you're looking at maybe 3-4 hours on one charge. AS WELL, it was also reported that the battery is so large it is seperate from the gaming unit and has to be strapped to your ARM (or stored in a pocket, but has to be close to the unit itself)

2: Games
Nintendo has so far garnered impressive third party support as well as their own impressive first party support. The PSP will get a LOT of games, but they'll
all be mostly ports of PS2 and PS1 games. Certainly, the DS will have lots of ports as well (2 so far, since Spiderman 2 is apparently much different from the console version) but Nintendo has a PROVEN track record with the kind of games that go on handhelds. That's part of the issue here. When you play a handheld, you want a game you can pick up/put down at ANY time. You shouldn't have to put a serious time investment into it. If you do, it has to be a fantastic game, probably unlike anything you can play on a console. Final Fantasy Tactics takes about 20mins a battle, but you can save/quit at any given time. Now, consider this, and think of whether or not a game like Jak & Daxter is playable in 10 minute increments? It's not feasible and it's just not really possible. This will be a major problem. I didn't even go into how MORE third parties are supporting Nintendo than Sony. Sony has their close bunch, but Square is developing a number of RPGs, EA is making a lot of games and several others. It should see third party support. You'll know more by February, when the gaming library flourishes.

3: Media
The DS runs on cartidges. Two advantages: They can't be scratched, ruined (easily) and they're relatively cheap to make. The PSP runs on UMD, Sony's new (proprietary) media format. It is a disc so it is scratched, easily, if jolted around(and we're using it in a PORTABLE gaming system!) and more expensive to make, at least at first. While the price may come down on UMDs, the shock capability is a BIG problem as I see it. Portable gaming systems are meant to be portable and tough. While the DS screen is obviously scratchable, as evidenced at target, so is any scren. But here's the big problem: what has the PSP got that the DS doesn't? It plays movies, eh? Well, how do you GET those movies? The UMD is a proprietary medium and sony has already said they're not planning to release any kit to allow you to make your own. So, any movie you want to watch, any music you want to listen to, well, you've gotta buy them. Since they're only being made by Sony, we'll assume the choices will
be limited and they won't exactly be cheap.

I think you can see why I'm a non-beleiver, but this next part will convince you that the PSP is perhaps the spawn of lucifer himself. Nintendo Now has put together a comprehensive review of exactly what the PSP claims to do and what it will actually be doing. It's a lengthy read, but important to anyone who wants to educate themselves on the coming gaming market. Check it out here and check below the break for some choice quotes:

1. "When will the Disc Read Errors Begin?"
We all know the truth about Sony's consoles. If you don't, you have been living in a cave. DRE's or "Disc Read Errors" have become synonymous with Sony's poorly built machines. Some people even think they design their systems like this ON PURPOSE. And I am one of them. It's an idea called "Planned Obscelescence" and it's something automobile manufacturers have been doing for years.

Here's a quote from a controversial interview given by Shinji Mikami. Mikami worked with Sony for almost a decade before he finally had the courage to speak out:

Quote:
"Shinji Mikami, producer of Resident Evil and Devil May Cry, strongly criticized Sony and Square in a recent radio interview in Japan. Mikami accused Sony of purposely designing their consoles to break easily so that gamers will have to buy a replacement. He also said that Sony's high sales figures are helped by the fact that many gamers, himself included, have had to buy a second PlayStation and PlayStation 2."

From there, Mikami went on to accuse Sony of doing the same thing with their line of PCs, Walkmans, and cell phones. He asked why no one has complained about this and said that it was almost like cheating and committing a crime. The radio DJ tried to interrupt Mikami and shift the conversation to another topic, but when Mikami was asked if he thought Sony's customers are foolish, he replied, "Yes."

...2. "90 Minute Battery Life/Overheating?"

Quote:
Gamespot brings us word that two industry watchers, PJ McNealy and Piper Jaffray & Co, are predicting a delay for the launch of the PSP. They cite numerous reasons including Sony's propensity for missing hardware launch dates. They take it further, however, and point out the more serious problems that they are having with the PSP including battery life (90 minutes) and heat.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/10/04/news_6109524.html

Just in case you don't know, PJ McNealy (from American Technology Research) and Piper Jaffray & Co are two of the most respected and well known Analyst Firms of their type. Their reputation rides on the truth of their information. However, these two industry analysts aren't the only ones who have raised serious concerns about the PSP battery life and how it WILL effect games.

Now, people have tried to counter this article by saying "That's old news." However, this piece was written only a few weeks ago. The 90 Minute Battery life was discovered by several writers observing the event (TGS). Here’s a link to a new article that raises some of the same concerns.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=5251

Here's some interesting comments made by Sony’s own Ken Kutaragi. His comments in this piece are quite telling to say the least.

Quote:
“A puzzle game will last longer, but Ridge Racer will probably be shorter than that," he told the site, referring to the battery life statistics released by SCE last week - which claimed four to six hours of battery while playing games.

"The figures quoted by SCE rely on playing with headphones, without using the wireless multiplayer capabilities of the device, and with screen brightness set in a specific range - leading to widespread speculation that using the full power of the system will bring the battery life down closer to the originally rumored two hour level."

Kutaragi's comments seem to confirm that games which use the features of the console more intensively will drain the battery life faster, and are backed up by the firm's efforts to restrict developers from using features such as data streaming from disc (as used in a large number of PS2 titles) due to their "high power consumption."

"The implication is clear, however, and Kutaragi's comments will undoubtedly be taken as a tacit admission that there is a problem with the PSP's battery life - and that the firm may be hoping to fix this in a later revision of the hardware."

Later Versions? Two Hour Battery life? It seems like we keep hearing the same thing over and over again. There is a term in the legal practice called “A Preponderance of Evidence.” This means that if the evidence is overwhelming then it must be true.

Well, are the overheating and the battery life complaints legitimate? I’ll let you, the readers decide.

...4. "Price: It Still Matters"

As it stands now the PSP is estimated to cost around $199 US. However, what about accessories and games? We all know that the average gamer will buy at least ONE game and the needed "Memory Stick."

Well, the "Value Pack Bundle" that includes Earphones, Carry Case and the Memory Stick will cost an estimated $249 US.
However, you still need at least one game, bringing your PSP launch day budget closer to $300. Either way, you'll also probably need a Screen Cover (if you buy the basic system) and an extra PSP Battery Pack, in case you plan on traveling, adding even more cost to your initial investment. The PSP Battery Pack will cost an estimated $44 (4800 Yen = around $45 and it is NOT included in the "Value Pack Bundle.")

When IGN.COM reported the price list for the PSP and it’s accessories, they deliberately left all of the prices for the system accessories in YEN, probably because they didn’t want the public to know that Sony was going to sell a battery for almost $50! They even went so far as to LIE about the battery saying that “the battery's user-removable, and cheap."

http://psp.ign.com/articles/560/560947p1.html

Wow, $50(!) for a battery pack? That’s not "cheap." That's like saying "Bend Over Consumer!!!"

Meanwhile, you can buy a Gameboy SP for $79 and a Nintendo DS for $149. Now, if you buy a game with your DS you still are below the $200 range, and as many have already predicted, the DS will see a price drop just around the time the PSP launches in the States. If Nintendo is really smart, they may even include a pack-in game, other than the MPH demo, that is. In my opinion, this would really give the consumers the VALUE they deserve.

...5. "The Truth about PSP , Mp3s, and Movies"

Many people still erroneously believe that the PSP will up seat the iPod as the new MP3 player of choice. (What a laugh)!
However, the reality is this. You need to store MP3's on a Memory Stick (sold separately). The Memory Stick that is planned for release with the system is nowhere near large enough to hold a decent amount of songs. And of course, it’s only compatible with the PSP. So if you already have a memory stick, you won’t be able to use it with your PSP.

Also, since the memory stick doubles as a “memory card,” gamers will have to store their music on the same device they store their game saves on, so anyone planning to use their PSP as an MP3 player will probably have to invest EVEN MORE MONEY on an extra memory stick if they want to hold a decent amount of songs. Again, a mere 128 megs is not a lot of space when it comes to MP3’s.

There have even been rumors that state that the audio quality of MP3’s on the PSP is "inferior" to those found on other MP3 players. Only time will tell if that’s true, but just considering that the average memory stick has only a tiny fraction of the storage space offered by a real MP3 player, audiophiles will probably have to make certain "sacrifices" if they want to store a decent amount of music - "Sacrifices" that could include cutting the bit rate on your mp3’s, which we all know reduces their quality.

But what about movies you say? Well as we all know, watching a movie on the PSP cuts its battery life to around two hours. What if your movie is longer than two hours? Well, tough luck. What if you want to play games AND watch a movie? Well again, tough luck. And would any sane person hold a handheld at arms length for two hours just to watch a film on a tiny screen? I wouldn’t even think about it.

...6. "Analysts Predict DOOM for PSP"

That's right I said PSP and NOT Nintendo DS. It doesn't matter what some fanboy thinks, here are the opinions of the people who matter. The one's whose decisions affect vast financial empires. They know the truth, and they aren't afraid to tell it.

Quote:
"ANALYSTS DECLARE 'NO REASON' TO BUY SONY PSP
New Nintendo console analysts' choice
By TAIGA URANAKA
Staff writer

The PlayStation Portable is the talk of the town after basking in the limelight at a recent game show. But despite all the hoopla, Sony Computer Entertainment Co.'s soon-to-debut portable game console is unlikely to loosen Nintendo Co.'s grip on the global market, according to game industry analysts. They say there is no compelling reason for gamers to buy the PSP. Its rival, the Nintendo DS, they say, offers eye-opening novelty.

Nintendo's new handheld console, which features a dual touch-sensitive screen, will go on sale in the US on Nov. 21 at $149.99 and on Dec. 2 in Japan for 15,000 yen. Sony has not announced the price or release date for the PSP. Analysts expect it to cost between 25,000 yen and 30,000 yen, putting it at disadvantage against the Nintendo DS.

Analysts say that while the PSP has razor-sharp screen resolution and stylish design, it is no match for the Nintendo DS in terms of uniqueness. It fails as an attractive game console, they say.

"With a dual touch-sensitive screen, voice recognition and wireless communication, the Nintendo DS has a load of new features," said Eiji Maeda, game analyst at Daiwa Institute of Research Ltd.

Nintendo says such features will allow users to experience new kinds of games and, more importantly, play intuitively, meaning they can forget about using a complicated control pad and use a stylus pen and their voice instead.

"Our intention was that anyone, regardless of age, gender or game experience, should be able to stand on the same starting line and enjoy playing games," Nintendo President Satoru Iwata told a media preview in Tokyo earlier this week. "The single-minded pursuit by the game industry for ever-more complicated and time-consuming games will only serve to alienate potential users," he said.

...11. " 'PSP: The Portable You Play at Home?' or 'PSP: Don’t Leave Home WITH It.' PSP Design Issues”

Now, this part is just my opinion and I want to make that clear before I begin. However, many of you might agree with the points I am going to bring up. First, every time I see the PSP I can’t help but think how cheap and flimsy it looks. Like the entire machine is constructed from light weight plastics. This machine hardly looks durable and since we all know about Sony’s reputation for making shoddy products, it makes me wonder, will anyone WANT to leave home with their PSP?

I mean, that’s the purpose of a portable gaming device, gaming on the go. Yet, every time I look at the PSP, I cant help but think how easily it could break. How the "open face" design of the machine will leave it susceptible to serious damage. How putting this already large system in a carry case would only increase it’s size and decrease it’s portability.

I also wonder why the put the D-Pad and the Buttons so close to the screen. There will be many a thumb print griming up that 16x9 screen. And something tells me, replacing that screen WON’T be cheap.

(In contrast, replacing a GBA screen costs around $2 and you can do it yourself).

And then there are the nagging battery life issues. What is a gamer supposed to do? Carry an extra $50 battery pack around, just in case they want to play games after they watch a movie? The whole concept seems ridiculous to me. A portable is about rough and ready, PORTABLE gaming. Not sitting at home while your handheld is plugged into a wall. There is NO WAY the PSP could ever survive the brutal world of the average portable gamer.

PSP, don’t leave home WITH it.

Of course, the PSP won't be release in America until next year, but I'm eagerly awaiting that time, so I can see it crash and burn. Of course, at this same time, I'll be buying my own DS, since the library of games will really flourish around February. Touching is good.

Voting "Irregularities"

2004-11-19T12:12:00.000-08:00

Some guys at UC Berkeley did some data crunching on the numbers in Florida from 2000 to 2004 and got some pretty interesting results. Their paper, The Effect of Electronic Voting Machines on Change in Support for Bush in the 2004 Florida Elections, comes to some pretty strong, well-founded conclusions. Here's what they have to say in their summary:

The Effect of Electronic Voting Machines on Change in Support for Bush in the 2004 Florida Elections Summary:

- Irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may
have awarded 130,000 excess votes or more to President George W.
Bush in Florida.

- Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic
voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases
in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect
cannot be explained by differences between counties in income,
number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size of
Hispanic/Latino population.

- In Broward County alone, President Bush appears to have received
approximately 72,000 excess votes.

- We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to
chance.

Details:

Because many factors impact voting results, statistical tools are
necessary to see the effect of touch-screen voting. Multipleregression
analysis is a statistical technique widely used in the
social and physical sciences to distinguish the individual effects of
many variables.

This multiple-regression analysis takes account of the following
variables by county:

- number of voters

- median income

- Hispanic population

- change in voter turnout between 2000 and 2004

- support for President Bush in 2000 election

- support for Dole in 1996 election

When one controls for these factors, the association between electronic
voting and increased support for President Bush is impossible to
overlook. The data show with 99.0% certainty that a county’s use of
electronic voting is associated with a disproportionate increase in
votes for President Bush.

The data used in this study come from CNN.com, the 2000 US Census, the
Florida Department of State, and the Verified Voting Foundation – all
publicly available sources. This study was carried out by a group of
doctoral students in the UC Berkeley sociology department in
collaboration with Professor Michael Hout, a member of the National
Academy of Sciences and the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center.

They even offer up the actual data in excel format, but that is only for the truly nerdy, as we're dealing with a lot of numbers.

Want more on this particular story? Hit up this thread at Slashdot for additional links and some well-thought out comments.

Of course, all of this isn't exactly news; it's just news with scientific backing. A number of articles just after the election pointed out the discrepancies between electronic voting states and exit polls, while exit polls in states without these e-voting problems remained on point. For example, check out this one from David Swanson:

An analysis of the original AP exit polling, which showed Kerry with a tighter margin and leading in myriad states, raises serious questions about the authenticity of the popular vote in several key states, RAW STORY has learned.

Since the actual outcome of the votes have been called, AP has changed nearly all of their exit polling to tighten the margin. A reason has not been given.

The analysis, first conducted by a poster at the popular Democratic Underground, suggests possible voter fraud in states that do not have electronic voting receipts, and those that limit the media’s access to polls.

Two inquiries placed by RAW STORY with the media contact for the six-network exit polling consortium at NBC News has received no response.

The curious result comes after the head of Diebold, which produces much of the nation’s electronic voting machines, told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.”

An exit poll involves asking someone after they walk out of the election booth who they voted for. While not a guide for proving results, it can be a mechanism for ensuring voting accuracy and flagging potential fraud. Exit polls were recently used in Venezuela to ensure the vote was accurate and legitimate.

Perhaps more importantly, while exit polling is unreliable, the odds of President Bush having gaining an advantage from every exit poll in swing states is an extremely improbable coincidence.

In Florida, Bush led exit polling by CNN of more than 3 million voters by just 5355 votes. Yet he led by 326,000 in the end result. This morning, CNN changed their exit polling to favor Bush, saying that had overweighted African American voters.

In Wisconsin, where exit polls put Kerry up seven percent, Bush has a lead of one percent, an unexplained difference of eight percent.

In New Mexico, Kerry led Bush by 3.8 percent, yet Bush leads Kerry by 3 percent in actual reported voting.

In Minnesota, where a new law sharply restricts reporters’ access to polls, Kerry led 9.6 percent in exit polling. Actual voting counts found that Bush trailed by 5 percent, with a 5 percent discrepancy favoring Bush.

Ohio, which does have paper trail capability but does not mandate receipts, had exits showed Kerry and Bush in a dead heat; in the near-final results, Bush led by three percent.

Exit polls put Kerry up by 8 percent in Michigan; actual results show Bush trailing by just 3 percent.

Nevada, which also has electronic voting – though should have mandated paper trails, had a variance of 4.2 percent. Kerry led the exit polls by 1.2 percent, while Bush led reported votes by 3 percent.

Two states with paper trails for voting were within 0.5 percent margin of error.

New Hampshire, which has electronic voting but provides verified receipts, exit polling is within 0.1 percent of the actual vote. Kerry led by 3 percent in exit polling, and 2.9 percent in the actual vote.

Maine, the final state for which analysis of exit polling was conducted before the AP “resampled” their data, was in the Kerry column by 7.5 percent; the end result put Kerry up 8 percent, a variance of 0.5 percent. Maine has no electronic voting.

Kerry does not gain by any significant margin in actual voting in any state for which analysis has been conducted, RAW STORY found.

Exit polling accurately predicted the results in most states with very little error. Where there were discrepancies, they were significant in the +5 percent range, and always favored Bush.

Allegations of voter fraud is not new to President Bush. On November 12, 2000, the Washington Post ran an article suggesting anomalies in the hotly constested state of Florida.

Something very strange happened on election night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official of Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and found that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000 votes. But when she checked the county’s Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore’s count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000 … all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters.

Early returns from Florida showed the Green Party candidate leading President Bush and Sen. Kerry in two Ohio counties. They later appeared corrected, but raised eyebrows among liberal bloggers.

I think we'd all agree it's rather convenient that questions of fraud exist around every election involving "President" Bush. I don't seem to recall any major questions about voter fraud in any of our other, recent major elections. Then again, it's probably just a computer glich, nothing more [cnn.com]:

Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct.

Bush actually received 365 votes in the precinct, Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, told The Columbus Dispatch.

State and county election officials did not immediately respond to requests by The Associated Press for more details about the voting system and its vendor, and whether the error, if repeated elsewhere in Ohio, could have affected the outcome.

Bush won the state by more than 136,000 votes, according to unofficial results, and Kerry conceded the election on Wednesday after acknowledging that 155,000 provisional ballots yet to be counted in Ohio would not change the result. (Full Ohio results)

The Secretary of State's Office said Friday it could not revise Bush's total until the county reported the error.

Strangely, we haven't heard much about Ohio since the "end" of things, despite the fact that the offical recount must be either ongoing or complete. Tom Paine seemed to think that Kerry actually would havewon in Ohio, if every vote had counted:

Bush won Ohio by 136,483 votes. In the United States, about 3 percent of votes cast are voided—known as “spoilage” in election jargon—because the ballots cast are inconclusive. Drawing on what happened in Florida and studies of elections past, Palast argues that if Ohio’s discarded ballots were counted, Kerry would have won the state. Today, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports there are a total of 247,672 votes not counted in Ohio, if you add the 92,672 discarded votes plus the 155,000 provisional ballots. So far there's no indication that Palast's hypothesis will be tested because only the provisional ballots are being counted.

Greg Palast, contributing editor to Harper's magazine, investigated the manipulation of the vote for BBC Television's Newsnight. The documentary, "Bush Family Fortunes," based on his New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, has been released this month on DVD .

Kerry won. Here are the facts.

I know you don't want to hear it. You can't face one more hung chad. But I don't have a choice. As a journalist examining that messy sausage called American democracy, it's my job to tell you who got the most votes in the deciding states. Tuesday, in Ohio and New Mexico, it was John Kerry.

Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. At 1:05 a.m. Wednesday morning, CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. The exit polls were later combined with—and therefore contaminated by—the tabulated results, ultimately becoming a mirror of the apparent actual vote. [To read about the skewing of exit polls to conform to official results, click here .] Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.

So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.

Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. [See TomPaine.com, "An Election Spoiled Rotten," November 1.]

Once again, at the heart of the Ohio uncounted vote game are, I'm sorry to report, hanging chads and pregnant chads, plus some other ballot tricks old and new.

The election in Ohio was not decided by the voters but by something called "spoilage." Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of the vote is voided, just thrown away, not recorded. When the bobble-head boobs on the tube tell you Ohio or any state was won by 51 percent to 49 percent, don't you believe it ... it has never happened in the United States, because the total never reaches a neat 100 percent. The television totals simply subtract out the spoiled vote.

Whose Votes Are Discarded?

And not all votes spoil equally. Most of those votes, say every official report, come from African-American and minority precincts.

We saw this in Florida in 2000. Exit polls showed Gore with a plurality of at least 50,000, but it didn't match the official count. That's because the official, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, excluded 179,855 spoiled votes. In Florida, as in Ohio, most of these votes lost were cast on punch cards where the hole wasn't punched through completely—leaving a 'hanging chad,'—or was punched extra times. Whose cards were discarded? Expert statisticians investigating spoilage for the government calculated that 54 percent of the ballots thrown in the dumpster were cast by black folks.

Scary stuff, guys. I just wish it weren't true.

Falluja, Iraqi for Tragedy

2004-11-16T20:42:00.000-08:00

Yeah, we've all heard that a US Marine shot an unarmed Iraqi and killed him. Understandably, his fellow troops are defending him, but the video that has apparently been released isn't going to help his case.

A Marine can be heard saying on the pool footage provided to Reuters Television: "He's f***ing faking he's dead."

"The Marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head," Sites said.

NBC said the Marine, who had reportedly been shot in the face himself the previous day, said immediately after the shooting: "Well, he's dead now."

Need visual aids of the horrid conditions? Check out this site for unadulterated images that prove this war isn't just affecting soldiers and terrorists. Many thousands of ordinary Iraqi's are being maimed or killed every day:

BAGHDAD, IRAQ - NOVEMBER 16: A relative looks after Mustafa Ahmad,2, an injured Iraqi child from Fallujah lies on a bed during treatment in a hospital on November 16, 2004 in Baghdad, Iraq. (Photo by Ghaith Abdul-Ahad/Getty Images).

A fucking two year old! Want to see how bad it gets? Click more for the closer shot of what happened to him.

I can't even begin to tell what the heck is going on with him, but just imagine you're two year old in that same situation. Now you truly understand what horrible people the Iraqi's think we are. It makes my stomach turn, just thinking about all those poor, innocent people. No "freedom" is worth this. This isn't a democracy, nor is it leading to one. We've got to get out of there.

Deepest Apologies

2004-11-16T20:24:00.000-08:00

For the FEW who actually come here expecting something recent, pertinent, etc, I'm sorry for the severe lack of updates lately. Seems I'm in a bit of a post-electoral funk. Well, not exactly. First of all, it seems rather fruitless to post negative information about Bush, since the war gets worse by the day and he isn't campaigning and trying to improve his image every five minutes. You can see what an incompetent, horrid mess we've created. As well, I've got a few things taking my mind from blogging. I still hit up the internet, but when it comes to posting, I'm a perfectionist. I want only the best on my blog. Being as such, I have a few things taking my mind off of that sort of thing. Namely, games like Mario Tennis and Paper Mario are taking up a good chunk of my limited spare time. Also, anyone who knows me personally knows I happen to work at Target. And anyone with half a brain knows that this is the busiest time of the year for someone who runs the electronics department at a major retailer. Video games are booming and we're looking for a record year, especially in that regard.

I'd like to take time to note that both Sony and Microsoft seem to be having trouble getting consoles to our stores, no one in the Memphis/Upper MS area has a PS2 in stock, but Nintendo keeps putting the GCNs in the store. While they aren't exactly blowing out, as more and more people realize it's the only thing they can find, reasonably, and that it's cheaper and comes with a $50 game, they're jumping on it.

Anyway, back to posting, I'll try my best to do better later this week. Hopefully I'll start a few reviews(game/music/movie/otherwise) in the next week or so. In the meantime, here's a mini-review:

If you love Pixar, you'll love The Incredibles. The pre-movie feature is an incredibly inspired, catchy bit about a sheep that can't get any love and the jackalope that gave him a new leash on life. I'm still unsure whether jackalopes actually exist or not, but the story has a lovely moral message and was by far Pixar's best pre-movie picture, other than "For The Birds." Anyway, the Incredibles is fun, hilarious, intelligent and just a warm film. Every time I see a Pixar film I think it's about the best ever, but this one might take the cake, at least for non-Toy Story 2 flix(we all know that's the best one). The story takes a few unexpected twists and even winds up leaving room for a sequel(which I long for), something the Pixar guys have proven they can do admirably as well. I give it an easy 4 out of 4 stars, but consider docking it 1/2 a star because it doesn't have the awe-inspiring detail as much as some other Pixar movies. The effects of water and other natural conditions is more evident than ever before, but it didn't look quite like I'd wanted it. Of course, once it's out on DVD and I see it in hi-res on a TV, I'm sure I'll enjoy it more, but the story alone is worth the price of admission. This may be their highest grossing film ever and it's most certainly the most marketable. The game has been selling quite well so far, despite only mediocre ratings, and the toys aren't half bad either. See it.

Anyway, I've got one more post up my sleeves, hang around and you can check it out. I'll try and get a few important things up tomorrow. Stay tuned.

The South Begins To Suck

2004-11-12T11:25:00.000-08:00

While Florida is always an embarassement come election-time, Georgia takes the annual award for state most embarassing to the rest of the south. What have they done this time? Well, hot on the heels of their State School Superintendant suggesting they stop referring to "evolution," people continue to move the state toward such a position. Indeed, now they are insisting, in the face of science, that evolution is a theory, not a fact:

First, Georgia's education chief tried to take the word "evolution" out of the state's science curriculum. Now a suburban Atlanta county is in federal court over textbook stickers that call evolution "a theory, not a fact."

Some here worry that Georgia is making itself look like a bunch of rubes or, worse, discrediting its own students.

"People want to project the image that Georgia is a modern state, that we're in the 21st century. Then something like this happens," said Emory University molecular biologist Carlos Moreno.

The federal lawsuit being heard this week in Atlanta concerns whether the constitutional separation of church and state was violated when suburban Cobb County school officials placed the disclaimer stickers in high school biology texts in 2002. The stickers say evolution should be "critically considered."

Earlier this year, science teachers howled when state Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox proposed a new science curriculum that dropped the word "evolution" in favor of "changes over time."

That plan was quickly dropped, but comic Jimmy Fallon still cracked wise on "Saturday Night Live": "As a compromise, dinosaurs are now called 'Jesus Horses'."

Those who support the Cobb County stickers testified this week that they are aiming for a more open-minded education for students.

"I think the (evolution) theory is atheistic. And it's all that's presented. It's an insult to their intelligence that they're only taught evolution," said Marjorie Rogers, the parent who first complained about the biology texts.

Some scientists say they are frustrated the issue is still around nearly 80 years since the Scopes Monkey Trial -- the historic case heard in neighboring Tennessee over the teaching of evolution instead of the biblical story of creation.

"We're really busy. We have a lot to do. And here we are, having to go through this 19th century argument over and over again," said Sarah Pallas, who teaches biology and neuroscience at Georgia State University in Atlanta.

Moreno and dozens of other science instructors, along with the county superintendent, argued that the stickers only make the state look backward. And high school teacher Wes McCoy worried the issue could tarnish his students.
The sticker is affixed to high school biology textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia.

"I didn't want college admission counselors thinking less of their science educations, thinking they hadn't been taught evolution or something," McCoy testified.

Moreno recalled how, after graduating from Georgia public schools, he headed north to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, only to find that people were less than kind about his educational roots.

"They felt Southerners were not only less well educated, but less intelligent," Moreno said.

Doughnut shop worker Maria Jordan, 48, said her Atlanta customers were shaking their heads over the latest dispute. "Lord, don't we have more important things to worry about?" she asked. "It's just a flat-out embarrassment."

As for what they are saying elsewhere around the country, she said: "Whatever Georgia's getting up north, we're putting it on ourselves."

I have to admit, that SNL line from Jimmy Fallon, "Jesus Horses" is brilliant. Anywho, it's a bit disturbing that a group of people in the 21st century could be so ignorant about a proven scientific fact. It is not impossible for "christians" to believe in evolution. I beleve that Jesus Christ lived, died for our sins and all, but I also believe that dinosaurs ruled the earth and that we more than likely evolved from lower life forms. Insisting that mankind was just placed here, as is, in the face of overwhelming facts to the contrary, is just assinine.

Then we've got assholes like Mike Thompson claiming that the North should be cut off because they're not "moral" or they didn't vote for Shrub:

Branded unconstitutional by President Abraham Lincoln, the South's secession from the American Union ultimately sparked "The Civil War" (a name that was rejected by Southerners, who correctly called it "The War Between the States," for the South never sought to 1] seize the central government or 2] rule the other side, two requisites for a civil war).

No state may leave the Union without the other states' approval, according to Lincoln's doctrine--an assertion that ignores the Declaration of Independence, which was the vital basis for all 13 American colonies' unilateral secession from the British Union eight decades earlier. Lincoln's grotesque legal argument also disregards a state's inherent right of secession which many scholars believe is found in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Meantime, America has become just as divided as it was a century and a half ago, when it writhed in Brother-vs.-Brother War. Instead of wedge issues like slavery, federal subsidies for regional business, and high tariffs, society today is sundered by profound, insoluble Culture War conflicts (such as abortion and gay marriage), and debate about our role abroad (shall we remain the world's leader, or become an unprincipled chump for the cabal of globalist sybarites who play endless word-games inside the United Nations and European Union sanctuaries?).

For many decades, conservative citizens and like-minded political leaders (starting with President Calvin Coolidge) have been denigrated by the vilest of lies and characterizations from hordes of liberals who now won't even admit that they are liberals--because the word connotes such moral stink and political silliness. As a class, liberals no longer are merely the vigorous opponents of the Right; they are spiteful enemies of civilization's core decency and traditions.

Defamation, never envisioned by our Founding Fathers as being protected by the First Amendment, flourishes and passes today for acceptable political discourse. Movies, magazines, newspapers, radio/TV programs, plays, concerts, public schools, colleges, and most other public vehicles openly traffic in slander and libel. Hollywood salivated over the idea of placing another golden Oscar into Michael Moore'sfat hands, for his Fahrenheit 9/11 jeremiad, the most bogus, deceitful film documentary since Herr Hitler and Herr Goebbels gave propaganda a bad name.

When they tire of showering conservative victims with ideological mud, liberals promote the only other subjects with which they feel conversationally comfortable: Obscenity and sexual perversion. It's as if the genes of liberals have rendered them immune to all forms of filth.

As a final insult, liberal lawyers and judges have become locusts of the Left, conspiring to destroy democracy itself by excreting statutes and courtroom tactics that fertilize electoral fraud and sprout fields of vandals who will cast undeserved and copious ballots on Election Day.

The truth is, America is not just broken--it is becoming irreparable. If you believe that recent years of uncivil behavior are burdensome, imagine the likelihood of a future in which all bizarre acts are the norm, and a government-booted foot stands permanently on your face.

That is why the unthinkable must become thinkable. If the so-called "Red States" (those that voted for George W. Bush) cannot be respected or at least tolerated by the "Blue States" (those that voted for Al Gore and John Kerry), then the most disparate of them must live apart--not by secession of the former (a majority), but by expulsion of the latter. Here is how to do it.

Having been amended only 17 times since 10 vital amendments (the Bill of Rights) were added at the republic's inception, the U.S. Constitution is not easily changed, primarily because so many states (75%, now 38 of 50) must agree. Yet, there are 38 states today that may be inclined to adopt, let us call it, a "Declaration of Expulsion," that is, a specific constitutional amendment to kick out the systemically troublesome states and those trending rapidly toward anti-American, if not outright subversive, behavior. The 12 states that must go: California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware. Only the remaining 38 states would retain the name, "United States of America." The 12 expelled mobs could call themselves the "Dirty Dozen," or individually keep their identity and go their separate ways, probably straight to Hell.

A difficult-to-pass constitutional amendment, however, is not necessary. There is an equally lawful route that mercifully would be both easier and faster. Inasmuch as Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union," it is reasonable that the same congressional majority may expel a state from the Union. Is there, after all, any human organization in existence (including a family or law firm) that may not disown, disinherit, ostracize, alienate or expel diabolical members? Whether the nation is purged of these 12 states via the Constitution or statute, the process of elimination must begin now, for the need of societal detoxification has waxed so overwhelmingly clear.

Examine the "Mostly Mainstream 38" and "Fringe 12." Of the 50 states, Bush won 30 in the 2000 presidential election against Gore, and 31 in 2004 against Kerry. More dramatic is the huge disparity among counties. Of 3,112 counties nationwide, Bush in 2000, for example, won 2,434, a crushing 78% majority. (In the counties composing "Bush USA" live approximately 150 million persons; in the 678 of "Gore/Kerry USA," 140 million.) Gore/Kerry denizens are concentrated in the metropolises of the East and West Coasts and those big cities on the Great Lakes or Mississippi River. Other significant pockets of ultraliberal extremists may be found in intellectually incestuous college towns and pro-big-government state capitals, along the estranged and overwhelmed Mexican border, and in Dixie's welfare-addicted Cotton Belt.

The demographics revealed by the two most recent presidential elections are radically different and have resulted in "Two Americas" (but not the simplistic "Two Americas" [one rich, one poor] envisioned by Kerry'sMarxist-tongued running mate, John Edwards):

* BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering "yes, ma'am" and "yes, sir."

* GORE/KERRY USA is ethnically diverse; multi-religious, irreligious or nastily antireligious; more sexually liberated (if not in actual practice, certainly in attitude); awash with condo canyons and other high-end real estate bordered by sprawling, squalid public housing or neglected private homes, decidedly short of middle-class neighborhoods; both high tech and oddly primitive in its commerce; very artsy, and Babelesque, with abnormally loud speakers.

Bush USA also is far safer, its murder rate being about 16% of the homicidal binge that plagues Gore/Kerry USA--2.1 per 100,000 residents, compared with 13.2 per 100,000 (from a study by Professor Joseph Olson, Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota).

A downsized, post-expulsion United States still would be geographically big enough (and personally generous enough) to welcome millions of authentic refugees from the ousted former states, real Americans who crave lower taxes, smaller government, safer neighborhoods, more secure borders, greater moral leadership, and all the other aspects of a markedly better society-- one that spawns harmony, not cacophony; excellence, not dependence; justice, not histrionics; education, not brainwashing; enterprise, not welfare, and Godliness, not devilishness. As for the dozen ex-American states, they could always petition the UN and EU for foreign aid. Moreover, with any good luck (or bon chance), socialist Canada would annex our jettisoned territory, eh?

Satire or not, this article is just too stupid to believe. Bush USA has higher divorce rates, see's fit to execute scores more people(including women and the retarded) and, as far as I know, actually is just as unsafe when it comes to crime. Don't believe me, read this website. Even though I personally live in the south, I'm starting to feel the same:

Fuck the South. Fuck 'em. We should have let them go when they wanted to leave. But no, we had to kill half a million people so they'd stay part of our special Union. Fighting for the right to keep slaves - yeah, those are states we want to keep.

And now what do we get? We're the fucking Arrogant Northeast Liberal Elite? How about this for arrogant: the South is the Real America? The Authentic America. Really?

Cause we fucking founded this country, assholes. Those Founding Fathers you keep going on and on about? All that bullshit about what you think they meant by the Second Amendment giving you the right to keep your assault weapons in the glove compartment because you didn't bother to read the first half of the fucking sentence? Who do you think those wig-wearing lacy-shirt sporting revolutionaries were? They were fucking blue-staters, dickhead. Boston? Philadelphia? New York? Hello? Think there might be a reason all the fucking monuments are up here in our backyard?

No, No. Get the fuck out. We're not letting you visit the Liberty Bell and fucking Plymouth Rock anymore until you get over your real American selves and start respecting those other nine amendments. Who do you think those fucking stripes on the flag are for? Nine are for fucking blue states. And it would be 10 if those Vermonters had gotten their fucking Subarus together and broken off from New York a little earlier. Get it? We started this shit, so don't get all uppity about how real you are you Johnny-come-lately "Oooooh I've been a state for almost a hundred years" dickheads. Fuck off.

Arrogant? You wanna talk about us Northeasterners being fucking arrogant? What's more American than arrogance? Hmmm? Maybe horsies? I don't think so. Arrogance is the fucking cornerstone of what it means to be American. And I wouldn't be so fucking arrogant if I wasn't paying for your fucking bridges, bitch.

All those Federal taxes you love to hate? It all comes from us and goes to you, so shut up and enjoy your fucking Tennessee Valley Authority electricity and your fancy highways that we paid for. And the next time Florida gets hit by a hurricane you can come crying to us if you want to, but you're the ones who built on a fucking swamp. "Let the Spanish keep it, it’s a shithole," we said, but you had to have your fucking orange juice.

The next dickwad who says, "It’s your money, not the government's money" is gonna get their ass kicked. Nine of the ten states that get the most federal fucking dollars and pay the least... can you guess? Go on, guess. That’s right, motherfucker, they're red states. And eight of the ten states that receive the least and pay the most? It’s too easy, asshole, they’re blue states. It’s not your money, assholes, it’s fucking our money. What was that Real American Value you were spouting a minute ago? Self reliance? Try this for self reliance: buy your own fucking stop signs, assholes.

Let’s talk about those values for a fucking minute. You and your Southern values can bite my ass because the blue states got the values over you fucking Real Americans every day of the goddamn week. Which state do you think has the lowest divorce rate you marriage-hyping dickwads? Well? Can you guess? It’s fucking Massachusetts, the fucking center of the gay marriage universe. Yes, that’s right, the state you love to tie around the neck of anyone to the left of Strom Thurmond has the lowest divorce rate in the fucking nation. Think that’s just some aberration? How about this: 9 of the 10 lowest divorce rates are fucking blue states, asshole, and most are in the Northeast, where our values suck so bad. And where are the highest divorce rates? Care to fucking guess? 10 of the top 10 are fucking red-ass we're-so-fucking-moral states. And while Nevada is the worst, the Bible Belt is doing its fucking part.

But two guys making out is going to fucking ruin marriage for you? Yeah? Seems like you're ruining it pretty well on your own, you little bastards. Oh, but that's ok because you go to church, right? I mean you do, right? Cause we fucking get to hear about it every goddamn year at election time. Yes, we're fascinated by how you get up every Sunday morning and sing, and then you're fucking towers of moral superiority. Yeah, that's a workable formula. Maybe us fucking Northerners don't talk about religion as much as you because we're not so busy sinning, hmmm? Ever think of that, you self-righteous assholes? No, you're too busy erecting giant stone tablets of the Ten Commandments in buildings paid for by the fucking Northeast Liberal Elite. And who has the highest murder rates in the nation? It ain't us up here in the North, assholes.

Well this gravy train is fucking over. Take your liberal-bashing, federal-tax-leaching, confederate-flag-waving, holier-than-thou, hypocritical bullshit and shove it up your ass.

And no, you can't have your fucking convention in New York next time. Fuck off.

Make sure and read the whole "Fuck the South" page. They've got links galore that back up all the important points.

Winamp Says Goodbye

2004-11-11T23:55:00.000-08:00

According to Slashdot, AOL has cut Nullsoft along with their other recent staff reductions. Betanews has the full story:

The last members of the original Winamp team have said goodbye to AOL and the door has all but shut on the Nullsoft era, BetaNews has learned.

Only a few employees remain to prop up the once-ubiquitous digital audio player with minor updates, but no further improvements to Winamp are expected.

Winamp's abandonment comes as no surprise to those close to the company who say the software has been on life support since the resignation of Nullsoft founder and Winamp creator Justin Frankel last January.

The marriage of Nullsoft and AOL was always one of discontent. After AOL acquired the small company in 1999 for around $100 million, the young team of Winamp developers was assimilated into a strict corporate culture that begged for rebellion. Although Nullsoft was initially given a long leash by AOL, It wasn't long until the two ideologies collided.

Frankel and his team were accustomed to simply brainstorming ideas over coffee and bringing them to the masses without approval. So when Frankel and fellow Nullsoft developer Tom Pepper devised a decentralized peer-to-peer file sharing system, dubbed Gnutella, parent AOL was left in the dark.

Gnutella was unveiled in March 2000, much to the chagrin of an unprepared AOL; executives feared the program would encourage copyright infringement and damage the company's pending merger with Time Warner. AOL quickly clamped down on Gnutella, but not before the software's source code leaked. Gnutella-based alternatives soon followed, igniting a peer-to-peer land grab that has yet to subside.

But AOL knew it had to protect its investment and turn a profit from the freely available Winamp. Frankel and crew found themselves in hot water numerous times, but always escaped with little more than a proverbial slap on the wrist.

However, growing displeasure reached a boiling point with Nullsoft’s unsanctioned release of WASTE -- an encrypted file-sharing network -- in June 2003. Frankel threatened to resign after AOL removed WASTE, but remained with the company long enough to finish Winamp 5.0.

Frankel's departure followed AOL layoffs and the closure of Nullsoft's San Francisco offices in December 2003.

With AOL struggling to stave off declining subscriber numbers and 700 additional layoffs planned for next month, the company’s focus has shifted away from supporting acquisitions such as Winamp.

Despite the somber farewell, Nullsoft's former masterminds are proud of their accomplishments. Winamp helped start a digital audio revolution and boasts an incredible 60 million users per month.

After a disappointing Winamp3, Nullsoft developers returned to the drawing board and completed long-standing goals with the release of Winamp 5.0 in late 2003.

Nullsoft's Shoutcast, which pioneered audio streaming over the Internet, is called "the Net's best secret" by its creator Tom Pepper and has reached 170,000 simultaneous users accounting for 70 million hours of listening each month.

For its part, AOL says it remains committed to Winamp, stating it is "a thriving product that AOL continues to support and will continue to support."

To me, this is very dissapointing news. Not so much in that I'll miss Winamp, personally, but to me, Winamp was what made the internet special. Back in 97, I was a young college student who was just getting into this fascinating place. I was a music nut but had little exposure to music outside of the radio. Napster, along with Winamp, made it possible for me to experience a score of new artists whom I later supported by buying their CDs. For reference, I've purchased probably 300+ CDs in these 7 years. That's about 40 CDs a year. In the past, I was known to go and purchase a new CD (or two) basically every week. To this day, I still manage to pick up a new disc at least every month, if not more often. This would never have happened without Napster, of course, but more imortantly, Winamp.

While Napster made it possible for the masses to "share" their libraries, Winamp made it possible to play them in an easy to use, virtually bug-free environment. Winamp, with it's goofy visualizations and easily customized playlists was my own personal jukebox. As well, the Nullsoft team pretty much started music streaming over the 'net with their ShoutCast technology. I can remember many a night spent at the Methodist student center, their beautiful cable modem tethering me to the 'net, listening to streams of Sesame Street songs or Dave Matthews Band concerts.

Perhaps Nullsoft's biggest idea was Gnutella, the P2P protocol and network they unveiled right after joining AOL. Needless to say, the suits weren't exactly happy, it was deleted almost immediately from their site. However, the source was leaked and Gnutella still powers most of the major P2P networks today, years after it's development. No one has done it better than Justin Frankel.

I stopped using Winamp in July, when I switched to my Mac. I'd actually tooled around with many mp3 players on my Windows box (Sonique and iTunes come to mind), but nothing matched the performance of Winamp (versions 2 and 5 specifically) on a PC. Nowadays I depend on iTunes to catalog all 30 gigs of my mp3s, but Winamp will always hold a special place in my heart. It was my first, my best, my favorite.

AOL shall hold a special place in hell for what they've done of late. Certainly, I don't put full blame on them for anything. Winamp would have died, Netscape wasn't meant to be, but those are two of the greatest internet innovators that they basically ruined with their corporate wrangling. Thankfully, we still have Mozilla Firefox and iTunes, which remain free, to trump Microsoft. But I certainly hope AOL doesn't try to buy out any more companies. Thank goodness they're all but bankrupt.

Finally, The Register leaves us with some inspiring thoughts:

[...]"AOL's really whipped the Llama's ass on this one," wrote volunteer Mike Darrah in a posting to the Pho mailing list.

[...]"Please take a moment of your day to bow your head down in thanks to the efforts and innovation given to the entire digital music revolution by the Nullsoft crew through out the years," says Darrah. We will. Politics always ends in failure, it's said, but the Nullsoft team used the channels AOL allowed them (and sometimes didn't) to maintain an important community, and valued quality to the very end - for which we're grateful.

Begone, Llama's; we'll whip you no more.

Political Appointees Gone Wild

2004-11-10T23:38:00.000-08:00

File under funny if it wasn't true. Daily Kos today ran a story about one of President Bush's newest appointees:

President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position does not require Congressional approval.

The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy termination.

Dr. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from Hager's practice. His views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient.

The original story linked is here. Strangely, as Kos points out later in the story, this is old news. Seems Hager was appointed in 2003 and actually was just signed up for another year. No one, so far, is sure how the story got out that he was a new appointee.

Nonetheless, I find it amusing that a man is trying to tell women with irregular or painful PMS that they should "pray" to solve their problems. This would be similar to telling someone with a tumor to "pray" that it goes away. My former piano teacher was able to heal her husband of cancer with healthy eating(they were basically vegan) and prayer. He was too weak for chemotherapy, she had no choice. However, even she admits there are many cases where the only solution is medication. He was extremely lucky and his cancer wasn't very widespread. Furthermore, he did in fact medicate, with a number of vitamins, minerals and a few low-level prescriptions.

Back to Dr. Hager, Kos posted some more info later in the day. The link comes from leftist relgious magazine The Revealer and their story covering Hager in August:

The appointment of anti-abortion and anti-birth control advocate Dr. W. David Hager to the FDA’s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee apparently seems like such an oxymoron that, two years later, people still can’t believe it happened. Emails urging protest of Bush’s appointment still circulate, and the Urban Legends Reference Pages website has had to dedicate a webpage to the issue, Status: True.

But Hager, a member of Focus on the Family and author of the book, As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now, really was appointed, really was reappointed this June, and as Mother Jones’s Chris Mooney reports, really does exert a powerful influence on women’s health policy.

Last December Hager successfully kept “Plan B” emergency contraception pills from being sold over the counter, despite being in the minority of a 23-4 vote, and the testimony of another physician on the panel that the drug was “‘the safest product we have seen brought before us.’” This veto required the FDA to take the unusual step of ignoring the panel’s and its own staff’s recommendations. They instead cited Hager’s opposition -- what former FDA commissioner Donald Kennedy calls a “‘political fig leaf’” -- that the drug hadn’t been tested widely enough on adolescents.

But still, in what is becoming a familiar refrain from members of the Bush administration, the modest Hager argues that "he is being miscast 'as some kind of powerful individual,'" even as his officially-heeded objections clash with his public statements on the issue. Speaking to The New York Times’s Gina Kolata last December, Hager said Plan B would encourage promiscuity among young people, who "could just buy the drug on their own." He did not mention the complaint he’d brought before the FDA panel of "inadequate" sampling of teenagers, but rather spoke of the "'individuals who did not want to take responsibility for their actions and wanted a medication to relieve those consequences.'" Later Times articles on the FDA’s refusal to grant over-the-counter access to the pill failed to mention Hager at all.

While it certainly makes reporters' jobs harder to have to parse through demurrals like Hager's, or more recently, the post-scandal claims of administration apologists arguing for Deal Hudson's relative unimportance to Bush, it should be something they're used to by now. It's a lesson from more than four years ago: As Bush said, when they speak, we will know their hearts; when they act, we'll know their reasons too.

For those who refuse to click the link, indeed there is an urban legend page about the good doctor. Here's their summary, which also sheds some light on why this is hitting the news again:

In December 2002, W. David Hager was one of eleven physicians appointed to the Food and Drug Administration's Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs, a commitee whose job it is to evaluate data and make recommendations on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and experimental drugs for use in obstetrics, gynecology, and related specialties. Dr. Hager is a part-time professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University Kentucky College of Medicine and a well-known specialist on gynecologic infections, and therefore at first blush his appointment to this committee would seem a good fit.

However, he is also vehemently pro-life and has vigorously played a part in the campaign to get the FDA to withdraw its approval of mifepristone (RU-486), a drug that terminates pregnancies. He is indeed the author of a number of books in which he's advocated prayer and the reading of the Scriptures as cures for medical ills.

Dr. Hager makes no bones about his beliefs but says they won't compromise his judgment: "Yes, I'm pro-life. But that's not going to keep me from objectively evaluating medication. I believe there are some safety concerns (about mifepristone) and they should be evaluated."

Contrary to the claim made in the now widely-circulated e-mail decrying his appointment, Dr. Hager says he does not deny birth-control prescriptions to unmarried women. However, Time magazine reported that "In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women."

The appointment is a done deal, and Dr. Hager is now part of this committee (although, perhaps as a result of the controversy raised by this message, he was not appointed to chair the committee).

In June 2004, Dr. Hager was reappointed to the committee for a further year. Immediately after the re-election of President Bush, the e-mail decrying the appointment of Dr. Hager was circulated anew.

The internet is a wonderful source of info, but people are so easily misled if they don't research what they're reading. I guess it's kinda weird so many blogs began discussing the issue today when it so obviously is very old news. But then, everyone's looking for something to talk about other than the election, if you can call it that.

Please note that the UL page does indicate that Hager was not picked to head the committee, probably because of the stink put out as he was nominated for the position.

One of the main issues discussed in that last link is Dr. Hager's work to ban RU-486, a controversial drug which, despite many other possible uses, can be used for short-term abortions. While I think the abortion side of it does sound a bit strange, extensive testing has been done on the pill and the medical community has expressed that it may be useful as treatment of many other conditions:

certain breast cancers
ovarian cancer
meningioma(brain tumour)
endometriosis
Cushing's syndrome
adrenal cancer
glaucoma
uterine fibroid tumours
induction of labour
cervical ripening
contraception

Sounds like a useful drug, if you ask me. Yet Dr. Hager wants it banned solely because he doesn't approve of the possible birth control uses, not because it's unsafe. Of course, that's about as intelligent as asking for a ban on steak knives. I mean, sure, they're useful for digging into a t-bone, but we all know they could be used to harm fetuses (or fully developed humans).

Maps Are Fun

2004-11-10T11:52:00.000-08:00

I apologize for Kevin's website. As I was viewing this page the formatting was totally screwed up and the content was about 8 pages down. I think it got fixed, though. Anyway, he brings up an interesting point. Maps can be fun! For instance, let's look at how someone from Michael Moore's website saw the US, post election:

Humorous, I know, though I'd prefer the bottom be "The United States of 'Our Shit Don't Stink.'" Anyway, Kevin's response was that Mr. Moore should probably have looked at the following map, of how the election played out, county by county:

This paints a rather grim image, assuming any Democrat would be stupid enough to take what some idiot like Kevin McCullough has to say without researching it. Unfortunately, I'm not an idiot, so I did my research. Here's a page with some interesting maps as well. Seems some guys at the University of Michigan did some cartograms, "a map in which the sizes of states have been rescaled according to their population," with the election results. Here's the first one:

NOTE: If you can't view the picture above, your browser is likely to suck. I suggest downloading Mozilla Firefox version 1.0. Take the internet back from Microsoft.

Anyway, that makes the map look nicer, but there's more to see. Cartograms can be used in many ways. For instance, what if we made a cartogram out of Kevin's cited image, stretching the individual counties to their residence size? Seems we'd get something like this:

Even better, let's make a map that isn't so black and white. Perhaps not all counties are red or blue? Perhaps we'd like to add in a shade indicator, stating whether they were staunchly Republican, Democrat or somewhere in between:

Looks a hell of a lot bluer, if you ask me. This is a lot closer to the actual election result, with Bush getting a minor majority, if anything. But, again, let's use a cartogram on the map and see how red it gets:

If this somehow seems unfair, they even made a map using linear colors. "These maps use a color scale that ranges from red for 70% Republican or more, to blue for 70% Democrat or more. This is sort of practical, since there aren't many counties outside that range anyway, but to some extent it also obscures the true balance of red and blue."

The cartogram:

Not looking so hot anymore, is it Kevin?

So Little Time...

2004-11-07T01:14:00.000-08:00

Work keeps me busy this weekend, so I've not found much time to post. I will do my best to put up Sunday that which I'd planned for Friday. What's that, you ask? Perhaps it's a "conspiracy theory," but much has been made of how exit polls were "wrong" in certain states. Those same states used Diebold paperless E-voting machines. Word is starting to get out about some "anomalies" and perhaps a few outright injustices that have occured. Much to discuss, I'll fill you in.

On the in between, here's a few words from my pal Mr. P in Chi-town, responding to the story about our Rabbi friend:

My One Crazy Jew comment was a little longer than 300 characters so i
thought i'd send it direct. I hate preaching to the choir, but i wanted to
give my written thoughts to somebody. It's a little rough and scattered, but
its from the gut. George Bush's "signature issue" was I can do anything I want and no one can stop me. The millions in Europe and Canada were mobilized to encourage America to put in a president who would be a part of the world not an
"if you're not with us, you're against us," style person. The leader 49%
of Americans wanted to dump was a liar and deciever willing to risk other
people's lives on a baseless and unfounded reason for invading a
country and removing a government. When it comes to genocide and tyrants this
administration had difficulty and equivalence eventually reaching the conclusion that the brutality in Darfur was genocide. Lets not pretend that [our] "friends" in Saudi Arabia are not the biggest autocratic tyrants left in the middle east; even Iran has elections. The number one reason people say they re-elected George Bush was because of morality. I've taken a few ethics course, was raised by bright, caring parents, and have spent many hours reading the Bible in depth and I can't grasp how George Bush is the "moral choice." Should I teach my children that lying and deceiving a country to rush into a baseless and aggressive war that further destabilizes the most unstable region in the world and subjects my brother and sister Americans in the military to unnecessary dangers and stress is moral? Keep in mind this is a war many Christian leaders outside of the US called illegal. Should I teach them that it is moral for a government to ignore the needs of the poor, to ignore the health needs of the average and poor American, and to attempt to cripple any hope of retiring before 70? Is it moral to underfund and then abandon through vouchers the public education system upon which our hope for the future is based, all the while blaming teachers and administrators for not stretching a buck further? These are the "moral" truths George Bush represents not just in principle but in practice too. The representation of the Bush and his ilk as "the man of God" is the reason so many others
who speak of God are greeted with hatred. How can you speak of this being a
moral mandate and a moral country when it is in such disrepair and urgent
need of a deep moral overhaul in which those valuing Christ's morals care for and
love all their neighbors, give out of compassion and abundance, care for the
poor, be the blessed peacemakers, seek out those hurting spiritually, hold
fellow christians accountable for sexual immorality, greed, lying, drunkeness,
cheating while remembering that we would have to abondon the world to
escape from those with the God given and constitutionally given freedom not to
agree with you on all these issues. I will end this diatribe by saying I
heartily agree with the rabbi when he says,"But both right and left certainly
agree that it is wrong for a man to get a woman pregnant and leave her. So
let us at work together on ending the culture of irresponsible male womanizing
which leads to the issue of abortion coming up in the first place." And i
will say that despite my sense of pessimism and doubt I hope W proves me wrong
and establishes a stable government in Iraq so we can leave, provides a
feasible long term solution to health insurance and social security, and
establishes a dominant educational system. This is my hope and prayer.

Exceptional words from an exceptional man. If only those on the right were capable of stringing together such powerful thoughts, perhaps they could get more than a minor-majority...

One Confused Jew

2004-11-05T23:59:00.000-08:00

Another exceptional writer at the WorldNetDaily News website has caught my eye. Apparently a certain Rabbi thinks that it's great that the morals-based voter is rising up in America; cause Lord knows we didn't get enough of Mr. Bush and his fantastic "morals" in the first term. Here's what Rabbi Boteach has to say:

The American people have once again demonstrated that they are the most glorious on earth. The entire world ganged up on them to dump a moral president whose signature issue was a belief that people have a right to be free.

Europe mobilized its millions in the streets to show their hatred of this man and his ideals. The United Nations frowned at his speeches and treated him with contempt. Hollywood and the recording industry unleashed its superstars to prevail upon the American people that they dare not re-elect a monster. And Osama bin Laden released a video tape informing individual states that if they voted against Bush they would be free from terrorist attack. In the end, even American Jews abandoned this steadfast friend of the Israeli people and voted for Kerry at 80 percent.

Never in the history of the United States has more pressure been brought to bear on the American electorate to dump a leader whose values the world so loathed. But in the end, not the glamour of Hollywood, nor the threats of terrorists, nor the alienation of Europe, nor the condescension of the United Nations, could break the American people's commitment to a moral presidency.

With all the pressure in the world to become like the rest of the world – overlooking genocide and making deals with tyrants – the American people voted to retain a faith-based presidency, even if it meant going it alone. Exit polls on Tuesday showed that morality – even more than security – was the single biggest issue animating American voters in the 2004 presidential contest.

The rise of the moral voter is an earthquake that has forever changed the American political landscape. Who would ever have seriously believed that morality would be the single biggest consideration for politicians? But there it is. Gone are the days when politicians can seek office merely by pandering to voters by promising them jobs, health care and pork. Now, politicians who want to connect with the electorate will be forced to articulate a powerful moral vision of something worth fighting for. Bush did this with his constant focus on the fight for human freedom and his pledge to protect the family.

And because morality – rather than a single man – was the big winner on Tuesday, it is crucial for Bush supporters to exhibit graciousness and humility in victory. To act otherwise would be to spoil the victory by undermining what it represents. It was not Bush, but the values he embodies, that was the real victor on Tuesday. The moral man is someone who never pursues power for power's sake, but rather uses power solely to bring justice.

When American soldiers liberated Iraq, they were ordered not to raise any American flags lest the message go out that the United States, rather than the cause of freedom, was the real victor. The same is true of Bush's re-election. Many Bush haters have accused the president and his supporters of being religious phonies, using moral language as a foil to steal from the poor and give to the rich. The only solid refutation of such scurrilous charges is an authentic humility in victory, proving that Bush and his followers sought the presidency not to gloat but to serve.

To be sure, there is an understandable feeling on the part of many of the president's supporters that they have a right to revel in so hated a candidacy that ended up garnering more votes than any other in American history. Bush supporters were treated by many as backward, stupid and fanatical.

I personally can attest to the loss of some friendships, many lecture invitations, and a host of TV and media opportunities because of my steadfast support for the president, whom I described as one of the greatest leaders this country has produced. So why shouldn't we express triumph? Indeed, many are. More than a few of my radio colleagues used their time since Tuesday for payback, offering rants of the oh-look-who-is-the-big-loser-now variety and attacking the Democrats for being in utter disarray.

But while understandable, those who indulge in revenge attacks and condescending rhetoric to political opponents make the mistake of personalizing the initial attacks against them and the subsequent vindication and victory. The hatred shown Bush was not for a man, but for a moral cause. It was the same hatred that those who speak openly of God have experienced in modern times from others who are convinced that such talk betrays ignorance, superstition and a lack of sophistication.

This election was never really about Bush, Kerry or even Iraq. Nor was it a referendum on conservative vs. liberal. Rather, it was a challenge to the very notion of whether faith-as-policy had any place in a modern, technologically advanced republic. And the victory was not for a man and his followers but for a belief in right and wrong and how religious conviction must be first translated into protecting human life through a fight against tyranny and state-sponsored murder.

Those who gloat over the blow inflicted on Bush's opponents betray an arrogance which in turn betrays a lack of commitment to moral principles, thereby eroding the cause for which the victory was sought. Michael Moore and Al Gore can rant all they like that Bush is religious fraud, that he went into Iraq for oil and power rather than security and humanitarian concerns. Why vindicate their mean-spiritedness with a mean-spiritedness of our own? Why trivialize a moral victory by making it a personal victory? Right and wrong does not belong to President Bush or any of the people who voted for him, but is rather the eternal inheritance of all of God's children, and in that sense, even those who voted against Bush share in his victory.

Rather than immaturely socking it to Democrats or liberals, we Bush supporters are far better off clamoring in the next few days for Bush to prove his naysayers wrong by launching a forceful program to end the genocide in the Sudan and continue the fight for freedom.

I am well aware that many Americans approach the increasing religiosity and moral commitment of the body politic with foreboding. They fear a theocracy that will be oppressive and infringe upon their rights. It is for Bush supporters to refute this unjust fear by demonstrating not only magnanimity in victory but a deep commitment to harmony and unity. For instance, we may not all agree on abortion. But both right and left certainly agree that it is wrong for a man to get a woman pregnant and leave her. So let us at work together on ending the culture of irresponsible male womanizing which leads to the issue of abortion coming up in the first place.

In behaving modestly in victory, Bush's supporters have no better example than the president himself. Many things have impressed me about this president over the past few years, but perhaps none more so than his refusal to respond in kind to those who called him a liar and compared him to Hitler. Here was the most powerful man on earth who consistently ignored the savage attacks on his character and instead went humbly on with his work.

The American people have rewarded this humility with a considerable mandate, which I trust he will continue to use over the next four years to fight evil and pursue justice.

First of all, he contends that America "loathed" Mr. Bush's morals. First of all, if it's "moral" to make all your money off of your daddy's friends, never doing a lick of work yourself, I guess I loathe that. In fact, if it's "moral" to get out of fighting a war (one Bush has never stated he disagreed with) and let other people die, I'm against that as well. As well, if killing 100,000 Iraqi's to "free" them, or as he put it originally, to save America from those dastardly WMDs is considered morality, I guess I'm the devil's candy. Mr. Bush's "morals" are, quite frankly, bullshit. He has been known to be a fomer alcoholic, has been accused numerous times of doing cocaine and his daughters have been caught on a few occasions doing a bit of the ole' underage drinking themselves. That's moral? Oh, let's not forget the whole part about how he fully supports capital punishment, presided over more executions than you can imagine, including a woman and a whole bunch of retarded people. Heck, what do I know about morals, anyway? I'm just a Methodist from Tennessee. We allow homos in the church, you know. We're pure evil.

Anyway, I have to ask, what Jews does this guy speak for? After all, only 22% of them voted for Bush [maarivintl.com]:

In spite of President Bush’s pro-Israeli policy, the majority of US Jews stuck by their traditional vote for the Democratic candidate in Tuesday’s US presidential elections.

According to a survey conducted by the National Election Pool, only 22% voted for the reelected President Bush, a 3% rise in comparison with the 2000 elections.

The Bush camp expected Bush would win at least 30% of the Jewish vote in America. In the states of New York, Florida and California, which are home to large Jewish communities, the numbers were even lower than the 22% figure.

According to data published by the National Jewish Democratic Council, the average Jewish support of a Republican candidate since 1972 stands at 27.4%.

On the other hand, the Jewish Republican Coalition announced yesterday that more and more Jews vote Republican. According to their data, collected since 1992, the average number of Jews who voted for a Republican in the presidential elections has been rising steadily: 11% in 1992, followed by 16% in ’96, 19% in 2000 and in the 2004 elections, 25% of Jews voted for President Bush.

Jewish Republican Coalition spokesman, Mathew Brooks, issued a statement by which, “President Bush has raised his support level among American Jews by 32% since the year 2000. According to our data, there is not a single religious, ethnic or racial group that topped the Jewish support level of Bush. The Republican Party has proven it is the most pro-Israeli party in America”.

Indeed, you'd have to believe that Bush's pro-Israel agenda has sat well with Jews. But when you back Israel and only get 22% of the Jewish vote, I'd say you're not doing so hot.

Blacks Are Immoral?

2004-11-05T23:25:00.000-08:00

Kevin McCullough, part-time "syndicated columnist" and full-time "no-talent assclown" has taken it to a new low. Kevin's previous comments can be found at the bottom of this post and perhaps you'd like to see how he predited the elction would turn out. Yes, that's right, he said Bush would "sweep" most of the blue states and win with something nearing 350 electoral votes. Such stupidity is common on the internet, I know, but few are actually "syndicated" in poorly-read, not-so-national newspapers.

Anyway, on to the story, Kevin has now said that thanks to their not voting for Bush and his "moral message," Black Churches are perhaps either ignorant or unimportant. Of course, living in New York City, I'm sure he's not surrounded by COGIC churches and their ilk. These evangelicals are fantastic, reverend and important to this country. I attended the largest COGIC church for almost three years, Temple of Deliverance. Home to the COGIC leader, Bishop G.E. Patterson, I can tell you that my time there was uplifting, fantastic and fun. It wasn't the perfect place for myself, a Methodist from a small town, to worship, but it broadened my horizons and I saw a whole new side of people. While their home page indicates that they've proclaimed marriage the union between man and woman, Bishop Patterson on several occasions indicated that he held nothing against people of a different sexual persuasion. He felt their actions "immoral," but also indicated that we were put here to love one another. I'm certain that he would have little problem with "civil unions," as have been suggested.

Again, I've strayed; back to Kevin's idiotic ramblings. Let's read his latest column:

Before the election, I predicted that President Bush would win roughly 30 states, that Latinos would back the president by about 40 percent or better, and that African Americans would support the president by 15-20 percent. "If these three predictions came true," I told my radio audience, "then despite the close poll numbers, the president would win decisively."

I was close, but where I was off is extremely discouraging.

As I awoke the day after the election, I was delighted – even thrilled – to see that the No 1 issue among many of the exit polls for a person's motivation for voting this year was "moral values." I had a strong suspicion that the "Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage" would pass overwhelmingly in the 11 states where it was on the ballot. I was pleased to see that even in Oregon, arguably one of the most liberal states in America, that it passed by nearly 60 percent.

Finally the mainstream press for a few days would be forced to discuss this phenomenon of "voting on values." So why my disappointment?

In the year leading up to the election, I had worked closely with African-American pastors from across the nation to help get the "values message" out. Knowing that the Democrats would use quite illegitimate messages to try and scare African Americans into voting for Kerry, it seemed to me that we had a chance at getting at least 20-25 percent of the community focused on the truth. And I was encouraged by what I saw.

On March 29, 2004, we gathered the largest gathering of clergy ever assembled at New York City Hall. The pastors came from across the five boroughs and at least half were old-school traditional pastors from the deeply steeped Democratic neighborhoods. Led by more prominent pastors like Bishop Roderick Caesar, and Harlem-based pastor Michael Faulkner, the large contingent of black pastors said that day that there would be no supporting candidates who sought to support the aggressively immoral agenda of radicals in society today. Only months later, many of those same pastors came together to again promote a public demonstration in support of the president's Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage.

But then I began to hear the rumblings.

Jesse Jackson – first in his own city of Chicago, and then across America as part of the Kerry campaign – began to go church to church and tell pastors to forget about the moral issues of our time.

"Get Bush out, then we'll straighten out the other stuff" was the message that my friends amongst the African-American clergy were told.

Jackson then departed on a whirlwind tour taking the message church to church. In Chicago, the pressure was enormous. I heard personally of 15 separate churches that were approached and told to "knock off" the protest on the same-sex marriage issue and "get on board." To my knowledge – and to their credit – none of them did.

That could not be said for all. James Meeks, pastor of Salem Baptist Church in Chicago, should have been a strong proponent to protect marriage. Instead he threw his support behind Barrack Obama, who by every measure is someone who supports the radical homosexual agenda, partial-birth abortion, and even born-alive abortion.

It was no wonder to me that when the analysis came down that showed Bush had received 11 percent of the African American vote that columnist and op-ed writers were also noticing that the biggest issue in the race was morality. Every pastor who knew better – who could have spoken out on what God says concerning morality and the crisis we face, but chose instead to pad their own agenda with additional access and power – had in essence betrayed the believers they shepherd.

The huge observation by those same op-ed writers is this: How could the election have ended up as the great debate between moral virtue and entitlements?

Maybe there is no shame in some circles anymore, but I talk to thousands of folks every day who tell me that they are now sad at this reality.

In the election that redefined the debate over morality and biblical virtues in our time – by and large – the African-American church could no longer count itself among the community of values.

Aha! So the devil himself is Barrack Obama, one who has openly supported "born-alive abortion"s. Of course, in this article, we see that while Alan Keyes harshly attacked Obama's stance on abortion, he ably worded his response:

The conservative former diplomat said Obama's vote against a bill that would have outlawed a form of late-term abortion denied unborn children their equal rights. Both candidates - one an outspoken conservative and the other a favorite of party liberals - are black.

"I would still be picking cotton if the country's moral principles had not been shaped by the Declaration of Independence," Keyes said. He said Obama "has broken and rejected those principles - he has taken the slaveholder's position."

Obama, who has been basking in national celebrity since delivering the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, suggested Keyes was outside the moderate mainstream of state Republicans.

Asked specifically about the phrase slaveholder's position, Obama said Keyes "should look to members of his own party to see if that's appropriate if he's going to use that kind of language."

...Obama said he voted against the late-term abortion ban as a state senator because it contained no exception to protect the life of the mother. He noted that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and federal Appeals Judge Richard Posner, both appointed by President Ronald Reagan, had voted to strike down laws banning late-term abortions.

Obama said he did not question the sincerity of those deeply concerned about abortion, but he said he believed there were many other issues on the minds of voters.

"As I travel around this state, I don't get asked about gay marriage, I don't get asked about abortion," Obama said. "I get asked, 'How can I find a job that allows me to support my family?' I get asked, 'How can I pay those medical bills without going into bankruptcy?' "

In an interview on WBEZ radio yesterday, Keyes defended his belief that gay marriage was wrong, brushing aside a suggestion from an interviewer that sexual preference might be biologically determined.

"We as human beings cannot assert that our sexual desires cannot be controlled," Keyes said. He said such an assertion would "consign us to the realm of instinctual animal nature - and we are not there."

Of course, it's people like Keyes who have made Obama only the fifth black senator ever, which is a travesty. But I digress. I suggest to Mr. Kevin McCullough that perhaps black voters have more on their minds than just "morals" as he calls it. First of all, perhaps they feel it's more important that we try to curb the spread of aids than concentrate our efforts on abortion, which takes far fewer lives per-year. Perhaps they feel that our country's current actions arent exactly "moral" either, and that their personal success has failed as a result. Or, perhaps they felt they were voting for Christ's "values":

...And Christ reached out almost exclusively to the poor, suffering, abandoned, deprived -- the scorned, the condemned people -- including Samaritans and those who were diseased. The alleviation of suffering was a philosophy that was enhanced and emphasized by the life of Christ. Today the ultra-right wing, in both religion and politics, has abandoned that principle of Jesus Christ’s ministry.

Those are the two principal things in the practical sense that starkly separate the ultra-right Christian community from the rest of the Christian world: Do we endorse and support peace and support the alleviation of suffering among the poor and the outcast?

Thanks, Jimmy Carter. You've said it quite well. True faith allows one to look beyond those things which cannot be resolved immediately to those things which are most important. I don't think tax cuts for the rich are helping those poor people Jesus told us to elevate nor does killing kids in Iraq help them stop suffering.

Adam Yoshida Is An Idiot

2004-11-03T23:24:00.000-08:00

Adam Yoshida is an idiot and he must be stopped. Seriously, people like this make me sick and they're the reason why I don't understand people who want to be affiliated with the Republican party. Certainly, there's "liberal" whackos, but most of them aren't "democrats" and they certainly aren't welcomed into the fold. Here's what this idiot asshole had to say [adamyoshida.com] about the election and its outcome:

Four More Years! AKA: Take That, You Sons of Bitches
So, George W. Bush won. And he’s done so by a solid margin. The Democrats’ attempted coup managed to last all of eight hours. Not only is the President the first candidate to win a majority of the vote in a Presidential Election since 1988, but he also won more popular votes than any other candidate in history. The Democrats spent months telling us that high voter turnout would equal a win for them but, as it turns out, when 60% of the electorate showed up at the polls it translated into a Bush lead of nearly four million votes. In short: take that, you sons of bitches.

The Democrats are now talking about how this is a signal that Bush should “bring the country together”. Translated into American, this means “now that you’ve won, you should surrender to us.” The hell with that. We’ve won. Winning means not having to say you’re sorry. Bush already brought a majority of Americans together: they voted for him. He doesn’t need to reach out to them: they need to reach out to him.

If anyone needs to work to “bring the country together” it’s those on the left who have divided it so badly. Those who sought to destroy this great man should get down upon their knees and beg the victors for mercy. And maybe, just maybe, we’ll let a few of them linger on for the simple reason that they amuse us. My life’s goal is to see the Democratic Party virtually obliterated and left as a rump of people like Stephanie Herseth who both mostly agree with us anyways and are easy on the eyes.

That’s the future of the Democratic Party: providing Republicans with a number of cute (but not that bright) comfort women.

Let’s face a hard truth: this was the bitterest Presidential campaign in living memory. The Democrats and their allies staked everything on the defeat of this President. All of the resources they had accumulated over a generation of struggle were thrown into this battle: and they have failed. Despite all of their tricks, despite all of their lies, the people have rejected them. They mean nothing. They are worth nothing. There’s no point in trying to reach out to them because they won’t be reached out to. We’ve got their teeth clutching the sidewalk and out boot above their head. Now’s the time to curb-stomp the bastards.

The first obvious major fight is going to be over the confirmation of the next Chief Justice of the United States and probably a new Associate Justice as well. The reason for saying this should be obvious: William Rehnquist is an ill man and, I think, the obvious candidate to replace him is none other than Clarence Thomas who would be, of course, the first black Chief Justice but who would also, much more importantly, be the most conservative one in living memory. His seat could then be given to another solid conservative and then, once Stevens, Ginsberg, or O’Conner goes, we can get a real conservative majority on the court: and keep it for a decade or more.

It’s worth stepping back to think about the scale of what we have accomplished. We’ve fought back and won against the most destructive attack in the modern history of Presidential campaigns. Despite all of the books, movies, television shows: despite the seeming involvement of all of Hollywood and all of Academia, they lost. They used every trick in the book against us: and they lost. We now control the White House, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and a majority of State Governorships. The Republican Party is now, truly, the majority party in the United States.

This is a mandate. Not only for the President to carry on and win the War on Terrorism, but also to make other needed reforms. To begin: the massive landslides for the eleven state Gay Marriage amendments, even the one in Oregon, show that the Federal Marriage Amendment will carry if it proves to be needed. Better still, with these majorities, the President will have a real shot at enacting some form of entitlement reform in the coming years.

This is a decisive moment in American history. There’s no denying this fact. The nation stood at the crossroads yesterday and the people choose to go the right way. They rejected the Democrat Party and the pernicious things that those people stand for.

Michael Moore and his ilk have been rejected by the people. Treason didn’t carry the day. Forgeries and lies failed to produce the results that they wanted.

It was closer than we’d like, of course. Far too close. I still can’t believe that anyone voted for John Kerry. John Kerry was a personification of everything that’s wrong with the Democrat Party today. A traitor in his youth, he proposed policies of economic division at home and which would have brought military defeat abroad. The once-proud Democratic Party of people like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson has been reduced to such a level as to become little better than the party of AIDS, abortion, adultery and appeasement.

But, whatever, we won: to hell with the rest of them. Those who didn’t support Bush can go and perform a certain anatomically impossible act. They lost, now they can sit in the back of the bus.

Thank God Almighty.

So the Democrats were the party that made this election "bitter?" Why is that, because we dared to question the President, a person who can't think of a single mistake he's made since being elected? Or perhaps it's because we questioned the President's military service? Oh wait, the Republicans did that first to John Kerry. Yet, instead of using relatively substantial evidence that he had done something wrong, they simply took a bunch of know-nothing hacks and had them insist they'd known Kerry as a liar. Yet all of Kerry's comrades from the war insisted he had misstated nothing. No one has yet to come forward and insist that George Bush isn't lying about his record (if you can even call it that).

Perhaps the most difficult part of his piece is when he says "We’ve won. Winning means not having to say you’re sorry. Bush already brought a majority of Americans together: they voted for him. He doesn’t need to reach out to them: they need to reach out to him." Bush got a majority alright. The majority of the conservatives. Bush didn't carry a single state in the northeast or probably the midwest (Iowa not witshanding) or any of the westernmost states. In fact, he won every state he carried in 2000 with few exceptions and proved that all he could do was stir up his base further and get the radical right to come out in record numbers. Kerry still took the majority of the female vote, the majority of the youth vote, and the vast majority of the African-American vote. Funny, this exit poll [cnn.com] indicates that Bush got most of his votes from those who make $50k a year or more. In fact, even if you group people into those who make less than $100k and those who make more, Bush loses in the lower income bracket but those rich cats just eat it up, helping him win convincingly, 58 to 41%. Of course, I'm still amazed that 67% of those polled felt Kerry attacked Bush unfairly yet only 60% fell Bush attacked Kerry unfairly. What on earth did Kerry do that was so terrible?

Exit polling of Bush supporters indicated they voted for him for one of two reasons: terrorism or moral values. As the Stephen Colbert put it on the Daily Show this evening, this comes down to one issue: Fear. Fear either than Al-Qaeda was going to come and bomb their corn field or fear that two queers would be capable of making whoopie in the house next door. I mean, that's all that's important, right?

Oh, I'd probably point out that God wouldn't really approve of anyone lording over another after a victory. But, then, I guess Adam would only call me a son of a bitch and kick me in the face.

Bush Claims Mandate, American's Optimistic

2004-11-03T23:10:00.000-08:00

Shortly after Bush's victory speech, where he promised to unite the country, word began to spread that he will only further divide the nation by pushing his right-wing, radical agenda. Dick Cheney expressed his views, as noted in this story [cnn.com]:

Despite Bush's appeal to Kerry supporters, Cheney said the popular vote victory gave Bush a mandate and the Bush White House would continue pushing for the Republicans' "clear agenda."

Aha, so a relatively slim margin in the election

+

Bush's statement, "To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

=

Mandate to keep pushing for fewer rights for all, drastic tax reform, further tax cuts for the rich in our country and an agenda that will further divide "secular" and relgious factions in America.

Despite all this, most of America seems quite optimistic [cnn.com] about the situation:

Americans by and large appear to be happy with the results of Tuesday's elections and are hopeful the country will be drawn together during President Bush's second term, according to a survey conducted Wednesday night.

They also expect Bush to put aside partisan agendas and lead in a bipartisan way, according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

Just over half -- 51 percent -- of 621 American adults surveyed said they were pleased with the outcome of the presidential election; 38 percent said they were upset.

Bush won re-election over Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry without the need for recounts or court battles that followed the presidential election of 2000. He also picked up 51 percent of the popular vote on his way to victory.

Even after the highly polarizing campaign, the poll also indicated some optimism for the next four years.

Fifty-seven percent of respondents said they expect Bush to unite the nation during his second term. But 39 percent said they believe the president will be divisive.

During the 2000 campaign, Bush promised to be a "uniter, not a divider." But in this week's election the nation seemed nearly as divided as it had been in Bush's first election.

Few states switched from the party that prevailed four years ago. New Hampshire, which Bush narrowly won in 2000, went for Kerry. Bush has so far carried no state won by Democrat Al Gore, although he leads in two, Iowa and New Mexico.

But this time around the nation does not appear to be divided over who won. Today, 74 percent of those surveyed said Bush won "fair and square." In 2000, the figure was only 48 percent.

Four years ago, Bush beat Gore by just 537 votes in Florida after the U.S. Supreme Court voted to stop ballot recounts in several counties. That gave Bush an Electoral College vote of 271 -- one more than necessary to win.

It seems the country may have been hoping to avoid a legal stand-off this year, because 80 percent of respondents agreed with Kerry's decision to concede the election Wednesday afternoon.

The outcome remained in doubt overnight even though Bush was ahead in the popular vote by more than 3.7 million votes. He was short of winning the 270 votes needed in the Electoral College because the race in the battleground state of Ohio remained so close.

Kerry had considered forgoing a concession speech until after all provisional ballots were counted, 11 days after the election.

Sixty percent of respondents said Kerry was merely being a realist in making his decision to concede while 35 percent thought of him as a statesman.

The group surveyed also had a distinct opinion on how Bush should lead now that he's won another four-year term.

Sixty-three percent said Bush should emphasize a bipartisan program. Just under a third, 30 percent, said Bush needs to advance the Republican agenda.

One-third of respondents said they were optimistic about Bush's second term, and 23 percent were enthusiastic. Another 24 percent said they were afraid and 18 percent expressed pessimism.

The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Of course, that's only 57% of Americans who think he will actually "unite" the nation. Considering how hard he fought to divide us in his first term, I don't see how that's even feasible. But, then, these same people probably elected him, so I don't expect them to take the intellectual route.

Kerry Concedes, Bush "Humbled"

2004-11-03T21:49:00.000-08:00

This morning the unthinkable happened: John Kerry conceded [yahoo.com]the election, admitting he feels there is no way he can win in Ohio. The final electoral tally was 274 for Bush to 252 for Kerry. Bush's total is probably higher as Iowa and New Mexico seem to be in his wheelhouse, but haven't been called of yet. The full story won't be known for ten days, when Ohio actually counts all those provisional and absentee ballots(well, I guess they'll tally them up...at this point, who knows), but Kerry felt it was a long shot and that it was best just to "let the nation heal." His final speech [cnn.com] was just further proof of what a fine, intelligent person he is:

By the time Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry got to the eighth sentence of his concession speech, he'd said it all.

"I'm sorry that we got here a little bit late and a little bit short," the defeated presidential candidate said Wednesday afternoon.

The senator was a little more than an hour late for his scheduled 1 p.m. speech in Fanueil Hall in Boston, Massachusetts, but it was the 3.5 million deficit in popular votes and the lack of 18 electoral votes that turned the breezy quip serious.

White House spokespeople earlier described Kerry's congratulatory phone call to President Bush as gracious and strong on reconciliation.

And Wednesday the junior Massachusetts senator made repeated references to unifying a divided nation that produced only a two percentage point difference in the popular vote for the two presidential candidates.

It started when he disclosed the contents of his conversation with the president. "... I offered him and Laura our congratulations on their victory, " Kerry said. "We had a good conversation, and we talked about the danger of division in our country and the need -- the desperate need for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together. Today I hope that we can begin the healing."

He spoke with regret: "I wish, you don't know how much, that I could have brought this race home for you."

But he didn't have remorse: "It was a privilege and a gift to spend two years traveling this country, coming to know so many of you."

And about the uncounted votes, he was realistic: "... Even when all the provisional ballots are counted, which they will be, there won't be enough outstanding votes for us to be able to win Ohio. And therefore we cannot win this election."

Before dawn Republican politicians had begun murmuring that Kerry should concede. And at 4 a.m. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card declared that the Bush campaign was certain of its victory.

About two hours earlier, Kerry running mate, Sen. John Edwards told a hopeful crowd in Boston's Copley Square that the party had waited four years for victory, and it was willing to wait another day.

But as the day lengthened, basic math dashed those hopes. There were not enough uncounted votes to cover the spread in Ohio which held the 20 electoral votes Kerry needed to win.

Kerry mentioned that as he returned to expressing his desire to unify the electorate. "The outcome should be decided by voters, not a protracted legal process," he said. "I would not give up this fight if there was a chance that we would prevail."

Early Wednesday, Kerry advisers huddled with the candidate to decide what to do. Giving up prematurely would send the wrong message. Engaging in legal rancor could create more harm than healing.

So after more than 600 days of campaigning, the bitter contest ended at 2:14 p.m. on November 3 with Kerry's bid for unity:

"I did my best to express my vision and my hopes for America. We worked hard and we fought hard, and I wish that things had turned out a little differently," he said. "But in an American election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans."

The event was enough to make anyone who had supported him want to cry. Even in defeat he was far more eloquent that George W. Bush will ever be.

Unfortunately, with Kerry giving a concession speech, Bush had to give a victory speech. He did so at about 3pm, in DC. Here's the rundown [yahoo.com]:

President Bush claimed a re-election mandate Wednesday after a record 59 million Americans chose him over Democrat John Kerry and voted to expand Republican control of Congress as well. He pledged to pursue his agenda on taxes and Iraq while seeking "the broad support of all Americans."

Kerry conceded defeat in make-or-break Ohio rather than launch a legal fight reminiscent of the contentious Florida recount of four years ago. "I hope that we can begin the healing," the Massachusetts senator said.

Claiming a second term denied his father, George H.W. Bush, the president struck a conciliatory tone, too. "A new term is a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation," he said, speaking directly to Kerry's supporters.

"To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support and I will work to earn it," he said. "I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

It was a warm-and-fuzzy close to one of the longest, most negative presidential races in a generation.

Bush didn't use the word mandate, but Vice President Dick Cheney did, and the president's intention was clear as he ticked off a familiar list of second-term goals: overhaul the tax code and Social Security at home while waging war in Iraq and elsewhere to stem terror.

Bush stands to reshape the federal judiciary, starting with an aging Supreme Court that voted 5-4 to award him Florida four years ago. In all branches of government, the GOP now holds a solid, if not permanent, ruling majority.

Bush's vote totals were the biggest ever and his slice of the vote, 51 percent, made him the first president to claim a majority since 1988 when his father won 53 percent against Democrat Michael Dukakis.

Like Dukakis, Kerry is a Massachusetts politician who was labeled a liberal by a Bush. This president also called Kerry a flip-flopping opportunist who would fight feebly against terror.

None of that rancor was evident Wednesday, when Kerry called Bush to concede the race. He told Bush the country needed to be united, and Bush agreed. But the numbers suggest the country is deeply split.

Bush's victory ensures Republican dominance of virtually every quarter of the U.S. political system for years to come — the White House, Congress and the federal judiciary. Democrats pored over election results and sadly determined that the GOP base was bigger, more rural, suburban and Hispanic than they had ever imagined.

They looked within their own party, and found plenty of Democrats to blame — Kerry, his running mate John Edwards, their layers of consultants and legions of former Bill Clinton aides. The jockeying began in earnest for the 2008 race, with Edwards signaling his ambitions by pressing Kerry to wage a legal fight for Ohio. Democrats love to fight the GOP, particularly those Democrats who vote in primaries and caucuses.

"You can be disappointed, but you cannot walk away," Edwards told supporters at Kerry's concession. "This fight has just begun."

Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, herself a potential candidate in 2008, accused Edwards of posturing.

Kerry himself showed no signs of exiting the political arena. "I'll never stop fighting for you," he told backers.

Still, it was a grim day for Democrats.

Party strategists had longed hoped to supplant their political losses in the Midwest and South with growth in the Hispanic-rich Western states, but those plans were put in doubt Tuesday night. Exit polls suggested that Bush had increased his minority share of the Hispanic vote since 2000.

One-third of Hispanics said they were born-again Christians and nearly 20 percent listed moral values as their top issue, suggesting they have more in common with Republicans than Democrats.

The election also vindicated Bush's unorthodox strategy of governing from the right and then targeting his voters with a volunteer-driven organization run through his campaign headquarters. Kerry played to the center and relied on a loosely knit conglomerate of liberal groups who paid get-out-the-vote workers.

Americans Coming Together, the Media Fund and other liberal special interest groups spent more than $200 million to defeat Bush. Kerry spent tens of millions more, and what did he get? Just one state won by Bush in 2000, New Hampshire, switched to the Democratic column this year.

Young voters didn't increase their turnout as Democrats had hoped. Neither did blacks or union members, two keys to the party's base.

Bush, meanwhile, saw a surge in rural and evangelical voters, according to strategists on both sides. The rural vote, once reliably Democratic, swelled in size and supported Bush over Kerry.

In Ohio, exit polls suggested the rural vote increased from 15 percent of the electorate in 2000 to 25 percent on Tuesday. Rural voters backed Bush over Kerry 60 percent to 40.

In Ohio and Florida, the two most important states Election Night, Democrats said they met their turnout targets, only to see Bush's forces trounce them. They said state ballot measures to ban gay marriage may have driven GOP voters to the polls.

The most stinging defeat was in Ohio, which may no longer be considered a swing state. With 232,000 jobs lost under Bush and state voters uneasy about Iraq, it was as ripe as it will ever be for Democrats, strategists said.

Ohio's 20 electoral votes gave Bush 279 in the Associated Press count, nine more than the 270 needed for victory. Kerry had 252 electoral votes, with Iowa's seven unsettled.

Bush beat Kerry by more than 3 million votes.

Of course, 3 million votes isn't so much when over 60 million vote in total. Perhaps we should consider that only 51% of the country voted for Bush while 49% voted against him. NPR quoted Bush as saying he was "humbled" by America's overwhelming support of him in the election. Considering he scared most of America to vote for him and the rest of them probably used the "best not to change Presidents in the middle of a war" excuse, I don't think humble is the right way to feel. Besides, I'm quite sure Bush wouldn't know humble if it jumped up and bit him in the ass.

More to follow...

OH Contesters Allowed

2004-11-02T09:19:00.000-08:00

The Ohio Voter Suppression Blog has updates on the last word in the battle for Republicans to get into polling places in Ohio. Long story short, they're allowed, but don't have a whole lot of say. They'll basically be lording over election officials as they check people on voter rolls. Then, apparently, they can raise any concerns they have. Also, they're only allowed one person per precint. This isn't quite as bad as it could have been, but it still isn't right. Voting officials are there for a reason. Let them do the job and that should be the end of it.

For the full story, go here at OSU's law school website.

VOTE DAMNIT!

2004-11-01T21:30:00.000-08:00

Just a reminder. I can't say it enough!

VOTE TUESDAY NOV. 2

525 Reasons Revisited

2004-11-01T20:58:00.000-08:00

Let's make one last check in on 525 Reasons to Dump Bush.

First up, probably my favorite of the insidious posts was this one about the alleged global test":

Kerry "said something revealing when he laid out the Kerry Doctrine," Bush said at a convention of home builders here. "He said that America has to pass a global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. . . . Senator Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions." (AP)

And Bush says something revealing when he wrongly assumes "global test" means deferring to foreign governments: it's a scientific term that refers to the validity of a statistical model (a Google search on "global test" statistics -Bush -Kerry yields more than 3,000 articles, most of which are, like this one, related to science and technology).

When Kerry says we need a "global test" to prove the legitimacy of U.S. military action, he's not talking about getting permission from the U.N., as the Bush campaign has either ignorantly or disingenuously suggested. He's using an established term to describe methodically testing assumptions against reality.

I just wish people would pay attention and figure this stuff out. Kerry is afraid to mention it, I think, because people would think him too cerebral and possibly vote against him because he's "too smart." I don't blame him, there's a lot of idiots out there.

Reason #2 happens to be The War on Terror:

September 2004: President Bush falsely claims nearly 100,000 fully trained and equipped Iraqi soldiers, police officers and other security personnel in Iraq, and this number would rise to 125,000 by the end of this year.

But documents prepared by Defense Department officials and given to lawmakers show that fewer than 100,000 will be trained by the end of this year.

The Pentagon also said on Monday that only about 53,000 of the 100,000 Iraqis on duty now have undergone training.

The documents, obtained by Reuters, show that of the nearly 90,000 currently in the police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. And it will be July 2006 before the administration's new goal of 135,000 fully trained police is met.

October 2004: In the face of a report that confirms there were no weapons of mass destruction, and with over 1,000 American casualties, costs at $160 billion, and the creation of an environment that actually fosters terrorism and anti-American sentiment, George Bush says he'd do it all again:

"Based on all the information we have today, I believe we were right to take action, and America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison," the president said.

And a new study puts the civilian death toll in Iraq over 100,000.

Same old info, but the 525 guys just put it so damn well. Reason #1 might be my new favorite, Accountability:

President Bush likes to talk about accountability, often in regard to educational standards, but it has been a frequent refrain in other areas.

He claims to have signed the most sweeping corporate accountability reforms since Franklin Roosevelt.

After the Enron scandal, he assured us "company executives with power over 401(k)s will be held accountable for treating their workers' assets as carefully as they treat their own."

And when Worldcom played $3.4 billion worth of accounting tricks, President Bush told us people would be held accountable for misleading shareholders and employees.

He applauded the transfer of indicted war criminal Slobodan Milosevic to the War Crimes Tribunal as "an unequivocal message to those persons who brought such tragedy and brutality to the Balkans that they will be held accountable for their crimes," and he strongly supported Prime Minister Tony Blair in holding paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland accountable for their their use of violence.

He declared that those responsible for the attacks on 9/11 would be held accountable, and although this is not yet the case for Osama bin Laden, it and the above calls for accountability are right and just. We agree with them all, and - particularly in the case of corporate responsibility - would like to see the assurances of accountability manifested as real consequences for those who do wrong.

There are other areas, however, where President Bush's calls for accountability ring considerably more hollow.

He argued that an invasion of Iraq was necessary in order to hold Saddam Hussein accountable to U.N. resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction. When it turned out there were no WMDs, he failed to accept responsibility for the rush to war, and instead found other reasons to justify the invasion.

After the abhorrent acts of torture at Abu Ghraib were revealed, he told the people of Iraq, "In a democracy, everything is not perfect and mistakes are made. But also in a democracy, those mistakes will be investigated and people will be brought to justice." To date, only low-ranking personnel have been prosecuted, despite the fact that a Pentagon-appointed panel has found responsibility at senior levels of the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the White House. No one at that level has been held accountable. Donald Rumsfeld, who declared the abuses, "occurred on my watch, and as secretary of defense I am accountable for them, and I take full responsibility", is still Secretary of Defense.

President Bush is quick to talk about accountability, but unconscionably slow to provide it within his administration.

We don't claim he's accountable for economic cycles, but he is responsible for the tax cuts that have made the deficit a sorry legacy for the next generation, and for a costly war in Iraq that has carried us all further into debt.

He chose to take the focus of the war on terror off of al Qaeda and instead shift resources to Iraq. He surrounded himself with advisors who relied on poor intelligence and provided short-sighted assessments of what it would take to rebuild the country following the invasion.

Giving him a second term will not make him accountable for his decisions and their consequences.

We believe giving John Kerry an opportunity to lead is a better choice than allowing George W. Bush to continue as he has.

We believe in Kerry's record of public service. We believe his combat experience gives him a better understanding of the quagmire that Iraq has become. He spent twenty years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, giving him experience and credibility with the international community. He can repair the alliances Bush has damaged, and that will leave us better able to fight the global war on terror.

We believe Kerry will take a responsible approach to the deficit, restoring fiscal discipline and asking the wealthiest members of society to bear more of the tax burden, not less.

He is a leader who believes in nuance, who will be able to deal with mistakes and change course when the situation requires it. He is more likely to surround himself with thoughtful, experienced people, not ideologues.

We believe he will nominate Supreme Court Justices who will uphold modern constitutional law, including important decisions like Roe v. Wade.

We can't say the same about George W. Bush.

As citizens in a republic, we Americans elect people to represent us - members of Congress to represent our local interests in the federal government, a President to unite us, and represent us to the world. A president who will make decisions that will affect us, our children, and other nations.

We must hold our leaders accountable for their actions, because ultimately the accountability resides with us.

Well said, fellows.

OH Going Well, For Now

2004-11-01T20:55:00.000-08:00

Quick follow up. I just found out about this blog which will be reporting all Ohio voter suppression news. So far, they're reporthing that a second judge is backing up today's earlier ruling. Oh, and the repubs who were to be watching the inner-city polls: wealthy white suburbanites. Big surprise there...

Pre-Election Wrap

2004-11-01T20:21:00.000-08:00

Sorry folks. Been busy and actual "news" is a bit slim, since we're so close to the election. Here's a quick wrap of everything I deem "important" leading into the vote tomorrow.

Frist, from Talking Points Memo here's a few great stories. First of all, ABC crews decided to try getting into Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards events wearing the other party's shirts:

At another event, a Kerry campaign worker approached the producers and told them that they had the right to eject them if they made any disturbance. The guy in this case told them, "We hold the right to remove you, but other than that, enjoy and hopefully at the end of the event you'll want to wear a Kerry T-shirt."

You could say it didn't go quite so well in Bush-Cheney land. When the producers tried to get into a BC04 event, they simply weren't allowed in at all.

A campaign volunteer told them: "I'm sorry, but they're Kerry shirts ... We were told not to let people with Kerry shirts into the rally."

And then this happened ...

And as they approached the gates of the stadium, Lance "Chip" Borman, a Bush campaign worker and attorney who worked for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, directed them toward the Brevard County sheriff's deputies waiting at the exit.

"Hey folks, it's a private event," he said. "Can you find your way to the nearest exit? Maybe some law enforcement can help?"

Who would support a group that wishes to shove out all dissenters? In fact, these weren't dissenters at all, just people dressed differently! Second, here's the transcript of a phone message being sent out in the Philly suburbs by Bush/Cheney folks:

Hello. John Kerry's trial lawyer allies have a scheme to keep you away from the polls tomorrow as part of their hardball strategy. Democrats are trying to intimidate Republican election workers. They're hoping to win through fraud, harassment and law suits what they know that can't win at the ballot box. Don't let them get away with it. Remember that tomorrow is election day and only you can make sure Kerry's hardball tactics don't work. Only you can make sure that the American People—not trial lawyers, not foreign leaders—decide our next president.

Wait, you mean the trial lawyers that ended the 2000 recount? Oh, right. I guess they're talking about this year...last thing at TPM is this lovely flyer distributed in FL by the RNC. Just blows my damn mind.

Second, we'll swing by Daily Kos for some more pivotal info. First up, it seems 13,000 votes in Florida may have gone kaput and might be untraceable, thanks to the lack of a paper trail:

About 13,000 ballots were removed from an early-voting site in Daytona Beach, Fla., Monday and rushed to a secure vault in Deland after an optical scan machine failed, according to Local 6 News.

Local 6 News has learned that a memory card, on the machine failed and all 13,000 votes must be recounted.

A computer error is to blame for the failure of the memory card which records the voting data, Local 6 News reported.

When the error was discovered Monday, representatives from both parties were notified.

Both sides then witnessed the removal of the ballots and their storage in the vault.

The canvassing board will meet Monday to discuss how to recount the ballots.

Thanks Jeb Bush! We'll see how that one turns out later. Also, in Michigan someone was putting out this call to a robo-list of what I'll assume was people registered as Democrats:

In a recording of a phone call played for The Associated Press, a young woman says: "When you vote this Tuesday remember to legalize gay marriage by supporting John Kerry. We need John Kerry in order to make gay marriage legal for our city. Gay marriage is a right we all want. It's a basic Democrat principle. It's time to move forward and be progressive. Without John Kerry, George Bush will stop gay marriage. That's why we need Kerry. So Tuesday, stand up for gay marriage by supporting John Kerry."

Of course, it'd probably be a better idea if he hadn't already voiced the opinion that he was against gay marriage. He might support unions, but that's about it. Anyway, that's idiocy for you, but I'm afraid it might hurt a few votes. Good thing it's in MI which in most polls is favoring Kerry rather heavily.

Also mentioned at Kos, but better covered in this CNN piece, it seems Ohio might not be as screwed up as originally assumed.

A federal judge on Monday barred political party challengers from polling places throughout Ohio during Tuesday's election. State Republicans planned to appeal.

The order by U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott found that the application of Ohio's statute allowing individuals to challenge the legitimacy of a voter at the polling place was unconstitutional.

The presence of challengers inexperienced in the electoral process questioning voters about their eligibility would impede voting, she said.

Mark Weaver, lawyer for the Ohio Republican Party, called the ruling erroneous and said the party would ask the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati to overturn it.

Dlott ruled on a lawsuit by a black Cincinnati couple who said Republican plans to deploy challengers to largely black precincts in Hamilton County was meant to intimidate and block black voters.

Republicans said they wanted to prevent voter fraud.

Dlott said in her order that the evidence "does not indicate that the presence of additional challengers would serve Ohio's interest in preventing voter fraud better than would the system of election judges."

What an excellent idea! Since there's no evidence of severe voter fraud, let's let the people who are trained to recognize it take care of it themselves. Of course, this isn't over yet. The Repubs were set to appeal, but I've heard nothing of yet. I'll keep you informed.

Halloween Is Fun

2004-11-01T20:00:00.000-08:00

I had fun on Halloween. It's my girlfriend's birthday, so we have to go all out. Here's a few pictures of my favorite parts:

Me as Mr. Burns

Jenni as Man-Eating Shark

My Pumpkin: Homestar Runner

Werd.

More GOP Kerry Love

2004-10-29T23:36:00.000-07:00

Daily Kos has the latest Republican who's throwing his support behind John Kerry. This time, surprisingly, it's ubercon Bob Smith, former Senator from New Hampshire. Here's the story and the quote follows:

As someone who worked with you daily for 12 years as a United States Senator, I am acutely conscious of the fact that we disagree on many important issues. Despite our differences, you have always been willing to engage in constructive debate in an effort to forge sound public policy.

I deeply respect your commitment to our nation and your patriotism which, I believe, was forged when you-like I-proudly wore the uniform of the United States Navy in Viet Nam...

Because of the courage and character you demonstrated in Vietnam, I believe you when you say that you'll do a better job than President Bush to win the peace in Iraq, as well as to win the war against terrorism.

President Bush has failed to restrain federal spending, sending our deficit spinning into the stratosphere. I well remember that you were one of a handful of Democrats who crossed the aisle to forge a bipartisan coalition in the Senate to balance the federal budget [...]

John, for each of these reasons I believe President Bush has failed our country and my party. Accordingly, I want you to know that when I go into the booth next Tuesday I am going to cast my vote for you. So will my wife, Mary Jo, and all three of my children: Jason, Bobby and Jenny.

Moreover, I will do all that I can to encourage my friends in New Hampshire and Florida to join me in supporting you.

The full endorsement is right here in .pdf format.

Daily Kos also runs a pretty extensive encyclopedia covering all things political. They happen to have running tallies of the following:

Republicans for Kerry (which includes Republicans who won't vote for Bush)

as well as

Democrats for Bush

It's a landslide victory. Bush's list even has no less than three guys from Mississippi (as if one wasn't enough), Zell Miller (there's a true blue democrat for you) and Zell's former Cheif of Staff. What a joke.

Bin Laden Reappears

2004-10-29T23:06:00.000-07:00

This will not be the leading story for the next three days. News shows, from what I can tell, have already started moving on, because there isn't much to report. If you're living under a rock, here is what I'm talking about:

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden threatened the United States with attacks similar to September 11, 2001 and accused President George W Bush of "misleading" his people, in a video message aired on Friday just days ahead of the US presidential election.

In the video, broadcast by Qatar-based Al-Jazeera television, Bin Laden also accused Bush of negligence during the September 11 attacks, further inflaming the already intense final struggle between Bush and his rival John Kerry to win the White House.

Bin Laden told the American people that their security is not in the hands of either Bush or his Democrat challenger in the November 2 presidential vote but depends on US policy.

"Despite the fact that we are into the fourth year after September 11, Bush is still misleading you and hiding the real reason from you, which means that the reasons to repeat what happened remain," said Bin Laden.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or Al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any (presidential) mandate which does not play havoc with our security would automatically ensure its own security," he added.

Bin Laden appeared less menacing than before and this is the first time he's ever taken responsibility for 9/11. As well, this is also the first time he's offered a glimpse into why he hates America so much. Apparently he's none to happy that we're so close with Israel and how we've been treating the Palestines.

Nonetheless, here's how John Kerry reacted upon hearing about the tape:

In response to this tape from Osama bin Laden, let me make it clear, crystal clear. As Americans, we are absolutely united in our determination to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. They are barbarians. And I will stop at absolutely nothing to hunt down, capture or kill the terrorists wherever they are, whatever it takes. Period.

Strong, decisive, non-partisan. Nothing wrong here. It should be noted that all sources indicate Kerry hadn't even seen the tape at the time. He knew of it, but not specifically what it covered. As for Bush, he took a pretty safe route as well:

Earlier today I was informed of the tape that is now being analyzed by America's intelligence community. Let me make this very clear: Americans will not be intimidated or influenced by an enemy of our country. I'm sure Senator Kerry agrees with this. I also want to say to the American people that we're at war with these terrorists and I am confident that we will prevail.

Again we have safe, calculated statements with nothing overly offensive. If I had to be critical I would say he stresses that he's confident we will prevail, as if John Kerry is any less confident. But the interesting part is how he mentions Kerry by name. Basically, he's calling on Kerry to respond in kind, which he did.

However, later in the day, speaking further, Kerry did make a pointed attack at Bush, saying he felt he could run a "better war on terror" than the President. Nothing harsh, just simple, campaign rhetoric. We are three days from an election, people. But, the Bush babies would have none of it. They had prepared a response:

President George W. Bush called Democratic rival John Kerry 's charges that Bush failed to catch or kill Osama bin Laden "especially shameful" given a new tape by the terrorist mastermind.

"Unfortunately my opponent tonight continued to say things he knows are not true, accusing our military of passing up a chance to get Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora," an Afghan stronghold, in 2001, Bush told cheering supporters here.

"As the commander in charge of that operation, (retired general) Tommy Franks has said: It's simply not the case," Bush said. "It is especially shameful in the light of a new tape from America's enemy."

Kerry has repeatedly accused Bush of overrelying on Afghan fighters to flush the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks from Tora Bora, enabling him to escape.

"If we'd ever known where Bin Laden was, we would have gotten him," said the president, who told a crowd of thousands that US intelligence placed bin Laden in several countries.

Speaking to reporters outside the campaign rally here, White House communications director Dan Bartlett said that the tape should not affect the way Bush campaigns but that Kerry should have marked a 12-hour truce.

"You would think that there would be a, maybe, 12 hours to let the American absorb what has just happened today," he said.

Prodded on why, if the tape ought not to affect the campaign, Kerry should have stopped criticizing the president, Bartlett revised his statement, saying that the problem was that Kerry's attack had been "discredited."[ed:emphasis added]

However, unchallenged news reporting about the standoff and public remarks by Bush aides, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, also placed Al-Qaeda's mastermind in the remote bastion.

And Kerry aides point out that Franks, who frequently campaigns for Bush, ran the siege of Tora Bora.

Aha, so Bush can continue to campaign as usual but Kerry I suppose was expected to take the rest of the afternoon off and discuss the intricacies of his health care plan with his rally attendies? Not bloody likely. This is seriously about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

The important thing in all of this is that we remember this doesn't change a thing in the election. At least, it doesn't turn anything against Kerry. If anything, this discredits Bush as he had long insisted they didn't know where Bin Laden was and that he could, possibly be dead. He's obviously alive and runs the only terrorist ring that continually threatens the safety of the United States and it's citizens. That fact alone should warn any fence-riding voters that Bush has made more than a few major mistakes, this one being the biggest.

Best Ad Ever

2004-10-28T23:32:00.000-07:00

It's catchy, it's kitschy, it's fun, it's effective, it's Spanish and it's true. It's everything you could want from a campaign ad. Apparently, it's so effective, several people are calling Miami-Dade Florida, with it's large latino population, for Kerry by a large margin. Large enough to virtually nullify all votes in the rest of the state. Now, I'm not expecting quite so much, but I'll take whatever I can get.

View this astounding, funny ad right here.

Thanks to DailyKOS for the excellent link!

Salon Talks "Old News"

2004-10-28T23:22:00.000-07:00

Here's a chance for you to support an excellent site, Salon.com and get excellent news at the same time. They've apparently asked an expert in photo analysis to give his opinion on President Bush and that oh-so-pesky bulge in his suit. You know, the urban myth thing. Check ou the story here. Just click down at the bottom to get a "free day pass." You'll get to read the full story and Salon gets a bit of a boost from your viewing an ad. Here's a tiny snippet from the article:

George W. Bush tried to laugh off the bulge. "I don't know what that is," he said on "Good Morning America" on Wednesday, referring to the infamous protrusion beneath his jacket during the presidential debates. "I'm embarrassed to say it's a poorly tailored shirt."

Dr. Robert M. Nelson, however, was not laughing. He knew the president was not telling the truth. And Nelson is neither conspiracy theorist nor midnight blogger. He's a senior research scientist for NASA and for Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and an international authority on image analysis. Currently he's engrossed in analyzing digital photos of Saturn's moon Titan, determining its shape, whether it contains craters or canyons.

...How can Nelson be certain there's some kind of mechanical device beneath Bush's jacket? It's all about light and shadows, he says. The angles at which the light in the studio hit Bush's jacket expose contours that fit no one's picture of human anatomy and wrinkled shirts. And Nelson compared the images to anatomy texts. He also experimented with wrinkling shirts in various configurations, wore them under his jacket under his bathroom light, and couldn't produce anything close to the Bush bulge.

In the enhanced photo of the first debate, Nelson says, look at the horizontal white line in middle of the president's back. You'll see a shadow. "That's telling me there's definitely a bulge," he says. "In fact, it's how we measure the depths of the craters on the moon or on Mars. We look at the angle of the light and the length of shadow they leave. In this case, that's clearly a crater that's under the horizontal line -- it's clearly a rim of a bulge protruding upward, one due to forces pushing it up from beneath."

Support Salon for the full story. It's an interesting read, even if it is a moot point, this late in the election. I do hope that someday, somehow, we find out what the heck was going on with that thing.

Halliburton Won't Go Away

2004-10-28T23:16:00.000-07:00

Breaking news (well, earlier tonight) about Halliburton's continued troubles. Check it out:

The FBI has begun investigating whether the Pentagon improperly awarded no-bid contracts to Halliburton Co., seeking an interview with a top Army contracting officer and collecting documents from several government offices.

The line of inquiry expands an earlier FBI investigation into whether Halliburton overcharged taxpayers for fuel in Iraq, and it elevates to a criminal matter the election-year question of whether the Bush administration showed favoritism to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company.

FBI agents this week sought permission to interview Bunnatine Greenhouse, the Army Corps of Engineers' chief contracting officer who went public last weekend with allegations that her agency unfairly awarded KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary, no-bid contracts worth billions of dollars for work in Iraq, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

Asked about the documents, Greenhouse's lawyers said today their client will cooperate but that she wants whistleblower protection from Pentagon retaliation.

"I think it (the FBI interview request) underscores the seriousness of the misconduct, and it also demonstrates how courageous Ms. Greenhouse was for stepping forward," said Stephen Kohn, one of her attorneys.

"The initiation of an FBI investigation into criminal misconduct will help restore public confidence," Kohn said. "The Army must aggressively protect Ms. Greenhouse from the retaliation she will encounter as a result of blowing the whistle on this misconduct."

FBI agents also recently began collecting documents from Army offices in Texas and elsewhere to examine how and why Halliburton got the no-bid work.

"The Corps is absolutely cooperating with the FBI, and it has been an ongoing effort," said Army Corps spokeswoman Carol Sanders. "Our role is to cooperate. It's a public contract and public funds. We've been providing them information for quite a while."

Wendy Hall, a Halliburton spokeswoman, said the company is cooperating with various investigations, but she dismissed the latest revelation as election politics. She noted Congress' auditing arm, the Government Accountability Office, found the company's no-bid work in Iraq was legal.

"The old allegations have once again been recycled, this time one week before the election," Hall said. "The GAO said earlier this year that the contract was properly awarded because Halliburton was the only contractor that could do the work.

Old allegations recycled? I'm sure this action by the FBI is pretty new and allegations are completely fair when the FBI is investigation whether the Vice President gave money hand-over-fist to his former employer. We're not talking small potatoes, folks; this is the big time.

Iraq War Casualties Mount

2004-10-28T21:51:00.000-07:00

The Times in the UK ran this story this evening, and I must say it has depressed me. Not because it hurts Kerry's campaign; it doesn't. I'm sad because I think of how many people are dying because Bush is a pompous ass:

MORE than 100,000 civilians have died as a result of the allied invasion of Iraq in March last year, the first study of mortality in the country claims today.

The research, conducted in Iraq last month by a team of American and Iraqi researchers, will be published on the online edition of The Lancet, the medical journal.

It suggests that most civilian deaths have been due to military activity, with those caused by violence rising sharply in recent months.

The figures far exceed all previous estimates. Their publication just five days before the US presidential election are bound to cause controversy by reinforcing the impression that events are out of control.

The latest estimates by a group of British academics called Iraq Bodycount, which compiles figures from witness accounts and media reports, put the number of civilian deaths at between 14,160 and 16,289.

The British and American militaries keep records of casualties among their own troops, but neither attempts to count how many civilians have been killed. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, has used an estimate of 10,000.

The Ministry of Defence was sceptical about the findings. “No figures that are produced are reliable at this stage,” a spokesman told The Times. “The Ministry of Health in Iraq has only started to collate casualty figures in the last six months.

“Our rules of engagement are very strict and we only use lethal force where absolutely necessary and do what we can to avoid civilian casualties.”

The report was compiled by a team led by Les Roberts, a public health expert from the Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. They surveyed clusters of households in 33 regions of the country. They then compared civilian mortality rates before and after the invasion.

Statisticians who have analysed the data said last night that the scientists’ methodology was strong and the civilian death count could well be conservative. They said that the work effectively disproved suggestions by US authorities that civilian bodycounts were impossible to conduct.

In coming to a total of 100,000 civilian deaths, the team excluded Fallujah, where two thirds of the violent deaths recorded have occurred.

Experts said that including this area, where collecting data remains highly dangerous, would push the total number of civilian deaths much higher.

Dr Roberts told The Times last night that the death toll from bombing suggested a pressing need to alter air strike strategies.

“We can say with absolute confidence that both mortality and violent deaths have gone way up,” he said.

“Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 deaths or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Look, they can be off on their numbers. But if it's even close to 100,000 and people somehow believe this was the "right war" or the "right way" to go about it, they're just freaking looney. Americans lost in the war have exceeded 1,000, but that number just pales in comparison. Now is our time. Armed with evidence to support the explosives story and this type of information, Bush can be out of the race by Saturday. Spread the word, my brethren.

Bush Takes Defensive

2004-10-28T20:33:00.000-07:00

Long post folks, bear with me. The big story this week has obviously been the discovery that about 380 tons of explosives have been found missing at the Al Qaqaa base near Baghdad. Initially the story was "baseless," criticism from the NYTimes, but they did their homework and got some witness to their facts:

White House officials reasserted yesterday that 380 tons of powerful explosives may have disappeared from a vast Iraqi military complex while Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq, saying a brigade of American soldiers did not find the explosives when they visited the complex on April 10, 2003, the day after Baghdad fell.

But the unit's commander said in an interview yesterday that his troops had not searched the site and had merely stopped there overnight.

The commander, Col. Joseph Anderson, of the Second Brigade of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, said he did not learn until this week that the site, Al Qaqaa, was considered sensitive, or that international inspectors had visited it before the war began in 2003 to inspect explosives that they had tagged during a decade of monitoring.

Colonel Anderson, who is now the chief of staff for the division and who spoke by telephone from Fort Campbell, Ky., said his troops had been driving north toward Baghdad and had paused at Al Qaqaa to make plans for their next push.

The Kerry camp, of course, made the story their main focus, attacking the Bush Campaign and their inability to react to the story:

"What did the president have to say about the missing explosives? Not a word. Complete silence. Despite devastating evidence that his administration's failure here has put our troops and our citizens are in greater danger, George Bush has not offered a single word of explanation. His silence confirms what I have been saying for months: President Bush rushed to war without a plan to win the peace. He didn't have enough troops on the ground to get the job done. He didn't have enough allies to get the job done. He failed to secure Iraq and keep it from becoming what it is today - a haven for terrorists.

Things only got worse. The commander of the very first Army division to roll through the area also backed up the argument that no true inspections had even been performed:

The first U.S. military unit to reach the site in Iraq where U.N. officials say 377 tons of high explosives are missing did not carry out a hunt for such material, the unit's commander said on Wednesday.

Col. Dave Perkins, then the commander of the 2nd Brigade of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, said the immediate concern when his troops reached the Al Qaqaa site on April 3, 2003, was to defeat a couple of hundred Iraqi troops who were firing from the compound as the Americans surged toward Baghdad.

... Perkins said he did not believe that his forces had been informed the IAEA previously had marked and sealed explosives at the site. "This was just another one of those sites that the process was no different. It was no less stringent or more stringent," he told reporters.

Perkins said the key concern at the time was whether there were any weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemical weapons, and that a white powdery substance found at the site proved to be a WMD false alarm.

Bush and Pentagon officials said the material might have been moved from the site before U.S. forces arrived.

The best part here? The White House actually brought this guy out to the media; no one found him. Yet he doesn't support their argument in the least. At this point it became clear that the explosives had been stolen, so the ball was dropped somewhere. However, many contend these explosives were there before the US lead invasion. Among the certain, a certain Iraqi science minister:

A top Iraqi science official said Wednesday it was impossible that 350 tonnes of high explosives could have been smuggled out of a military site south of Baghdad before the regime fell last year.

He warned that explosives from nearby sites could have also been looted.

The UN nuclear watchdog this week said the explosives went missing from a weapons dump some time after Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled in April 2003 by the US-led invasion .

But as the issue took centre stage in the final days of the US presidential campaign, some US officials have suggested the explosives had gone before the US-led forces moved on Baghdad.

The Pentagon has said it did not know when the explosives went missing.

Mohammed al-Sharaa, who heads the science ministry's site monitoring department and worked with UN weapons inspectors under Saddam, said "it is impossible that these materials could have been taken from this site before the regime's fall."

He said he and other officials had been ordered a month earlier to insure that "not even a shred of paper left the sites."

"The officials that were inside this facility (Al-Qaqaa) beforehand confirm that not even a shred of paper left it before the fall and I spoke to them about it and they even issued certified statements to this effect which the US-led coalition was aware of."

He said officials at Al-Qaqaa, including its general director, whom he refused to name, made contact with US troops before the fall in an effort to get them to provide security for the site.

The regime's fall triggered a wave of looting of government and private property, which US-led troops struggled to contain as they were busy securing their own positions.

Sharaa warned that other sites close to Al-Qaqaa with similar materials could have also been plundered.

Now, working for the Iraqi government, you'd assume this guy would take side with Bush on this sort of thing. Unfortunately, it appears they have something called "decency" in Iraq and he choose to speak truth, rather than the speech prepared for him by Bush's handlers.

Bush, for his part, has continued to insist that this is not his fault and that Kerry is wrong for insisting that it is:

"I want to remind you that if Senator Kerry had had his way, we would still be taking our global test. Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and he would control all of those weapons and explosives, and could have shared them with the terrorist enemy," Mr. Bush said.

"Now the senator is making wild charges about missing explosives, when his top foreign policy adviser admits he doesn't know the facts. He said, 'I don't know the truth.' Think about that. The senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts.

"This investigation is important, and it is ongoing. And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not the person you want as commander-in-chief," the President told 15,000 enthusiastic supporters basking under an afternoon sun.

These "wild charges" seem to be backed up by some fairly believable information Mr. President; something you haven't provided thus far. He made two egregious blunders in this statement, proving that they don't realize the idiocy of their stance. First, he says that if Kerry were in power terrorists would have control of the weapons and explosives. Well, with Bush in power they also have control of the weapons and explosives. Granted, Hussein didn't have the time to hand them out, they just stole them for themselves. Secondly, and this one is good: "...a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not the person you want as commander-in-chief." Heaven knows Bush has never, ever jumped to conclusions about anything, especially regarding the war on Iraq.

Well, now they continue to insist that we don't know the "truth." First came the report that, perhaps, Russia took the explosives. Russia, of course, vehemently denies this and there is apparently no credible evidence to support it. CNN this evening showed a photo from the Pentagon showing a truck driving from the compound in the weeks previous to the invasion with a supply of something, continuing the possibility of timeline discrepancies. The image, however, is anything but clear and doesn't clearly support either side of the argument.

Rudy Giuliani today made an ass of himself on NBC's Today Show by insisting the blame, if there is any, falls squarely on the shoulders of our soldiers:

In a morning television appearance, Giuliani criticized Democrat John Kerry for blaming President Bush for the disappearance of hundreds of tons of explosives in Iraq.

''No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?'' he said on NBC's ''Today'' show.

This from the party who has been accusing Kerry of "denigrating" our soldiers with his statements, despite the fact that he has never indicated the soldiers are to blame. Indeed, the idea here is that the soldiers were never told about the weapons, thanks to poor communication and planning from the Bush White House. I guess that's what happens when you rush to war, though.

Finally, there appears to be relatively rock-solid evidence that the removal of the explosives came well after the US Invasion. Of course, it came from another "liberal," Bush-hating source, ABC News (story via Yahoo!):

ABC News on Thursday showed video appearing to confirm that explosives that went missing in Iraq (news - web sites) did not disappear until after the United States had taken control of the facility where they were stored.

... ABC said the video it broadcast was shot by an affiliate TV station embedded with the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division when the troops passed through the storage facility on April 18, 2003, nine days after the fall of Baghdad.

ABC said experts who have studied the images say the barrels seen in the video contain the high explosive HMX, and U.N. markings on the sealed containers were clear.

"I talked to a former inspector who's a colleague of mine. He confirms that, indeed, these pictures look just like what he remembers seeing inside those bunkers," David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq told the network.

ABC said the barrels seen in the video were found inside locked bunkers that had been sealed by inspectors from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency just before the war began.

"The seal's critical. The fact that there's a photo of what looks like an IAEA seal means that what's behind those doors is HMX," Albright said.

The soldiers were not ordered to secure the facility, ABC reported."

The footage is pretty straight-forward and as far as I know no one so far has been able to question it's validity. Oh, and back to those satellite photos:

The Pentagon on Thursday released an aerial photograph taken two days before the Iraq war of two trucks at the site where 377 tons of high explosives went missing, but was unable to say they had anything to do with the disappearance.

The image of a small portion of the sprawling Al Qaqaa arms storage site, taken on March 17, 2003, showed a large tractor-trailer loaded with white containers with a smaller truck parked behind it, the Pentagon said.

Chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita acknowledged that he could not say that the trucks were hauling away the explosives, or had anything to so with the disappearance of the material.

No proof to be found there, unfortunately. The Bush campaign simply wishes this would all just blow away, but it won't. We have here excellent proof of how the President has mishandled the war and how he denies any and all responsibility for any mistakes he has made.

Want another take on all of this? My friend Kevin McCullough has an excellent post with five whole links to completely useless informatoin that doesn't support a bit of his side of the story. It's a shame he's the one who's "syndicated" and I'm stuck working a 9-5...

Baseball Break

2004-10-28T19:51:00.000-07:00

Quick note on my favorite sport, for those who care. I've made it my mission in life to watch every Cubs game I possibly can on WGN. First it was Harry Caray and Steve Stone keeping me company. Harry was different, but his play-by-play was exceptionally easy and fun to listen to. Steve Stone struck me as someone with an excellent eye for the game and an excellent vocabulary to boot. After Harry passed, Chip Caray joined the squad to fill his Grandad's shoes. Not only was he just as personable as Harry, he was even easier to listen to, being a good 40 years younger, perhaps. Chip's easy delivery was fresh and he was never afraid to be critical, much like Harry himself. Stoney was forced to leave the game thanks to health issues and Joe Carter joined Chip in the booth. Carter was serviceable, but none ever matched Stoney's presence. Several years later, Steve Stone returned to the booth last year. Finally, the Cubs had done it. They had an exceptional announcing crew and the team was only getting better. Unfortunately, it was not to be. Chip resigned amidst a minor scandal involving Stone, back in early October. At the time, Stone indicated he wanted to stay, since his heart was in Chicago, but it appears it wasn't meant to be. Stone, today, tendered his letter of resignation and a legion of Cubs fans are saddened by the news. The next Cubs broadcasters are yet to be announced, as the Cubs are apparently set to wait this one out.

Oh well, at least I can say congratulations to the Red Sox nation and hope that the Cubs can pull it out next year. Eamus Catuli.

Denver Post Endorsement Causes Stir

2004-10-26T21:02:00.000-07:00

The Denver post, Sunday, became the second paper in the city to endorse George W. Bush for President. They received so many responses they felt compelled to place this story in Tuesday's paper:

Editor's note: More than 700 readers have given us their thoughts on Sunday's presidential endorsement, and they add up to a passionate dissent. An endorsement is meant to provide the newspaper's perspective and to stimulate readers' consideration of issues and candidates. Most readers look over the paper's analysis and then draw their own conclusions, as today's letters certainly demonstrate. Every letter we received was critical of the Post endorsement; we publish a sampling here today.

The Post editorial policy is established by its editorial board and is entirely independent of the paper's news coverage. In the case of Sunday's Bush endorsement, the editorial board, like the country, was divided, and we took extraordinary steps to ensure that the full range of views was represented in our pages. On the adjacent page, we ran a column by two of our editorial writers, "Kerry's appeal - 'America can do better."' We hope our readers will take a look at that piece as well as the endorsement itself. Together, these pieces reflect the sharp division of opinion in Colorado as Election Day nears.

- Jon Wolman, editor of the editorial pages

700 people sounds like a lot of people to respond to just one story. Here's some of the best of the responses:

... I'm befuddled! You're endorsing George W. Bush for president while telling us that we're worse off than we were four years ago? You want us to vote for a man who, in your words, "squandered global good will," "labored erratically" and is "mishandling all things Iraq"? Sorry, it's not the kind of behavior I plan to reward.

Your endorsement was less than compelling - it was lukewarm at best. But even more telling was that two of your editorial writers, Julia Martinez and the esteemed Bob Ewegen, provided a strong commentary in support of John Kerry on the very next page.

I too believe that America can and must do better - on health care, the environment, the economy, civil liberties and fighting the real threats to our national security. America simply can't afford four more years of Bush's consistent but misguided decisions on domestic and foreign issues. Let's vote for a man with a vision and a plan rather than one who governs by "instinct." Elect John Kerry on Nov. 2.

Marilyn Saltzman, Conifer

... The Post's endorsement of George W. Bush is one of the best condemnations of his administration that I've seen. It's a grand litany of failures, all of which you acknowledge. Re- reading the article carefully, I found one positive word about Bush: "decisiveness."

Decisiveness? This man decided to invade Iraq, cut taxes, loosen environmental laws, suppress stem-cell research, etc., long before he became president, and never changed his mind nor admitted any mistake in face of manifest evidence, and never will. And in face of this stubbornness, you offer suggestions that he should do all things differently in his second term, expecting, I suppose, that he will, and therefore you endorse him.

Incomprehensible.

Ed Schreiber, Denver

... To say I am disappointed in The Denver Post's endorsement of George W. Bush for president is an understatement. I am, in fact, flabbergasted at The Post's attempts to rationalize the president's record in reaching its conclusion. The Post repudiates his policies even while it endorses him for a second term.

The most revealing sentence in the endorsement is, "So the president has our endorsement for a second term, even as we call on him to steer a more moderate course that is in keeping with his campaign appearances, but not his first-term performance." In other words, since there is a large discrepancy between the president's election-year words and almost four years' worth of deeds, The Post chooses to put its faith in the words rather than in the deeds.

Jack Sebesta, Carbondale

... The Post's endorsement for president was entirely on the mark, except for one glaring error: the headline writer mistakenly wrote "George W. Bush" when the endorsement was obviously intended for John Kerry. Are the editors familiar with the phrase "Damning with faint praise"?

John Bair, Golden

... Shock and awe cannot begin to describe the way I felt when opening your newspaper on Sunday to find a Bush endorsement. It's time to say goodbye to The Post. Having had a subscription in my family for 45 years, I did pause for a moment in cancelling my subscription. But only for a moment. I cannot support a group of people who are aiding and abetting the destruction of my country, by helping the campaign of a man who is not fit to be elected dog catcher.

Lynn Highland, Morrison

... Congratulations to The Post for its outstanding spoof, the send-up on newspaper endorsements in Sunday's paper. What a brilliant idea, spending nearly an entire page listing the failures of George W. Bush, building a strong case for denying him a second term, then delivering the hilarious punch line, endorsing him for re-election. In serious and troubling times, such comic relief is a pleasant respite.

Arnold Grossman, Denver

Seriously, this was some excellent work by the men and women of Denver and it's surrounding areas. I'm no longer surprised to hear that Kerry might not be as bad off there as once believed.

In related news, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer appears to have bent to public pressure after word got out their publisher had overridden the editors to force a Bush endorsement. Thanks to lots of protest (including an email from yours truly!) they decided not to endorse this year. Big news for Ohio.

Eminem Gets Political

2004-10-25T23:03:00.000-07:00

I'll be the first one to tell you that I don't realy like Eminem that much. A few of his songs are alright and I respect his command of the English language. Frequently, however, I feel he stirs controversy just for his own gain (see his latest hit, "Just Lose It") and I prefer MCs who are privy to the occasional "positive" message (i.e. Talib Kweli, Jurassic5 and Mos Def). I do deeply respect Dr. Dre, however, so I've always paid attention to anything that came out of the Aftermath/Shady camp, in case it was important. Mr. Matthers has a few words for you in his newest video, Mosh.

DailyKOS has excellent coverage of the event with links to vote for it on TRL (man wouldn't that be cool?) as well as links to Real Video, Windows Media and Quicktime versions for your viewing pleasure. My link up there should take you directly to the high-quality quicktime version. View it, pay attention and hope that the young people of America are more motivated than ever to take this country back into their own hands. The last line is just fantastic:

...And as we proceed, to mosh through this desert storm, in these closing statements, if they should argue, let us beg to differ, as we set aside our differences, and assemble our own army, to disarm this weapon of mass destruction that we call our president, for the present, and mosh for the future of our next generation, to speak and be heard, Mr. President, Mr. Senator.

525 Reasons...

2004-10-25T21:07:00.000-07:00

Here's an awesome site: 525 Reasons to Dump Bush. They've been counting down, one reason per day, the 525 best reasons to elect anyone but George W. Bush. #8 was up today, only 7 days to go. My personal favorite sections:

Ignorance and Oafishness

We Take the Low Road

Also, I'd forgotten about the 48 Nobel Prize winners who endorsed John Kerry.

An excellent site, so go there today. Thanks to Notes From A Different Kitchen for the heads up.

When Relatives Attack

2004-10-25T20:18:00.000-07:00

When you can't even get your own relatives to vote for you, perhaps things aren't going so well. These people make rational, reasonable points about Bush and his way of running our country:

I'm voting for John Kerry because I'm a Christian. I know that my second cousin, George Bush, claims that he is the anointed leader of the American people and that God told him to run for office. I believe he may even believe that. I don't.

My Christian faith leads me to a concern for the poor and the marginalized, yet Bush's actions in office have repeatedly cut funding for health care, aid to failing schools, jobs programs, after school programs, Head Start, and many more services that provide real help and hope to those living in poverty. Under the Bush administration, over a million additional people have dropped below the poverty line. 1.2 million more have gone into "deep poverty," which is one-half the $18,810 for a family of four that defines "poverty."

My Christian faith leads me to a concern for the health and welfare of all of God's people, yet 45 million people in this country have no health insurance. The Bush administration, working hard to protect the interests of large, rich insurance companies, has done nothing to address the real health care crisis.

My Christian faith tells me the peacemakers are the blessed ones, yet George Bush wants to resurrect the Crusades, one of the most shameful experiences in Christian history. I fail to understand how lying to the people of the United States about any of the many justifications they have used for going to war in Iraq can be considered in any way, shape, or form a remotely Christian activity. Yes, Jesus once said, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword." He was talking about liberating his OWN people from within, not invading an oil-rich country out of purely selfish motives, then claiming it was for the liberation of others. The only true liberation comes when the oppressed claim it for themselves. This is something George Bush and his Imperialist cabal will never understand.

My Christian faith moves toward greater inclusiveness and acceptance, George Bush moves toward punishment, division, and exclusion. My Christian faith seeks to bring people into the circle of decision-making, George Bush seeks to keep them out. My Christian faith seeks to afford equal rights and responsibilities to all, George Bush seeks to reserve more rights for the privileged few.

My Christian faith is not looking for a new Messiah named George Bush.

I am, however, looking for a leader. I believe that leader's name is John Kerry.

Amen, sister.

Kerry Is Endorsement King

2004-10-25T16:24:00.000-07:00

Most every major newspaper has now endorsed one candidate or another. Not surprisingly, since this is an "intellectual" business, the majority of them have chosen the intellectual's choice for President: John Kerry. EditorandPublisher.com has the full story:

Today was the lull after the storm. On the day after "Super Sunday," when dozens of newspapers announced their picks for president, few editorials took a stand one way or the other. This gives us a chance to catch up on a few papers we missed over the weekend and in preceding days.

Today we add 16 names to our exclusive chart of editorial endorsements (see below), mainly smaller papers. President Bush picks up nine backers and Sen. John Kerry adds seven.

Kerry now leads Bush by 128 to 105 in total endorsements, and easily tops him in the circulation of the supporting papers by 16.9 million to 10.9 million.

Continuing a trend, one of Kerry's endorsees, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times in Texas, went for Bush in 2000. This gives the Democrat a rather startling 36 papers that have fled Bush, while the president has only picked up four papers that went for Gore in 2000. The Bush flip-flop total stood at two yesterday, but we have since found out that the Macomb Daily in Mount Clemens, Mich., and the Spartanburg Herald-Journal in South Carolina, both of which were already in our tally, are former Gore papers that now embrace the president.

Another paper that backed Bush in 2000, The Scranton Times in Pennsylvania, announced that its board was split 3-3 and it therefore would make no endorsement. That means that at least eight papers that supported Bush in 2000 have declared neutrality this year.

For details on all this, see our lengthy update from yesterday.

Bush's pickups added to our list today are: the New Haven (Conn.) Register; the Erie (Pa.) Times-News; The Town Talk in Alexandria, La.; The News-Herald in Willoughby, Ohio; the Herald & Review in Decatur, Ill.; The Wichita (Kan.) Eagle; the Argus Observer in Ontario, Ore.; and The Times-News in Twin Falls, Idaho.

The new additions for Kerry are: The Herald in Everett, Wash.; The Keene (N.H.) Sentinel; the Corpus Christi Caller-Times and Longview News-Journal in Texas; The Times in Munster, Ind.; and the Times Herald (Port Huron) and Traverse City Record-Eagle in Michigan.

Unless I'm wrong, this is the lone update to the totals that has had Bush adding more names than Kerry. Too bad none of them are major publications. The story continues with the full rundown of paper's and endorsements. The totals:

JOHN KERRY
128 newspapers total
16,898,024 daily circulation

GEORGE W. BUSH
105 newspapers total
10,903,849 daily circulation

While that number is good enough, consider what happens when you take out each candidates home state:

[Kerry]
MASSACHUSETTS
The Boston Globe (G): 452,109
Telegram & Gazette (Worcester) (B): 103,586
The Republican (Springfield): 84,694
The Standard-Times (New Bedford): 35,299

[Bush]
TEXAS
Houston Chronicle (B): 549,300
The Dallas Morning News (B): 546,177
San Antonio Express-News (B): 252,889
Fort Worth Star-Telegram (B): 247,167
Austin American-Statesman (B): 184,907
El Paso Times: 74,278
Amarillo Globe-News (B): 51,105

Totals:

Kerry loses 675,688 in circulation. Bush loses 1,905,820.

That's a big chunk; Bush now sinks down to 9 million with Kerry still holding above 16 million. Looking at the battleground states, here's how Bush/Kerry did in Florida (27 electoral votes):

[Kerry]
FLORIDA
St. Petersburg Times (G): 358,502
The Miami Herald (G): 325,032
Orlando Sentinel (B): 269,269
South Florida Sun-Sentinel (Ft. Lauderdale) (G): 268,927
The Palm Beach Post (G): 181,727
Sarasota Herald-Tribune (G): 121,272
Daytona Beach News-Journal (G): 112,945
Florida Today (Melbourne) (G): 90,877
Bradenton Herald (B): 52,163

[Bush]
FLORIDA
The Ledger (Lakeland) (B): 75,539
Ocala Star-Banner: 51,489

In Florida, Kerry has a large area of influence; his circulation total is 1,780,714. Bush's circulation is a paltry 127,028. Kerry has more than ten times the readership in Florida. Turning our attention to Ohio (20 electoral votes):

[Kerry]
OHIO
Dayton Daily News (G): 183,175
The Blade (Toledo) (G): 139,293
Akron Beacon Journal (G): 139,220

[Bush]OHIO
The Columbus Dispatch (B): 371,551
The Cincinnati Enquirer (B): 216,509
The Repository (Canton) (B): 66,014
The News-Herald (Lake County-Willoughby): 45,366
The Cincinnati Post (B): 40,618
The Times Reporter (New Philadelphia): 23,956
The Courier (Findlay) (B): 22,319
The Advocate (Newark): 22,217

Kerry gets 461,688 readers while Bush nets 808,550. The lead goes to Bush, but this isn't really close to Kerry's tenfold lead in FL. Turning our attention to Pennsylvania (21 EVs):

[Kerry]
PENNSYLVANIA
The Philadelphia Inquirer (G): 387,692
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (G): 245,065
The Philadelphia Daily News (G): 139,983
The Morning Call (Allentown) (B): 131,110
Centre Daily Times (State College): 25,354

PENNSYLVANIA
Erie Times-News (B): 60,771
The Express-Times (Easton): 50,439
York Daily Record (G): 46,554
Altoona Mirror (B): 32,339

Kerry recovers from Ohio with a large margin here as well. 929,204 readers to 190,103, a rather substantial difference. Last, a glance at the endorsements from Wisconsin:

[Kerry]
WISCONSIN
The Journal Times (Racine) (G): 29,264
The Wausau Daily Herald (B): 22,757

[Bush]
WISCONSIN
Oshkosh Northwestern (B): 21,748
The Chippewa Herald (Chippewa Falls) (B): 6,804

The Millwaukee Journal-Sentinel hasn't posted their endorsement yet, though I'm not sure if they plan on endorsing. In fact, judging by how few papers are listed, I'd assume most of the state's major papers haven't said anything of yet. The totals as they stand now, Kerry with 52,021 and Bush with 21,748. Close, but I can't imagine the papers are having much to do with the race, since most of them don't seem to be endorsing anyone at all.

I'll keep you updated on any further changes in the endorsement count. Until then, read here how the New Yorker enorsed a President for the first time. (hint: rhymes with "hairy")

Bush Cedes Terror War

2004-10-24T17:41:00.000-07:00

President Bush gave only his third major television interview tonight, the second to Fox News. Speaking to Sean Hannity of Fox's top rated Hannity & Colmes, Bush had the following to say [Yahoo]:

President Bushand Sen. John Kerry stayed on the offensive in swing states Sunday as the presidential race entered its final full week. In a television interview, Bush said it is "up in the air" whether the nation can ever be fully safe from another terror attack and suggested terrorists may still be contemplating ways to disrupt the election.

Kerry ridiculed Bush's statement, suggesting it echoed an earlier assertion — later withdrawn — by the president that the war on terror could not be won.

"You make me president of the United States, we're going to win the war on terror," Kerry said at an evening rally in Boca Raton, Fla. "It's not going to be up in the air whether or not we make America safe."

Earlier, Kerry spoke at a predominantly black church for the fourth consecutive Sunday, this one in Fort Lauderdale in heavily Democratic Broward County, and promised worshippers their votes would be counted this time. The county saw some of the worst of Florida's 2000 vote-counting abuses. "I want you to turn out," the Democrat said.

Kerry pressed his attack on the president's record in new television ads, while on the campaign trail he sought to strike a more inspirational tone, saying in a speech on faith that values he practices as a Roman Catholic "will guide me as president."

The Democrat took on church bishops who have criticized his support for abortion rights and expanded embryonic stem cell research and who have said he should be denied Holy Communion for not advancing church teachings. "I love my church, I respect the bishops, but I respectfully disagree," Kerry said.

With polls showing the race still tight, the campaigns were focusing their efforts on fewer than a dozen states that remain highly competitive, with both camps making last-minute scheduling decisions to reflect realities on the ground.

... In a taped interview with Fox News Channel's "Hannity and Colmes," Bush was asked whether the nation would always be vulnerable to another terror attack and whether Americans would always have to live with that.

"Yes, because we have to be right 100 percent of the time in disrupting any plot and they have to be right once," Bush said. He said the nation is safer from terrorism, but "whether or not we can be ever fully safe is up — you know, up in the air."

Bush said he was sure terrorists still "think about" trying to disrupt the Nov. 2 elections, citing the March 11 train bombings in Madrid that killed 191 people right before Spain's national elections.

"I don't want to alarm anybody because ... there's nothing specific at this point in time — a kind of general intent," Bush said in the interview, to be broadcast Monday night.

Bush caused a flap at the G0P convention in New York in late August when he said of the war on terror: "I don't think you can win it." The comment, made in an interview with NBC, complicated GOP efforts to portray him as a resolute leader.

The president quickly backed away from the earlier remark, asserting that the war on terror could be won, even if not in a conventional sense, and that he "probably needed to be more articulate."

In the Fox interview taped Saturday, Bush also was asked whether a nuclear, chemical or biological attack in the United States is a real possibility. "Yes it is," Bush replied. "That's the biggest threat we face." Fox released excerpts of the interview on Sunday.

Perhaps my favorite part is where he says we have to be right 100% of the time. Who gave him that quote? I find it a bit preposterous that we expect to stop every attack ever launched at us. America never has stopped every attack and America never well. 100% certainty is not within the human race's reach. The more we work together, we decrease the chance of a successful attack immensely. But expecting to stop every single thing is just a joke. Sorry to be so negative, but that kind of talk just sounds stupid to me. There's promises you can't keep. Stopping every single attack is one of them. Kerry takes the more reasonable approach on this issue, hands down.

Anyway, to any "swing voter", if they're paying attention to this second "slip" by Bush, I'd think they'd start to wonder how well he will defend us, if he can't even speak his mind correctly. Another plus for swing voters should be the newspaper endorsements. I'll post those later...

Oust The Idiot

2004-10-24T15:14:00.000-07:00

I've been spending waaaay too much watching stuff at iFilm.com lately. This latest nugget just reinforces the sad fact that we have to get George W. Bush out of office. Check out Bush's speech here [video] and if you can't view it, read on, thanks to The Register:

Reporter Mark Trahant asks Bush, "Mr. President you have been a governor and a president, so you have unique experience looking at (tribal sovereignty) from two directions. What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century?"

Here Bush gets very literal.

"Yeah. Uh, tribal sovereignty means that - it's sovereign. You are a . . . you have been given sovereignty, and you are viewed as a sovereign entity."

The laughter begins.

"And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and the tribes is one between sovereign entities."

Even funnier is Jesse Jackson's response:

"The president explained (tribal sovereignty), you just didn't understand. Sovereignty is sovereignty. You understand? It's like in sovereignenity. If you are on a reservation, you have been soverized."

Comments like this only make America look stupider. People, we have one week. Get out and get things done. It looks good so far, but we've lots of work to do. Especially if you're in Ohio or Pennsylvania...

Triumph On The Debates

2004-10-22T21:50:00.000-07:00

Harsh on both sides, but mostly harsh on the right, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog visited the debates last week.

Go there right now

Look for "Triumph: Poop Valhalla". The final line about Dick Cheney is brilliant!

Clinton Returns To News

2004-10-22T21:14:00.000-07:00

My Mom pointed me to this story, so big-ups to the parental units. Anyway, Bill Clinton will be campaigning with JK next week. Since that's upcoming, stories have been breaking out stating that Clinton would like to become head of the UN:

Former US President Bill Clinton has set his sights on becoming UN secretary-general. A Clinton insider and a senior UN source have told United Press International the 56-year-old former president would like to be named leader of the world body when Kofi Annan’s term ends early in 2006.

“He definitely wants to do it,” the Clinton insider said this week. A Clinton candidacy is likely to receive overwhelming support from UN member states, particularly the Third World.

Diplomats in Washington say Clinton would galvanise the United Nations and give an enormous boost to its prestige. But the former president’s hopes hang on a crucial question that will not be addressed until after the presidential elections: can he get the support of the US government — a prerequisite for nomination?

The political wisdom is that a second George W Bush presidency would cut him off at the pass. The notion of Clinton looming large in the international arena from “the glass tower" in New York would be intolerable to the Bush White House.

If Democratic candidate, Sen John Kerry, D-Mass, wins on November 2 the prospect of Clinton as secretary-general won’t exactly be welcome either, but Kerry would find it much harder — if not impossible — to go against it.

After a Middle East UN Secretary General (Boutros Boutros Ghali) and an African (Kofi Annan) it is generally considered Asia’s turn to fill the post, UN experts say.

No announcement has been made, but behind the scenes China is already pushing the candidacy of Thai Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai, who also seems to have US support. If Clinton does emerge as a candidate, however, China would most likely shift its support.

No American has ever been UN secretary-general, but the United States is both host country to the United Nations and the major contributor to its budget.

A hostile US Congress held up its dues for years — until the Clinton administration negotiated a payment plan for Washington’s arrears.

Clinton also revived US membership of UNESCO though the Americans did not actually move back to their offices at the Paris-based cultural UN agency until after the start of the Bush presidency.

Clinton is currently recovering from the heart bypass surgery he had to undergo last month. He has talked of his interest in taking over at the United Nations since the publication of his autobiography, which he recently said had sold 1.9 million copies.

Writing the book kept him busy after leaving office in 2000, but he is now ready to channel his considerable political skills and energy into another role in public life.

I like Clinton's policies, if anything, and this would only benefit America. As well, many speculate this could be more reason for the Democratic base to get the vote out for our man Kerry. Most of America, non-conservative America anyway, loves Bill Clinton or at least loves what he did for our country. It's obvious that President Bush wouldn't even considering nominating Clinton for the post when it becomes available so Kerry becomes the obvious choice, if you haven't made your mind up yet. Of course, it seems that hardcore-conservatives are up in arms about all this:

All the devil needs is for Kerry to be US President and Clinton to be UN Secretary-General.With that, do Christians see red? They should. And to toss this number out as a sideline issue is to be in denial major. No time for that. None. Clinton has let it be known that he salivates for the top UN post. It could be his. The anti-US nations of the globe would take to Clinton for he’s part of their global mindset anyway. Just as the anti-US nations of the planet take to Kerry. Both Clinton and Kerry would sell out America to the UN. That would simply expand their already massive ego circles. Embracing the nations of the Earth with their liberal arms would bring tingles up their spines 24 / 7.

On the other hand, for the moralists of the globe, it would spell hell-come-to-earth. Both Clinton and Kerry are amoralists to the nth degree. Read "amoralists" as "immoralists" for that’s truly who they are. They are not for moral neutrality as amoralists proclaim. They are for such evils as killing the unborn, euthanasia, and the homosexual lifestyle, among other abhorrent tangents. Therefore, for those into biblical morality, to tolerate a Kerry as President and Clinton as UN Secretary-General is enough to bring the End Times all the closer into in-your-face reality. Can anyone think of a more damning duo than those two hypocrites? If any two write their own ethics, their own morals, their own religion, it is Kerry and Clinton — supported of course by their spouses. This present-tense America is confronted with a spiritual war. Some call it a "culture war." Not. Culture has to do with finesse and refinement or lack of. Spiritual has to do with God and Satan, heaven and hell, righteousness and unrighteousness. UPI Roland Flamini reports that "former U.S. president Bill Clinton has set his sights on becoming U.N. secretary-general. A Clinton insider and senior U.N. source have told United Press International the 56-year-old former president would like to be named leader of the world body when Kofi Annan’s term ends early in 2006."

So there you have it.

MichNews.com gets my vote for worst website ever. Not only do they make it so you can't copy/paste from their stories, when you right-click on their page it says "copyright" in a javascript window. Well, geniuses, I KNOW how to get to page source without a fekking right-click menu. It's in the menu bar at the TOP OF THE SCREEN! Sorry if the story is a bit crooked as a result. I had to copy/paste from their source code and it had so many span and font-size tags in there I'm surprised it didn't kill Firefox.

Anyway, as to their comments, I can understand what these "moralists" as they call themselves, who are far superior to us, would have against Clinton. But what about Kerry? He fought for his country, he didn't run from duty. He's a devout Catholic. While he supports a woman's right to choose, he's also not endorsing abortions as a form of birth control, like any sane person. Oh, let's also forget that unlike Bush, he has not presided over the execution of 155 people, including several who were mentally retarded. Nor does there exist a list of people he had removed in a manner of your imagination's choosing. So what makes John Kerry so reprehensible? I guess the fact that he's just a normal beurocrat, one who fights for the little guy and who doesn't readily dote on the religious right, even if he doesn't hate them.

Oh, back to Clinton again, watch out. Not only does he like to get his rocks off in the White House, remember how much he sold our country out last time...

Bush Loves Corporations!

2004-10-22T20:53:00.000-07:00

In a shocking move, President Bush today signed yet another massive tax break for Corporations. I mean, we all know this President has proven to be fiscally responsible, but tax cuts like this seem a bit much. Perhaps he had too much coffee this morning. The even went without fanfare, unlike last week's renewal of the "middle class tax cut," I'm assuming because most people would find it a bit unfair that corporations are still getting tax cuts while our nation's financial situation is so poor. Here's the skinny from Yahoo!:

Without fanfare, President Bush signed into law on Friday a nearly $140 billion corporate tax cut bill derided by both Democratic presidential rival John Kerry (news - web sites) and Republican Sen. John McCain as a giveaway to special interests.

The new law aims to end a trade fight with the European Union by repealing U.S. export tax subsidies that violate global trade rules. But the EU has objected to some of the provisions and has yet to say whether it will remove its sanctions on $4 billion worth of U.S. goods.

Bush signed the measure into law aboard Air Force One en route to a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, forgoing a public signing ceremony that would have attracted attention to the tax cuts less than two weeks before Election Day.

The White House had marked the signing of Bush's other major tax bills with lavish public ceremonies. This one was marked with a one-paragraph statement by the press secretary.

Asked why there was no signing ceremony for the corporate tax bill, White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said: "There are a variety of ways the president signs legislation."

The $140 billion in new business tax breaks included many special interest provisions sharply criticized by public interest groups and fiscal conservatives, which congressional aides said explained Bush's decision to sign it in private.

McCain of Arizona, who has been campaigning for Bush, called the measure "the worst example of the influence of special interests that I have ever seen."

TAX HOLIDAY

Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer said: "George Bush filled the bill up with corporate giveaways and tax breaks for multinational companies that send jobs overseas."

He said the Massachusetts senator, if elected, would repeal of "all the unwarranted international tax breaks that George Bush included in this bill."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan defended the measure: "This is legislation that is good for America's workers because it will help create jobs here at home by promoting the competitiveness of our manufacturers and other job creators."

Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said the bill was supported by a majority of Democrats, but that Kerry "failed to show up" for the vote. "Once again John Kerry's rhetoric doesn't match his record," he said.

The legislation would repeal illegal export subsidies and lower tax rates for domestic manufacturers to 32 percent from the top corporate rate of 35 percent.

The bill includes a $10 billion industry-financed buyout for tobacco farmers.

The bill also includes tax breaks for U.S. multinational companies, some of which critics say will encourage companies to ship jobs overseas...

I've been wrong before, but I believe John Kerry might have chosen not to vote because he's running for President and not likely to vote on any measure he doesn't deem necessary. As well, his rhetoric doesn't match his record? Didn't he say he would fight to end any bill that would possibly encourage companies to send jobs overseas and end corporate giveaways as a whole? Analysts on the radio said this bill would at most lead to about 130,000 jobs a year. This for a country that requires 1.2 million jobs yearly just to keep up with the population growth. As well, it's interesting to note John McCain deriding the bill. I wish that a-hole would just own up and admit that he doesn't truly support George W. Bush for President. They have clashed on so many issues I've lost count. Yet he and Kerry have a history of working together in the Senate. Dissapointing, to say the least.

In other excellent financial news, the Dow Jones Industrials slid to a yearly low today, for a variety of reasons, including oil concerns:

he blue-chip Dow closed at its lowest point this year on Friday as oil prices climbed to another record and Microsoft Corp.'s revenue forecast lagged analysts' expectations.

Earlier in the session, U.S. light crude jumped to a new high of $55.50 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange as traders fretted over supplies of heating fuel as winter approaches in the northern hemisphere. Crude futures settled at $55.17, up 70 cents on the day.

"Today is really about oil -- it's over $55 a barrel and it's pretty much that that's hitting the market," said David Chalupnik, head of equities at U.S. Bancorp Asset Management.

The Dow Jones industrial average ended down 107.95 points, or 1.09 percent, at 9,757.81. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index closed down 10.75 points, or 0.97 percent, at 1,095.74. The technology-laced Nasdaq Composite Index finished down 38.48 points, or 1.97 percent, at 1,915.14.

For the week, the Dow ended down 1.77 percent. The Nasdaq rose 0.19 percent, while the S&P 500 index fell 1.12 percent. The Dow closed at its lowest point since Nov. 24, 2003 while the S&P was at its lowest level since Aug. 23, 2004.

Trading was active, with 1.47 billion shares changing hands on the New York Stock Exchange, just above the 1.4 billion daily average for last year. About 1.72 billion shares were traded on Nasdaq, above the 1.69 billion daily average last year. Decliners outnumbered advancers on the NYSE by about 5-to-3, and about 2-to-1 on Nasdaq.

Uncertainty ahead of the Nov. 2 Presidential election also weighed, said Chalupnik.

"We're a little more than a week away from the election, and the tight race still concerns the market. Once its over I think it would be a positive for the market," he added.

Microsoft fell nearly 3 percent, or 82 cents to $27.74, and was the biggest drag on the S&P 500 and Nasdaq and fourth biggest drag on the Dow.

After the bell on Thursday, the software maker reported earnings but provided a revenue outlook that had some wondering about the company's growth rate.

The news shook the market and overshadowed better-than-expected figures from Web search company Google Inc., whose shares shot up more than 15 percent to $172.43, a day after it posted strong results in its first reported quarter as a public company. Prudential Equity Group forecast a $200 share price for Google

As they said, today is all about oil. Of course, if Bush hadn't started this war and caused all thhe unease in the Middle East (yes, I know there was UNEASE before, but none like this) perhaps we wouldn't be in this kind of shape. Of course, his people are raking in record profits; and by his people I mean the oil industries of Texas, who paid his salary (and probably still do) and that wonderful Saudi Royalty.

On a side note, while I see Google slipping eventually, Marketplace on NPR today said people were suggesting one of the reasons they might slip is Microsoft's plans to unleash their own search site this fall. I'm sorry folks, but that idea is just laughable. Microsoft hasn't unleashed an internet site yet that has competed with anyone. Here's another take on Google's eventual bubble bust.

Who's Scaring Who?

2004-10-22T20:35:00.000-07:00

Playing upon his campaign of fear, President Bush today proclaimed John Kerry could not protect our country:

President Bush (news - web sites) said Friday that the choice facing voters amounts to who can keep Americans safer from terrorists and that John Kerry (news - web sites) does not measure up. Kerry's campaign accused the president of resorting to fear-mongering out of desperation as the rivals exchanged accusations across battleground states.

"All progress on every other issue depends on the safety of our citizens," Bush told supporters in a sports arena in Wilkes-Barre, delivering a retooled stump speech that portrays Kerry as naive on terror and eager to raise taxes.

Kerry retorted that Bush had him wrong on both counts. "We need a president who defends America and who fights for the middle class at the same time," Kerry said in Milwaukee. "I guarantee you I will leave no stone unturned to protect this country I love."

Bush suggested his Democratic rival "does not understand the enemy we face and has no idea how to keep America secure." His campaign reinforced that theme with a new television ad with chilling imagery of prowling wolves in a dense forest. "Weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm," an announcer says.

Speaking of the ad, view "Wolves" here. If you pay attention you'll notice the problem is that it's "claims" aren't quite true on face value. In fact, John Kerry and the Democrats cut intelligence funding...along with Republicans. The vote came shortly after the original Twin Tower attack. You know, the car-bomb. The move, at the time, was considered an excellent one as it removed intelligence which had been used little since the end of the Cold War. As well, it might be noted that Kerry and "his democrats" can do very little without control of the Senate. It'd be awful hard to pass anything with 51 Republicans working against you.

The Democrats are getting quick on the draw. Quick like a fox, here's their response ad. You'll notice one difference between the two ads. One depends on fear. The other simply plays up a key point: the Bush Campaign has failed to take their head out of the sand and own up to their mistakes. As well, the Kerry ad is "uplifting" in that it asks America to consider re-evaluating the direction we are headed in and think about a new one. Excellent response.

I don't like either ad all that much, but I think most people will agree the Kerry ad is way more persuasive. Well, unless you're someone who's still scared of wolves.

Iraq War Increased Terror Threat

2004-10-21T21:57:00.000-07:00

It seems ole Bushy might have been wrong in his opinion that attacking Iraq would somehow prevent further terror. Seems some experts in the field have a different idea. Check out this article from The Daily Star:

War in Iraq has increased the risk of terrorism against the West, at least for the short term, the International Institute for Strategic Studies said on Tuesday in its annual report on the world's militaries.

The IISS has added a section on Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network to "The Military Balance," its authoritative yearly defense handbook, which lists the size and capabilities of the world's armed forces.

"Overall, the risk of terrorism to Westerners and Western assets in Arab countries appeared to increase after the Iraq war began in March 2003," it concluded.

"With the military invasion and occupation of Iraq, the United States demonstrated its desire to change the political status quo in the Arab world to advance American strategic and political interests," it said.

"Accordingly, the Iraq invasion was always likely in the short term to enhance jihadist recruitment and intensify Al-Qaeda's motivation to encourage and assist terrorist operations."

It said about half of Al-Qaeda's 30 top leaders had been killed or captured since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but about 20,000 militants who trained in camps in Afghanistan remain at large with varying levels of capability and motivation.

The report also concluded that there are up to 1,000 foreign fighters in Iraq targeting U.S. troops, whose exposure makes them a tempting target.

"The substantially exposed U.S. military deployment in Iraq presents Al-Qaeda with perhaps its most attractive 'iconic' target outside U.S. territory," the report said.

While some U.S. officials have said the influx of foreign fighters into Iraq makes it easier to kill them because they are concentrated in a smaller area, the institute's report said "the 1,000 estimated to be in Iraq is a minute fraction of its Al-Qaeda's potential strength." The report said last year's invasion of Iraq was a success, but that the occupation afterward was flawed.

"In the post-conflict phase and in peace-support operations, the 'hearts and minds' of a population become the 'territory' that has to be captured and held," editor Christopher Langton wrote in the introduction.

"Governments need to realize that such operations are manpower-intensive, as the human component replaces the weapon system as the key enabler to success."

The report also concluded that the United States should learn from Iraq that it needs more manpower with extra skills adopted to "post-conflict" situations. Inadequately trained reservists or private military companies are no substitute for well-trained regular troops.

"Having started with a fast and successful warfighting campaign, Operation Iraqi Freedom provided some key lessons for the U.S. and its allies concerning post-conflict operations," the report said.

"Post-conflict and peace-support operations in all their phases are manpower-intensive and require extra skills in addition to those used in the warfighting phase - as well as a fast transition from a combat posture to one which demands that support to the civilian populations becomes paramount.

So, while they agree that the initial campaign was a decent affair, making no judgement as to whether it was wise or not, they readily admit that the aftermath has been horribly botched. Of course, Bush and his cronies have admitted no wrongdoings and insist things are going swimmingly.

Iraqi Soldiers Flee Duty

2004-10-21T21:51:00.000-07:00

USA Today reports that about 300 Iraqi troops abandoned their unit last monthin Iraq:

About 300 Iraqi soldiers abandoned their 750-man unit after being deployed to Samarra last month for a joint U.S.-Iraqi operation to retake the militant-controlled city, according to a British coalition official.

British Army Brig. Nigel Aylwin-Foster, deputy commander of the coalition office for training and organizing Iraq's armed forces, said the deserters were spooked by an attack on Sept. 19 about a week after they had been deployed. A car bombing killed a battalion officer and injured eight soldiers. About 100 deserted afterwards. By Sept. 24, even before the offensive kicked off in Samarra, 300 had left.

"It sounds bad, but what we were left with was the toughest soldiers," Aylwin-Foster said. "Those who left the fight will get punished."

The desertions are prompting coalition officers to improve training for Iraqi recruits, officials said.

Iraqi forces are needed to help retake and hold insurgent strongholds, including Fallujah, where as many as 1,000 militants are believed to be entrenched. Releasing the militants' grip on these areas will be important to elections, scheduled for January, and handing security over to Iraqi forces.

The Oct. 1-2 offensive that retook Samarra was the first major test of newly trained and equipped Iraqi security forces since April, when several battalions of troops refused to fight in Fallujah and Baghdad's Sadr City after revolts.

Since then, the U.S.-led military coalition has upgraded training and provided more equipment and weapons to their Iraqi counterparts.

Now, in the idea of fairness, we have to end the story properly. It didn't turn out quite so bad.

Coalition officials, including Aylwin-Foster, point out that the remaining 450 soldiers in the Iraqi Army's 7th Battalion performed bravely during the two-day battle in Samarra. The operation, which involved 2,000 Iraqi forces and 3,000 U.S. soldiers, succeeded in taking back the city about 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Iraqi national security adviser Kassim Daoud said Tuesday he was not aware of the incident involving the 7th Battalion.

Iraq's security forces have been targeted by insurgents in an effort to affect troop strength and morale. On Tuesday, a mortar attack killed four Iraqi guardsmen and injured 80 north of Baghdad.

U.S. military officers say the operation in Samarra was still a success. U.S. and Iraqi troops killed more than 100 insurgents and drove several hundred more from the city.

"They performed very well," said Maj. Neal O'Brien, a spokesman for the U.S. Army's 1st Infantry Division based in Tikrit.

Aylwin-Foster said it is difficult to know how a unit will perform in combat until the first bullets fly. The 7th Battalion soldiers who stayed behind to fight are sound soldiers.

But this also goes to prove that just expecting these guys to get out and protect themselves isn't enough. Not everyone is meant to be a police officer and we're expecting about half of Iraq to do so. Let's hope things are going better.

Great Bush Comic

2004-10-21T21:40:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Notes From A Different Kitchen for this great cartoon lampooning Bush's latest owning of himself the other day. Most of you have probably read that he campaigned Kerry of trying to "scare" people into voting for him only hours before Dick Cheney held a rally where he indicated that John Kerry could easily allow a homemade nuclear bomb to be detonated in a major American city(or something very similar, I don't have the quotes offhand).

Bush, Kerry Continue Dead Heat

2004-10-21T21:33:00.000-07:00

Same old, same old the past few days. If I had enough time to make plenty of posts, as well as sufficient news, I'd post more. Frankly, there's not much to say. The race is close, we'll see what happens in less than 2 weeks. As a side note, please remember the Sinclair Anti-Kerry piece will run tomorrow night at 9pm. Please avoid watching all Sinclair stations at this time. Back to the "news", the AP has the race in a dead heat, but does list Kerry with a 3 point lead going into the weekend:

There has been little or no change since the first debate, when an uneven performance cost Bush the lead over Kerry. The AP-Ipsos Public Affairs poll illuminates how both sides hope to break the logjam — Kerry by appealing to voters' desire for a new direction and Bush by fanning their fears about the risks of change.

The target: about 17 percent of likely voters who say they're undecided or are tentatively backing a candidate while remaining open to changing their minds.

Kerry's total includes Warren Hutchinson, 55, of Dracut, Mass., who told AP-Ipsos he may switch to Bush. "There's an uneasy feeling that Kerry may not be tough enough on terrorism," he said.

Bush's total includes Mark Silva, 56, of Redding, Calif., who called Kerry "two-faced" and too liberal. "I guess we're stuck with Bush," he said.

A number of other surveys show the race tied or give Bush a slight lead nationwide. The presidency will go to whoever gets a majority of the 538 Electoral College votes, a state-by-state chase that is just as close as national surveys.

As many as 10 states are tossups and a dozen more in contention, including two traditionally Democratic states in which Kerry is clinging to single-digit leads — New Jersey and Hawaii.

John Kerry, too liberal? I'm sorry, I just don't see that. As for Kerry being "not..tough enough on terrorism," he was in law-enforcement (as an attourney) and he willingly fought in the Vietnam War twice. Just because he saw the injustice that occured and spoke out doesn't mean he's against war when war is merited. People are just scared silly, I suppose.

Small Electoral Vote Update

2004-10-19T19:43:00.000-07:00

Just a quick note. The Electoral College predictor website was updated today. Let's just say things look even better:

Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 284 Bush 247

It's not over, but the ending is looking good, so far.

More Repubs For Kerry

2004-10-19T19:33:00.000-07:00

Seems more and more Republicans are speaking out against President Bush. Two more came out today in two excellent articles. Apologies, you'll have to read this whole post to get the stories, as their respective web-sites require registration both free and not-so-free.

First up, Elmer Andersen, former Republican Governor of Minnesota wrote this op-ed for the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Why this Republican Ex-Governor will be Voting for Kerry
Elmer L. Andersen
Minneapolis Star Tribune

Throughout my tenure and beyond as the 30th governor of this state, I have been steadfastly aligned -- and until recently, proudly so -- with the Minnesota Republican Party.

It dismays me, therefore, to have to publicly disagree with the national Republican agenda and the national Republican candidate but, this year, I must.

The two "Say No to Bush" signs in my yard say it all.

The present Republican president has led us into an unjustified war -- based on misguided and blatantly false misrepresentations of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. The terror seat was Afghanistan. Iraq had no connection to these acts of terror and was not a serious threat to the United States, as this president claimed, and there was no relation, it's now obvious, to any serious weaponry. Although Saddam Hussein is a frightful tyrant, he posed no threat to the United States when we entered the war. George W. Bush's arrogant actions to jump into Iraq when he had no plan how to get out have alienated the United States from our most trusted allies and weakened us immeasurably around the world.

Also, if there as well had been proper and careful coordination of services and intelligence on Sept. 11, 2001, that horrific disaster might also have been averted. But it was a separate event from this brutal mess of a war, and the disingenuous linking of the wholly unrelated situation in Iraq to 9/11 by this administration is not supported by the facts.

Sen. John Kerry was correct when he said that seemingly it is only Bush and Dick Cheney who still believe their own spin. Both men spew outright untruths with evangelistic fervor. For Bush -- a man who chose to have his father help him duck service in the military during the Vietnam War -- to disparage and cast doubt on the medals Kerry won bravely and legitimately in the conflict of battle is a travesty.

For Cheney to tell the hand-picked, like-minded Republican crowds in Des Moines last month that to vote for John Kerry could mean another attack like that of 9/11 is reprehensible. Moreover, such false statements encourage more terrorist attacks rather than prevent them.

A far smaller transgression, but one typical of his stop-at-nothing tactics, was Cheney's assertion in last Wednesday's vice-presidential debate that he'd never met Sen. John Edwards until that night. The next day -- and the media must stay ever-vigilant at fact-checking the lies of this ticket -- news reports, to the contrary, showed four video clips of Edwards and Cheney sitting next to each other during the past five years.

In both presidential debates, Kerry has shown himself to be of far superior intellect and character than Bush. He speaks honestly to the American people, his ethics are unimpeachable and, clearly, with 20 respected years in the Senate, he has far better credentials to lead the country than did Bush when he was elected four years ago. And a far greater depth of understanding of domestic and foreign affairs to do it now.

Not that the sitting president has ever really been at the helm.

I am more fearful for the state of this nation than I have ever been -- because this country is in the hands of an evil man: Dick Cheney. It is eminently clear that it is he who is running the country, not George W. Bush.

Bush's phony posturing as cocksure leader of the free world -- symbolized by his victory symbol on the aircraft carrier and "mission accomplished" statement -- leave me speechless. The mission had barely been started, let alone finished, and 18 months later it still rages on. His ongoing "no-regrets," no-mistakes stance and untruths on the war -- as well as on the floundering economy and Bush administration joblessness -- also disappoint and worry me.

Liberal Republicans of my era and mind-set used to have a humane and reasonable platform. We advocated the importance of higher education, health care for all, programs for children at risk, energy conservation and environmental protection. Today, Bush and Cheney give us clever public relations names for programs -- need I say "No Child Left Behind? -- but a lack of funding to support them. Early childhood education programs and overall health care are woefully underfunded. We have not only the largest number ever of medically uninsured in this nation, our infant mortality rates, once among the lowest in the world, have worsened to 27th.

As taxes for the wealthy are being cut, jobs are being outsourced if not lost and children are homeless and uninsured, this administration is running up the biggest deficit in U.S. history -- bound to be a terrible burden for future generations.

This imperialistic, stubborn adherence to wrongful policies and known untruths by the Cheney-Bush administration -- and that's the accurate order -- has simply become more than I can stand.

Although I am a longtime Republican, it is time to make a statement, and it is this: Vote for Kerry-Edwards, I implore you, on Nov. 2.

Not a lot of nice words for the President in here. It should be noted that the Star Tribune already endorsed Kerry themselves. They're just rubbing it in.

Also, New York Post(conservative rag) editorial writer Robert A. George laid out his problems with Bush in a well-written piece in The New Republic. Brace yourselves, it's a long one:

"Conscience of a Conservative":
Robert A. George
The New Republic

Sixteen years ago, just out of college, I volunteered at the Republican National Convention as a man named George Bush prepared to begin a fall campaign that would see him defeat a Democrat from Massachusetts. The sparkling words of an acceptance speech crafted by Peggy Noonan—and delivered almost flawlessly--helped him inspire his party and a country that saw him as an extension of Ronald Reagan. It fell to that George Bush to "close out" the cold war and launch a different one in the Persian Gulf.

Now, sixteen years later, after tenures working for the party and a couple of Republican members on Capitol Hill (including a speaker named Newt Gingrich) and becoming an earnest fellow traveler of the conservative movement, I find it impossible to support the current George Bush--whom his party sees as the ideological extension of Ronald Reagan--as he faces his own showdown with a Democrat from Massachusetts and oversees a war centered n the Middle East.

At the Republican National Convention, George W. Bush mocked John Kerry's claim of having "conservative values." But what are conservative values? Two of the core principles at the heart of modern conservatism are a belief in the virtue of smaller government and a conviction that government must be accountable to the public. Those principles were enunciated ten years ago in the Contract with America, which helped Republicans take full control of Congress for the first time in four decades. That document sought "the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money." In this context, Bush's first term has represented a betrayal of conservative values.

It's not simply a matter of outrageous spending or enlarged government programs--both offenses of which this administration is guilty, as manifested in a 25 percent domestic discretionary spending hike, a half-trillion-dollar Medicare expansion, and the ripping away of free-market agricultural reforms enacted over the past decade. The president continues to pursue tax cuts, as any conservative president would. But a government that cuts taxes and continues to spend ultimately becomes as amoral as one that raises taxes and spends.

Yet the Bush administration's free-spending fiscal record only hints at its larger rejection of conservative principles. The more fundamental betrayal arises from the administration's central focus: an ill-defined "war on terror" that has no determinable endpoint and that is used to justify an unprecedented expansion of executive power. To make matters worse, this administration shows little inclination to demand accountability from those who serve within it. In turn, the Republican Congress--ignoring its 1994 vow to "restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives"--appears disinclined to check the powers of the executive. Together, these factors endanger the long-term health of the republic.

It is a good thing Bush has an idealistic streak that informs his vision of the world. That idealism leads him to a belief that "freedom is not America's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world." But, without demanding accountability from his administration, that messianic zeal is being corrupted, and his policies are lurching out of control. Without a defined, limited overall vision of the war on terrorism and a corresponding commitment to government accountability, Bush can hardly claim to be the champion of "conservative values."

Speaking about the war on terrorism as the GOP convention kicked off, Bush told Matt Lauer on the "Today" show, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." The White House immediately backpedaled from Bush's apparent gaffe, saying this was just a variation of what the president has always said--that the war on terrorism is a "different kind of war." But, as a former editor of this magazine, Michael Kinsley, once stated, "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth." And that's just what Bush was doing.

The past four decades have seen "wars" on social conditions ("poverty"), inanimate objects ("drugs"), and physical states ("teenage pregnancy"). (Each has met with limited, if any, success.) What is different now is that, this time, a president has asserted that we are in an actual war that must be fought with the full wartime powers of the presidency. With vague congressional approval, this assertion grants the president--and, more importantly, the presidency--powers deeply disturbing from a civil liberties perspective. Indeed, this expansion of presidential prerogative is anathema to the conservative belief in limited government.

The dangers of this new, unlimited power were plain to see at a tough congressional hearing in June. Attorney General John Ashcroft squared off against the Senate Judiciary Committee as it looked into whether Ashcroft's office provided legal cover to the Department of Defense on issues involving torture. The Wall Street Journal and other papers ran stories based on a heavily redacted 100-page memo, dated March 6, 2003. Written by a Defense Department working group, the memo seemed to outline ways to justify the use of aggressive interrogation techniques on detainees at Guantanamo without running afoul of international treaties forbidding torture. The Journal reported:

"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority," the report asserted. ...

To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

In essence, the authors of the Defense Department memo were arguing that, in wartime, getting around inconvenient laws is "inherent in the president." The memo's existence raised the possibility that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were, in fact, an extension of official policy.

At the hearing, Ashcroft denied that President Bush approved of torture. But, in refusing Democratic senators' demands to turn either the full memo or similar ones written by the Justice Department over to the Judiciary Committee, he said, "We are at war. And for us to begin to discuss all the legal ramifications of the war is not in our best interest and it has never been in times of war." Ashcroft was essentially asserting that Congress--whose oversight powers give it authority to demand accountability from the executive--should not be allowed to inquire about the quality of legal advice being given to the president. This, even though the apparent result of that advice "trickled down" to the abuse of prisoners in Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

If the answer to every legitimate congressional inquiry concerning presidential powers is that "we are at war" and that legislative questions concerning executive behavior are inappropriate, it becomes impossible for Congress to fulfill its constitutional mandate as a co-equal branch of government. At what point do the American people ask the obvious: What sort of war is this and exactly how long should a president have virtually indeterminate powers to wage it?

Yes, it is true that past presidents have taken on extraordinary wartime powers: In the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; in World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt approved the internment of Japanese citizens. But, in both cases, there existed a defined foe. With each, there was a sense of what victory meant and over whom that victory would be won. The Union would defeat the Confederacy; America and her allies would defeat the Axis powers. Even in the cold war, the ideology of communism had a clear home in the Soviet Union. Those conflicts would end with the defined enemy surrendering, being defeated, or the motivating ideology collapsing. However long it took, the American people knew there would be some sort of definite conclusion.

But, in President Bush's vision, the terrorist enemy remains amorphous. After September 11, Osama bin Laden was wanted "dead or alive." Then, as the Iraq war developed, Saddam Hussein became the ace of spades in the terrorist card deck. Now, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi is the new face of evil. The war, we are told, will not end with any one of these men's capture or death. It will continue until ... until ... until when, exactly? Thus, the comparisons many make to previous U.S. conflicts are hardly applicable. Neither are the comparisons to decisions of previous commanders-in-chief who put aside civil liberties. For the 40 years of the cold war, the United States held off a Soviet enemy that had the power to destroy the country several times over--yet civil liberties were never curtailed to the extent they are now. In the current struggle, which some call World War IV, Americans are being asked to sacrifice liberties in the face of an enemy that has less ability to damage us than the Soviets did. This is not to minimize the threat of Islamist fundamentalism, but it is essential to put the capabilities of the enemy in perspective.

The Supreme Court gave some shape to these questions in a series of rulings on the rights of Guantanamo detainees and American "enemy combatants" Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla. What is broadly at stake could be seen in the vociferous end-of-the-spectrum minority statements by regular antagonists Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia. Scalia found the detention of Hamdi, captured in Afghanistan, unconstitutional, but disagreed with how the Court chose to resolve it--i.e., by saying that the September 13, 2001, congressional war resolution gave Bush the power to declare individuals enemy combatants. Scalia asserts that the Constitution provides only two options--either Congress could vote to suspend habeas corpus or Hamdi could be charged with a crime, such as treason. Otherwise, Hamdi couldn't be held indefinitely. "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive," concludes Scalia.

On Padilla, the court declined to hear the case on a technicality--Padilla's lawyer sued Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in federal court, rather than the warden of the Louisiana jail in which Padilla was held. Stevens (who, in a man-bites-dog moment, also signed onto Scalia's dissent in the Hamdi case) railed against the Court decision not to hear the case:

At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society.... Access to counsel for the purpose of protecting the citizen from official mistakes and mistreatment is the hallmark of due process.

Executive detention of subversive citizens ... may sometimes be justified to prevent persons from launching or becoming missiles of destruction. It may not, however, be justified by the naked interest in using unlawful procedures to extract information. Incommunicado detention for months on end is such a procedure.... For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny.

It is cold comfort that the furthest left and the furthest right justices on the Court are the ones arguing most vigorously about the dangers of an unchecked executive. But neither they nor any of their colleagues appear interested in pondering the hard questions of an American president with extra-constitutional "wartime" powers that could continue ad infinitum. Would these powers be automatically transferred to a hypothetical President John Kerry? President Hillary Rodham Clinton? President Jeb Bush? Should the American people simply take on faith the latest commander-in-chief's definition of who is or is not a terrorist? Would the American people have accepted such a refined status quo for the 40 years the cold war lasted? Or, in the formulation of adviser Karl Rove, the 30 years of Great Britain's conflict with the Irish Republican Army? (Even in that conflict, bargaining partners eventually emerged to craft an unsteady peace agreement, whereas Rove has dismissed the idea of ever signing a peace treaty with Al Qaeda.) How can the American people expect to stay on a war footing when the commander-in-chief has given them no concept of what "victory" would eventually look like? And how can they be expected indefinitely to tolerate an expansion of executive power that threatens the liberties upon which the nation was founded?

Permanent war would be dangerous enough if the public could be confident in its execution. But we cannot. That's because President Bush has failed to live up to the second key tenet of conservative government: accountability.

Take, for example, the Pentagon's disastrous planning for postwar Iraq. The lack of troops for the post-invasion period enabled the insurgency to bloom and put American soldiers at risk. Worse, while memos from Ashcroft's Justice Department seemingly provided legal cover for the abuse at Abu Ghraib, the material causes could be found, again, in the underdeployment of troops: "What went wrong at Abu Ghraib prison?" asked The New York Post's Ralph Peters, one of the more earnest supporters of invading Iraq. Pointing to the two independent reports examining the scandal, he concludes: "Woefully deficient planning for post-war Iraq, too few troops and inadequate leadership at the top." Peters is among the conservatives who believe the Abu Ghraib fiasco should have been the final straw for Rumsfeld.

But it didn't happen. And it won't happen, because accountability is a foreign word in this administration. To demonstrate how little he has learned, Rumsfeld observed, "Does [the abuse] rank up there with chopping off someone's head on television? It doesn't. It doesn't. Was it done as a matter of policy? No." Forget that the abuse was far more pervasive than just the handful of servicemen that first popped up in photographs; when the secretary of defense basically says, "Hey, what the terrorists do is much worse," the moral foundation upon which America stands begins to crumble. The president's stated goal was to try to bring democracy to the Middle East--not to allow us to become tainted by the barbarism so prevalent in the region we are attempting to liberate. So Rumsfeld stays on--even as the situation rapidly deteriorates.

Then again, this shouldn't come as a surprise: George Tenet remained in his position following the worst intelligence failure in U.S. history, enabling him to tell the president later that evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a "slam dunk." The first failure helped lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans; the second failure led us into a conflict from which there exists no clear exit strategy and that has rendered the word of the United States suspect. Yet Tenet stayed on, too.

And no wonder. As Bob Woodward writes in Plan of Attack, "[S]everal things were clear from the president's demeanor, his style and all that [Colin] Powell had learned about Bush. The president was not going to toss anyone over the side.... The president also made it clear that no one was to jump ship.... They were a team. The larger message was clear: Circle the wagons." The larger message is that loyalty is prized above all, regardless of the results and regardless of the effect on U.S. standing in the world.

The same pattern is evident in the other WMD scandal, a.k.a. the Wretched Medicare Debacle. As is well-known now, the prescription-drug-enhanced Medicare "reform" will cost a full quarter more--at least--than the originally announced $395 billion over ten years. Within weeks of the president's signing the bill into law, the measure ballooned to $534 billion. The re-estimation contributes to a record annual deficit for 2004. The Post reported that the larger numbers were known for "months" and that "the president's top health advisers gathered such evidence and shared it with select lawmakers"--while rank-and-file members of Congress were kept in the dark.

The deception on the numbers was combined with raw, hard politics that danced right up to the ethical and legal lines that supposedly govern the House. The legislation--the largest entitlement expansion in nearly 40 years--just squeaked by. Republican leaders in the House of Representatives kept the vote open for an unprecedented three hours in order to twist the arms of reluctant conservatives. Retiring Michigan Representative Nick Smith alleged that Republicans threatened the political future of his son if he didn't support the bill. Smith held his ground, despite the de facto extortion--actions that sparked an internal House inquiry that has resulted in House Majority Leader Tom DeLay having his hand slapped by the Ethics Committee for improperly trying to influence Smith's vote.

Ultimately, on both foreign and domestic policy, the public's trust has been betrayed. Why should the public trust its leaders with future policy if those leaders deceive and manipulate the people's elected representatives to get a favored policy passed? If the American public and the world at large now react skeptically to future presidential claims that the United States faces a foreign threat, who can blame them?

Similarly, the president's intent to reform Social Security will now be judged by the still-emerging costs of the Medicare reform--to say nothing of the political backlash from some seniors incensed at having to pay 17 percent more in premiums. The mishandling of domestic spending, of which Medicare is the prime example--whether because of ignorance, incompetence, or deceit--casts the same pall over Bush's domestic agenda that the collapse of Iraq does over his foreign policy. The president who dismisses criticism of the cost of Medicare is the same one who "miscalculated" the costs for rebuilding Iraq by at least $100 billion--and submitted a subsequent budget that omitted even an estimate of spending for the current military campaigns. Medicare actuary Richard Foster was threatened with firing if he told the truth about the costs of the reform bill, while his boss who pushed forward the lower numbers, Thomas Scully, departed quietly to a cushy health care-related policy job at a Washington, D.C., law firm. That was, of course, the same pattern we witnessed with the management of the Iraq war. Individuals who got the prewar details right--either in terms of troop strength (General Eric Shinseki) or in estimated fiscal costs (former National Economic Council Director Lawrence Lindsey)--were publicly rebuked or dismissed. Those who got the prewar details wrong remain in positions of authority. Conservatives--who fear unchecked, unaccountable government--should be especially appalled.

It would be wonderful to believe the president's promise that the war in Iraq will lead to democracy in a troubled region. An immigrant--I was born in the West Indies--tends to absorb the earnest, spiritual myths of his adopted nation even more than those native-born. Democracy is indeed a human value. But initiating a war to "liberate" an entire region far from our shores can hardly be called a conservative cause. It will be impossible to restrain a government kept on a permanent war footing. And, in liberty's name abroad, liberty at home will inevitably be compromised. It already has been.

No, a Kerry administration would not be any conservative's ideal. But, on limited government, a Democratic president would, arguably, force a Republican Congress to act like a Republican Congress. The last such combination produced some form of fiscal sanity. And, when it comes to accountability, one could hardly do worse. Of course, a conservative can still cast a libertarian vote on principle.

At crucial points before and after the Iraq war, Bush's middle managers have failed him, and the "brand" called America has suffered in the world market. In any other corporate structure plagued by this level of incompetence, the CEO would have a choice: Fire his middle managers or be held personally accountable by his shareholders. Because of his own misguided sense of "loyalty," Bush won't dismiss anyone. That leaves the country's shareholders little choice.

Excellent job pointing out how Clinton, along with a Republican Congress, managed to actually balance the nations budget. I don't even remember what that was like.

Sinclair Flips, Flops

2004-10-19T18:58:00.000-07:00

Sinclair Broadcasting Group is bending to pressure from advertisers and the public and has now changed their story entirely. Previously stating that they would be airing "Stolen Honor" on all of their stations, they have now decided to perhaps knock it down a few notches:

Sinclair Broadcast Group announced today that on Friday, October 22, 2004 at 8:00 p.m. (7:00 p.m. central time) certain television stations owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. will air a special one-hour news program, entitled "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media." In order to minimize the interruption of normally scheduled programming in those markets where Sinclair owns and/or programs more than one television station, the news special will be broadcast on only one of those stations. A complete list of stations which will be airing the program and the times of such broadcasts is attached.

The news special will focus in part on the use of documentaries and other media to influence voting, which emerged during the 2004 political campaigns, as well as on the content of certain of these documentaries. The program will also examine the role of the media in filtering the information contained in these documentaries, allegations of media bias by media organizations that ignore or filter legitimate news and the attempts by candidates and other organizations to influence media coverage.

Contrary to numerous inaccurate political and press accounts, the Sinclair stations will not be airing the documentary "Stolen Honor" in its entirety. At no time did Sinclair ever publicly announce that it intended to do so. In fact, since the controversy began, Sinclair's website has prominently displayed the following statement: "The program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized. Characterizations regarding the content are premature and are based on ill- informed sources."

While the news special will discuss the allegations surrounding Senator John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities in the early 1970s raised by a number of former POWs in "Stolen Honor," it will do so in the context of the broader discussion outlined above. The program will be hosted by Jeff Barnd, the Emmy award-winning co-anchor of Fox 45's 10:00 News which airs on WBFF-TV, Sinclair's flagship station in Baltimore, Maryland.

Joe DeFeo, Sinclair's Vice President of News, commented that, "As with all news programming produced by Sinclair's News Central, `A POW Story' is being produced with the highest journalistic standards and integrity. We have not ceded, and will not in the future cede, control of our news reporting to any outside organization or political group. We are endeavoring, as we do with all of our news coverage, to present both sides of the issues covered in an equal and impartial manner."

In fact, Sinclair has been in private communication with Senator Kerry's campaign, including a recent face-to-face meeting with senior campaign officials, for approximately two weeks in order to negotiate participation in the special by either Senator Kerry or his designee. Although the Kerry campaign declined to participate, Sinclair has left the invitation open and will make every effort to accommodate the Senator up to the air date for the program should he become willing to present his viewpoint for Sinclair's audience.

David Smith, CEO of Sinclair, noted that, "The experience of preparing to air this news special has been trying for many of those involved. The company and many of its executives have endured personal attacks of the vilest nature, as well as calls on our advertisers and our viewers to boycott our stations and on our shareholders to sell their stock. In addition, and more shockingly, we have received threats of retribution from a member of Senator John Kerry's campaign and have seen attempts by leading members of Congress to influence the Federal Communications Commission to stop Sinclair from broadcasting this news special. Moreover, these coordinated attacks have occurred without regard to the facts since they predated the broadcast of our news special."

Mr. Smith further stated, "We cannot in a free America yield to the misguided attempts by a small but vocal minority to influence behavior and trample on the First Amendment rights of those with whom they might not agree. I have been encouraged, however, by the thousands of e-mails and other messages I, and others, received supporting Sinclair's efforts to hold firm to its ideals in the face of a firestorm of controversy which, ironically, was actually based on misinformation. We also took comfort in the positions of other media organizations which supported our right to present this story notwithstanding any disagreement they may have with the content, as well as in the words of Michael Powell, Chairman of the FCC, who refused to block the program, noting that to do so would be 'unconstitutional' and 'an absolute disservice to the First Amendment.'"

Perhaps Mr. Smith should understand that TV stations that operate on publicly owned airwaves don't have complete and total first amendment rights. Whatever they do must be for the public good and airing a politically damning and highly criticized documentary mere days before an election is not. Nor is it even news.

I also appreciate how they've changed their story completely:

"Contrary to numerous inaccurate political and press accounts, the Sinclair stations will not be airing the documentary "Stolen Honor" in its entirety. At no time did Sinclair ever publicly announce that it intended to do so. In fact, since the controversy began, Sinclair's website has prominently displayed the following statement: "The program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized. Characterizations regarding the content are premature and are based on ill- informed sources."

Of course, they'd provided info to all the online TV listing sites that they would be airing Stolen Honor. As well, whenever people confronted them about the airing of the special, they never bothered to clarify that it would be different or debunk speculation that they would be showing the special in it's entirety. Well, until now, since their stock has dropped another 4% today and about 80 advertisers have threatened to drop the stations. Funny how that works.

Bush Easy On Iraq

2004-10-19T18:54:00.000-07:00

For someone who has so far praised Iraq's movement toward a "free and democratic" society, President Bush sure does change his mind easily. Seems now he's willing to let Iraq exist as an Islamic state, if this was the result of the much heralded "free elections. Thanks to the BBC for the piece:

Mr Bush told the Associated Press in an interview that he would accept such a result if elections were open and fair.

"I will be disappointed. But democracy is democracy," he said during an interview given on Air Force One.

"If that's what the people choose, that's what the people choose," he said. Free elections are expected in the country next January.

Speaking as he travelled between campaign stops, Mr Bush said the US would leave Iraq "once we've helped them to get on the path of stability and democracy".

He added: "It's very difficult for me to predict what forces will exist although I will tell you that Iraq's leadership has made it quite clear that they can manage their own affairs at the appropriate time."

Correspondents say Mr Bush's comments appear to clash with earlier remarks from his administration which rejected calls soon after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime for the creation of an Islamic state similar to that of its neighbour, Iran.

As they note, this does clash with their previous statements on how they expected Iraq to turn out. Furthermore, I highly doubt it would be very helpful in the fight on terror to have another country similar to Iran.

Voting Gaffes Start Early

2004-10-18T21:16:00.000-07:00

Early voting started in some states today(last week here in TN) and problems are already creeping up. Some of them major:

Yeah, that's right. If you look just above Ralph Nader's name, which was supposed to have been the one removed, you'll see John Kerry's name painfully absent. So, Ohioans, you've got two choices. Bush/Cheney or Nader/Camejo. Never mind that Nader has been banned from the ballot. What we meant to say was that John Kerry was being banned from the ballot, instead.

I should point out that this error apparently didn't exist on all absentee ballots. Just a select few(or so they claim) in the Forest Park area. The Cincy Post has the skinny.

As well, problems occured in Florida on their first day to vote:

The problems in Florida included a brief computer system crash in one county and voter complaints of incomplete paper ballots. But there were no early reports of problems with the ATM-like touch-screen voting machines introduced since the troubled 2000 election.

Florida's early voting was touted partly as a way to avoid long lines on Nov. 2, but it turned out to be so popular that Lucien Gennaro, a police aide in Coral Springs, waited for an hour and finally had to leave for work.

"A lot of people who were waiting just left. I'll try again tomorrow," he said. "It was a little frustrating after what happened in 2000."

... State Rep. Shelley Vana said the absentee ballot she requested at a Palm Beach County site was missing one of its two pages, including proposed state constitutional amendments. She said election workers were indifferent when she pointed out the oversight.

"This is not a good start. If there are incomplete ballots out there, I can't imagine I would be the only one getting it," she said.

Palm Beach County elections supervisor Theresa LePore did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

In Orange County, the computer system that lists eligible voters went down for about 10 minutes shortly after voting began, said Margaret Dunn, the senior deputy elections supervisor. She speculated a faulty Internet connection may have been to blame.

Several of Broward County's 14 polling places had trouble linking their computers to a supervisor's office to confirm voter eligibility, said Jenny Nash, a spokeswoman at the Secretary of State Glenda Hood's office. Workers used paper lists and called the supervisor's office to verify eligibility, Nash said.

In Hillsborough County, computer networking problems caused delays of up to two hours. Elections Supervisor Buddy Johnson said a malfunctioning router kept computers from automatically verifying voter registration and clerks had to call a central office to determine each voter's eligibility. The problems were eventually fixed, his office said.

Sounds like a winner. Computer networking problems, missing ballot sections, Florida really got their stuff together since 2000.

Kerry Endorsements

2004-10-18T21:00:00.000-07:00

Not sure if this is all inclusive, but the Official John Kerry Blog has provided this list of newspapers that have endorsed John Kerry thus far. If I am correct that's 47 publications. Excellent news.

Related to this, helping keep the momentum going in Michigan is former MI governor, and moderate Republican, William G. Milliken. In an op-ed piece Milliken lies out the facts for why he'll be voting Democrat:

[ed: just a snippet, from the end]
My Republican Party is a party that values the pursuit of knowledge. But this president stands in the way of meaningful embryonic stem-cell research that holds so much promise for those who suffer from diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries and other conditions.
My Republican Party is the party of Gerald R. Ford, Michigan's only president, who reached across partisan lines to become a unifying force during a time of great turmoil in our nation's history. This president has pursued policies pandering to the extreme right wing across a wide variety of issues and has exacerbated the polarization and the strident, uncivil tone of much of what passes for political discourse in this country today.
Women's rights, civil liberties, the separation of church and state, the funding of family planning efforts world-wide - all have suffered grievously under this president and his administration.
The truth is that President George W. Bush does not speak for me or for many other moderate Republicans on a very broad cross section of issues.
Sen. John Kerry, on the other hand, has put forth a coherent, responsible platform of progressive initiatives that I believe would serve this country well. He wants to balance the budget, step up environmental protection efforts, rebuild our international relationships, support stem-cell research, protect choice and pursue a number of other progressive initiatives that moderates from both parties can support.
As a result, despite my long record of active involvement in the Republican Party, and my intention still to stay in the Republican Party, when I cast my ballot November 2, I will be voting for John Kerry for President.

Excellent news in a state that was leaning Kerry and should be doubly so after a 14 year Governor files his endorsement.

President Bush did get one important endorsement. Vladimir Putin, former "dicator" of Russia says Iraqi Terrorists are trying to get Bush kicked out of office.

Putin, speaking Central Asian Cooperation Organization summit in Tajikistan Monday, made his most overt comments of support so far for the re-election of Bush for a second term.

"Any unbiased observer understands that attacks of international terrorist organizations in Iraq, especially nowadays, are targeted not only and not so much against the international coalition as against President Bush," Putin said.

"International terrorists have set as their goal inflicting the maximum damage to Bush, to prevent his election to a second term.

"If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror coalition," Putin said.

"In that case, this would give an additional impulse to international terrorists and to their activities, and could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world."

Putin noted that American voters will not decide the election just on Iraq.

"Because of this we must take a realistic approach and be prepared for any development of events," he said. "We respect any choice the American people will make."

President Putin made it clear Russia remained opposed to the war in Iraq.

"Today, our views on that differ from the views of President Bush," he said.

So, what he's saying is that while he doesn't agree with the war in Iraq, he thinks if Bush is ousted, worlwide terrorism will somehow get worse than it already is. As good a reason to vote for somebody as I've ever heard.

Sinclair Under Pressure

2004-10-18T20:42:00.000-07:00

WickedTribe pointed me to this excellent article which took points from all the other articles I'd read about Sinclair and their fight to air "Stolen Honor":

According to the New York Times, Sinclair Broadcast is itself running a significant financial and political risk by telling its stations to preempt regular programming to carry the film. Their decision has already alienated advertisers on some of Sinclair's 62 stations.

Last Thursday, three local Maine companies pulled their advertising from a Portland TV station WGME after hearing of Sinclair's forced programming. The Portland Press Herald reported that Hannaford supermarkets, the Lee Auto Malls, and the law offices of Joe Bornstein withdrew their advertising indefinitely from WGME over its plans to air 'Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal' on Oct. 23.

Other stations in Madison, Wis., Springfield, Ill. and Minneapolis have had local advertisers-- including car dealers, furniture makers, supermarkets and restaurants -- remove their commercials from Sinclair owned stations.

Besides alienating advertisers, Sinclair has enraged consumer and media watchdog groups, some of who are vowing to challenge the Sinclair-owned station's FCC licenses when they come up for renewal. And some analysts and investors are also considering the effects of Sinclair's latest activity on the company's financial outlook.

According to CNN Money, Sinclair stands to lose more than $430,000 in ad revenue if it were to replace 90 minutes of prime time programming and forgo these ads during the special.

Not a huge amount of money, but if more advertisers drop off the Sinclair stations, the numbers can do some damage.

The potential business costs go beyond that lost ad revenue, though. Web logs and public-interest groups have already called for boycott's and have threatened to challenge Sinclair's FCC licenses. Groups such as Common Cause, the Alliance for Better Campaigns; Media Access Project; Media for Democracy and the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ have been compiling a database listing of other advertisers on Sinclair-owned stations in hopes to try and persuade them to reconsider airing their commercials on the company's stations. Among those on the list, according to the New York Times, major are chains like Applebee's International, Best Buy, Chili's, Circuit City, Domino's Pizza, Lowe's, Papa John's, Subway, Taco Bell and Wal-Mart Stores.

Even Sinclair's own Washington bureau news division chief, Jon Leiberman, has angrily denounced his employer for their forced programming.

'It's biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election,' said Leiberman. 'For me, it's not about right or left -- it's about what's right or wrong in news coverage this close to an election.'

Leiberman spoke out yesterday after a meeting attended by Sinclair's corporate news division at company headquarters in Hunt Valley.

'I have nothing to gain here -- and really, I have a lot to lose,' Leiberman told the press. 'At the end of the day, though, all you really have is your credibility.'

Further troubles for Sinclair came today when a Vietnam veteran shown in the documentary criticizing Sen. John Kerry's anti-war activities filed a libel lawsuit against the movie's producer. The suit claims that the film 'Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal' falsely calls the war veteran a fraud and a liar.

Kenneth J. Campbell, a University of Delaware professor, claims that the 'documentary' (made by Carlton Sherwood, who has earned criticism for his personal ties with the Republican Party), combines footage of him at a 1971 war protest with narration that states that many of the supposed veterans who took part in the event were later 'discovered as frauds... (who) never set foot on the battlefield, or left the comfort of the States, or even served in uniform.'

...To these charges, they defend their politically charged broadcast by saying that when news channels show footage of car bomb attacks in Iraq, they are helping to promote John Kerry's presidential campaign. Somehow, it seems as though this logic doesn't help them.

I can't believe someone hasn't made them stop using that "car bombs...help Kerry" line yet. That's about as insensitive as it gets. I'm sure John Kerry fully endorses the idea that people dying in a war that has taken countless lives already would help his cause. Hey, anything to win, right!?

Anyway, this whole thing is getting very big. Advertisers are apparently starting to protest and drop out on Sinclair. I suppose they felt this would blow over easy enough. They probably didn't expect quite the fuss that has come about for just one show. I assume they only announced it to raise interest in the special. Still no word on whether they'll take Mike Moore up on his offer. Some have suggested George Soros step in and purchase time to show "Up The River" or some other pro-Kerry doc, but the fact is, at this point I am beginning to doubt whether Sinclair will air this video at all. That would certainly be the nail in their corporate coffin.

Update: Just saw at TalkingPointsMemo that their stock fell 8% today.

I Heart Zogby

2004-10-18T08:20:00.000-07:00

John Zogby, who just a few days ago had Bush up by four points, has today released his latest poll results:

Democratic Sen. John Kerry pulled into a statistical dead heat with President Bush in a seesawing battle for the White House, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released Monday.

The latest three-day tracking poll showed Kerry and Bush deadlocked at 45 percent apiece barely two weeks before the Nov. 2 election. The president had a 46-44 percent lead over the Massachusetts senator the previous day, and a four-point lead the day before that.

About 7 percent of likely voters say they are still undecided between the two White House rivals.

While this news is good, but perhaps not great, there is even better news out there. Zogby himself had a few words about how the race is shaping up and the state of our nation:

In Mr. John Zogby's mind, there's little question that the electorate in the United States is divided into what he calls 'two warring nations' - one favouring President George W. Bush in the upcoming Nov 2 presidential election, the other siding with his Democratic challenger, Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.

The increasingly sharpening divisions are over ideology - conservative versus liberal - and over the very core values of the American system, which has long prided itself on tolerance and magnanimity.

'Each side feels that if the other wins, it would be the end of the Republic,' Mr Zogby told The Straits Times during an overnight visit to Singapore sponsored by Reuters.

'Whoever the next president is, he is going to have to be, first and foremost, a healer - or at least someone who stops this widening, this deepening of ideological divisions in the US. The ugly thing is, this meanness has spilled over from the halls of Congress to Main Street, US.'

What Mr Zogby thinks of the American Republic's predicament matters - not just because he is widely considered to be one of the country's most accurate pollsters, but also because he has studied and taught history and the culture of societies.

It's not so much the arithmetic behind the statistics in polls but the sociology of respondents that matters, he said. That means it's the personal environment of the respondent that ultimately determines his or her political choices.

'Societies need to have sustained civility in their political discourse,' he said. 'Remember the election of 1800?'

His interviewer did not.

'Well, let me tell you,' the bespectacled Mr Zogby said. 'It was a bitter election, and Thomas Jefferson was finally declared the winner. His first exhortation to Congress was 'We're all Federalists, we're all Republicans, so let us proceed to bond, to heal our wounds'.'

That is Mr Zogby's way of saying that President Bush has been 'the most divisive president in modern American history'.

'Republicans and Democrats aren't talking to each other across the aisle,' he said. 'In Congress, they used to swim together, play tennis and racquetball, and they used to party together. Now they don't even know one another's names. The civility has gone.'

It has gone, in his view, because President Bush deliberately chose to ignore the 'creative centre' that traditionally energised American politics.

From the very start of his term in January 2001, Mr Bush resolved that he would go as far right as the political structure would tolerate. Unfortunately, the very tolerance that has signified magnanimity permitted Mr Bush to take his policies to unprecedented locations rightward.

'The danger of ignoring the 'creative centre' is that you then cannot appeal to both sides in the political and sociological game,' Mr Zogby said. 'That's why the next president has to be like Thomas Jefferson. The American political system simply cannot take any more of this push to the right.'

...'Polling can be uncertain only if you rely on statistics alone,' is Mr Zogby's riposte. 'That's why an effective pollster has to rely on culture, history and sociology. I repeat, polling is the study of human behaviour, not simply a sampling of people's preferences.'

That may well explain his success. His big test will come on Nov 2. In Singapore last Friday, he flatly predicted that Mr Kerry would become the 44th President of the United States[ed: emphasis added]. "

Well, there you have it. John Zogby, perhaps the brightest polling mind of our times has predicted that John Kerry will prevail. As well, he realizes just how divided this nation has become and what a horrid job Bush has done appealing to the left. It's just a shame more people won't see this story.

Download Debate #3

2004-10-17T19:40:00.000-07:00

I might be the first to "break" this story, even though it's not exactly brand new. It's been available since sometime Thursday, I think. As usual, Apple and Audible.com are providing the third debate as a free download through iTunes. Click here to get the file for free (note: you must have iTunes installed first for the link to work).

Jon Stewart Trumps Crossfire

2004-10-17T11:52:00.001-07:00

Thanks to Slashdot, my favorite tech site, who has an article up that happens to list a few locations for Bit Torrent d/ls of Jon Stewart on Crossfire Friday. To ease things for you, here is a direct link to a high quality .avi of the event. Stewart was brilliant and unrelenting in his attacks on Carlson and Co.

Anyone who would rather read the event can check out the transcript here.

UPDATE: Go visit Jusiper, who just provided me with more links to the video.

Bush Campaign Continues Censure

2004-10-17T11:46:00.000-07:00

Thanks to the Official Kerry/Edwards Blog, I was able to locate this story. Seems the Bush people don't take to kindly to anyone who cares about their own personal rights, other than gun ownership:

Janet Voorhies said she was curious to see how Republicans would react when she and two other women showed up at President Bush's Central Point rally wearing T-shirts stating "Protect Our Civil Liberties."

She got her answer before the president even spoke. The three women were ejected from the rally and escorted from the Jackson County Fairgrounds by state police officers who warned them they would be arrested if they tried to return.

Republican officials said they weren't exactly sure why a volunteer at the event demanded that the three women leave the rally. But a Bush campaign spokesman, Tracey Schmitt, said: "It is not the position of the campaign that wearing a T-shirt that says protect civil liberties is enough to conclude someone is disruptive."

Thursday night's action was the latest in a series of incidents in which people have been removed from Bush campaign events for expressing opposition to the president. Officials say the events are open to supporters and people who are considering voting for Bush, but they are quick to act when they think there is a possibility of disruption.

Voorhies, 48, a student teacher who lives in Ashland, said she and two other teachers obtained tickets to the event after saying they were undecided voters. She said she does not expect to vote for Bush, however.

She said the three decided to wear T-shirts that weren't critical of the president but expressed an issue "important to us. . . . We were testing the limits of the Republican Party, of who is allowed to be at a rally for the president."

Voorhies said the three made it through all three checkpoints and assured volunteers who questioned them that they would not disrupt the event. But when Voorhies was on her way to the bathroom, she was stopped by a volunteer who told her she wasn't welcome.

She said this volunteer pointed to her shirt and said it was "obscene."

Jackson County Republican Chairman Bryan Platt said he didn't see the incident but said the volunteer was trying to make a judgment about whether the women would be disruptive.

"It basically just triggered his alarm," Platt said of the volunteer, whom he did not name, "and we'll stand behind that. I wish (the women) would have just dressed in a way that was without that kind of intent to incite any kind of incident."

Lisa Sohn, a spokeswoman for Democrat John Kerry, said their rallies have been open to anyone and charged that the Bush administration has the attitude "that if you don't agree with them, it is not okay."

As you can see, Voorhies and her crew weren't protesting at all; just expressing their opinion of an important issue in a shirt. That anyone could call this "obscene" seems obscene in and of itself. What is this country, or parts of it, coming to?!

Michael Moore Calls Sinclair's Bluff

2004-10-17T11:42:00.000-07:00

Jay Leno, noted Republican lackey and Bush suck-up, for some reason had Michael Moore as a guest on his show Friday night. Moore followed up on the news that his Pay-Per-View special has been cancelled and had a few other notes to throw out:

Earlier this week, trade publications said Moore was close to a deal with iN DEMAND for The Michael Moore Pre-Election Special, which also would include interviews with politically active celebrities and admonitions to vote. The Nov. 1 special was to be available for $9.95.

Moore said Friday he signed a contract with the company in early September and is considering legal action. He said he believes iN DEMAND decided not to air the film because of pressure from "top Republican people."

"Apparently people have put pressure on them and they've broken a contract," Moore told The Associated Press.

"We've informed them of their legal responsibility and we all informed them that every corporate executive that has attempted to prohibit Americans from seeing this film has failed," Moore said. "There's been one struggle or another over this, but we've always come out on top because you can't tell Americans they can't watch this."

...Also Friday, Moore offered to let Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. air the movie for free. Such a deal would likely get a chilly reception at Sinclair, a broadcaster with a reputation for conservative politics that plans to air a critical documentary about John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities on dozens of TV stations two weeks before the election.

As WickedTribe put it, it should be interesting to see how Sinclair responds, though I'm sure we'll hear nothing until Monday at the earliest. What blows my mind in all this is that Moore's Pay-Per-View is totally legal here, while the Sinclair event is not. No rules restrict what can be viewed on Pay-Per-View. The airwaves there are not offered freely and aren't required to be for the public good. I hope he gets it out there, somehow, before the election.

Two From the Times

2004-10-17T11:23:00.000-07:00

The New York Times has long been sound anti-Bush pieces but has, so far, not explicitly endorsed John Kerry. Today, that changed:

The New York Times, one of the nation's largest and most influential papers, endorsed Sen. John Kerry, calling the Democrat "a man with a strong moral core" who "has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive."

The Times praised Kerry's "wide knowledge and clear thinking" and called him "blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change." It also said Kerry's "entire life has been devoted to public service."

Kerry also won the endorsement of The Boston Globe, the largest paper in his home state of Massachusetts.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune endorsed him as well.

All three supported Democrat Al Gore for president in 2000.

President Bush was endorsed Sunday by the Chicago Tribune, which praised him for leading a "bolder struggle" than Kerry would against terrorism and a broader effort to defend the United States.

The president also won endorsements from the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, Colorado, and the smaller papers Carlsbad (New Mexico) Current-Argus and Omaha (Nebraska) World Herald.

All those papers supported him in 2000.

While the Chicago Tribune had some kind words for Kerry -- saying both he and Bush have exemplary "integrity, intentions and abilities" -- The New York Times, with a circulation of 1.7 million, assailed Bush's domestic and foreign agenda.

The race, the Times said, "is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure."

"Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right," the paper wrote.

"The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination. He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq."

Accusing Bush of a "Nixonian obsession with secrecy, disrespect for civil liberties and inept management," the Times accused Bush of failures in the war on terrorism. "The Justice Department cannot claim one major successful terrorism prosecution," it said.

"Like the tax cuts, Mr. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein seemed closer to zealotry than mere policy," the editorial board said of the Iraq war. "The international outrage over the American invasion is now joined by a sense of disdain for the incompetence of the effort."

"We have specific fears about what would happen in a second Bush term," the paper added.

The paper also said that if Bush is re-elected, "domestic and foreign financial markets will know the fiscal recklessness will continue. Along with record trade imbalances, that increases the chances of a financial crisis, like an uncontrolled decline of the dollar, and higher long-term interest rates."

"The Bush White House has always given us the worst aspects of the American right without any of the advantages," it added. "We get the radical goals but not the efficient management."

Kerry, the Times said, "has the capacity to do far, far better. He has a willingness -- sorely missing in Washington these days -- to reach across the aisle. We are relieved that he is a strong defender of civil rights, that he would remove unnecessary restrictions on stem cell research and that he understands the concept of separation of church and state."

Very dissapointing news that the Chicago Tribune, owned by the same corp. that runs the Cubs, has supported Bush in a state that is likely to be democratic. Their reasoning?

Bush "embraces a bolder struggle" than Kerry would against not only "those who sow terror, but also with rogue governments that harbor, finance or arm them," the paper said, calling it an "unambiguous strategy" most likely to provide a "secure future." Bush "insists on taking the fight to terrorists," the Chicago Tribune editorial board said.

"Bush's sense of a president's duty to defend America is wider in scope than Kerry's, more ambitious in its tactics, more prone, frankly, to yield both casualties and lasting results. This is the stark difference on which American voters should choose a president.

"There is much the current president could have done differently over the last four years. There are lessons he needs to have learned. And there are reasons -- apart from the global perils likely to dominate the next presidency -- to recommend either of these two good candidates. But for his resoluteness on the defining challenge of our age ... the Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush."

The paper did have some harsh words for Kerry, complaining that the "moral certitude" he once displayed "has evaporated." It also said he has "serially dodged" taking a clear position on the war against terrorism and "used his status as a war hero as an excuse not to have a coherent position on America's national security."

We all see where Bush's "bolder struggle" has gotten us so far. Read the whole endorsement right here. Speaking of Bush's actions, the New York Times Magazine has an in-depth look at Bush's "moral compass" and how it runs the country:

...''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .

''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''

Forty democratic senators were gathered for a lunch in March just off the Senate floor. I was there as a guest speaker. Joe Biden was telling a story, a story about the president. ''I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad,'' he began, ''and I was telling the president of my many concerns'' -- concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. '''Mr. President,' I finally said, 'How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?'''

Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator's shoulder. ''My instincts,'' he said. ''My instincts.''

Biden paused and shook his head, recalling it all as the room grew quiet. ''I said, 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough!'''

The democrat Biden and the Republican Bartlett are trying to make sense of the same thing -- a president who has been an extraordinary blend of forcefulness and inscrutability, opacity and action.

Excellent article that's so long, I haven't finished it yet. Check it out when you have some time. Really puts some insight into how Bush gets away with what he does and why so many people who are let go from his service come away with such a bad opinion of the man.

Weekend Wrap: 2 Weeks Left

2004-10-17T09:51:00.000-07:00

Just a big roundup of news stories I felt need posting, since there's not much "real news" this weekend.

First up, here's a bit I wish John Kerry had brough up in the third debate. When Bush accused him of voting to raise taxes "98 times," Kerry should have been prompted to send viewers to FactCheck.Org for the truth about those numbers:

Bush Still Fudging the Numbers on Kerry's Tax Votes

Ad claims Kerry cast "98 votes" to raise taxes, but the total is misleading.

...The Bush-Cheney campaign released a television ad August 23 accusing Kerry of casting "98 votes for tax increases." The number is an improvement on Bush's earlier claim that Kerry cast 350 votes for "higher taxes," which we described as inflated. But even the new, reduced total is padded.

Of the 98 votes for "tax increases," 43 were cast on budget measures that only set targets and don't actually legislate tax increases. Often, several votes are counted regarding a single tax bill.

The ad also strives to blame Kerry for raising taxes on the "middle class" and says "There's what Kerry says and then there's what Kerry does." But a close look shows the votes cited in this ad are in fact fairly consistent with Kerry's promise only to raise taxes on those making over $200,000 a year.

...the ad released August 23 is called "Taxing Our Economy," accusing Kerry of voting repeatedly to raise taxes on the "middle class."

Bush-Cheney '04 Ad

"Taxing Our Economy"

Announcer: Now Kerry promises...

John Kerry: We won't raise taxes on the middle class.

Announcer: Really? John Kerry's voted to raise gas taxes on the middle class ....10 times....

He supported a 50 cent a gallon gas tax increase.

Higher taxes on middle class parents.... 18 times.

He voted to raise taxes on social security benefits.

98 votes for tax increases.

There's what Kerry says and then there's what Kerry does.

Stretching for 98

Bush has scaled back an earlier claim that Kerry voted 350 times for "higher taxes," a number we previously described as bogus . However, Bush is still using misleading numbers.

Of the 98 votes "for tax increases," 43 would not actually have increased taxes. They were for budget bills to set target levels for spending and taxes in the coming fiscal years.

To be sure, such votes did express Kerry's general approval for the higher tax levels they contained. But strictly speaking, separate legislation would be required to bring about an actual tax increase. In fact, budget resolutions are not even submitted to the President, much less made into law.

The Bush campaign also exploits the complexity of the parliamentary voting system to pad the number. Most of the 98 votes were on procedural measures, such as votes to end debate or votes on amendments, and not on passage of the measure itself. More than once, the 98-vote total counts half a dozen votes or more on on a single bill.

For example, the total includes:

* Sixteen votes -- by the Bush campaign's own count -- on Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction package, which raised taxes (almost exclusively on the highest-earning one or two percent of households) and cut spending. Only one of the 16 was on final passage of that measure, and the rest on various amendments and parliamentary maneuverings.
* Six votes on Sen. John McCain's 1998 proposal to raise taxes on cigarettes by $1.10 a pack to deter youthful smoking. Four were votes for cloture (to end debate). One was a procedural vote to waive budget restrictions requiring 60 votes to approve the McCain bill. The sixth vote was against stripping the tax-increase provisions from a broader measure McCain was using as a vehicle for his proposal.
* Seven votes that were cast on one budget resolution for the 1996 fiscal year, one of them a vote for a Democratic alternative to the Republican-proposed budget, increasing funding for Medicare, veterans' benefits, and education, financed by higher taxes on corporations and persons making over $140,000 a year. The other five were votes to increase spending on such things as student loans and health research, funded by closing tax "loopholes" or raising the tobacco tax.
* Six votes on the 1997 budget resolution. Kerry voted variously for higher funding for education, Medicare, the National Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and veterans benefits, financed by "closing corporate tax loopholes" and extending expired tax provisions.

That's all I'll quote as the article is almost painfully long. Needless to say, many more points are raised and it paints a far more accurate picture of Senator Kerry's record than the Bush campaign has. Hey, John Kerry! You can run, but you can't hide behind "facts!"

Next up, John Kerry has been visiting battleground states this weekend. Yahoo! has a story about his visits to Wisconsin and Ohio:

John Nusbaum, retired after 30 years in the cheese business, voted three times to put a man named Bush in the White House. This year, he's voting for John Kerry.

"I just won't do it again," Nusbaum said. "What turned the tide for me was when I read the Medicare bill."

Nusbaum's upset that Republicans prohibited the government from negotiating bulk discounts when purchasing prescription drugs for the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. He's also a decorated Vietnam veteran and an organizer of Republicans for Kerry.

It's voters like Nusbaum, a 60-year-old resident of De Pere, Wis., that the Democratic candidate wants to unearth by touring traditional GOP counties in Wisconsin and Ohio, two states virtually deadlocked in the race for the presidency.

"We're obviously going to places where we think there's a concentration of swing voters," said Kerry spokesman Mike McCurry.

... Kerry's pitch included a mix of appeals for bipartisanship and promises to take on local issues.

At a town hall meeting in Xenia, Ohio, Kerry said he's still hanging onto a buckeye that he picked up in the primaries and promised to set it on the desk of the White House. He also vowed to tackle the problem of the decline of manufacturing jobs, a national trend hitting Ohio particularly hard.

"We're losing good jobs," Kerry said. "Consumer confidence in America is plunging downwards as people have more and more doubts about the economy. Doubts are one of the things a president is elected to deal with."

Kerry also responded to local headlines about flu vaccine shortages by calling the administration's inattention to the problem "twilight zone-ish," and the campaign prepared a television ad criticizing Bush for ignoring the danger posed by a shortage of flu vaccine. "There's not even enough for veterans and pregnant women," the ad says. "It's a mess George Bush created."

I'm not so sure about Ohio, but Wisconsin should swing Kerry's way, I think. Only time will tell. In other news directly connected to the election, John Zogby has stepped up the frequency of his polling. Here are the latest results he came up with:

Democratic challenger John Kerry cut President Bush's lead to 2 points with just over two weeks to go before the Nov. 2 election, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released Sunday.

Bush led Kerry by 46 percent to 44 percent in the latest three-day tracking poll of the closely contested race for the White House. The president led the Massachusetts senator by 48 percent to 44 percent the previous day.

"The third debate is now registering among voters and Kerry had a good day," pollster John Zogby said.

The new tracking poll found Kerry regained a good lead among 18- to 29-year-old voters and consolidated his advantage among Hispanics. Bush and Kerry were tied among Roman Catholics, a group Kerry, himself a Catholic, must win to capture the White House, Zogby said.

Among the 7 percent of voters still undecided, Bush had a 34 percent positive job rating, versus a 66 percent negative rating. Only 18 percent of undecided respondents said the president deserved re-election, while 39 percent said it was time for someone new. In the latter group, 99 percent said they were likely to vote.

Excellent news, as Zogby is probably the most accurate pollster out there. I say, if it's close, it should swing for Kerry, pending some sort of massive disenfranchisement, thanks to the Republicans (and I don't count that out).

Another poll of note, CNN posted results of a poll taken amongst active soldiers and their familes:

Members of the military and their families say the Bush administration underestimated the number of troops needed in Iraq and put too much pressure on inadequately trained National Guard and reserve forces, according to a poll released Saturday.

The National Annenberg Election Survey questioned active duty troops in the regular military and the National Guard and Reserves, as well as family members of active duty members.

Family members were more critical of the administration's Iraq policy than those on active duty.

The poll found that 62 percent in the military sample -- 58 percent of troops and 66 percent of family members -- said the administration underestimated the number of troops that would be needed to establish peace in Iraq.

And 59 percent -- 56 percent of troops and 64 percent of family members -- said too much of a burden has been put on the National Guard and the reserves when regular forces should have been expanded instead.

This critical view comes from a military group that has a more favorable view of President Bush, Iraq, the economy and the nation's direction than Americans in general.

A slight majority of the military and families, 51 percent, said showing photos of flag-draped coffins being returned to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware would increase respect for the troops.

That broke down to 47 percent of troops and 56 percent of family members. Less than 10 percent of the sample said it would decrease respect for the troops.

The Pentagon has refused to release government photos of the coffins, saying it has begun enforcing a policy installed in 1991 intended to respect the privacy of the families of the dead soldiers.

I still think it's BS that they won't allow photos of coffins. What on earth are you going to get from a picture of coffins? Well, of course, it would make this war look a bit more unfavorable, and we wouldn't want that...

Theresa Heinz-Kerry said she doesn't completely agree with her husband's remarks about Cheney's daughter, but hindsight is 20/20:

Were you caught off guard by the indignation of the Cheney family at your husband's remarks?

I'm surprised John's comments have taken on a negative theme. John was being positive and complimentary of how the Cheneys have handled, openly, the question of their daughter's lesbianism, just as John Edwards was in his debate. Probably, if John had really thought about it, he'd have mentioned no name. He'd have talked about how people of all kinds of religious persuasions, conservative and liberal, have gay children, and that it's not a choice.

So it breaks down along political lines?

This is one of the big problems. A lot of people, particularly those of the more fundamentalist view, think of homosexuality as a sex thing rather than a sexuality thing. They are really very different. A person doesn't choose their sexuality. For the other side, there's a tinge of the suggestion of sin, of the choice of misbehavior, quote-unquote,
which is not the case at all.

Why not mention Mary Cheney?

If he'd been debating in the primary, he probably would have mentioned Dick's daughter.

You mean [Rep.] Dick Gephardt who has an openly lesbian daughter, Chrissy?

Right. The Democratic primary. So I don't think John meant anything but, "Look guys, it happens everywhere and to everyone," and some people deal with it well and some people don't.

It seemed to me the more newsworthy part of the debate is that the president of the United States said he didn't know whether homosexuality is a choice, despite the overwhelming evidence that -- as you say -- it's not.

That's that moral tinge of sex versus sexuality I was talking about. The fact that he doesn't know is part of that problem. The important thing for us is to respect science and gay people's views. John dealt very sensitively with the issue of people who have been married for a long time and realize finally who they are and what they are and actually end up being supported by the other spouse. He humanized it very well. I really think they are picking on this to divert attention from the other issues at hand.

On the other hand, I'm sure you can understand how painful the scrutiny of a campaign like this can be on a family. None of your three sons are gay. But what if one were? Wouldn't it make you especially protective of privacy?

No, not at all. As a parent, I love my children, and I hope I first gave them their roots and then their wings to fly. What a parent wants is for them to have the confidence to be who they are. I want to love all my children no matter who they are and to be proud of all of them.

Very interesting article that shows just how much Heinz-Kerry has endeared herself to the gay/lesbian community. So much so that they call her "Mama T." I wonder what they call Mr. & Mrs. Bush?

Draft Dodgers

2004-10-15T00:54:00.000-07:00

First off: JUSIPER rocks. They had a ton of great links. I'm only gonna steal one and it wasn't even my favorite. Go there already. Back to the story...

Ed Gillespie, Chairman of the RNC, told the President of the Rock The Vote foundation to shut up already on the draft issue. He cites the fact that the President himself has "debunked" the draft as an "urban myth" as reason enough to end the discussion. Well, the guys at Rock the Vote didn't take to kindly to being bossed around, so they decided to write back:

Dear Chairman Gillespie,

The letter I received from you yesterday was quite a surprise. It struck us as just the sort of "malicious political deception" that is likely to increase voter cynicism and decrease the youth vote. In fact, it is a textbook case of attempted censorship, very much in line with those that triggered our organization's founding some fifteen years ago.

I am stunned that you would say that the issue of the military draft is an "urban myth"that has been "thoroughly debunked by no less than the President of the United States."

I have some news for you. Just because President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld, and for that matter Senator Kerry, say that there is not going to be a draft does not make it so. Just because Congress holds a transparently phony vote against the draft does not mean there isn't going to be one. Anyone who thinks that the youth of America are going to take a politician's word on this topic is living on another planet.

By your logic, there should be no debate about anything that you disagree with. There's a place for that kind of sentiment (and your threats), but its not here in our country.

There are questions that the politicians are running away from. How long can we keep 138,000 U.S. troops or more on the ground in Iraq? What if full-scale civil war erupts there, as the CIA has warned is a realistic possibility? Would the next President be faced with a choice of pulling out of Iraq rather than institute a draft? Would women be drafted? What exactly would the draft-age be?

According to the Pentagon's own internal assessment, there are "inadequate total numbers" of troops to meet U.S. security interests. The current issue of Time magazine reports that, "General John Keane, who retired last year as the Army's No. 2 officer, says the continued success of the all-volunteer military is not guaranteed" Keane has told Congress that adding more than 50,000 troops to the Army would require thinking about a return to the draft."

But you want young people to believe that the draft is just an "urban myth." I was expecting that you were going to present some facts to back up your assertion. But, instead, you have demanded that we stop talking about it.

Although the draft may not be a discussion topic for someone of your age, we have found that young people - Republicans, Democrats and Independents - are very interested in this issue. We believe in the capacity of young Americans to make their own judgments when fairly presented with the facts. That is why we are actively promoting an informed, educated dialogue. I urge you to review the "Debunking the Myths" section on our website where we address misperceptions about the draft.

Mr. Gillespie, this is a generational issue. Nothing cuts closer to the core of the very reason Rock the Vote exists. We think young people deserve to know where the politicians stand on this issue - and that a generation that could be called to service deserves more than the phony debate they are getting. We believe that it is only by asking questions - not by censoring debate - that our democracy can remain strong and vital.

Issues such as jobs, health care, Iraq, taxes, and education have energized the electorate, and the draft issue deserves the same serious treatment and candor. Blanket denials do not square with the facts and do not level with the electorate.

As far as the possibility that Rock the Vote's efforts might "decrease the youth vote," we are feeling very confident at this point that the opposite is true. More than 1.1 million people have used our website to fill out voter registration forms this election cycle. Our street teams and ground partners have registered hundreds of thousands more. Young voters are going to surge at the polls on Election Day and make the difference for whichever candidate does the best job reaching out to them.

Despite the strong and often strident tone of your letter, I would hope that we could both agree that honest and open debate is the surest guarantor of our democracy and liberty.

Sincerely,

Jehmu S. Greene
President

Perhaps the only thing better would have been if they'd sent a copy of Tim Ryan's speech to go along with it! Really, the Rock the Vote guys are only keeping discussion going and this adminstration has proven time and again that they can't be trusted. Ever. In fact, neither can any politician, honestly, because they're all likely to have a change of mind, and who is to stop them?

Anyway, hit up JUSIPER, as if he needs the traffic, as he's also got GREAT links on the "lesbogate" scandal Lynne Cheney has tried to start. Too bad she's too much of a hypocrit to be taken seriously. Just because she can't handle her daughter's lifestyle doesn't mean she has to take it out on the rest of us.

George Soros: Patriot

2004-10-14T23:19:00.000-07:00

Won't quote anything here, because this article is freakin' huge! George Soros, billionaire philantrhopist has been contributing massive amounts of cash into the ousting of President Bush. Soros is well known as the one who got linked by Dick Cheney in the veep debate. MSNBC has a gigantic article all about him and why he's backing Kerry, when Bush's tax cuts would clearly benefit a man of his financial means. Read the article here and bask in the knowledge that not all rich people are ~~evil~~ Republicans.