I'll have what Mark Penn is having, thank you. Penn is Hillary's chief strategist. He also holds the position of worldwide CEO for an international public relations/lobbying firm. He didn't quit his day job to work for Hillary. You know, like, say, Karl Rove did when he signed on with Bush. He sold his consulting business and just did the one job. But, stop picking on Hillary and all the pesky questions about ethics.
It seems Penn is trotting out a theory, based on polling he has allegedly seen, that a solid 25% of Republican women would vote for Hillary for president. Because, you know, she's a woman. Apparently all women are so desperate for a woman in the Oval Office that they will vote just on gender. Penn claims in exit polls from 1972 to 2004, an average of 9% of Republican women have voted for Democratic candidates. Hey, are those the same exit polls that declared John Kerry the winner in 2004? OK.
Then, according to Cook/RT Strategies Polling, if the race was between Rudy and Hillary, Hillary receives just 7% of Republican women voters. Seems, in fact, this polling shows more Democratic women crossing over to vote Republican and against Hillary by 9%. So, who are you going to believe?
The Clintons are not exactly possessing the stellar reputation in the truth-telling area. Nor are her people. Just sayin'.
Hillary still has the highest negatives in polling than any other candidate ever. Ever. I hear Democrat women saying they don't want to vote for her. I'm fairly confident in saying there won't be a stampede of Republican voters heading her way. Her only hope is women voters. She expects them to be there for her, if for no other reason than just that she is a woman.
I can't tell you how insulting I think that is. I'm a feminist but I'm a Republican. I would say I am a more honest feminist than Hillary ever has been. I would never think to belittle stay at home moms by saying I wouldn't stay home and bake cookies when I could use a law degree for a career. I think all choices are personal and noble. Are we really to believe all women vote the same? In voting statistics, the only generalization to be made with confidence is that the black vote is about 88% Democrat and that's on the optimistic side on the Republican vote.
Hillary, in fact, would never be seeing her ambitions for the Oval Office to fruition if not for the fact of being married to Bill. She was promised a Senate seat by him to overcome her humiliation before the entire world for his behavior and impeachment. From there the plan was always for her to go for the big one. In reality, what has she ever done on her own? When she followed Bill to Little Rock, she was at a law firm, hired as a rainmaker with her connections. Duh. She was the governor's wife and given the special nugget on working on the education woes of the state of Arkansas. The state was still at the very bottom of the list when she left Arkansas.
Hillary went to D.C. and was given health care. It bombed after tons of secret meetings and behind the scenes arm twisting and the like. Are we seeing a pattern here?
What has she done as Senator? The answer is nothing of note. She's been too busy running for president and acting all centrist. Until primary season began and she lurched to the left so fast she had to catch up with her stories on some votes she's made. When she gets the nomination, and make no mistake she will be nominated, she'll go back to faux centrist Hillary and dangle the return of Bill to the White House. Still using Bill as bait.
That's her version of feminist. I just call her an opportunist. And incompetent.
The most disturbing development with Hillary so far on the campaign trail is the emergence of the fake cackle laugh. Someone has told her to loosen up and appear more spontaneous. There is absolutely nothing spontaneous about Hillary Clinton. She is one calculating cold fish.
The first political campaign I volunteered for in a big way was in support of a woman. A Democrat, too. She was running for mayor of my city at the time. I thought she would be a fresh face in City Hall, a new perspective for our city. A break from the good ole boys network. But not just because she was a woman. Sure, that was the initial interest in her for me but that wasn't the reason to support her. She was experienced in politics as a city council person but she was also experienced in the private sector. She and her husband owned and ran a PR/marketing firm. She knew how to bring people together and she knew her own opinion. She was competent.
She lost. A good ole boy won. C'est la vie.
Do we need the continuing drama of the Clintons again? The Chinese money scandals, the FBI files on Republicans that just turn up in a flunky's office, 1600 of them, keeping Bill roaming around the globe to keep him busy, national security advisers stealing papers and shoving them down pants and in socks, socialism and through the roof taxation? Another record indictment producing administration? You remember the one that was to be the most ethical one ever?
Yeah, I would love to see a woman in the Oval Office. Just not that one.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Sunday Night in Orlando
With a mere 74 days left until the Iowa caucus, the Republicans held a presidential candidates debate tonight.
It was somewhat interesting. No new news. More of the same as the last one. I think Huckabee is stronger and moving up to be a surprise sleeper candidate. Thompson still looks old and slow. Ron Paul is still a loon and was booed by the audience. Romney looked a bit off tonight. He looked tired and he wasn't his usual super groomed self. His hair was messy, for goodness sake.
McCain had a good night. Rudy is still strong and confident. Why is Tom Tancredo still there? I like Duncan Hunter but, still, what's up?
Speaking about the museum to Woodstock and how he stopped the pork, $1 million, to build it as Hillary and Schumer wanted, McCain had his best line of the night: "I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time." I love it when he sounds like his earlier self.
McCain also had a chance to use a favorite line of his: "I would much rather lose a campaign than lose a war."
When Rudy was asked if he holds the same views towards some of the big policy issues, he replied: "You've gotta be kidding me." Lots of laughs there.
And, with the others poking fun at Hillary and her possible presidency, Huckabee said, "There is nothing funny about Hillary being President."
True enough.
It was somewhat interesting. No new news. More of the same as the last one. I think Huckabee is stronger and moving up to be a surprise sleeper candidate. Thompson still looks old and slow. Ron Paul is still a loon and was booed by the audience. Romney looked a bit off tonight. He looked tired and he wasn't his usual super groomed self. His hair was messy, for goodness sake.
McCain had a good night. Rudy is still strong and confident. Why is Tom Tancredo still there? I like Duncan Hunter but, still, what's up?
Speaking about the museum to Woodstock and how he stopped the pork, $1 million, to build it as Hillary and Schumer wanted, McCain had his best line of the night: "I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time." I love it when he sounds like his earlier self.
McCain also had a chance to use a favorite line of his: "I would much rather lose a campaign than lose a war."
When Rudy was asked if he holds the same views towards some of the big policy issues, he replied: "You've gotta be kidding me." Lots of laughs there.
And, with the others poking fun at Hillary and her possible presidency, Huckabee said, "There is nothing funny about Hillary being President."
True enough.
Louisiana Wins
Yesterday a fresh start for the state of Louisiana began. This morning, after searching the news for confirmation that Bobby Jindal is indeed the next governor of the state, I did a happy dance, Snoopy style and with sounds of piano playing a la Linus rotating in my head, I fixed celebratory Belgian waffles for breakfast. What a dose of good news.
Bobby Jindal is a young superstar in the Republican party. He is 36 years old and he is the son of Indian immigrants. All indications pointed to a strong victory for Jindal and it happened. He won with more than 50% of the vote.
At the age of 24, yes, 24, Bobby Jindal was appointed to the position of Secretary of the state Department of Health and Hospitals in 1996, by then Governor Mike Foster, the last Republican governor Louisiana. I lived in the state then and I saw great potential in Jindal.
Jindal ran for his first elected office in 2003, running for governor and only lost the election to Blanco by 4 points. Blanco is very well connected to the Democrat political machine so that was quite an accomplishment. Most expected him to run again. He went on to represent his district in Congress in the mean time.
Blanco saw the writing on the wall with very low poll numbers after her dismally incompetent handling of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita so she bowed out of running for re-election. Jindal had such early momentum going that candidates like Mitch Landrieu, the current lt. governor and former senator John Breaux decided to pass on running.
The Democrat machine went into gear, viciously attacking Jindal by claiming voters would be turned off by his religious thought, his dark skin and his Indian heritage. He rose above all of it and kept on campaigning.
When I was in south Louisiana over Labor Day weekend, I noticed signs up in yards in bayou country - all for Jindal. I knew he would win. The signs I saw in the French Quarter were for John Georges, a Democrat candidate with his campaign headquarters there. Georges was the first to concede the race Saturday at the Monteleone Hotel. From NOLA.com, it is reported that Georges put $10 million of his personal money into his campaign and heavily concentrated on getting out the black vote in the last days of the campaign.
The next to concede was state senator Walter Boasso, a successful businessman who left the Republican Party this year and made himself into a new Democrat using commercials linking Jindal with President Bush and touting his own rags to riches story.
Candidate Foster Campbell, the fourth major candidate, a Democratic Public Service Commissioner was long on political connections but short on contributions. He was suppose to carry north Louisiana. Didn't happen.
Remember the system of election voting in Louisiana, an open primary and if a candidate breaks 50%, no run off is needed.
The worst of the attacks on Jindal included the allegations that the 'racist' northern part of the state would never vote for him. I was particularly offended by this kind of attack as I grew up in Shreveport and know that part of the state as well as the southern part I lived in as an adult. It's a stupid, easy style of bottom feeding political discourse and I am sick of it. Racism is in all parts of the country, not just the Deep South, thank you very much.
Bobby Jindal earned degrees from Brown University, then from Oxford. He decided to pursue public service over a career in law or medicine.
The rise of Bobby Jindal signals bad news for Mary Landrieu and her senate re-election bid next year. She is thought to be the most vulnerable anyway and this is further proof of her misfortune. She has been receiving low marks for some of her recent political stunts back home, such as signing the letter of Harry Reid about Rush Limbaugh, and just yesterday was all over the Internet for sponsoring the push to tax the Internet. Not good, Mary.
Power to the people.
I have some hope now for Louisiana. Recent years have been quite demoralizing with the state leadership. It's a new day.
Jindal's campaign focused on the need for stronger ethics laws, better management and fiscal prudence. You know, how Republicans used to act. Real Republican principles.
A hurricane sized wind of fresh air has descended upon the state of Louisiana.
About time.
Bobby Jindal is a young superstar in the Republican party. He is 36 years old and he is the son of Indian immigrants. All indications pointed to a strong victory for Jindal and it happened. He won with more than 50% of the vote.
At the age of 24, yes, 24, Bobby Jindal was appointed to the position of Secretary of the state Department of Health and Hospitals in 1996, by then Governor Mike Foster, the last Republican governor Louisiana. I lived in the state then and I saw great potential in Jindal.
Jindal ran for his first elected office in 2003, running for governor and only lost the election to Blanco by 4 points. Blanco is very well connected to the Democrat political machine so that was quite an accomplishment. Most expected him to run again. He went on to represent his district in Congress in the mean time.
Blanco saw the writing on the wall with very low poll numbers after her dismally incompetent handling of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita so she bowed out of running for re-election. Jindal had such early momentum going that candidates like Mitch Landrieu, the current lt. governor and former senator John Breaux decided to pass on running.
The Democrat machine went into gear, viciously attacking Jindal by claiming voters would be turned off by his religious thought, his dark skin and his Indian heritage. He rose above all of it and kept on campaigning.
When I was in south Louisiana over Labor Day weekend, I noticed signs up in yards in bayou country - all for Jindal. I knew he would win. The signs I saw in the French Quarter were for John Georges, a Democrat candidate with his campaign headquarters there. Georges was the first to concede the race Saturday at the Monteleone Hotel. From NOLA.com, it is reported that Georges put $10 million of his personal money into his campaign and heavily concentrated on getting out the black vote in the last days of the campaign.
The next to concede was state senator Walter Boasso, a successful businessman who left the Republican Party this year and made himself into a new Democrat using commercials linking Jindal with President Bush and touting his own rags to riches story.
Candidate Foster Campbell, the fourth major candidate, a Democratic Public Service Commissioner was long on political connections but short on contributions. He was suppose to carry north Louisiana. Didn't happen.
Remember the system of election voting in Louisiana, an open primary and if a candidate breaks 50%, no run off is needed.
The worst of the attacks on Jindal included the allegations that the 'racist' northern part of the state would never vote for him. I was particularly offended by this kind of attack as I grew up in Shreveport and know that part of the state as well as the southern part I lived in as an adult. It's a stupid, easy style of bottom feeding political discourse and I am sick of it. Racism is in all parts of the country, not just the Deep South, thank you very much.
Bobby Jindal earned degrees from Brown University, then from Oxford. He decided to pursue public service over a career in law or medicine.
The rise of Bobby Jindal signals bad news for Mary Landrieu and her senate re-election bid next year. She is thought to be the most vulnerable anyway and this is further proof of her misfortune. She has been receiving low marks for some of her recent political stunts back home, such as signing the letter of Harry Reid about Rush Limbaugh, and just yesterday was all over the Internet for sponsoring the push to tax the Internet. Not good, Mary.
Power to the people.
I have some hope now for Louisiana. Recent years have been quite demoralizing with the state leadership. It's a new day.
Jindal's campaign focused on the need for stronger ethics laws, better management and fiscal prudence. You know, how Republicans used to act. Real Republican principles.
A hurricane sized wind of fresh air has descended upon the state of Louisiana.
About time.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Wrong Place, Wrong Time
I watched a documentary style program tonight on the History Channel about the kidnapping of the American Christian missionaries and others by the al-Qaeda wannabes in the Phillipines back in May,2001. This was written and narrated by Mark Bowden, author of the "Black Hawk Down" book and he went back to the Phillipines on the hunch that the CIA must have been involved in the operation there to take down the terrorists.
He discovered never-before released documentation confirming his hunch. In "Stalking Jihad" Bowden tells the story of the history of the group known as Abu Sayyaf, a radical jihad group who had the trademark of demanding ransom for hostages taken and of beheadings of their victims. They also believed in the idea that civilian lives meant nothing so they were entitled to rape women hostages and make them their slaves. Only the lives of the Muslim jihadis were valuable.
I remember the story of Martin and Gracia Burnham somewhat. I remember the film broadcast in America of them in the jungles of the Phillipines as hostages and how bad they looked from the effects of their captivity. Martin was completely emaciated and Gracia had the look of complete shell shock. Martin was killed as they were being rescued.
The Burnhams were in the wrong place at the wrong time, it seems. They were celebrating their 18th wedding anniversary by going to a resort on the island of Palawan. Their three children were left with friends and the couple was taken the first night they were there, along with the other guests at the resort, 2 security guards, and one cook. They were 2 of the 3 Americans taken. The third American was a man from California and a beheading was his fate.
The Burnhams were residents of the Phillipines for 16 years and raised their 3 children there. They were members for the New Tribes Mission and Martin was a licensed pilot. The Phillipines is a predominantly Christian country but has a Muslim population on an island at the southern tip , Basilan. The radical element wants to secede.
The Burnhams quietly sang the national anthem the night of 9/11, Gracia said. It was 107 days into their captivity and they heard the news on Voice of America on a short wave radio. It was the only report they heard of the attack. The sang it when they were going to sleep that night. I thought that was an incredible statement from her.
Gracia was able to return to Kansas, where her children had gone after she and Martin were kidnapped. The State Department arranged for the children to leave the Phillipines. Their grandparents were in Kansas. They cared for the children until Gracia's return.
Gracia has written a book about the experience.
He discovered never-before released documentation confirming his hunch. In "Stalking Jihad" Bowden tells the story of the history of the group known as Abu Sayyaf, a radical jihad group who had the trademark of demanding ransom for hostages taken and of beheadings of their victims. They also believed in the idea that civilian lives meant nothing so they were entitled to rape women hostages and make them their slaves. Only the lives of the Muslim jihadis were valuable.
I remember the story of Martin and Gracia Burnham somewhat. I remember the film broadcast in America of them in the jungles of the Phillipines as hostages and how bad they looked from the effects of their captivity. Martin was completely emaciated and Gracia had the look of complete shell shock. Martin was killed as they were being rescued.
The Burnhams were in the wrong place at the wrong time, it seems. They were celebrating their 18th wedding anniversary by going to a resort on the island of Palawan. Their three children were left with friends and the couple was taken the first night they were there, along with the other guests at the resort, 2 security guards, and one cook. They were 2 of the 3 Americans taken. The third American was a man from California and a beheading was his fate.
The Burnhams were residents of the Phillipines for 16 years and raised their 3 children there. They were members for the New Tribes Mission and Martin was a licensed pilot. The Phillipines is a predominantly Christian country but has a Muslim population on an island at the southern tip , Basilan. The radical element wants to secede.
The Burnhams quietly sang the national anthem the night of 9/11, Gracia said. It was 107 days into their captivity and they heard the news on Voice of America on a short wave radio. It was the only report they heard of the attack. The sang it when they were going to sleep that night. I thought that was an incredible statement from her.
Gracia was able to return to Kansas, where her children had gone after she and Martin were kidnapped. The State Department arranged for the children to leave the Phillipines. Their grandparents were in Kansas. They cared for the children until Gracia's return.
Gracia has written a book about the experience.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Harry's No Bid
What does $2,100,100.00 buy a gal these days? If you are Betty Casey and that was your bid to Ebay for the letter from the Senate Majority Leader to the CEO of Clear Channel Communications, Inc., you would receive the original letter from Reid, an attache case (Halliburton issue) housing said letter, a photo of Rush Limbaugh and the letter, and a letter of thanks from Limbaugh. The bid is being matched dollar for dollar by Limbaugh personally and the money goes to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation charity for children of fallen heroes. The charity will receive $4,200,200.00 in total.
Limbaugh was the subject of this unprecedented, historic abuse of power by Senate Majority Leader Reid. Reid chose to attack a private citizen on the floor of the Senate and unsuccessfully tried to eliminate the livelihood of Limbaugh by writing to Mr. Mays and calling on him "to publicly repudiate these comments that call into question their service and sacrifice and to ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for his comments." The letter alleges that Limbaugh called soldiers with complaints about the execution of the war in Iraq, 'phony soldiers'. The tape from his radio show clearly shows otherwise, the phony soldiers reference was used a few nights before the day of the radio broadcast by news anchor Charlie Gibson on ABC News and it references some who have been found guilty of falsely claiming military service to receive benefits not due them. Reid knew that. He chose, however, to distort it for political gain after the humiliation he and his party suffered from the MoveOn ad about General Petraeus.
This indignant outrage from the same Senate Majority Leader who took to the Senate floor and proclaimed the war in Iraq was lost, as our soldiers were on the field of battle.
This indignant outrage from the same Democrats who called General Petraeus a liar, a betrayer of the American people for his successes in Iraq and his life service to his country.
Forty U.S. Senators marched along with Reid and signed his letter, written on his Office of the Majority Leader letterhead, including Senator Dick "Gulags" Durbin the Assistant Majority Leader, Senator Charles "this war will win us Senate seats" Schumer, Vice Chairman of the Democratic Conference, and Senator Patty Murray, Secretary of the Democratic Conference. Tom Harkins, Jack Reed, Frank Lautenberg, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Ron Wyden, Bill Nelson, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Bob Casey, Jr, Barbara Milkaski, Jim Webb, Patrick Leahy, Teddy (the swimmer) Kennedy, Jon Tester, Max Baucas, Byron Dorgan, Ben Cardin, Tom Carper, Carl Levin, Amy Klohibar, Jay Rockefeller, Blanche Lincoln, Ken Salazar, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Daniel Akaka, Robert (kkk) Byrd, Debbie Stegenaw, Sherrod Brown, Barak Obama, and a few whose signatures I can't decipher. You'll note those running for President signing this letter stifling a private citizen's freedom of speech.
Reid tried to get the Limbaugh radio show taken off the armed forces radio networks. Reid discussed Limbaugh's military deferment, a medical one, on the Senate floor, Tom Harkin talked about Limbaugh's remarks and proclaimed Rush must be "back on his drugs". Medical privacy anyone?
Reid was too cowardly to accept the invitation to come on Limbaugh's radio program and discuss the alleged misstatements. He never issued an apology when the remarks were vindicated by all who actually listened to the tape.
Reid went to the floor of the Senate at noon today, shown on C-SPAN, and acted as those he was working with Limbaugh to get the level of bidding up on Ebay and encouraged everyone who could afford to bid to do so. Unbelievable. He congratulated the bidders and Rush for the money being raised for charity. Unbelievable. No mention of any matching bids from creepy voiced Harry, though. After all those sweet land deals, courtesy of his seat in the Senate and his lobbyist sons, he could well afford to be generous.
This pitiful old lady of a man is the very face of an egomaniac. He is one arrogant politician. To smear a private citizen while spreading a false story and bringing along 40 of his willing colleagues for what he thinks will be political gain, bowing once again to the likes of the MoveOn wing of their party and their dominance of the party, well, we see why his poll numbers are at an historic low. Reid has led his party over the cliff and they see no way back. Reid signed on to the money raising for charity and thus, waved the white flag of surrender.
Who is it that is trying to take away the rights of the American people?
They are telling us who they are, are you listening?
The winning bid for the auction is in the amount of $2,100,100.00 and it was bid by Betty Casey, a philanthropist. She is a Trustee of the Eugene B. Casey Foundation and they give millions to medical research and to the Washington Opera.
She listened and responded.
Rack up another failure of leadership for Harry Reid.
Limbaugh was the subject of this unprecedented, historic abuse of power by Senate Majority Leader Reid. Reid chose to attack a private citizen on the floor of the Senate and unsuccessfully tried to eliminate the livelihood of Limbaugh by writing to Mr. Mays and calling on him "to publicly repudiate these comments that call into question their service and sacrifice and to ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for his comments." The letter alleges that Limbaugh called soldiers with complaints about the execution of the war in Iraq, 'phony soldiers'. The tape from his radio show clearly shows otherwise, the phony soldiers reference was used a few nights before the day of the radio broadcast by news anchor Charlie Gibson on ABC News and it references some who have been found guilty of falsely claiming military service to receive benefits not due them. Reid knew that. He chose, however, to distort it for political gain after the humiliation he and his party suffered from the MoveOn ad about General Petraeus.
This indignant outrage from the same Senate Majority Leader who took to the Senate floor and proclaimed the war in Iraq was lost, as our soldiers were on the field of battle.
This indignant outrage from the same Democrats who called General Petraeus a liar, a betrayer of the American people for his successes in Iraq and his life service to his country.
Forty U.S. Senators marched along with Reid and signed his letter, written on his Office of the Majority Leader letterhead, including Senator Dick "Gulags" Durbin the Assistant Majority Leader, Senator Charles "this war will win us Senate seats" Schumer, Vice Chairman of the Democratic Conference, and Senator Patty Murray, Secretary of the Democratic Conference. Tom Harkins, Jack Reed, Frank Lautenberg, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Ron Wyden, Bill Nelson, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Bob Casey, Jr, Barbara Milkaski, Jim Webb, Patrick Leahy, Teddy (the swimmer) Kennedy, Jon Tester, Max Baucas, Byron Dorgan, Ben Cardin, Tom Carper, Carl Levin, Amy Klohibar, Jay Rockefeller, Blanche Lincoln, Ken Salazar, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Daniel Akaka, Robert (kkk) Byrd, Debbie Stegenaw, Sherrod Brown, Barak Obama, and a few whose signatures I can't decipher. You'll note those running for President signing this letter stifling a private citizen's freedom of speech.
Reid tried to get the Limbaugh radio show taken off the armed forces radio networks. Reid discussed Limbaugh's military deferment, a medical one, on the Senate floor, Tom Harkin talked about Limbaugh's remarks and proclaimed Rush must be "back on his drugs". Medical privacy anyone?
Reid was too cowardly to accept the invitation to come on Limbaugh's radio program and discuss the alleged misstatements. He never issued an apology when the remarks were vindicated by all who actually listened to the tape.
Reid went to the floor of the Senate at noon today, shown on C-SPAN, and acted as those he was working with Limbaugh to get the level of bidding up on Ebay and encouraged everyone who could afford to bid to do so. Unbelievable. He congratulated the bidders and Rush for the money being raised for charity. Unbelievable. No mention of any matching bids from creepy voiced Harry, though. After all those sweet land deals, courtesy of his seat in the Senate and his lobbyist sons, he could well afford to be generous.
This pitiful old lady of a man is the very face of an egomaniac. He is one arrogant politician. To smear a private citizen while spreading a false story and bringing along 40 of his willing colleagues for what he thinks will be political gain, bowing once again to the likes of the MoveOn wing of their party and their dominance of the party, well, we see why his poll numbers are at an historic low. Reid has led his party over the cliff and they see no way back. Reid signed on to the money raising for charity and thus, waved the white flag of surrender.
Who is it that is trying to take away the rights of the American people?
They are telling us who they are, are you listening?
The winning bid for the auction is in the amount of $2,100,100.00 and it was bid by Betty Casey, a philanthropist. She is a Trustee of the Eugene B. Casey Foundation and they give millions to medical research and to the Washington Opera.
She listened and responded.
Rack up another failure of leadership for Harry Reid.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Long Live the Rat Pack
Joey Bishop died. He died Wednesday at the age of 89. The last of the Rat Pack is gone.
The Rat Pack, the coolest of the cool, circa the 1960's, was a group of Hollywood performers who frequently appeared together in Las Vegas at the Sands Hotel. Frank Sinatra was the leader of the Pack and his Rats were Dean Martin, Sammy Davis, Peter Lawford and Joey Bishop.
Joey Bishop was the lesser known of the group. He was the star of two tv programs, both with the name of "The Joey Bishop Show." The first was a sitcom with him playing a talk show host. For the other show, he was one.
I remember watching the talk show, the real one, with my Mamaw as a girl. His sidekick was Regis Philbin, a very young Regis Philbin.
The end of an era.
The Rat Pack, the coolest of the cool, circa the 1960's, was a group of Hollywood performers who frequently appeared together in Las Vegas at the Sands Hotel. Frank Sinatra was the leader of the Pack and his Rats were Dean Martin, Sammy Davis, Peter Lawford and Joey Bishop.
Joey Bishop was the lesser known of the group. He was the star of two tv programs, both with the name of "The Joey Bishop Show." The first was a sitcom with him playing a talk show host. For the other show, he was one.
I remember watching the talk show, the real one, with my Mamaw as a girl. His sidekick was Regis Philbin, a very young Regis Philbin.
The end of an era.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
A Brief Wrap Up
The past twenty-four hours have brought many odd and yet interesting stories to the forefront. Last night I kicked it off with the interview presented by Matt Lauer to Senator Larry "I am not gay" Craig and his lovely wife, Suzanne. I learned some facts about the senator that I didn't know before this incident occurred. Actually, I knew very little about Senator Craig. What has he done that has merited recognition?
From the interview I got: He's not resigning. He's planning to finish out his full term which doesn't conclude until January '09 and that the Senate Ethics committee is investigating this misdemeanor he's pleaded guilty to in Minneapolis. He's had a 30 year career in D.C., beginning in the House, then moving to the Senate in 1990. In 1982, it gets weird. According to Lauer's questioning, 2 House pages reported sexual impropriety by Congressmen. Craig was the only member to respond, by written statement, declaring his innocence. Hmmm. One year later he marries, for the first time, to Suzanne and adopts her children. Then the charges of a marriage of convenience began. They will celebrate their 25 year wedding anniversary in a few months.
Make no mistake, I have no use for Matt Lauer. He's as big of an opportunist as the rest of them, but, I'll say he was semi-decent to the Craig's. He wasn't copping an attitude, though it's hard to believe he's sincere when he voices concern as to how they are coping with the scandal as a couple, or as individuals. Suzanne said she watches a lot of the Food Network programs. I can understand that as a stress reliever. I do it myself.
I had to wonder about Suzanne Craig. What's the up side to agreeing to this interview? She looks like the dutiful, loyal wife, yes, but what is she thinking? She kind of had that Nancy Reagan vacant, yet adoring, look when she spoke of their marriage and her absolute belief that Senator Craig is completely innocent. And definitely not gay. Or bi-sexual. Yes, Matt Lauer asked.
Why would Craig's lawyer allow this interview, I pondered. I thought a client wasn't suppose to talk about pending legal matters.
I don't know. It was a sedated kind of freak show, though. I kept changing channels hoping to find something better to watch. Then I'd flip back and there they were. Like the proverbial car crash, I couldn't turn away. I ended up just feeling really sorry for them, especially her.
Today I watched President Bush twice. The first was a press conference with the stooges that cover the White House beat. They never disappoint. Bush was pointing out the fact that no legislation is being moved through Congress. No annual fiscal appropriation bills, no nothing. They'll drop everything to do non-binding resolutions or pimp out children for health care scares but that's not getting anything done. And, by the way, what kind of parents are allowing their children to be used in this manner? The press was more interested in asking what he thought of Lt. General Sanchez's remarks and when will victory be declared in Iraq. And asking about Putin's visit to Iran, for which he hasn't been fully briefed on yet. Oh well.
The last was a pleasant experience, mostly, except I had to look at Grandma Mimi for too long. The President and Grandma presented the the Dalai Lama with the Congressional Gold Medal. Can't resist - hello, Dalai. It was nice and Bush proclaimed the Dalai as a "universal symbol of peace and tolerance." True enough. They brought Laura Bush on the dais as the medal was presented. Bush is the first American president to appear publicly together with the Dalai Lama. Where's the liberal praise? Those all about human rights, because, you know, conservatives aren't. I'll not hold my breath.
And, we'll start again tomorrow.
From the interview I got: He's not resigning. He's planning to finish out his full term which doesn't conclude until January '09 and that the Senate Ethics committee is investigating this misdemeanor he's pleaded guilty to in Minneapolis. He's had a 30 year career in D.C., beginning in the House, then moving to the Senate in 1990. In 1982, it gets weird. According to Lauer's questioning, 2 House pages reported sexual impropriety by Congressmen. Craig was the only member to respond, by written statement, declaring his innocence. Hmmm. One year later he marries, for the first time, to Suzanne and adopts her children. Then the charges of a marriage of convenience began. They will celebrate their 25 year wedding anniversary in a few months.
Make no mistake, I have no use for Matt Lauer. He's as big of an opportunist as the rest of them, but, I'll say he was semi-decent to the Craig's. He wasn't copping an attitude, though it's hard to believe he's sincere when he voices concern as to how they are coping with the scandal as a couple, or as individuals. Suzanne said she watches a lot of the Food Network programs. I can understand that as a stress reliever. I do it myself.
I had to wonder about Suzanne Craig. What's the up side to agreeing to this interview? She looks like the dutiful, loyal wife, yes, but what is she thinking? She kind of had that Nancy Reagan vacant, yet adoring, look when she spoke of their marriage and her absolute belief that Senator Craig is completely innocent. And definitely not gay. Or bi-sexual. Yes, Matt Lauer asked.
Why would Craig's lawyer allow this interview, I pondered. I thought a client wasn't suppose to talk about pending legal matters.
I don't know. It was a sedated kind of freak show, though. I kept changing channels hoping to find something better to watch. Then I'd flip back and there they were. Like the proverbial car crash, I couldn't turn away. I ended up just feeling really sorry for them, especially her.
Today I watched President Bush twice. The first was a press conference with the stooges that cover the White House beat. They never disappoint. Bush was pointing out the fact that no legislation is being moved through Congress. No annual fiscal appropriation bills, no nothing. They'll drop everything to do non-binding resolutions or pimp out children for health care scares but that's not getting anything done. And, by the way, what kind of parents are allowing their children to be used in this manner? The press was more interested in asking what he thought of Lt. General Sanchez's remarks and when will victory be declared in Iraq. And asking about Putin's visit to Iran, for which he hasn't been fully briefed on yet. Oh well.
The last was a pleasant experience, mostly, except I had to look at Grandma Mimi for too long. The President and Grandma presented the the Dalai Lama with the Congressional Gold Medal. Can't resist - hello, Dalai. It was nice and Bush proclaimed the Dalai as a "universal symbol of peace and tolerance." True enough. They brought Laura Bush on the dais as the medal was presented. Bush is the first American president to appear publicly together with the Dalai Lama. Where's the liberal praise? Those all about human rights, because, you know, conservatives aren't. I'll not hold my breath.
And, we'll start again tomorrow.
No Rhodes Scholar
Perhaps stunts like this are one of the reasons no one listens to Air America, besides the fact it just isn't entertaining radio - yesterday on the liberal blog Talking Radio, a story surfaced about Air America hostess Randi Rhodes.
Colleague Jon Elliott spun a tale that Rhodes was mugged and beaten while walking her dog the previous night. The alleged incident occurred near her Manhattan apartment, on 39th Street and Park Avenue, on Sunday night.
Elliott explained that Rhodes was dressed in a jogging suit and not wearing any jewelry or carrying a purse so he speculated, "this does not appear to me to be a standard grab the money and run mugging."
Then he continues: "Is this an attempt by the right wing hate machine to silence one of our own, are we threatening them." "Are they afraid that we are winning. Are they trying to silence and intimidate us."
Well now.
The tirade was nothing but political shenanigans as it turns out. Rhodes' attorney and a police source told the Daily News it was all a hoax, there is no evidence a mugging occurred, let alone a politically motivated attack.
As the WSJ.com article points out, "remember there was a time 15 or 20 or 30 years ago being mugged in New York was not even unusual. Thank you, Rudy Giuliani."
Sounds like Jon Elliott is no Rhodes scholar.
What a stupid publicity stunt. Desperation does strange things to people.
Colleague Jon Elliott spun a tale that Rhodes was mugged and beaten while walking her dog the previous night. The alleged incident occurred near her Manhattan apartment, on 39th Street and Park Avenue, on Sunday night.
Elliott explained that Rhodes was dressed in a jogging suit and not wearing any jewelry or carrying a purse so he speculated, "this does not appear to me to be a standard grab the money and run mugging."
Then he continues: "Is this an attempt by the right wing hate machine to silence one of our own, are we threatening them." "Are they afraid that we are winning. Are they trying to silence and intimidate us."
Well now.
The tirade was nothing but political shenanigans as it turns out. Rhodes' attorney and a police source told the Daily News it was all a hoax, there is no evidence a mugging occurred, let alone a politically motivated attack.
As the WSJ.com article points out, "remember there was a time 15 or 20 or 30 years ago being mugged in New York was not even unusual. Thank you, Rudy Giuliani."
Sounds like Jon Elliott is no Rhodes scholar.
What a stupid publicity stunt. Desperation does strange things to people.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The Face of A True Betrayer
Just when you thought it couldn't get much worse, this political divide between the supporters of the military and the defeatists who would have the U.S. lose in Iraq at any cost, it does. Now the House of Representatives is set to vote on a non-binding resolution condemning the genocide of Armenians in Turkey. In 1915. By a government that no longer exists.
Why is now the time to press the issue? Why, indeed.
According to wikopedia, this is the definition of genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group. According to an article I read written by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, an excellent article it is, the term was coined in 1943 by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish emigre. It is natural that the term conjures images of the Holocaust as it is uttered. Solely by definition, the term genocide does not apply to the events in Turkey, according to Cohen. It is reported that as many as 1.5 million Armenians were killed but not all Armenians all over Turkey. Large communities like Constantinople were untouched. This is not a claim any German city can make concerning the genocide of Jews.
For 26 years, Steney Hoyer, Democrat whip in the House of Representatives, claims he has been pushing this resolution. As recently as 1998 the resolution was voted out of the House Foreign Relations committee with a bigger margin than it did this time around. Yet, in 1998, then President Clinton asked Speaker Hastert not to bring the resolution to the floor for a vote. Clinton argued our military would suffer. He was especially concerned about the no-fly zone missions executed by the fighter pilots securing the Iraqi air space.
That was a Republican working with a Democrat President, as opposed to now, a Democrat working with a Republican President. That was then. This is now.
Turkey is a Muslim nation. Turkey is a member of NATO. Turkey is trying to win acceptance into the European Union. Turkey provides a way into Iraq for our troops' supplies and fuel. Turkey is a democratic nation in the middle east. Turkey is a friend of Israel. Are you getting the picture?
So, today the true face of a betrayer is Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House. She has the power to bring or not bring the resolution, non-binding, to the floor for a vote. She chose to betray the troops, to betray the President, to betray the nation of Turkey at this delicate time, a time of war, and bring the resolution to a vote. She claims the vote will show "who we are as a country." She called any reprisals from Turkey "hypothetical" and that the vote would not be derailed.
When the House Foreign Relations Committee voted the resolution out of committee and the vote was announced, the reaction from Turkey was swift. They recalled the ambassador from Washington and cancelled two visits to the U.S. by at least two of its officials, according to AFP.
Did I mention that while this vote was occurring, Sec of State Rice was in the region and is now scrambling to make amends to our partner in the war on terror, Turkey? She was there to jump start the peace talks of Israel and Palestine but now she is dealing with this debacle. "Look at a map", is what the former Ambassador to Turkey, Mark Parris said in an interview last night. Turkey reluctantly signed on to help us in Iraq and now the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are jeopardized.
The resolution is opposed by 8 former U.S. Secretaries of State, including Maddy Albright. Rep. Jane Harmon was a supporter of the resolution until she traveled to the area last February and observed the facts on the ground. Like Pelosi, she is a California Democrat. She questions the timing of the resolution and wonders why Pelosi thinks it is necessary to embarrass a "moderate Islamic government in perhaps the most volatile region in the world." Good question. I thought it was Grandma Mimi and her fellow Dems who were so critical of President Bush and how he worked with other nations for support in the war on terror.
This looks to be yet another back door attempt to force defeat and surrender in Iraq by the surrender monkeys running the Democrat party today. They do not have the courage to bring about a vote on cutting funding to the war in Iraq, nor do they have the votes to pass that, so they have chosen a policy of 'slow bleed' as feeble slanderer Rep. John Murtha stated not long after the Dems took the reins in the House and Senate in January.
These are the true betrayers of our country. This non-binding resolution directly affects the safety and comfort of our soldiers on the ground in Iraq and in Afghanistan. It jeopardizes the successful workings of the Kurds in northern Iraq. The northern border of Iraq, the one bordering Turkey, is shaky at best without the resolution. There is a history there of violence at that border. This resolution, non-binding, threatens an Islamic nation striving for modernity and trying to show the two terms don't produce an oxymoron.
This resolution is also a bit personal, here at Casa Karen. The husband in the house has a personal friendship with an Armenian Christian living and working in the Baghdad area. I will continue to say, as bad as the war effort has been at times, when you have a face to put on the Iraqi struggle it is impossible to turn your back on them. My husband was in Iraq in 2003 and developed friendships with some of his Iraqi colleagues. Some were Muslim. Some were Christian. The Christians are best described by Abu Danny. The term Abu means 'father of' and Danny was the name of this man's son. That is the moniker by which he chose to be known. He welcomed my husband, the only American around, into his home and to a family birthday party. This at a time when my husband was the only American at his hotel in Baghdad and the Iraqis were afraid to speak to him, for fear he would be labeled CIA and they would be killed for speaking to him. Fear was in the air, everywhere. It was how Saddam ruled.
Abu Danny is trying to come here to live now. His daughter has moved here to Michigan. His two sons have moved to Jordan. He struggles to remain helpful in the Iraqi oil industry. He has been here to Houston to be hosted by my husband for classroom instruction. He sends the occasional e-mail to say hello and that he is still alive. He updates my husband about others they mutually know.
The defeatists do not support the troops. The defeatists do not support the people of Iraq. The defeatists do not want anything but power. They are not worthy.
Betray us? That would be Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Her non-binding resolution is all show, nothing more than to tweak the President at the expense of a NATO ally. She shows the same lack of judgement she showed when she went to Syria when she was asked not to. She is an old political hand. She knows exactly what she is doing.
She is a traitor.
Why is now the time to press the issue? Why, indeed.
According to wikopedia, this is the definition of genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group. According to an article I read written by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, an excellent article it is, the term was coined in 1943 by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish emigre. It is natural that the term conjures images of the Holocaust as it is uttered. Solely by definition, the term genocide does not apply to the events in Turkey, according to Cohen. It is reported that as many as 1.5 million Armenians were killed but not all Armenians all over Turkey. Large communities like Constantinople were untouched. This is not a claim any German city can make concerning the genocide of Jews.
For 26 years, Steney Hoyer, Democrat whip in the House of Representatives, claims he has been pushing this resolution. As recently as 1998 the resolution was voted out of the House Foreign Relations committee with a bigger margin than it did this time around. Yet, in 1998, then President Clinton asked Speaker Hastert not to bring the resolution to the floor for a vote. Clinton argued our military would suffer. He was especially concerned about the no-fly zone missions executed by the fighter pilots securing the Iraqi air space.
That was a Republican working with a Democrat President, as opposed to now, a Democrat working with a Republican President. That was then. This is now.
Turkey is a Muslim nation. Turkey is a member of NATO. Turkey is trying to win acceptance into the European Union. Turkey provides a way into Iraq for our troops' supplies and fuel. Turkey is a democratic nation in the middle east. Turkey is a friend of Israel. Are you getting the picture?
So, today the true face of a betrayer is Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House. She has the power to bring or not bring the resolution, non-binding, to the floor for a vote. She chose to betray the troops, to betray the President, to betray the nation of Turkey at this delicate time, a time of war, and bring the resolution to a vote. She claims the vote will show "who we are as a country." She called any reprisals from Turkey "hypothetical" and that the vote would not be derailed.
When the House Foreign Relations Committee voted the resolution out of committee and the vote was announced, the reaction from Turkey was swift. They recalled the ambassador from Washington and cancelled two visits to the U.S. by at least two of its officials, according to AFP.
Did I mention that while this vote was occurring, Sec of State Rice was in the region and is now scrambling to make amends to our partner in the war on terror, Turkey? She was there to jump start the peace talks of Israel and Palestine but now she is dealing with this debacle. "Look at a map", is what the former Ambassador to Turkey, Mark Parris said in an interview last night. Turkey reluctantly signed on to help us in Iraq and now the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are jeopardized.
The resolution is opposed by 8 former U.S. Secretaries of State, including Maddy Albright. Rep. Jane Harmon was a supporter of the resolution until she traveled to the area last February and observed the facts on the ground. Like Pelosi, she is a California Democrat. She questions the timing of the resolution and wonders why Pelosi thinks it is necessary to embarrass a "moderate Islamic government in perhaps the most volatile region in the world." Good question. I thought it was Grandma Mimi and her fellow Dems who were so critical of President Bush and how he worked with other nations for support in the war on terror.
This looks to be yet another back door attempt to force defeat and surrender in Iraq by the surrender monkeys running the Democrat party today. They do not have the courage to bring about a vote on cutting funding to the war in Iraq, nor do they have the votes to pass that, so they have chosen a policy of 'slow bleed' as feeble slanderer Rep. John Murtha stated not long after the Dems took the reins in the House and Senate in January.
These are the true betrayers of our country. This non-binding resolution directly affects the safety and comfort of our soldiers on the ground in Iraq and in Afghanistan. It jeopardizes the successful workings of the Kurds in northern Iraq. The northern border of Iraq, the one bordering Turkey, is shaky at best without the resolution. There is a history there of violence at that border. This resolution, non-binding, threatens an Islamic nation striving for modernity and trying to show the two terms don't produce an oxymoron.
This resolution is also a bit personal, here at Casa Karen. The husband in the house has a personal friendship with an Armenian Christian living and working in the Baghdad area. I will continue to say, as bad as the war effort has been at times, when you have a face to put on the Iraqi struggle it is impossible to turn your back on them. My husband was in Iraq in 2003 and developed friendships with some of his Iraqi colleagues. Some were Muslim. Some were Christian. The Christians are best described by Abu Danny. The term Abu means 'father of' and Danny was the name of this man's son. That is the moniker by which he chose to be known. He welcomed my husband, the only American around, into his home and to a family birthday party. This at a time when my husband was the only American at his hotel in Baghdad and the Iraqis were afraid to speak to him, for fear he would be labeled CIA and they would be killed for speaking to him. Fear was in the air, everywhere. It was how Saddam ruled.
Abu Danny is trying to come here to live now. His daughter has moved here to Michigan. His two sons have moved to Jordan. He struggles to remain helpful in the Iraqi oil industry. He has been here to Houston to be hosted by my husband for classroom instruction. He sends the occasional e-mail to say hello and that he is still alive. He updates my husband about others they mutually know.
The defeatists do not support the troops. The defeatists do not support the people of Iraq. The defeatists do not want anything but power. They are not worthy.
Betray us? That would be Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Her non-binding resolution is all show, nothing more than to tweak the President at the expense of a NATO ally. She shows the same lack of judgement she showed when she went to Syria when she was asked not to. She is an old political hand. She knows exactly what she is doing.
She is a traitor.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Houston's Presidential Summit
Did you know that Houston is hosting a big time forum, a summit, featuring top ranking presidential candidates? It was news to me when I stumbled across the announcement on the Internet this afternoon. The moderator is Tim Russett, of NBC News so it may be a decent gathering. Sure beats Chris Matthews.
The purpose of this summit is "to inform and educate the general public on the critical role of energy to the economic prosperity and security of the United States." That is the reason for the summit stated by the sponsor, the Greater Houston Partnership. My husband is an engineer in the energy biz, so I was interested to read about it.
The Greater Houston Partnership is, according to the web site, "a 501 (c) (6) organization that is the primary advocate of the Houston area business community and is dedicated to building regional economic prosperity." The Chamber of Commerce partners up with them.
The candidates are a mix of Republicans and Democrats. All on the same stage. At the same time. What a concept. The candidates invited are listed as: Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, John Edwards, John McCain, Barak Obama, Mitt Romney, Bill Richardson, and Fred Thompson.
The date? November 13. The place? The George R. Brown Convention Center. Cost of tickets? Too expensive for my entertainment budget.
Wonder if they'll all show up? Wonder if they'll stay on topic?
Chris Matthews didn't.
UPDATE: 10/16 - Hillary Clinton's campaign declines the invitation.
The purpose of this summit is "to inform and educate the general public on the critical role of energy to the economic prosperity and security of the United States." That is the reason for the summit stated by the sponsor, the Greater Houston Partnership. My husband is an engineer in the energy biz, so I was interested to read about it.
The Greater Houston Partnership is, according to the web site, "a 501 (c) (6) organization that is the primary advocate of the Houston area business community and is dedicated to building regional economic prosperity." The Chamber of Commerce partners up with them.
The candidates are a mix of Republicans and Democrats. All on the same stage. At the same time. What a concept. The candidates invited are listed as: Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, John Edwards, John McCain, Barak Obama, Mitt Romney, Bill Richardson, and Fred Thompson.
The date? November 13. The place? The George R. Brown Convention Center. Cost of tickets? Too expensive for my entertainment budget.
Wonder if they'll all show up? Wonder if they'll stay on topic?
Chris Matthews didn't.
UPDATE: 10/16 - Hillary Clinton's campaign declines the invitation.
What's the Big Deal About Sanchez?
Did those touting Lt. Gen. Richardo Sanchez (ret) and his recent remarks at the Military Reporters and Editors annual meeting actually see his remarks? I did this weekend, a re-broadcast on C-SPAN, and all I came away with was, what's the big deal?
Sanchez made these remarks on Friday and you would think some kind of new territory was covered. Why? Well, you may have heard all about his criticisms of the military planning, or lack of planning in his opinion and his criticisms of political leadership in D.C., both in Congress and the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon, but I am willing to bet your local newspaper didn't bother to cover the first half of his speech. Mine didn't here in Houston, no small town or readership.
Let's do a bit of background here. Lt. General Richardo Sanchez, now retired, was the Commander of Coalition Forces in Iraq from June 15, 2003 until he was relieved of duty in 2004, after a year's service in that position. He retired from the service after he was relieved of his duty and denied a promotion. He was the commander, you may remember, in charge during the Abu Gharib scandal. You may be interested to know he is still involved in a law suit brought by the ACLU, so occasionally he noted he was being guarded in his remarks due to the pending legal issues.
The first part of his speech concerned his relationship with the press and media during his duty in Iraq. He was a division commander in country before the promotion to Commander. He makes clear he was not a part of any strategy or decision making in the war plans before his command began. It was a bit like, hey, don't blame me. He made the point that the political rhetoric and partisanship in the press and in Congress is killing the soldiers in battle. It serves no purpose to try to score points on the back of the military. He said he completely stopped talking to Stars and Stripes, European edition, because they were completely agenda driven and their agenda is a defeat for the U.S. He said this is perfectly clear to him.
Do you find it interesting that when the audience was shown as he was speaking, absolutely no one was taking notes, except one man on a laptop computer? Do you find it interesting they were stone faced and looked to be in shock at the criticism? Do you find it interesting that once the second part of his speech began, when he was speaking of his criticism of the decision makers and Congress that suddenly all pens and pencils were up and writing away?
I thought it was interesting.
Sanchez stressed that the press doesn't seem to understand that the military commanders obey orders of the President. It is an oath the military take and it ensures we are a nation under civilian rule, not military rule. This was in response to a 'journalist' asking why more military doesn't speak openly to the press about problems that arise.
Sanchez was asked if he thought whistle blowers in the military would be a good thing, to shed light on problems. Can you believe that, the arrogance and ignorance all wrapped up into one? Sanchez didn't take the bait. He said he will be more open as the law suit allows and will name names of those he is unhappy with at a later time. Yes, he was asked to name names. His quote was "more to follow". I assume this means he's planning on a book deal. Who knows.
The question I have remains to be: Since when did it become acceptable for one political party to openly work for the defeat of our country in war? Since when did it become acceptable for the opposition party of the President to hate him more than love our country and support the military operations of our country?
That's what I came away with. The shock of the 'journalists' at being criticised on their performance, which travels the world and leaves no doubt that only bad news will be reported, and that the defeatists will not let success get in the way of their determination to report defeat. Sanchez complained that he gave reporters good news stories, stories of accomplishment and success, at each press briefing. Yet, those were not what the reporters were interested in and they didn't bother to report any of them.
It must truly be a Maalox moment now that even the Washington Post reports that the strategy of Gen. Petraus is working and success is now visible in Iraq. It must truly be a Maalox moment for hacks like Barbara Starr of CNN and her co-horts who just last week stated they couldn't report about a decrease in deaths of soldiers and Iraqis over the last two months as it is evident in statistics. Starr claimed she had no way of knowing if the success in less deaths would hold. Funny, she never expressed any doubts on deaths reported, just non-deaths.
But, they support the troops.
The web site for this organization is www.militaryreporters.org.
Sanchez is not the first former military officer to come out and criticise the administration or policies. Sanchez is not the first to be bitter about blame he doesn't think he should be labeled with over something like Abu Ghraib. Sanchez is not the first to be bitter over a lost promotion. He is the first, however, to come back for his Commander designation in Iraq and publicly criticise the press in this country.
Was that the real story?
Sanchez made these remarks on Friday and you would think some kind of new territory was covered. Why? Well, you may have heard all about his criticisms of the military planning, or lack of planning in his opinion and his criticisms of political leadership in D.C., both in Congress and the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon, but I am willing to bet your local newspaper didn't bother to cover the first half of his speech. Mine didn't here in Houston, no small town or readership.
Let's do a bit of background here. Lt. General Richardo Sanchez, now retired, was the Commander of Coalition Forces in Iraq from June 15, 2003 until he was relieved of duty in 2004, after a year's service in that position. He retired from the service after he was relieved of his duty and denied a promotion. He was the commander, you may remember, in charge during the Abu Gharib scandal. You may be interested to know he is still involved in a law suit brought by the ACLU, so occasionally he noted he was being guarded in his remarks due to the pending legal issues.
The first part of his speech concerned his relationship with the press and media during his duty in Iraq. He was a division commander in country before the promotion to Commander. He makes clear he was not a part of any strategy or decision making in the war plans before his command began. It was a bit like, hey, don't blame me. He made the point that the political rhetoric and partisanship in the press and in Congress is killing the soldiers in battle. It serves no purpose to try to score points on the back of the military. He said he completely stopped talking to Stars and Stripes, European edition, because they were completely agenda driven and their agenda is a defeat for the U.S. He said this is perfectly clear to him.
Do you find it interesting that when the audience was shown as he was speaking, absolutely no one was taking notes, except one man on a laptop computer? Do you find it interesting they were stone faced and looked to be in shock at the criticism? Do you find it interesting that once the second part of his speech began, when he was speaking of his criticism of the decision makers and Congress that suddenly all pens and pencils were up and writing away?
I thought it was interesting.
Sanchez stressed that the press doesn't seem to understand that the military commanders obey orders of the President. It is an oath the military take and it ensures we are a nation under civilian rule, not military rule. This was in response to a 'journalist' asking why more military doesn't speak openly to the press about problems that arise.
Sanchez was asked if he thought whistle blowers in the military would be a good thing, to shed light on problems. Can you believe that, the arrogance and ignorance all wrapped up into one? Sanchez didn't take the bait. He said he will be more open as the law suit allows and will name names of those he is unhappy with at a later time. Yes, he was asked to name names. His quote was "more to follow". I assume this means he's planning on a book deal. Who knows.
The question I have remains to be: Since when did it become acceptable for one political party to openly work for the defeat of our country in war? Since when did it become acceptable for the opposition party of the President to hate him more than love our country and support the military operations of our country?
That's what I came away with. The shock of the 'journalists' at being criticised on their performance, which travels the world and leaves no doubt that only bad news will be reported, and that the defeatists will not let success get in the way of their determination to report defeat. Sanchez complained that he gave reporters good news stories, stories of accomplishment and success, at each press briefing. Yet, those were not what the reporters were interested in and they didn't bother to report any of them.
It must truly be a Maalox moment now that even the Washington Post reports that the strategy of Gen. Petraus is working and success is now visible in Iraq. It must truly be a Maalox moment for hacks like Barbara Starr of CNN and her co-horts who just last week stated they couldn't report about a decrease in deaths of soldiers and Iraqis over the last two months as it is evident in statistics. Starr claimed she had no way of knowing if the success in less deaths would hold. Funny, she never expressed any doubts on deaths reported, just non-deaths.
But, they support the troops.
The web site for this organization is www.militaryreporters.org.
Sanchez is not the first former military officer to come out and criticise the administration or policies. Sanchez is not the first to be bitter about blame he doesn't think he should be labeled with over something like Abu Ghraib. Sanchez is not the first to be bitter over a lost promotion. He is the first, however, to come back for his Commander designation in Iraq and publicly criticise the press in this country.
Was that the real story?
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Al's Excellent Adventure
Hey, did you hear that Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for his 'documentary' and work for the issue of climate change? I understand a person with passion and focus on one area of the problems of the world. I don't understand what Al Gore's passion about climate change has to do with peace.
There is no connection, of course. Unfortunately the Nobel Peace Prize has been reduced to nothing short of an award to promote leftist thought and actions in our world, especially if it is seen as a slap at the U.S., and in particular recently, a slap at President Bush. Those Nordic socialists, so predictable, aren't they? The awarding committee is comprised of politicians, not scientists.
The Nobel Prize is still quite legitimate in areas like medicine and those of true scientific process and thought. Let me be clear there. Also, let me be clear that, yes, there is climate change. The degree and the cause and solutions are what is debated by all arenas.
Sharing the award with Gore - does that mean they share the $1 million dollar monetary award, too, or do they each get the full amount? - is the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I guess the UNIPCC was recognized to balance out Al's message. The earth in the balance, you know.
Bjorn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School and the author of "Cool It" and "The Skeptical Environmentalist", notes that factual understanding of the issue falls closer to the UNIPCC than Gore. This panel is comprised of thousands of scientists "are engaged in excellent, painstaking work that establishes exactly what the world should expect from climate change. The other award winner, former US vice president Al Gore, has spent much more time telling us what to fear. While the IPCC's estimates and conclusions are grounded in careful study, Gore doesn't seem to be similarly restrained."
This has been my problem with Gore and his crusade on climate change. Falling into the usual trap set by Democrats, in order to ratchet up attention to a subject, everything must be immediately dealt with in the most extreme measures because it is a crisis. Crisis. Whenever a power grab is attempted, it is because it is a crisis that must be handled immediately. By handled, I mean big governmental solutions paid for with your tax money. Do not for a moment doubt that for Gore, it is all about the power.
Gore himself has finally admitted that the faux documentary that is recognized as a movie that won an Oscar recently for him is full of exaggeration. The Oscar was won in the documentary category. Documentaries by their very definition are to refrain from exaggeration or personal opinion. School boards across the country, bowing to the Democratically controlled teachers unions, have included Gore's propaganda into the setting of the class room. Recently, in the U.K., parents objected that their children were to watch this borathon and the court ruled that, as 9 complete falsehoods are evident in the presentation, the film must be labeled propaganda. The disclaimer must be shown before the film is presented to the students.
And, most disgraceful of all, I don't recall any big movement to save the planet from the former VP's administration. They tried to push forward the Kyoto agreement yet it was unanimously defeated in the Senate. As VP, Gore was 'president' of the U.S. Senate. That's quite a slap in the face to him, no? Even Richard Nixon, disgraced as he was in office, signed into effect the Clean Air Act, as well as clean water legislation and the first Earth Day. No Noble Peace Prize, though. Plus, he opened up China to the world along the way.
Recently, a little known provision in the energy bill passed by the House and before the Senate now included Rep. Nick Rahall's, D-WVA, "strategic solar reserves" on federal lands, according to the WSJ.com weekend review. It's a miracle! We can harness sunshine if only we set aside federal land and put into place Rep. Rahall's pilot program. At closer look, a House staffer "reports that the provision was the work of the Natural Resources Committee and adds:'They don't propose storing solar energy, but instead identifying and setting aside as solar energy reserves public land areas that have high solar incidence...and that are not conflicted with other environmental or usage issues." The WSJ writer contacted the expert from the congressman's office but the expert was on an airplane and the staffer on the telephone directed the writer to a registered lobbyist for solar energy producers. The staffer said the lobbyist "had a hand in helping to craft this component of the energy bill."
Unlike, say, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which stores emergency supplies for national uses, concerning the harnessing of solar energy, a University of Maryland physics professor, Robert Park, said, "This is our greatest single problem with energy - figuring out how to store electricity." Sunshine in a barrel? In a pipeline? Hmmm. What to do?
Congressional legislation written by a lobbyist? I thought Grandma Mimi was cleaning all that up.
So, here's a list of some of the possible candidates of the future for the Nobel Peace Prize committee to consider, provided by the WSJ.com. You know, real heroes:
Morgan Tsvangirai, Arthur Mutambara and other Zimbabwe opposition leaders, arrested earlier this year peacefully protesting against dictator Robert Mugabe.
Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest in Vietnam arrested and sentenced to 8 years in prison because he helped a pro-democracy group.
Co-founders of the League of Demanders of Women's Right to Drive Cars in Saudi Arabia, Wajeha al-Huwaider and Fawzia al-Uyyouni.
Garry Kasparov who leads Russians in protests against Putin's authoritarian rule in Russia.
How about the people of Iraq, working heroically to build a free country? The monks of Burma?
Tony Blair in the UK, Bertie Ahern of Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland who set aside decades of hatred in March and established the Catholic - Protestant rule of governing in Northern Ireland.
Chinese bloggers? They can and are being arrested for relaying uncensored information about their country to the rest of the world.
U.S. military service men and women working to free tens of millions of people around the world? Nah. That'll never happen. The socialist left despises the military. Until their countries are in need of help, then they demand help.
Al Gore worthy? Hardly.
There is no connection, of course. Unfortunately the Nobel Peace Prize has been reduced to nothing short of an award to promote leftist thought and actions in our world, especially if it is seen as a slap at the U.S., and in particular recently, a slap at President Bush. Those Nordic socialists, so predictable, aren't they? The awarding committee is comprised of politicians, not scientists.
The Nobel Prize is still quite legitimate in areas like medicine and those of true scientific process and thought. Let me be clear there. Also, let me be clear that, yes, there is climate change. The degree and the cause and solutions are what is debated by all arenas.
Sharing the award with Gore - does that mean they share the $1 million dollar monetary award, too, or do they each get the full amount? - is the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I guess the UNIPCC was recognized to balance out Al's message. The earth in the balance, you know.
Bjorn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School and the author of "Cool It" and "The Skeptical Environmentalist", notes that factual understanding of the issue falls closer to the UNIPCC than Gore. This panel is comprised of thousands of scientists "are engaged in excellent, painstaking work that establishes exactly what the world should expect from climate change. The other award winner, former US vice president Al Gore, has spent much more time telling us what to fear. While the IPCC's estimates and conclusions are grounded in careful study, Gore doesn't seem to be similarly restrained."
This has been my problem with Gore and his crusade on climate change. Falling into the usual trap set by Democrats, in order to ratchet up attention to a subject, everything must be immediately dealt with in the most extreme measures because it is a crisis. Crisis. Whenever a power grab is attempted, it is because it is a crisis that must be handled immediately. By handled, I mean big governmental solutions paid for with your tax money. Do not for a moment doubt that for Gore, it is all about the power.
Gore himself has finally admitted that the faux documentary that is recognized as a movie that won an Oscar recently for him is full of exaggeration. The Oscar was won in the documentary category. Documentaries by their very definition are to refrain from exaggeration or personal opinion. School boards across the country, bowing to the Democratically controlled teachers unions, have included Gore's propaganda into the setting of the class room. Recently, in the U.K., parents objected that their children were to watch this borathon and the court ruled that, as 9 complete falsehoods are evident in the presentation, the film must be labeled propaganda. The disclaimer must be shown before the film is presented to the students.
And, most disgraceful of all, I don't recall any big movement to save the planet from the former VP's administration. They tried to push forward the Kyoto agreement yet it was unanimously defeated in the Senate. As VP, Gore was 'president' of the U.S. Senate. That's quite a slap in the face to him, no? Even Richard Nixon, disgraced as he was in office, signed into effect the Clean Air Act, as well as clean water legislation and the first Earth Day. No Noble Peace Prize, though. Plus, he opened up China to the world along the way.
Recently, a little known provision in the energy bill passed by the House and before the Senate now included Rep. Nick Rahall's, D-WVA, "strategic solar reserves" on federal lands, according to the WSJ.com weekend review. It's a miracle! We can harness sunshine if only we set aside federal land and put into place Rep. Rahall's pilot program. At closer look, a House staffer "reports that the provision was the work of the Natural Resources Committee and adds:'They don't propose storing solar energy, but instead identifying and setting aside as solar energy reserves public land areas that have high solar incidence...and that are not conflicted with other environmental or usage issues." The WSJ writer contacted the expert from the congressman's office but the expert was on an airplane and the staffer on the telephone directed the writer to a registered lobbyist for solar energy producers. The staffer said the lobbyist "had a hand in helping to craft this component of the energy bill."
Unlike, say, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which stores emergency supplies for national uses, concerning the harnessing of solar energy, a University of Maryland physics professor, Robert Park, said, "This is our greatest single problem with energy - figuring out how to store electricity." Sunshine in a barrel? In a pipeline? Hmmm. What to do?
Congressional legislation written by a lobbyist? I thought Grandma Mimi was cleaning all that up.
So, here's a list of some of the possible candidates of the future for the Nobel Peace Prize committee to consider, provided by the WSJ.com. You know, real heroes:
Morgan Tsvangirai, Arthur Mutambara and other Zimbabwe opposition leaders, arrested earlier this year peacefully protesting against dictator Robert Mugabe.
Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest in Vietnam arrested and sentenced to 8 years in prison because he helped a pro-democracy group.
Co-founders of the League of Demanders of Women's Right to Drive Cars in Saudi Arabia, Wajeha al-Huwaider and Fawzia al-Uyyouni.
Garry Kasparov who leads Russians in protests against Putin's authoritarian rule in Russia.
How about the people of Iraq, working heroically to build a free country? The monks of Burma?
Tony Blair in the UK, Bertie Ahern of Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland who set aside decades of hatred in March and established the Catholic - Protestant rule of governing in Northern Ireland.
Chinese bloggers? They can and are being arrested for relaying uncensored information about their country to the rest of the world.
U.S. military service men and women working to free tens of millions of people around the world? Nah. That'll never happen. The socialist left despises the military. Until their countries are in need of help, then they demand help.
Al Gore worthy? Hardly.
Friday, October 12, 2007
With the Children In Mind
What is the easiest, lowest form of political pandering? That would be using children as political props while speaking about legislation your party wants to hoist on the American people. The most recent example? The S-CHIP program is a fine example.
Let it be said that all children must have medical care available to them. Let it also be said most children have medical care available to them. Do some fall thru the cracks? Yes, of course. Those are the ones we must strive to administer to with the S-CHIP program. Families too poor to pay for medical insurance use the system of emergency rooms in hospitals as a means of medical care for their children. No one is turned away due to lack of medical insurance.
So, what exactly is the S-CHIP being argued about in Congress? It is the State Children's Health Insurance Program, under the umbrella of Medicare and Medicaid. From the National Conference of State Legislatures web site: "The law authorizes states to provide health care coverage to 'targeted low-income children' who are not eligible for Medicaid and who are uninsured." Period.
Let it be said that President Bush is all for children receiving health care and providing it to the uninsured. His amount money included in the re-authorization of the program was seen as too low for the Dems and some Republicans so a new, higher amount was inserted into the pending legislation. The President said he would veto this legislation as it was too expensive for the purposes of intent.
And the predictable happened. Cries were shouted about the halls of Congress proclaiming President Bush hates children, poor, uninsured children. Republicans hate children, poor, uninsured children. The Democrat response to the President's Saturday morning statement to the country was to use the Frost family from Maryland as the 'typical' family the S-CHIP re-authorization, at the higher price tag to the taxpayer, would service. A child in the family, 12 year old Graeme, was put to the task of reading the Dem's rebuttal statement.
Halsey and Bonnie Frost have 4 children. They were involved in a serious automobile accident and relied on the S-CHIP benefits to see them through, as they are uninsured. Something seemed not quite right at the time but I just chalked it up to the typical use of children as props whenever the verbal arguments need a boost, especially by the Dems. It's always 'for the children' as they reach deeper and deeper into the pocket of the taxpayer.
The objection by most conservatives and the President is that the expansion being pushed by Congress included 'children' up to the age of 25 and there are loopholes that would allow those currently privately insured to cancel the private insurance and go on the government program. There are also loopholes that allow adults to be covered, though I would argue that by the age of 25, one is already an adult.
Turns out, after research by reporters and bloggers, the Frost family isn't quite the family they were presented to be. True, they live in Maryland and have 4 children. True they were involved in a terrible automobile accident. But...according to Michelle Malkin, the recipient of an unsolicited e-mail from a reader, a neighbor of the Frost family, the Frost family are good people but far left politically and not so bad off financially, as they would have you think. The neighbor states that the neighbors pitched in to cook meals and help after the accident. Bonnie works part time as a freelance writer and Halsey doesn't seem to be able to hold a job, despite his talents as a mill work carpenter doing good work installing custom interior and exterior trim work and cabinetry. The neighbor says there is no reason the man isn't making good money.
However, the point is made by the neighbor that every family makes choices. The choices of the Frost family include driving a Volvo SUV, a Suburban and his F250 Ford pickup work truck. They have a nice house and all 4 kids are in private school. Halsey owns the building out of which he works, self employed. Up until recently his wife was his bookkeeper and assistant.
In other words, despite finding a way for the education of 4 children in private school, the ownership of a home in suburban Maryland where homes like theirs are appraised from $400,000 to $500,000, and the ownership of the company building, and three nice vehicles, they chose not to have medical insurance for the family.
That begs the question - so who's responsibility is that?
This is hardly the picture of the 'needy' in America. For creepy voiced Harry Reid and Grandma Mimi to trot these people out as the beneficiaries of the S-CHIP legislation and expect everyone to just accept their argument is quite arrogant of them. Typical political gamesmanship. This family was already covered under the existing program so why the greedy grab? This kind of stunt is what weakens the argument for expansion.
The House under Grandma Mimi's guidance is looking for 15 Republicans to switch their vote and go to the dark side on October 18 to vote to override the President's veto of this legislation.
It's for the children.
Let it be said that all children must have medical care available to them. Let it also be said most children have medical care available to them. Do some fall thru the cracks? Yes, of course. Those are the ones we must strive to administer to with the S-CHIP program. Families too poor to pay for medical insurance use the system of emergency rooms in hospitals as a means of medical care for their children. No one is turned away due to lack of medical insurance.
So, what exactly is the S-CHIP being argued about in Congress? It is the State Children's Health Insurance Program, under the umbrella of Medicare and Medicaid. From the National Conference of State Legislatures web site: "The law authorizes states to provide health care coverage to 'targeted low-income children' who are not eligible for Medicaid and who are uninsured." Period.
Let it be said that President Bush is all for children receiving health care and providing it to the uninsured. His amount money included in the re-authorization of the program was seen as too low for the Dems and some Republicans so a new, higher amount was inserted into the pending legislation. The President said he would veto this legislation as it was too expensive for the purposes of intent.
And the predictable happened. Cries were shouted about the halls of Congress proclaiming President Bush hates children, poor, uninsured children. Republicans hate children, poor, uninsured children. The Democrat response to the President's Saturday morning statement to the country was to use the Frost family from Maryland as the 'typical' family the S-CHIP re-authorization, at the higher price tag to the taxpayer, would service. A child in the family, 12 year old Graeme, was put to the task of reading the Dem's rebuttal statement.
Halsey and Bonnie Frost have 4 children. They were involved in a serious automobile accident and relied on the S-CHIP benefits to see them through, as they are uninsured. Something seemed not quite right at the time but I just chalked it up to the typical use of children as props whenever the verbal arguments need a boost, especially by the Dems. It's always 'for the children' as they reach deeper and deeper into the pocket of the taxpayer.
The objection by most conservatives and the President is that the expansion being pushed by Congress included 'children' up to the age of 25 and there are loopholes that would allow those currently privately insured to cancel the private insurance and go on the government program. There are also loopholes that allow adults to be covered, though I would argue that by the age of 25, one is already an adult.
Turns out, after research by reporters and bloggers, the Frost family isn't quite the family they were presented to be. True, they live in Maryland and have 4 children. True they were involved in a terrible automobile accident. But...according to Michelle Malkin, the recipient of an unsolicited e-mail from a reader, a neighbor of the Frost family, the Frost family are good people but far left politically and not so bad off financially, as they would have you think. The neighbor states that the neighbors pitched in to cook meals and help after the accident. Bonnie works part time as a freelance writer and Halsey doesn't seem to be able to hold a job, despite his talents as a mill work carpenter doing good work installing custom interior and exterior trim work and cabinetry. The neighbor says there is no reason the man isn't making good money.
However, the point is made by the neighbor that every family makes choices. The choices of the Frost family include driving a Volvo SUV, a Suburban and his F250 Ford pickup work truck. They have a nice house and all 4 kids are in private school. Halsey owns the building out of which he works, self employed. Up until recently his wife was his bookkeeper and assistant.
In other words, despite finding a way for the education of 4 children in private school, the ownership of a home in suburban Maryland where homes like theirs are appraised from $400,000 to $500,000, and the ownership of the company building, and three nice vehicles, they chose not to have medical insurance for the family.
That begs the question - so who's responsibility is that?
This is hardly the picture of the 'needy' in America. For creepy voiced Harry Reid and Grandma Mimi to trot these people out as the beneficiaries of the S-CHIP legislation and expect everyone to just accept their argument is quite arrogant of them. Typical political gamesmanship. This family was already covered under the existing program so why the greedy grab? This kind of stunt is what weakens the argument for expansion.
The House under Grandma Mimi's guidance is looking for 15 Republicans to switch their vote and go to the dark side on October 18 to vote to override the President's veto of this legislation.
It's for the children.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
The Crazy Aunt in the Attic
You know what Jimma Carter reminds me of? Yeah, the crazy aunt in the attic, the one who shouldn't be out in public without medication. The latest blurbs spewing forth? He tells Wolfie at CNN that our military is torturing prisoners. And that all of the Republican presidential candidates are trying to outdo each other on who'd go to war with Iran first.
Carter is a graduate of the Naval Academy at Annapolis, I would remind you. He was a Navy officer. He is a former President of the United States. He is a Nobel Prize winner (which no longer means anything to serious people of thought but to some impressed with awards it is an honor) and an international elections monitor.
At one time in this country, it was unheard of for a former president to criticize the sitting president or the administration. It was unheard of for a former president to travel around the world and criticize the sitting president or the administration. It was unheard of for a former president to accuse our military of torturing prisoners. It was unheard of for a former president to accuse the sitting president of a policy in place encouraging torture.
Let's trace this back, shall we? Who in our recent history has conducted himself in such a way? One person until very recently. Jimma Carter. The former president, for whom we can thank for our current troubles with Islamofacists and the threats of terror to our country, is all out there alone in breaking this new ground. Recently, especially since it is campaign season for Hillary, she who must be obeyed, Bill Clinton has felt emboldened to sling insults at President Bush and the Republicans. Moral authority, Bill? Moral authority for the second president impeached? Moral authority from Bill, from the leader of the most corrupt and amoral administration in recent times? Yeah, priceless.
Can you imagine Ronald Reagan going about trading insults about subsequent administrations? Of course you can't. Reagan was a man of dignity. Can you imagine George H.W. Bush going about trading insults while Clinton was in office? No. He remained silent. George H.W. Bush is a man of confidence and humility. Character. He is a man of personal character.
Those are the last four Presidents of the United States. Two Dems and two Republicans. Which team would you be proudest to be a part of? And, just for the record? Which team was it that put rendition and wireless surveillance into policy? That would be Bill Clinton. You know, the one who feels your pain.
Carter is a graduate of the Naval Academy at Annapolis, I would remind you. He was a Navy officer. He is a former President of the United States. He is a Nobel Prize winner (which no longer means anything to serious people of thought but to some impressed with awards it is an honor) and an international elections monitor.
At one time in this country, it was unheard of for a former president to criticize the sitting president or the administration. It was unheard of for a former president to travel around the world and criticize the sitting president or the administration. It was unheard of for a former president to accuse our military of torturing prisoners. It was unheard of for a former president to accuse the sitting president of a policy in place encouraging torture.
Let's trace this back, shall we? Who in our recent history has conducted himself in such a way? One person until very recently. Jimma Carter. The former president, for whom we can thank for our current troubles with Islamofacists and the threats of terror to our country, is all out there alone in breaking this new ground. Recently, especially since it is campaign season for Hillary, she who must be obeyed, Bill Clinton has felt emboldened to sling insults at President Bush and the Republicans. Moral authority, Bill? Moral authority for the second president impeached? Moral authority from Bill, from the leader of the most corrupt and amoral administration in recent times? Yeah, priceless.
Can you imagine Ronald Reagan going about trading insults about subsequent administrations? Of course you can't. Reagan was a man of dignity. Can you imagine George H.W. Bush going about trading insults while Clinton was in office? No. He remained silent. George H.W. Bush is a man of confidence and humility. Character. He is a man of personal character.
Those are the last four Presidents of the United States. Two Dems and two Republicans. Which team would you be proudest to be a part of? And, just for the record? Which team was it that put rendition and wireless surveillance into policy? That would be Bill Clinton. You know, the one who feels your pain.
Random Four Meme
Today's meme is thanks to blogging friend, Janie, over at Sounding Forth. All of these categories have many more than 4 answers but here goes...
Random Four Meme:
Four Jobs I've Held:
1. Mom - Full time
2. Receptionist
3. Office Manager
4. Education Director @ Childrens Museum
Four Films I Could Watch Over and Over:
1. Gone With the Wind
2. Wizard of Oz
3. Desk Set (Hepburn/Tracy, fave old school couple)
4. You've Got Mail (Ryan/Hanks, fave current time couple)
Four TV Shows I Watch:
1. Grey's Anatomy
2. Brothers and Sisters
3. Army Wives
4. Saving Grace
Four Places I've Lived:
1. Ocean Springs, Mississippi
2. New Orleans
3. Bloomington, Indiana
4. Maturin Venezuela
Four Favorite Foods:
1. All non-fish seafood
2. Enchiladas
3. Strawberry Shortcake
4. Anything with milk chocolate
Four Websites I Visit Daily:
1. My Blogroll
2. NewsBusters
3. MEMRI
4. I Can Has Cheezburger
Four Favorite Colors:
1. Purple
2. Green
3. Yellow
4. Pink
Four Places I Would Love to be Right Now:
1. Kona, Hawaii
2. Boston
3. St. Simon's Island, Georgia
4. London
Four Names You Love, But Could/Would Not Use for Your Children:
1. Lois (was my Mother's name)
2. Beatrice
3. Ebenezer
4. Horatio
I won't tag anyone this time. If you want to do it, jump in. It's not as easy as it looks, I'll tell you that. At least it wasn't for me. No spring chicken anymore, I've lived lots of places and been lucky enough to have lots of interests to pursue. Life's a journey. I'm nowhere near done yet.
Random Four Meme:
Four Jobs I've Held:
1. Mom - Full time
2. Receptionist
3. Office Manager
4. Education Director @ Childrens Museum
Four Films I Could Watch Over and Over:
1. Gone With the Wind
2. Wizard of Oz
3. Desk Set (Hepburn/Tracy, fave old school couple)
4. You've Got Mail (Ryan/Hanks, fave current time couple)
Four TV Shows I Watch:
1. Grey's Anatomy
2. Brothers and Sisters
3. Army Wives
4. Saving Grace
Four Places I've Lived:
1. Ocean Springs, Mississippi
2. New Orleans
3. Bloomington, Indiana
4. Maturin Venezuela
Four Favorite Foods:
1. All non-fish seafood
2. Enchiladas
3. Strawberry Shortcake
4. Anything with milk chocolate
Four Websites I Visit Daily:
1. My Blogroll
2. NewsBusters
3. MEMRI
4. I Can Has Cheezburger
Four Favorite Colors:
1. Purple
2. Green
3. Yellow
4. Pink
Four Places I Would Love to be Right Now:
1. Kona, Hawaii
2. Boston
3. St. Simon's Island, Georgia
4. London
Four Names You Love, But Could/Would Not Use for Your Children:
1. Lois (was my Mother's name)
2. Beatrice
3. Ebenezer
4. Horatio
I won't tag anyone this time. If you want to do it, jump in. It's not as easy as it looks, I'll tell you that. At least it wasn't for me. No spring chicken anymore, I've lived lots of places and been lucky enough to have lots of interests to pursue. Life's a journey. I'm nowhere near done yet.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
More Fun With Jimma and Hillary
Same old Jimma Carter, in an interview given to the BBC, pontificates as though he is privy to the inside workings of this current administration. As if. Reuters reports that the current rantings of this gasbag feature a seditious attack on VP Cheney. Jimma calls Cheney "a disaster" for the country. Well, Jimma would certainly know a disaster for our country, all right. This is his continuation of the international lobbing of the proclamation that the Bush administration as the "worst in history" in international relations. He forgot to add, except for his own, what with that pesky Iranian incident. Negotiations certainly worked there, huh, Jimma?
Suddenly Jimma is all smiley about Secretary of State Rice: "I'm filled with admiration for Condoleezza Rice in standing up to Cheney which she did even when she was in the White House under President George W. Bush". "Now secretary of state, her influence is obviously greater than it was then and I hope she prevails, Carter added in the Reuters accounting.
Jimma, I know Secretary Rice will be all warm and fuzzy inside now that she has your approval.
One thing I know to be true. When history is written, further down the road, along the lines of 50 or so years from now, fresh eyes and open minds will acknowledge the global war on terror and our execution was the right thing to do. More than 40 million people with a chance of freedom is a good thing. It is up to them to write their history now. I also know that history will continue to view Jimma Carter as a complete disaster. Forever.
So, there's that.
Further evidence of the Dems and their complete cluelessness about national security matters: The Dems in Congress would like to re-write FISA and the national intelligence legislation as it relates to foreign surveillance. They expect the president, any president, to get search warrants for international suspects. International. As if the administration is full of mind readers capable knowing exactly who will be at the other end of the telephone call. Unbelievable.
Alleged abuses of the current legislation? No. None to date. But, to just do what is working, what has been successful in thwarting plots to harm us, well, we can't have that. That's what the president wants so it automatically must be wrong. Object just for the sake of objecting.
The donkeys look like asses to me.
You will be able to rest easy now, though, because when Hillary is President, she wants to be the builder of a 'centrist coalition'. That, according to NewsBusters, will show old Hillary is just a uniter. Don't you understand that? "I intend to win in November 2008, and then I intend to build a centrist coalition in this country that is like what I remember when I was growing up."
When she was growing up? Like, when she was a Goldwater girl? Like when she volunteered for Republican campaigns in the suburbs of Chicago? Like, when the Dems had a 40 plus year death grip on Congress?
So much to look forward to, don't you think?
Suddenly Jimma is all smiley about Secretary of State Rice: "I'm filled with admiration for Condoleezza Rice in standing up to Cheney which she did even when she was in the White House under President George W. Bush". "Now secretary of state, her influence is obviously greater than it was then and I hope she prevails, Carter added in the Reuters accounting.
Jimma, I know Secretary Rice will be all warm and fuzzy inside now that she has your approval.
One thing I know to be true. When history is written, further down the road, along the lines of 50 or so years from now, fresh eyes and open minds will acknowledge the global war on terror and our execution was the right thing to do. More than 40 million people with a chance of freedom is a good thing. It is up to them to write their history now. I also know that history will continue to view Jimma Carter as a complete disaster. Forever.
So, there's that.
Further evidence of the Dems and their complete cluelessness about national security matters: The Dems in Congress would like to re-write FISA and the national intelligence legislation as it relates to foreign surveillance. They expect the president, any president, to get search warrants for international suspects. International. As if the administration is full of mind readers capable knowing exactly who will be at the other end of the telephone call. Unbelievable.
Alleged abuses of the current legislation? No. None to date. But, to just do what is working, what has been successful in thwarting plots to harm us, well, we can't have that. That's what the president wants so it automatically must be wrong. Object just for the sake of objecting.
The donkeys look like asses to me.
You will be able to rest easy now, though, because when Hillary is President, she wants to be the builder of a 'centrist coalition'. That, according to NewsBusters, will show old Hillary is just a uniter. Don't you understand that? "I intend to win in November 2008, and then I intend to build a centrist coalition in this country that is like what I remember when I was growing up."
When she was growing up? Like, when she was a Goldwater girl? Like when she volunteered for Republican campaigns in the suburbs of Chicago? Like, when the Dems had a 40 plus year death grip on Congress?
So much to look forward to, don't you think?
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Republican Presidential Candidates Debate #6
What's a political debate without the mandatory throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water quip? Yes, tonight I heard it once.
No Alan Keyes tonight, but Fred was there.
I was curious about the inclusion of Fred Thompson and what he would bring to the debate. Well, he brought very little. I know some Republicans are seeing him through rose colored glasses but I just don't get it. He looks old, sounds slow and was rather nervous looking at the beginning of the debate. I expected more from an actor, a former politician. He is not Ronald Reagan. Reagan is dead. The era is over. Thompson simply doesn't distinguish himself from the others. Why is he running?
Ron Paul is still a loon. He said he won't commit to voting for the Republican nominee in the general election unless it is someone who will get up out of Iraq right now and did the usual bash on the military industrial complex. All that was missing were the black helicopters.
Rudy is still the one to beat Hillary. The guy is calm under pressure, acts like a leader, and has ideas. His best line? "If we have Hillarycare, Canadians will have no place to go for health care."
Mitt Romney still looks the most like a President. Very poised and polished. A little too much. He lobbed a few semi hard bombs at the others, mostly Rudy, to get attention. Romney's best line? "Republican debates are like 'Law and Order'. Huge cast, goes on forever and Fred Thompson shows up at the end." Clever guy.
Rudy and Mitt had a little dust up over taxes and then about the line item veto.
John McCain is hanging in there. Still calm and cool. Confident. His best line? "I have a glass of ethanol every morning but I still don't believe in subsidies." I wish he could be the candidate.
Mike Huckabee is funny and quick witted. He is quite intelligently quick on his feet with the answers. He should be the one all the social conservatives in the party are behind and pushing him forward instead of going off the reservation and pouting that they won't support Rudy. Huckabee grows on you, as an audience. He's like the guy next door. His best line? "We're in a race for our lives against people who want to kill us."
Duncan Hunter is still the tough guy on the panel. He is still easily identified as a former Marine. Yes, I know there is no such thing as a 'former' Marine. Once a Marine, always a Marine. He 's a big supporter of the Fair Tax. He sponsored legislation on it in Congress.
Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo. Why are they still in? I don't know. Both for the Flat Tax. Tancredo pushes the illegal immigration issue and Brownback pushes the abortion issue. That's about it. Tancredo also said he won't commit to supporting the Republican nominee.
Tancredo singled out McCain to slap a bit about illegal immigration.
All are good people. All are strong candidates, mostly. Rudy's the one who can beat Hillary, and yes, that is what is most important.
Look, the nonsense that social conservatives will find a third party candidate is insane. If they are so hot about divorce and abortion, get behind Huckabee. He's conservative, Southern, even a minister. He's quick and funny. He's humble in manner.
But to say you'll not vote or go elsewhere rather than support your political party? What a bunch of losers. Politics is not about electing God. Or the Pope. Or your neighborhood pastor. Politics is about winning. Sometimes the choice is the lesser of two evils. You vote for the person who best represents your views. For the social conservatives to say they will 'teach the Republicans a lesson' and allow a Republican defeat is wrong on so many levels. First it guarantees President Hillary. How close is she to their values? Second, it sends the message that you are not a serious voter. Just stay home if is requires a little spine? And last, How'd that whole Ross Perot, we'll show them, election go for you? It got us eight years of the last Clinton.
I am the first to say, I am not a social conservative. Never have been, never will be. I'm the old school of Republican. The party of Rockefeller and Goldwater. The less government the better and the government does not run my personal life. I'm a big girl, I can do that myself, thank you. And the lectures of the holier than thou set? Turns my stomach.
So, after the candidate is selected in the primaries, I expect this damn party to come together. I expect this party to think of the greater good of the country. I expect this party to grow up. Yes, demand what you will of your party and work for that. Just don't expect me to support you if you are trying to hold my party hostage for your own selfish agenda. Remember Reagan was a divorced man and his children weren't too keen on him. He went on to change the course of our nation's history.
In a good way.
No Alan Keyes tonight, but Fred was there.
I was curious about the inclusion of Fred Thompson and what he would bring to the debate. Well, he brought very little. I know some Republicans are seeing him through rose colored glasses but I just don't get it. He looks old, sounds slow and was rather nervous looking at the beginning of the debate. I expected more from an actor, a former politician. He is not Ronald Reagan. Reagan is dead. The era is over. Thompson simply doesn't distinguish himself from the others. Why is he running?
Ron Paul is still a loon. He said he won't commit to voting for the Republican nominee in the general election unless it is someone who will get up out of Iraq right now and did the usual bash on the military industrial complex. All that was missing were the black helicopters.
Rudy is still the one to beat Hillary. The guy is calm under pressure, acts like a leader, and has ideas. His best line? "If we have Hillarycare, Canadians will have no place to go for health care."
Mitt Romney still looks the most like a President. Very poised and polished. A little too much. He lobbed a few semi hard bombs at the others, mostly Rudy, to get attention. Romney's best line? "Republican debates are like 'Law and Order'. Huge cast, goes on forever and Fred Thompson shows up at the end." Clever guy.
Rudy and Mitt had a little dust up over taxes and then about the line item veto.
John McCain is hanging in there. Still calm and cool. Confident. His best line? "I have a glass of ethanol every morning but I still don't believe in subsidies." I wish he could be the candidate.
Mike Huckabee is funny and quick witted. He is quite intelligently quick on his feet with the answers. He should be the one all the social conservatives in the party are behind and pushing him forward instead of going off the reservation and pouting that they won't support Rudy. Huckabee grows on you, as an audience. He's like the guy next door. His best line? "We're in a race for our lives against people who want to kill us."
Duncan Hunter is still the tough guy on the panel. He is still easily identified as a former Marine. Yes, I know there is no such thing as a 'former' Marine. Once a Marine, always a Marine. He 's a big supporter of the Fair Tax. He sponsored legislation on it in Congress.
Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo. Why are they still in? I don't know. Both for the Flat Tax. Tancredo pushes the illegal immigration issue and Brownback pushes the abortion issue. That's about it. Tancredo also said he won't commit to supporting the Republican nominee.
Tancredo singled out McCain to slap a bit about illegal immigration.
All are good people. All are strong candidates, mostly. Rudy's the one who can beat Hillary, and yes, that is what is most important.
Look, the nonsense that social conservatives will find a third party candidate is insane. If they are so hot about divorce and abortion, get behind Huckabee. He's conservative, Southern, even a minister. He's quick and funny. He's humble in manner.
But to say you'll not vote or go elsewhere rather than support your political party? What a bunch of losers. Politics is not about electing God. Or the Pope. Or your neighborhood pastor. Politics is about winning. Sometimes the choice is the lesser of two evils. You vote for the person who best represents your views. For the social conservatives to say they will 'teach the Republicans a lesson' and allow a Republican defeat is wrong on so many levels. First it guarantees President Hillary. How close is she to their values? Second, it sends the message that you are not a serious voter. Just stay home if is requires a little spine? And last, How'd that whole Ross Perot, we'll show them, election go for you? It got us eight years of the last Clinton.
I am the first to say, I am not a social conservative. Never have been, never will be. I'm the old school of Republican. The party of Rockefeller and Goldwater. The less government the better and the government does not run my personal life. I'm a big girl, I can do that myself, thank you. And the lectures of the holier than thou set? Turns my stomach.
So, after the candidate is selected in the primaries, I expect this damn party to come together. I expect this party to think of the greater good of the country. I expect this party to grow up. Yes, demand what you will of your party and work for that. Just don't expect me to support you if you are trying to hold my party hostage for your own selfish agenda. Remember Reagan was a divorced man and his children weren't too keen on him. He went on to change the course of our nation's history.
In a good way.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Happy Columbus Day
President Bush attended a memorial service in Maryland Saturday at the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial. He's the first president to do so. As the official hugger in chief, he did himself proud taking time to personally console and hug families there to honor their dead. Bush has let me down in many ways, the sincerity of his compassion to those in pain is not one of the ways. There is no fake lip biting and phony tears on demand that we endured for the 8 years of the Clinton nightmare. Yeah, can't wait for the Hillary administration with all the usual cast of characters back in full swing.
Sandy, the burglar, Berger is officially an unpaid international policy advisor to the Hillary campaign now. Also, Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute has been named a foreign policy advisor. That's going to tick off the Kos Kids and the others on the far left fringe. Guess they aren't as powerful as they thought they were. O'Hanlon, you'll remember was one who went to Iraq recently and came back admitting the surge is progressing along there. He's no Iraq war supporter, so his opinion made big news in the political world.
Also, where are all those good news stories of the successes of the surge? I noticed the begrudging story done by a McLatchey reporter in our Sunday paper about the ability to travel a road from Baghdad to Anbar provence now, where as a few months ago it was impossible to survive it with your life. And, night travel is possible in safety, too.
Barbara Starr of CNN, a woman covering the Pentagon for them, claims the progress is too new in the surge to claim enduring progress. Still rooting for failure, Barbara? Hang in there.
Rep. John "killing them in cold blood" Murtha has to testify in the civil trial filed against him by one of the Marines he tarnished as a murderer to the press. The charges are dropped, as are most of the ones filed against the other Marines involved in the Haditha investigation. Oops.
And, Bruce Springsteen? Shut up and sing. What a loser. Living large in the U.S.A. and claiming all the civil liberties are lost under this administration. As if he even knows what civil liberties he is entitled to, except the free speech thing. Did he even graduate high school?
I love when the super successful and large livers are spouting off about real life in America. As if. And for Scott Pelley, fan of the soul of Amajinidad, fawning all over Brucie to listen with a look of bliss on his face to all this dribble. Yuk.
Where was Brucie when the Clinton administration brought in rendition to the bag of tricks as official CIA policy? Oh, what, wasn't he paying attention to policies then? Wonder why that would be, hmmm. Just another over the hill rocker trying to be 30 again.
And, while we're at it, when was Blackwater, the current pinata of choice by the likes of nasty Henry Waxman, first hired on a government contract? During the Clinton years. They were hired after the bombing of the USS Cole. I guess that was when Clinton was told by his pollsters that he should do something to look into the terrorist attack.
And, just so you understand exactly how nasty Waxman is on his 'investigations' with his oversight committee in the House... He passed out a 5 page document written by himself and his staff on Blackwater to the committee questioning the owner of the company. It was a hit job on the owner and his family in Michigan. One page was the biography of his sister and his parents and their Republican party contributions. They have no part of Blackwater, but, what difference does that make? Atta boy, Henry. Hey, I thought it was the evil Bushies that were destroying personal privacy. Next thing you know they'll be stealing FBI files on Republicans. Oh yeah, Hillary broke that ground.
Ah, good times.
Sandy, the burglar, Berger is officially an unpaid international policy advisor to the Hillary campaign now. Also, Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute has been named a foreign policy advisor. That's going to tick off the Kos Kids and the others on the far left fringe. Guess they aren't as powerful as they thought they were. O'Hanlon, you'll remember was one who went to Iraq recently and came back admitting the surge is progressing along there. He's no Iraq war supporter, so his opinion made big news in the political world.
Also, where are all those good news stories of the successes of the surge? I noticed the begrudging story done by a McLatchey reporter in our Sunday paper about the ability to travel a road from Baghdad to Anbar provence now, where as a few months ago it was impossible to survive it with your life. And, night travel is possible in safety, too.
Barbara Starr of CNN, a woman covering the Pentagon for them, claims the progress is too new in the surge to claim enduring progress. Still rooting for failure, Barbara? Hang in there.
Rep. John "killing them in cold blood" Murtha has to testify in the civil trial filed against him by one of the Marines he tarnished as a murderer to the press. The charges are dropped, as are most of the ones filed against the other Marines involved in the Haditha investigation. Oops.
And, Bruce Springsteen? Shut up and sing. What a loser. Living large in the U.S.A. and claiming all the civil liberties are lost under this administration. As if he even knows what civil liberties he is entitled to, except the free speech thing. Did he even graduate high school?
I love when the super successful and large livers are spouting off about real life in America. As if. And for Scott Pelley, fan of the soul of Amajinidad, fawning all over Brucie to listen with a look of bliss on his face to all this dribble. Yuk.
Where was Brucie when the Clinton administration brought in rendition to the bag of tricks as official CIA policy? Oh, what, wasn't he paying attention to policies then? Wonder why that would be, hmmm. Just another over the hill rocker trying to be 30 again.
And, while we're at it, when was Blackwater, the current pinata of choice by the likes of nasty Henry Waxman, first hired on a government contract? During the Clinton years. They were hired after the bombing of the USS Cole. I guess that was when Clinton was told by his pollsters that he should do something to look into the terrorist attack.
And, just so you understand exactly how nasty Waxman is on his 'investigations' with his oversight committee in the House... He passed out a 5 page document written by himself and his staff on Blackwater to the committee questioning the owner of the company. It was a hit job on the owner and his family in Michigan. One page was the biography of his sister and his parents and their Republican party contributions. They have no part of Blackwater, but, what difference does that make? Atta boy, Henry. Hey, I thought it was the evil Bushies that were destroying personal privacy. Next thing you know they'll be stealing FBI files on Republicans. Oh yeah, Hillary broke that ground.
Ah, good times.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Who They Are
Friday. Finally.
Did ya hear the one about Jimma Carter going to Sudan and mixing it up with Sudanese security services during a visit to Darfur? Poor Jimma. He thinks he's someone important. He was there as a part of a delegation, known as 'The Elders', and they wanted to visit a refugee camp. The Elders are an international mix of old guys.
Seems Jimma flew to the World Food Program compound in Kabkabiya and when none of the refugees came for the meeting, Jimma decided to go to town. He wanted to walk into town and meet the refugees who were to afraid to go to the compound meeting. This town is teeming with janjaweed militia so you can understand the security team's concerns. After a meeting with a tribal representative in a school in town, Jimma wanted to go further into town. He was told no by a chief of the Sudanese secret police. He was told the walk into town was not on the program.
"We're going to anyway, you don't have the power to stop me." Finally the U.N. officials told Jimma and his entourage that the state police could indeed stop the walk further into town. "We've got to move or someone is going to get shot," was a warning from one of the U.N. staff. Jimma was urged to get into a waiting car and leave by the rest of the group.
"I'll tell President Bashir about this," Carter said. What a tattling cry baby. I wonder if he stomped his foot as he made that threat.
If he's such an expert on the people of the world, why was Jimma so surprised that the people being oppressed in Darfur were too afraid to speak to international visitors? This was The Elders first visit as an organization. The organization was put together by Jimma and Desmond Tutu. Even they admit it was a symbolic visit. They knew that nothing would be accomplished. So Jimma was expecting the people of Darfur to risk their lives to meet with him for a symbolic visit.
Nothing accomplished except Jimma making ridiculous headlines for acting like a jackass in a foreign country. Again. Yeah, thanks Jimma. Still an idiot after all these years.
Mr and Mrs Obama were both silly statement makers yesterday. Michelle Obama was giving a speech in the Chicago area and told the audience that the U.S. is suffering from an empathy deficit. Amazing, huh? This nation is the most generous country on the face of the earth but it's not recognized by Michelle.
Michelle's husband, Barack, running for the nomination of the Democrat party for President of the U.S. no longer wears an American flag on his lapel. It's his way of protesting what he thinks is false patriotism. That'll really be a winning fashion statement for him. He's sinking like a brick in the polls against Hillary and decides to shun the symbol of his country for his own silly reasoning. Poor Barack. Still an empty suit. "My attitude is that I'm less concerned about what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart. You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve." The military will be interested in how you show your concern for those who serve, Barack. Especially your vote on NOT supporting General Petraeus against MoveOn. And you NOT voting on the Defense Bill to provide funding for the troops on the battlefield. You were absent for that vote, too. Yes, a real profile in courage.
Lapel pins are a symbol for what is in a person's heart. Whether it's a pink ribbon, a smiley face, a cross or Star of David, a political button, and yes, an American flag.
And, last but not least, Elizabeth Edwards weighed in this week on Rush's medical disability deferral for the draft. She says it's phony. How does she know? Well, no evidence was shown, she just wanted to let her opinion be heard. Again. No one is questioning her cancer diagnosis. No one is demanding she open up her medical records. I know she despises Rush for his success on talk radio but he is a private citizen and due privacy. If she is so smart, a woman with a law degree after all, why is she incapable of understanding the smear of Rush at the hands of the anti war left? She understands all too well. She's one no class broad.
When people are telling us who they are, we should listen.
Did ya hear the one about Jimma Carter going to Sudan and mixing it up with Sudanese security services during a visit to Darfur? Poor Jimma. He thinks he's someone important. He was there as a part of a delegation, known as 'The Elders', and they wanted to visit a refugee camp. The Elders are an international mix of old guys.
Seems Jimma flew to the World Food Program compound in Kabkabiya and when none of the refugees came for the meeting, Jimma decided to go to town. He wanted to walk into town and meet the refugees who were to afraid to go to the compound meeting. This town is teeming with janjaweed militia so you can understand the security team's concerns. After a meeting with a tribal representative in a school in town, Jimma wanted to go further into town. He was told no by a chief of the Sudanese secret police. He was told the walk into town was not on the program.
"We're going to anyway, you don't have the power to stop me." Finally the U.N. officials told Jimma and his entourage that the state police could indeed stop the walk further into town. "We've got to move or someone is going to get shot," was a warning from one of the U.N. staff. Jimma was urged to get into a waiting car and leave by the rest of the group.
"I'll tell President Bashir about this," Carter said. What a tattling cry baby. I wonder if he stomped his foot as he made that threat.
If he's such an expert on the people of the world, why was Jimma so surprised that the people being oppressed in Darfur were too afraid to speak to international visitors? This was The Elders first visit as an organization. The organization was put together by Jimma and Desmond Tutu. Even they admit it was a symbolic visit. They knew that nothing would be accomplished. So Jimma was expecting the people of Darfur to risk their lives to meet with him for a symbolic visit.
Nothing accomplished except Jimma making ridiculous headlines for acting like a jackass in a foreign country. Again. Yeah, thanks Jimma. Still an idiot after all these years.
Mr and Mrs Obama were both silly statement makers yesterday. Michelle Obama was giving a speech in the Chicago area and told the audience that the U.S. is suffering from an empathy deficit. Amazing, huh? This nation is the most generous country on the face of the earth but it's not recognized by Michelle.
Michelle's husband, Barack, running for the nomination of the Democrat party for President of the U.S. no longer wears an American flag on his lapel. It's his way of protesting what he thinks is false patriotism. That'll really be a winning fashion statement for him. He's sinking like a brick in the polls against Hillary and decides to shun the symbol of his country for his own silly reasoning. Poor Barack. Still an empty suit. "My attitude is that I'm less concerned about what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart. You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve." The military will be interested in how you show your concern for those who serve, Barack. Especially your vote on NOT supporting General Petraeus against MoveOn. And you NOT voting on the Defense Bill to provide funding for the troops on the battlefield. You were absent for that vote, too. Yes, a real profile in courage.
Lapel pins are a symbol for what is in a person's heart. Whether it's a pink ribbon, a smiley face, a cross or Star of David, a political button, and yes, an American flag.
And, last but not least, Elizabeth Edwards weighed in this week on Rush's medical disability deferral for the draft. She says it's phony. How does she know? Well, no evidence was shown, she just wanted to let her opinion be heard. Again. No one is questioning her cancer diagnosis. No one is demanding she open up her medical records. I know she despises Rush for his success on talk radio but he is a private citizen and due privacy. If she is so smart, a woman with a law degree after all, why is she incapable of understanding the smear of Rush at the hands of the anti war left? She understands all too well. She's one no class broad.
When people are telling us who they are, we should listen.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
International Bloggers' Day for Burma
Tomorrow, October 4, 2007, is a day to show solidarity with the oppressed in Burma.
About a week ago, demonstrations began in the country of Burma, renamed Myanmar by the military junta who overtook the country. Buddhist monks took to the streets in what has been dubbed the Saffron Revolution. The demonstrations quickly turned deadly as monks and protesters were killed by the military. They are killing monks.
No true numbers can be recorded yet. The country is closed off to anyone trying to enter. A diplomatic envoy was just yesterday allowed to speak to a political prisoner, a Noble Peace Prize recipient, and opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. The envoy is described as looking 'grim' as he departed from the meeting.
The people of Burma took to the streets to protest the government's price hike on fuel, more than doubling the cost. The average income in Burma is $200 a year. Burma is one of the poorest countries in the world.
People from all over the world have voiced indignation. Everyone from Laura Bush to Hollywood actor Jim Carrey have voiced support of those rising up, peacefully, in the streets. Our country has called for stricter sanctions on the junta. President Bush has decided to enforce stricter financial sanctions to Burma's leading generals.
Some call for the boycott of the Olympics in China. China is a prime source of support for the junta.
The military has pledged to track down protesters that have been photographed and punish them. Buddhist monasteries have been stormed and the monks have been killed.
Senator John McCain has called for Burma to be expelled from ASEAN - the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. "We should isolate Burma even further," he said, "And I refuse to call Burma Myanmar."
Me, too.
"China should also make a stand for human rights, " stated McCain while he called for the junta's censure and international condemnation of Burma's brutal leadership.
Actor Sylvester Stallone was recently filming a movie along the Salween River which separates Thailand and Burma. He returned to the U.S. eight days ago. Monday he said he was witness to unspeakable atrocities on the Burmese border. "We hear about Vietnam and Cambodia, and this was more horrific."
More than 100 people protested here in Houston Monday in front of the Chinese Consulate in support of the hundreds of Buddhist monks and the others who have been arrested, or killed, in the demonstrations. Many of those protesting in town Monday were refugees from decades of political unrest in Burma.
So, spread the word. An easy way to show support to Burmese bloggers, who have been silenced in the past and are now fighting to get the story of the protests out, is to join in on the International Bloggers' Day for Burma tomorrow. If you choose to do so, refrain from posting on your blog tomorrow, October 4 and put up one sentence: Free Burma! Underline the words if you so choose.
For bloggers, the slogan is: "One blogpost for Burma."
Easy enough. Every voice can make a difference.
About a week ago, demonstrations began in the country of Burma, renamed Myanmar by the military junta who overtook the country. Buddhist monks took to the streets in what has been dubbed the Saffron Revolution. The demonstrations quickly turned deadly as monks and protesters were killed by the military. They are killing monks.
No true numbers can be recorded yet. The country is closed off to anyone trying to enter. A diplomatic envoy was just yesterday allowed to speak to a political prisoner, a Noble Peace Prize recipient, and opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. The envoy is described as looking 'grim' as he departed from the meeting.
The people of Burma took to the streets to protest the government's price hike on fuel, more than doubling the cost. The average income in Burma is $200 a year. Burma is one of the poorest countries in the world.
People from all over the world have voiced indignation. Everyone from Laura Bush to Hollywood actor Jim Carrey have voiced support of those rising up, peacefully, in the streets. Our country has called for stricter sanctions on the junta. President Bush has decided to enforce stricter financial sanctions to Burma's leading generals.
Some call for the boycott of the Olympics in China. China is a prime source of support for the junta.
The military has pledged to track down protesters that have been photographed and punish them. Buddhist monasteries have been stormed and the monks have been killed.
Senator John McCain has called for Burma to be expelled from ASEAN - the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. "We should isolate Burma even further," he said, "And I refuse to call Burma Myanmar."
Me, too.
"China should also make a stand for human rights, " stated McCain while he called for the junta's censure and international condemnation of Burma's brutal leadership.
Actor Sylvester Stallone was recently filming a movie along the Salween River which separates Thailand and Burma. He returned to the U.S. eight days ago. Monday he said he was witness to unspeakable atrocities on the Burmese border. "We hear about Vietnam and Cambodia, and this was more horrific."
More than 100 people protested here in Houston Monday in front of the Chinese Consulate in support of the hundreds of Buddhist monks and the others who have been arrested, or killed, in the demonstrations. Many of those protesting in town Monday were refugees from decades of political unrest in Burma.
So, spread the word. An easy way to show support to Burmese bloggers, who have been silenced in the past and are now fighting to get the story of the protests out, is to join in on the International Bloggers' Day for Burma tomorrow. If you choose to do so, refrain from posting on your blog tomorrow, October 4 and put up one sentence: Free Burma! Underline the words if you so choose.
For bloggers, the slogan is: "One blogpost for Burma."
Easy enough. Every voice can make a difference.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Overcharging
This afternoon for a few minutes I tuned into C-SPAN and saw some of the 'hearing' concerning the contractor, Blackwater USA Security Firm. A few minutes was all even I could take, the ridiculous tone and questioning of Erik Prince, the Founder and Chairman of the organization was something to make you shake your head.
Erik Prince is a veteran, a Navy SEAL. He began this company to utilize veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces as security details around the world for Americans. These are trained professionals, trained by the U.S. military during their service and then specialized training by Blackwater upon hire. After 9/11, he was called upon by this administration and hired as a contractor to provide security for the State Department. What does that mean? It means the company is charged with the responsibility of keeping safe all the diplomats, the visiting congresspeople, the Iraqi elected officials when needed. Although the company has suffered the loss of about 30 employees and the maiming and injured number more than 200, their record for keeping their charges safe is spotless. NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN KILLED under their watch. That is amazing, especially considering the dangers in Baghdad and Iraq itself.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, is one nasty man. He is the chair of the Oversight and Gov't Reform Committee and bragged that when the Dems took over the Congress that he would do investigation after investigation of the administration and everything he possibly could. He is a do nothing kind of politician while grabbing headlines for his 'investigations'. He has been in DC for years and is still a back-bencher as far as legislation goes.
Waxman began the questioning by asking if Prince thought the company was overpaid in its contract and the profits made due to the need in Iraq for their services. What?
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY, went into a monologue about the incident that happened last September where a Blackwater security person was drunk and shot the Iraqi guard of an Iraqi Vice President. It was a bad mistake and there were no witnesses. The man was immediately fired, as is policy for anyone drinking, and fined thousands of dollars. He was taken out of the country as soon as arrangements could be made. Maloney's tirade included such stellar statements as 'if he was doing that in this country he'd be in jail, if he was a soldier he'd be courtmarshalled', etc. Well, he's not in the military anymore, he was working for Blackwater. And he wasn't in this country, he was doing his job in Iraq. That's rather the point, isn't it?
Maloney said, "It appears Blackwater has special rules." What an idiot. They are a civilian company, not a military branch. The person she was asking about is under investigation by the Department of Justice. What was she hoping for, an execution before a trial? That's the sort of thinking we are suppose to be battling.
So, let's not honor the success of this American company, guarding American lives overseas in a war zone, racking up a 100% success rate. Let's bring in the company's founder and beat him up. Let's make a show about his financial success due to the need for his company in a war zone.
The military can't handle it all. The force is too small. After the Cold War, the military and its equipment was downsized. The downsizing continued up until 9/11. That's the facts. The solution to not relying on contractors in war is to have a military in large enough numbers to handle the work itself. And who fights hardest to keep the defense spending and military force down? That's right, the defeatists currently accusing the military of everything under the sun, as well as those who are working with them.
Maybe when Hillary is President, instead of buying votes with her $5,000 giveaway for every baby born in this country (does that include the anchor babies?) to the tune of $20 billion a year, she could use that money on our country's defense. Yeah, that'd produce that cackling laugh, wouldn't it?
I think Rep. Waxman is overcharging the American taxpayer and not acting professionally in his position. Any wonder why Congress polls at 11% with the American people?
Erik Prince is a veteran, a Navy SEAL. He began this company to utilize veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces as security details around the world for Americans. These are trained professionals, trained by the U.S. military during their service and then specialized training by Blackwater upon hire. After 9/11, he was called upon by this administration and hired as a contractor to provide security for the State Department. What does that mean? It means the company is charged with the responsibility of keeping safe all the diplomats, the visiting congresspeople, the Iraqi elected officials when needed. Although the company has suffered the loss of about 30 employees and the maiming and injured number more than 200, their record for keeping their charges safe is spotless. NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN KILLED under their watch. That is amazing, especially considering the dangers in Baghdad and Iraq itself.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, is one nasty man. He is the chair of the Oversight and Gov't Reform Committee and bragged that when the Dems took over the Congress that he would do investigation after investigation of the administration and everything he possibly could. He is a do nothing kind of politician while grabbing headlines for his 'investigations'. He has been in DC for years and is still a back-bencher as far as legislation goes.
Waxman began the questioning by asking if Prince thought the company was overpaid in its contract and the profits made due to the need in Iraq for their services. What?
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY, went into a monologue about the incident that happened last September where a Blackwater security person was drunk and shot the Iraqi guard of an Iraqi Vice President. It was a bad mistake and there were no witnesses. The man was immediately fired, as is policy for anyone drinking, and fined thousands of dollars. He was taken out of the country as soon as arrangements could be made. Maloney's tirade included such stellar statements as 'if he was doing that in this country he'd be in jail, if he was a soldier he'd be courtmarshalled', etc. Well, he's not in the military anymore, he was working for Blackwater. And he wasn't in this country, he was doing his job in Iraq. That's rather the point, isn't it?
Maloney said, "It appears Blackwater has special rules." What an idiot. They are a civilian company, not a military branch. The person she was asking about is under investigation by the Department of Justice. What was she hoping for, an execution before a trial? That's the sort of thinking we are suppose to be battling.
So, let's not honor the success of this American company, guarding American lives overseas in a war zone, racking up a 100% success rate. Let's bring in the company's founder and beat him up. Let's make a show about his financial success due to the need for his company in a war zone.
The military can't handle it all. The force is too small. After the Cold War, the military and its equipment was downsized. The downsizing continued up until 9/11. That's the facts. The solution to not relying on contractors in war is to have a military in large enough numbers to handle the work itself. And who fights hardest to keep the defense spending and military force down? That's right, the defeatists currently accusing the military of everything under the sun, as well as those who are working with them.
Maybe when Hillary is President, instead of buying votes with her $5,000 giveaway for every baby born in this country (does that include the anchor babies?) to the tune of $20 billion a year, she could use that money on our country's defense. Yeah, that'd produce that cackling laugh, wouldn't it?
I think Rep. Waxman is overcharging the American taxpayer and not acting professionally in his position. Any wonder why Congress polls at 11% with the American people?
The Party of McGovern Strikes Again
From Michelle Malkin.com: "During a 1992 bid for the presidency, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa claimed that he had served as a pilot in Vietnam. His claim had surfaced eight years before, during a 1984 bid for re-election to the Senate, when Harkin boasted that he had served one year in Vietnam flying F-4s and F-8s on combat air patrols and photo-reconnaissance support missions. Challenged by Sen. Barry Goldwater, Harkin did a quick shuffle, claiming that he had actually flown combat sorties over Cuba during the sixties. Harkin finally admitted he had not seen combat but had served as a ferry pilot stationed in Atsugi, Japan, flying aircraft to be repaired from Atsugi to the Philippines. When pressed by reporters to explain how much time he really spent in Vietnam, Harkin estimated that over a year, he flew in and out of Vietnam a dozen or so times. But Harkin's military record showed no Vietnam service decorations. He finally conceded he had not flown combat air patrols in Vietnam and began describing himself as a Vietnam era vet."
Who was out in front, accusing Rush Limbaugh of defaming our military? Who was stating on the Senate floor that Rush may have been taking "his drugs" again and if so ought to say so, but it wouldn't be an excuse for what he said on the radio? Tom Harkin.
Harry Reid, who has on the Senate floor declared the war 'lost' and the president a liar in front of school children. Harry Reid who said the surge is not working, even as reports of progress began filtering back to the American public.
Who was out front, bringing a resolution to the Senate denouncing Rush Limbaugh? Harry Reid.
Who was on the Senate floor all indignant of the alleged statements made by Rush Limbaugh about the soldiers? John Kerry. Yes, the same John Kerry who said our soldiers are terrorizing women and children in the dead of night in Iraq. The same John Kerry who Winter Soldiered his fellow soldiers in Vietnam for this own personal publicity and future political career.
Did any of the pitiful people vote yes to the resolution stating the full page ad by MoveOn in the New York Times was an inexcusable slander to General Petraeus? No.
Media Matters, a liberal watchdog group who seems to only tune into Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's radio show, have lied about a statement Rush made on the radio and twisted it to sound as though Rush was saying soldiers criticizing the war in Iraq were 'phony soldiers'. That is not what the full video clip shows. It is all over the Internet for anyone truly wanting the correct conversation he was having with a phone in call to his show. Rush was referring to the likes of Jesse MacBeth, a mouthpiece for the defeatists. He was in the Army for a total of 44 days and washed out of boot camp. He claimed he was an Army Ranger, witnessed acts of horror our soldiers committed on the Iraqi people, and that he was awarded a Purple Heart. He was the darling of the media rooting for defeat until the real story came out on this slug. He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years of probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record.
The caller and Rush were discussing 'phony soldiers' in the context of those falsifying their service records to receive benefits not due them. It is the same term used a week or so ago by ABC News. They also did a report on these soldiers. What, no outrage there?
Media Matters and Center for American Progress, led by former Clinton chief of staff, John Podesta, are now being touted on the campaign trail by Hillary Clinton. She is bragging that she helped start both of these operations and fully supports them. Media Matters is funded by George Soros and the MoveOn crowd. Any wonder why Hillary was so disgraceful to General Petraeus?
Any question how she will govern and her attitude to the military?
The Petraeus ad turned out to be a dud for the defeatists and a real loser as far as the American people were concerned. Those who truly support the military are told we can't call anyone 'unpatriotic'. Free speech.
Reid and his ilk have no problem calling Limbaugh 'unpatriotic' on the floor of the Senate. Do as I say, not as I do. Typical for the party of McGovern.
Remember how that election turned out?
Who was out in front, accusing Rush Limbaugh of defaming our military? Who was stating on the Senate floor that Rush may have been taking "his drugs" again and if so ought to say so, but it wouldn't be an excuse for what he said on the radio? Tom Harkin.
Harry Reid, who has on the Senate floor declared the war 'lost' and the president a liar in front of school children. Harry Reid who said the surge is not working, even as reports of progress began filtering back to the American public.
Who was out front, bringing a resolution to the Senate denouncing Rush Limbaugh? Harry Reid.
Who was on the Senate floor all indignant of the alleged statements made by Rush Limbaugh about the soldiers? John Kerry. Yes, the same John Kerry who said our soldiers are terrorizing women and children in the dead of night in Iraq. The same John Kerry who Winter Soldiered his fellow soldiers in Vietnam for this own personal publicity and future political career.
Did any of the pitiful people vote yes to the resolution stating the full page ad by MoveOn in the New York Times was an inexcusable slander to General Petraeus? No.
Media Matters, a liberal watchdog group who seems to only tune into Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's radio show, have lied about a statement Rush made on the radio and twisted it to sound as though Rush was saying soldiers criticizing the war in Iraq were 'phony soldiers'. That is not what the full video clip shows. It is all over the Internet for anyone truly wanting the correct conversation he was having with a phone in call to his show. Rush was referring to the likes of Jesse MacBeth, a mouthpiece for the defeatists. He was in the Army for a total of 44 days and washed out of boot camp. He claimed he was an Army Ranger, witnessed acts of horror our soldiers committed on the Iraqi people, and that he was awarded a Purple Heart. He was the darling of the media rooting for defeat until the real story came out on this slug. He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years of probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record.
The caller and Rush were discussing 'phony soldiers' in the context of those falsifying their service records to receive benefits not due them. It is the same term used a week or so ago by ABC News. They also did a report on these soldiers. What, no outrage there?
Media Matters and Center for American Progress, led by former Clinton chief of staff, John Podesta, are now being touted on the campaign trail by Hillary Clinton. She is bragging that she helped start both of these operations and fully supports them. Media Matters is funded by George Soros and the MoveOn crowd. Any wonder why Hillary was so disgraceful to General Petraeus?
Any question how she will govern and her attitude to the military?
The Petraeus ad turned out to be a dud for the defeatists and a real loser as far as the American people were concerned. Those who truly support the military are told we can't call anyone 'unpatriotic'. Free speech.
Reid and his ilk have no problem calling Limbaugh 'unpatriotic' on the floor of the Senate. Do as I say, not as I do. Typical for the party of McGovern.
Remember how that election turned out?
Baloney and Cheese
In a surprise twist, yesterday the lawyers came together in the Oscar Wyatt Oil for Food trial and Oscar pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He claims it is because he is 83 years old and doesn't want to waste any more time on this trial. Pesky thing that it is. The billionaire oil man with the international jet setting wife is doing a bit of spin control.
Oscar is full of baloney.
Oscar Wyatt is known as a junkyard dog style of businessman. He never accepts defeat, according to those doing business with him. He has even sued his brother in law over business dealings. To accept he just wants to 'get it over with' in this case seems quite a stretch to me. Looks like he is taking a page out of Sen. Craig's playbook and just admitting guilt to be finished with the legal issues.
OK, then.
Wyatt will be sentenced November 27. He faces between 18 to 22 months in jail and a fine of $11 million. I heard on the local news last night Oscar has been told he'll be able to report to serve his time at a later date so that he can have Christmas at home.
Looks like Santa came early this year.
Oscar is full of baloney.
Oscar Wyatt is known as a junkyard dog style of businessman. He never accepts defeat, according to those doing business with him. He has even sued his brother in law over business dealings. To accept he just wants to 'get it over with' in this case seems quite a stretch to me. Looks like he is taking a page out of Sen. Craig's playbook and just admitting guilt to be finished with the legal issues.
OK, then.
Wyatt will be sentenced November 27. He faces between 18 to 22 months in jail and a fine of $11 million. I heard on the local news last night Oscar has been told he'll be able to report to serve his time at a later date so that he can have Christmas at home.
Looks like Santa came early this year.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Justice
Saturday was a wonderful to hang out at home and watch Book TV on C-SPAN. Why? It was the National Book Festival in D.C., sponsored by The Congressional Library and First Lady Laura Bush. It was a book lover's delight.
Saturday evening took us to a community playhouse. The production was "Laughing Stock", written by Charles Morey. I have to say, what for us was a sleeper of a show in the season's line-up turned out to be possibly the best production we have seen there. It certainly was this year. A new batch of actors were performing, different than the usual regulars and they brought with them all kinds of new energy and skills.
From the playbill: "The action of the play takes place in and around the New England summer stock barn theatre known as "The Playhouse" and various other suggested locations, from February to labor Day of a recent year."
A good time was had by all.
Finishing off the weekend's entertainment was the interview with Clarence Thomas on "60 Minutes." I have to say I really enjoyed the interview, even with Steve Croft doing it. It showed him as a calm, intelligent, articulate, remarkable man. He is not a bitter man, as he is often described by his critics. He is a man of strong faith, a one time seminary student. He went through the days of the Civil Rights movement as a college student, joining black power groups and then confronted the Washington bigotry as it is in the political world. He and his wife, Virginia (Ginny) have raised and financially supported his nephews. When the Supreme Court is not in session, they head out on their RV and travel the country, often parking in Walmart parking lots as is common with other RVer's.
Anita Hill was spotlighted on another channel. She has been shown for what she is and she should have avoided any further spotlight. Her whole 'I didn't want to come forward' act is old and if that were the case, she should give back all the money she has made profiting from partaking in the electronic lynching of this man. She was easily bought off by the Dems of the Senate who brought her out of the woodwork and used her for their political zealotry. She is one sad, weak woman.
Steve Croft said, but, "you won." Thomas replied, "Won what?" "This wasn't a football game. It was a process and it was about our country." Good for him. To the Dems, like Leaker Leahy and Swimmer Kennedy, it was all a game to discredit a black man with conservative views. It was absolutely despicable. History has not been kind to their process. And it continues on today. Quite a legacy for their party.
Contrast that with how the nominees for Supreme Court were treated by Republicans when Clinton, for example, was in office. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a left wing ideologue and proud of it, was treated respectfully and voted on, favorably, as the tradition is. If the candidate is qualified, not a criminal, of intelligent mind, then you pass the nomination as the President wants. Sure, ask tough questions to test them, then get on with them. The continued personal destruction administered by the Dems is not serving anyone. Look how Roberts and Alito were treated. Respectful? Hardly. The two of those men were better educated and more intelligent, not to mention best qualified for the positions, yet Mrs. Alito was brought to tears by the vicious attacks, all proven incorrect. Again, despicable. Their crimes? Conservatives wanting to serve their country. Both took the pledge not to alter Roe v. Wade, but that still wasn't good enough.
The old attack that it is Republicans who are the mean spirited ones is long gone.
I'm going this week to buy the book. I want the New York Times to have to list it as #1 on the bestseller list. Now, that's justice.
Saturday evening took us to a community playhouse. The production was "Laughing Stock", written by Charles Morey. I have to say, what for us was a sleeper of a show in the season's line-up turned out to be possibly the best production we have seen there. It certainly was this year. A new batch of actors were performing, different than the usual regulars and they brought with them all kinds of new energy and skills.
From the playbill: "The action of the play takes place in and around the New England summer stock barn theatre known as "The Playhouse" and various other suggested locations, from February to labor Day of a recent year."
A good time was had by all.
Finishing off the weekend's entertainment was the interview with Clarence Thomas on "60 Minutes." I have to say I really enjoyed the interview, even with Steve Croft doing it. It showed him as a calm, intelligent, articulate, remarkable man. He is not a bitter man, as he is often described by his critics. He is a man of strong faith, a one time seminary student. He went through the days of the Civil Rights movement as a college student, joining black power groups and then confronted the Washington bigotry as it is in the political world. He and his wife, Virginia (Ginny) have raised and financially supported his nephews. When the Supreme Court is not in session, they head out on their RV and travel the country, often parking in Walmart parking lots as is common with other RVer's.
Anita Hill was spotlighted on another channel. She has been shown for what she is and she should have avoided any further spotlight. Her whole 'I didn't want to come forward' act is old and if that were the case, she should give back all the money she has made profiting from partaking in the electronic lynching of this man. She was easily bought off by the Dems of the Senate who brought her out of the woodwork and used her for their political zealotry. She is one sad, weak woman.
Steve Croft said, but, "you won." Thomas replied, "Won what?" "This wasn't a football game. It was a process and it was about our country." Good for him. To the Dems, like Leaker Leahy and Swimmer Kennedy, it was all a game to discredit a black man with conservative views. It was absolutely despicable. History has not been kind to their process. And it continues on today. Quite a legacy for their party.
Contrast that with how the nominees for Supreme Court were treated by Republicans when Clinton, for example, was in office. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a left wing ideologue and proud of it, was treated respectfully and voted on, favorably, as the tradition is. If the candidate is qualified, not a criminal, of intelligent mind, then you pass the nomination as the President wants. Sure, ask tough questions to test them, then get on with them. The continued personal destruction administered by the Dems is not serving anyone. Look how Roberts and Alito were treated. Respectful? Hardly. The two of those men were better educated and more intelligent, not to mention best qualified for the positions, yet Mrs. Alito was brought to tears by the vicious attacks, all proven incorrect. Again, despicable. Their crimes? Conservatives wanting to serve their country. Both took the pledge not to alter Roe v. Wade, but that still wasn't good enough.
The old attack that it is Republicans who are the mean spirited ones is long gone.
I'm going this week to buy the book. I want the New York Times to have to list it as #1 on the bestseller list. Now, that's justice.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
The Thread of Stereotypes
I watched the interview with Jenna Bush by Diane Sawyer last night. It was surprisingly good. I'm not surprised that Jenna Bush was enjoyable to watch, I am surprised that Diane Sawyer was watchable.
Jenna is a lovely young woman. She is smart, well-spoken, outgoing, compassionate and active in life. She was a joy to watch as the camera recorded her with the children in Jamaica for her work as a UNICEF intern. She has taught children in the Caribbean and Latin America for the last year for UNICEF, utilizing her degree in education to reach out to what UNICEF labels children of isolation - children living in poverty, with a lack of education, domestic abuse, lack of civilized living conditions, living with illness.
Jenna's work allows her to reach out to children living with HIV/AIDS. She was able to put her experience into words by writing a book about the story of a young orphan girl, Ana, born with HIV and living with the disease. This brought up the line of questioning from Sawyer about the Bush administration's public policy of encouraging abstinence, especially for young people. Sawyer asked Jenna "don't you come from an administration that preaches abstinence?", to which Jenna replied, "I don't come from an administration". I loved that.
Sawyer worked for a Republican administration, back in the day, and sometimes seems to go out of her way to belittle whose viewed as in the conservative world today. She seems to feel obligated to re-affirm herself with the stereotype of liberal journalist.
Do we stereotype too much in this world of politics and public policy? Yes, it is a thread running in my posts lately as I am struck by some of the old, outdated, thinking by some. I try to combat easy and old ways of thinking about ideas and the people supporting the ideas, particularly in the political world. I loved that Jenna Bush was such a fine example of a young person, 25 years old, venturing out in her career and her life in such a mature way.
The point is, of course, Jenna is not a policy maker. Not a political person, as a matter of fact. I had to fight the stereotype that a person without children doesn't understand that a child often doesn't reflect the parent and struggles to be a person in his/her own right. Sawyer doesn't have children in her personal life. It was an easy question to be surprised that Jenna dealt with HIV/AIDS in a mature, learned way, as opposed to the stereotype that Republicans or conservatives are stupid homophobes. Or don't understand the innocent victims of the disease.
Because, you know, Republicans don't understand HIV/AIDS. The Bush administration, however, has supplied more funding for programs to help those suffering and for research and drug development than any previous administration. Especially in the struggle to assist the continent of Africa and the epidemic level of AIDS there.
And the stereotype that Jenna, a daughter of a Republican family, and her publicity as a college student for drinking? She gracefully answered that all of that was while she was a freshman and sophomore in college, all very normal for many students. She pointed out it was 7 or 8 years ago. She's, you know, grown up some by now. She was also maintaining good grades and working as a tutor 2 days a week in college while she was suppose to be some wild, drunken party girl.
She was sweet as she spoke about her boyfriend of 3 years, now her fiance. She is very close with her twin sister, Barbara, as well as her parents.
So, there Jenna is, battling stereotypes in her own way.
Jenna is a lovely young woman. She is smart, well-spoken, outgoing, compassionate and active in life. She was a joy to watch as the camera recorded her with the children in Jamaica for her work as a UNICEF intern. She has taught children in the Caribbean and Latin America for the last year for UNICEF, utilizing her degree in education to reach out to what UNICEF labels children of isolation - children living in poverty, with a lack of education, domestic abuse, lack of civilized living conditions, living with illness.
Jenna's work allows her to reach out to children living with HIV/AIDS. She was able to put her experience into words by writing a book about the story of a young orphan girl, Ana, born with HIV and living with the disease. This brought up the line of questioning from Sawyer about the Bush administration's public policy of encouraging abstinence, especially for young people. Sawyer asked Jenna "don't you come from an administration that preaches abstinence?", to which Jenna replied, "I don't come from an administration". I loved that.
Sawyer worked for a Republican administration, back in the day, and sometimes seems to go out of her way to belittle whose viewed as in the conservative world today. She seems to feel obligated to re-affirm herself with the stereotype of liberal journalist.
Do we stereotype too much in this world of politics and public policy? Yes, it is a thread running in my posts lately as I am struck by some of the old, outdated, thinking by some. I try to combat easy and old ways of thinking about ideas and the people supporting the ideas, particularly in the political world. I loved that Jenna Bush was such a fine example of a young person, 25 years old, venturing out in her career and her life in such a mature way.
The point is, of course, Jenna is not a policy maker. Not a political person, as a matter of fact. I had to fight the stereotype that a person without children doesn't understand that a child often doesn't reflect the parent and struggles to be a person in his/her own right. Sawyer doesn't have children in her personal life. It was an easy question to be surprised that Jenna dealt with HIV/AIDS in a mature, learned way, as opposed to the stereotype that Republicans or conservatives are stupid homophobes. Or don't understand the innocent victims of the disease.
Because, you know, Republicans don't understand HIV/AIDS. The Bush administration, however, has supplied more funding for programs to help those suffering and for research and drug development than any previous administration. Especially in the struggle to assist the continent of Africa and the epidemic level of AIDS there.
And the stereotype that Jenna, a daughter of a Republican family, and her publicity as a college student for drinking? She gracefully answered that all of that was while she was a freshman and sophomore in college, all very normal for many students. She pointed out it was 7 or 8 years ago. She's, you know, grown up some by now. She was also maintaining good grades and working as a tutor 2 days a week in college while she was suppose to be some wild, drunken party girl.
She was sweet as she spoke about her boyfriend of 3 years, now her fiance. She is very close with her twin sister, Barbara, as well as her parents.
So, there Jenna is, battling stereotypes in her own way.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Medical Marijuana
I am a member of one of the local Republican women clubs, actually it is a political action committee (PAC). Our chapter, along with a couple of others in the city, are viewed a bit differently than the other Republicans. I have been told we are considered a 'moderate to liberal' group.
Thank goodness.
One of the bragging points I have heard expressed in recent months by our group's president is that our chapter endorses the legal use of medical marijuana. Unfortunately the endorsement was necessary due to the fact that medical marijuana is not legal in Texas. Actually, it's only legal, or not criminalized, in a few of our fifty states. Did you know that?
So far, medical marijuana use has been legalized, or decriminalized, in the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
What caught my eye today was an article in the Houston Chronicle by Lynn Marshall of the LA Times. The writer speaks to the struggle to regulate the drug. In Washington, for example, a patient is allowed a two month supply. The problem arises, though, when you understand that a two month supply for one sick person is not a two month supply for another. Each case would be different, wouldn't it? I know I would want to have individualized treatment, not something considered 'standard' for all. The writer points out that medical marijuana is used by patients with chronic pain, like chronic back pain as well as cancer. How does a regulator, the State, find a 'standard' there?
Then there is the consideration of the administration of the drug. The patient who puts it in food would have a different measurement than one who smokes it. That's just common sense.
Washington is the only state without clear guidelines allowed for possession of a patient or the caregiver. Each state is different. For example, Oregon allows 24 ounces or six mature plants, the largest amount allowed by any state. Some states allow a patient to have one ounce. California allows 8 ounces or 6 mature plants. Cities and counties are allowed to establish higher guidelines.
It's all very confusing.
And quality control. Regulations have to be in place for those who are in charge of the seeds of the crops, I would think. I think it should be of the best and strongest quality possible.
I think those suffering from chronic pain, whether it is your back, cancer, or MS, everyone should have the option to find out if medical marijuana could ease the pain.
I think it should be an available option in all fifty states.
Thank goodness.
One of the bragging points I have heard expressed in recent months by our group's president is that our chapter endorses the legal use of medical marijuana. Unfortunately the endorsement was necessary due to the fact that medical marijuana is not legal in Texas. Actually, it's only legal, or not criminalized, in a few of our fifty states. Did you know that?
So far, medical marijuana use has been legalized, or decriminalized, in the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
What caught my eye today was an article in the Houston Chronicle by Lynn Marshall of the LA Times. The writer speaks to the struggle to regulate the drug. In Washington, for example, a patient is allowed a two month supply. The problem arises, though, when you understand that a two month supply for one sick person is not a two month supply for another. Each case would be different, wouldn't it? I know I would want to have individualized treatment, not something considered 'standard' for all. The writer points out that medical marijuana is used by patients with chronic pain, like chronic back pain as well as cancer. How does a regulator, the State, find a 'standard' there?
Then there is the consideration of the administration of the drug. The patient who puts it in food would have a different measurement than one who smokes it. That's just common sense.
Washington is the only state without clear guidelines allowed for possession of a patient or the caregiver. Each state is different. For example, Oregon allows 24 ounces or six mature plants, the largest amount allowed by any state. Some states allow a patient to have one ounce. California allows 8 ounces or 6 mature plants. Cities and counties are allowed to establish higher guidelines.
It's all very confusing.
And quality control. Regulations have to be in place for those who are in charge of the seeds of the crops, I would think. I think it should be of the best and strongest quality possible.
I think those suffering from chronic pain, whether it is your back, cancer, or MS, everyone should have the option to find out if medical marijuana could ease the pain.
I think it should be an available option in all fifty states.
A Non-Debate Debate
On the heels of the debate attended by the Democrat presidential candidates, the Republicans took their turn at the podiums on the stage before a predominantly black audience. They came to pander and bow before those who have absolutely no intention of voting in a Republican primary. They came to belittle the top tier candidates, all four of them, who did not attend.
The moderator, Tavis Smiley, remarked he had been working on this forum for over a year. The forum was presented on PBS and the panel of questioners were all well qualified liberals in good standing. Cynthia Tucker with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Ray Suarez from PBS, and Juan Williams of NPR and also Fox News. None ever friendly to Republicans. Cynthia Tucker maintained her sour, stern face each time I dipped into the debate.
Did you think I would choose to watch this exercise in futility over the season premiere of Grey's Anatomy? Please. From what I viewed during commercial breaks, I made the right choice.
Alan Keyes was on stage as a candidate. When did he jump in?
The audience feigned indignation that the top tier of candidates - Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson - called it for what it was and didn't accept the summons for attendance. Where was all this righteous indignation when the Dems refused to debate on Fox News channel, also sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus? There was none. There was, however, lots of high fiving the Dems for being cowed by the far left websites demanding they avoid Fox News.
I heard two questions being asked of the candidates. The first was submitted by a contestant in an Internet question lottery : Since the majority of American presidents, since Abe Lincoln, have been Republican yet most blacks couldn't name a President with a positive legacy for blacks from the Republican party, what would your legacy be? Yeah, that's a wonderful question. From the current president alone, there are many accomplishments for the minority populations yet that would not ever be acknowledged by this woman. Right now, today, there is a record level of home ownership by minorities, record amounts of government money funding public education, record low levels of unemployment and expanded drug payment programs. This president hasn't been shy to expand government programs, which to hear this audience talk, that is all that is important to them anyway. What's in it for me?
Another question I heard posed to the candidates: The House of Representatives fell short of votes for D.C. to be able to have a voting voice in Congress. Also, rigid requirements for voter id at polling places is seen as an attempt to bring about voter suppression. How do you guarantee all people are allowed to vote without discrimination? Well, first on the question of voting rights for D.C. in Congress - it's unconstitutional. D.C. is the District of Columbia, not the state of Columbia. The constitution would have to be changed, not simply voting in Congress on it. And for voter id's being required to vote? Yes. What a concept, right? Everyone can get a picture id, it doesn't have to be a drivers license or costly. Many states offer picture ids as a free benefit.
How come when Dems win elections, like they did in 2006, there is an amazing lack of cries of voting irregularities? How come when Republicans win, all of a sudden all kinds of horrible events were occurring?
I like most of the candidates running for my party's nomination. Most of them, however, are unelectable this time around. This time around, for the Republican candidate to be successful, he has to be able to debate and win over Hillary Clinton. It's as simple as that. He also has to have his first and foremost theme of national security. If the far right continues to moan and groan about abortion and how they'll just stay home if a liberal like Rudy is the candidate, well, it's hello President Hillary. Is that what they want? How about just getting out there and voting for your party? The Dems have proven to be the party of McGovern, part two, and are not worthy of the honor of keeping our country safe.
Mike Huckabee, who is a darn fine speaker, made the remark that he was embarrassed that the top tier candidates didn't show last night. I'm embarrassed he made that remark. It's the primary season. This election cycle has been so over-extended that the debates, to date, have been absolutely meaningless. Certainly this is true of the Republican debates. No one is saying anything. The audience doesn't learn anything of substance in 90 second bites. It's ridiculous.
Tell me something I haven't heard. Tell me what you are going to do, not what you think will placate me. Tell me how you are going to lead, not twist yourself into a pretzel over every issue.
The primary season is all about raising money and polls. In order to win the nomination by convention time the candidates have to speak to their base. After the conventions and the race toward the general election is underway, then more outreach to all populations in this country is the strategy.
You know what I'm embarrassed about, Mike Huckabee? I'm embarrassed that an entire minority population in this free country of ours votes as a block for one political party. I'm embarrassed that this population of voters continues to be taken for granted by the Democrats, over and over again. Exactly what policies were implemented by the 'first black president', Bill Clinton, that so improved the everyday lives of blacks in America?
In the last presidential election, 9% of black voters voted for President Bush. More blacks and other minorities are at the highest of levels of power in this administration.
Who's thinking is more progressive?
The moderator, Tavis Smiley, remarked he had been working on this forum for over a year. The forum was presented on PBS and the panel of questioners were all well qualified liberals in good standing. Cynthia Tucker with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Ray Suarez from PBS, and Juan Williams of NPR and also Fox News. None ever friendly to Republicans. Cynthia Tucker maintained her sour, stern face each time I dipped into the debate.
Did you think I would choose to watch this exercise in futility over the season premiere of Grey's Anatomy? Please. From what I viewed during commercial breaks, I made the right choice.
Alan Keyes was on stage as a candidate. When did he jump in?
The audience feigned indignation that the top tier of candidates - Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson - called it for what it was and didn't accept the summons for attendance. Where was all this righteous indignation when the Dems refused to debate on Fox News channel, also sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus? There was none. There was, however, lots of high fiving the Dems for being cowed by the far left websites demanding they avoid Fox News.
I heard two questions being asked of the candidates. The first was submitted by a contestant in an Internet question lottery : Since the majority of American presidents, since Abe Lincoln, have been Republican yet most blacks couldn't name a President with a positive legacy for blacks from the Republican party, what would your legacy be? Yeah, that's a wonderful question. From the current president alone, there are many accomplishments for the minority populations yet that would not ever be acknowledged by this woman. Right now, today, there is a record level of home ownership by minorities, record amounts of government money funding public education, record low levels of unemployment and expanded drug payment programs. This president hasn't been shy to expand government programs, which to hear this audience talk, that is all that is important to them anyway. What's in it for me?
Another question I heard posed to the candidates: The House of Representatives fell short of votes for D.C. to be able to have a voting voice in Congress. Also, rigid requirements for voter id at polling places is seen as an attempt to bring about voter suppression. How do you guarantee all people are allowed to vote without discrimination? Well, first on the question of voting rights for D.C. in Congress - it's unconstitutional. D.C. is the District of Columbia, not the state of Columbia. The constitution would have to be changed, not simply voting in Congress on it. And for voter id's being required to vote? Yes. What a concept, right? Everyone can get a picture id, it doesn't have to be a drivers license or costly. Many states offer picture ids as a free benefit.
How come when Dems win elections, like they did in 2006, there is an amazing lack of cries of voting irregularities? How come when Republicans win, all of a sudden all kinds of horrible events were occurring?
I like most of the candidates running for my party's nomination. Most of them, however, are unelectable this time around. This time around, for the Republican candidate to be successful, he has to be able to debate and win over Hillary Clinton. It's as simple as that. He also has to have his first and foremost theme of national security. If the far right continues to moan and groan about abortion and how they'll just stay home if a liberal like Rudy is the candidate, well, it's hello President Hillary. Is that what they want? How about just getting out there and voting for your party? The Dems have proven to be the party of McGovern, part two, and are not worthy of the honor of keeping our country safe.
Mike Huckabee, who is a darn fine speaker, made the remark that he was embarrassed that the top tier candidates didn't show last night. I'm embarrassed he made that remark. It's the primary season. This election cycle has been so over-extended that the debates, to date, have been absolutely meaningless. Certainly this is true of the Republican debates. No one is saying anything. The audience doesn't learn anything of substance in 90 second bites. It's ridiculous.
Tell me something I haven't heard. Tell me what you are going to do, not what you think will placate me. Tell me how you are going to lead, not twist yourself into a pretzel over every issue.
The primary season is all about raising money and polls. In order to win the nomination by convention time the candidates have to speak to their base. After the conventions and the race toward the general election is underway, then more outreach to all populations in this country is the strategy.
You know what I'm embarrassed about, Mike Huckabee? I'm embarrassed that an entire minority population in this free country of ours votes as a block for one political party. I'm embarrassed that this population of voters continues to be taken for granted by the Democrats, over and over again. Exactly what policies were implemented by the 'first black president', Bill Clinton, that so improved the everyday lives of blacks in America?
In the last presidential election, 9% of black voters voted for President Bush. More blacks and other minorities are at the highest of levels of power in this administration.
Who's thinking is more progressive?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)