Of Human Events

Profile 08: Evan Bayh

2005-01-16T10:02:00.000-05:00

There are a couple of front-runners for the 2008 Presidential Election on the Democrat side. This "series" is meant to show where these potential candidates stand on the issues. The first Democrat I will preview is Evan Bayh.

Evan Bayh, Senator Indiana, former Governor.Brief Bio: Born December 26, 1955, Evan Bayh has been involved in politics since 1984 when he was part of the Wayne Townsend Gubanatorial Campaign. He was Indiana Secretary of State from 1986-1988, Indiana Governor from 1988-1996, and Indiana's Junior Senator from 1998-present (he won reelection in 2004 by 25 percentage points). Bayh received degrees from the University of Indiana and the University of Virginia and is currently married with two children. He currently sits on six Senate committees and is an active participant in the Senate. Beloved by the people of Indiana, Bayh is viewed as a Moderate and won all but six counties in the 2004 Senate Election.

Votes in the Senate:Continue affirmative action programs without quotas. (Jan 1998)
Rated 50% by NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
Balance debt reduction, tax relief, & policy investment. (Jan 2001)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Broaden use of death penalty. (Jan 1998)More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Undecided on School Prayer Amendment. (Jan 1998)
Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Firmly opposed to Bush’s voucher proposal. (Jan 2001)
(Not really a "vote" but Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. [Dec 2003])Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (May 2002)
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)
Free & fair trade is key to economic growth . (Jan 2001)
Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Private self-managed accounts OK. (Jan 1998)
Voted NO on using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax reductions. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on $86.5 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
Iraq was not reconstituting its nuclear program. (Jul 2004)
Iraq was not developing its biological weapons program. (Jul 2004)
Iraq was not developing its chemical weapons program. (Jul 2004)
Iraq was developing missiles, but not to reach the US. (Jul 2004)
Fully fund AmeriCorps. (Jun 2003)SOURCE FOR VOTES: ON THE ISSUES

Advantages and Disadvantages: Appeals to moderates, electable, "charming." Bayh will definitely win Indiana and its 11 EVs, and will also give the Republicans a run for their money in Ohio, Iowa and Kentucky. If the Democrats run Bayh, a life-long Midwesterner, they will likely cement their base in the Upper Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan). Bayh is well spoken and has a tremendous TV prescence. But he is viewed by many Democrats as being "too Republican," although the ACU rates him as a very liberal senator (only 30 out of 100 on the "Conservative Scale"). But many Democrats and Republicans are alike are impressed with his reign as Governor of Indiana, balancing the budget, leaving the state with a surplus and making it a great place to live.

My Verdict: Ehhh, I'm not sold on Bayh. Although he is very electable, that's not what the Democrats need. Hey, John Kerry was the most electable and look at where that got us in 2004. What we need now is a person with a great, strong and unwavering message. I don't know if Bayh can bring that to the table, but he has four years to prove to me and America that he is presidential.

WMDs

2005-01-15T20:21:00.000-05:00

It's really shocking and angering that no one seems to care about the fact there are no WMDs. I mean, we went to war over the WMDs that we can no longer find. And no one cares. No one also seems to notice that Bush announced this after the election, not before. Hmmm...what would have happened if this was announced before the election? Probably...nothing considering people seem to care more about Michael Jackson than the "missing" WMDs. Does anyone find it alarming that we, the world's most powerful nation, were unable to find weapons in a country as small as Iraq? But, the most alarming thing of all could be that these weapons might have never existed. Assuming that last point is true, does anyone give a hoot that the Bush Administration LIED to us? Let me quote USA Today...

"There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us," Vice President Cheney said in August 2002. Six months later, Secretary of State Colin Powell made the case, including satellite photos, to the United Nations. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld scoffed that even "a trained ape" knew it was true.

What can Bush do now that it's over? What can he say to the families of troops? What can he say to the world? What can he say to us? What can he say for himself? Will we ever be able to trust him and his administration again? Were we ever able to trust them?

American Funding for Tsunami Relief

2005-01-13T16:46:00.000-05:00

There's been a lot of discussion about this on this site. I definitely feel that our govenment's funding has been severely inadequate. I don't care how many hundreds of millions of dollars we've "pledged". It's not enough. We shoud be giving billions. And, as I said in my last post, not only to the tsunami relief effort. We're doing nothing for Africa, while that's where the real international problems and devastation are. I feel like Bush pays more attention to Antarctica. In fact he probably does. Drilling there might be profitable. Anyway I think it's shameful that we give tsunami relief funds X hundreds to the war in Iraq.

Tsunami..............Africa

2005-01-13T16:15:00.000-05:00

Ok so I'm back again. What's up few people who will read this? Pretty much I'm posting again because something's bothering me. How many people died in the tsunami? Over 150,000, a lot. A horrible disaster. But let's take a look at another death toll for a second. How many people have died from African civil wars, diseases, starvation, etc? Millions upon millions. Donating to the tsunami relief effort is wonderful. I think everyone should. But is that necessarily the most important cause right now, even within international relief? I think it was the Nigerian president who pointed this out, saying that 4 million people have died in his country from the civil war, and no one is helping there. By the way he didn't even get that much press coverage when he said that. And 4 million! In one country! From just the civil war! I understand that tsunami relief is the fad in charity right now. And it is a great cause, but is anyone giving to Africa? The media should really be taking this opportunity to point out the importance of that effort too. The effects of the tsunami will eventually be cleaned up and most of its devastation will be left in the past, but right now there is no end in sight to the African chaos, death, and destruction.

I believe this is actually one of the major reasons for our complete diversion of charitable attention away from Africa. We, as human beings and especially as Americans, are inclined toward, and have a deep need for, instant gratification. If you give money to the tsunami relief effort, you immediately feel like your money is going toward bringing in water and cleaning up the shores. You can see it happening right before your eyes. If you give money to groups working in Africa, you will have to wait many years to see any kinds of results. But it's worth it.

I also understand that there has been no single, major event in Africa that has boggled the minds and moved the hearts of people around the world. But the sheer magnitude of the plight of the African people should be enough to motivate and mobilize the masses.

Peace in Sudan

2005-01-01T14:10:00.000-05:00

"Sudanese First Vice President Ali Osman Taha on Saturday declared as complete a peace accord to end 21 years of civil war in the south." (Sudanese Tribune) This is great news, but this peace treaty does not include the region of Darfur. Finally, Africa's longest running civil war has come to an end. Over 2 million people had been killed from this civil war. The civil war was between the Christian South and the Islamic Government. In 2003, another civil war broke out, in the region of Darfur. There is still much work to be done in Sudan in order to stop the genocide and create peace - but this is a giant leap in the right direction.

Death Toll in Tsunami

2004-12-31T10:54:00.000-05:00

CNN is now reporting that the Tsunami death toll tops 135,000 people. More updates as time goes on.

Introducing the new Governor of Washington...

2004-12-31T10:48:00.000-05:00

...Christine Gregoire. Well all I can say is it's about time. After three recounts and millions of dollars spent, Democrat Christine Gregoire has been certified by the Republican Secretary of State as the winner of a race that was the closest in gubanatorial history. Gregoire beat Dino Rossi, the Republican candidate, by only 129 votes in the hand recount. Although she has been certified, Rossi has not conceded. According to CNN, "Rossi had been using the title "governor-elect," and his family even toured the Governor's Mansion." It's amazing to think of how only 129 votes can make the difference in an election where 2.8 million were cast. This race is definitely symbolic of America right now - split right down the middle with no one backing away. It's very good, though, that the Democrats won this battle, for there will be more serious and more important ones they will fight in the next four years.

Setting The Record Straight

2004-12-30T08:22:00.000-05:00

"France has already pledged over 22 million euros (30 million dollars) in aid." (From the Turkish News) Not "$177,000." And that's just for now - France is expected to donate even more money. So much for "America leading the way." America, as of today, has pledged 35 million dollars. Bush made the announcement that America would send more aid from his ranch in Crawford. The man is on vacation when there was a natural disaster that might kill 100,000 people.

Please donate.

CT Governor Has Surgery

2004-12-28T19:22:00.000-05:00

Last weekend, M. Jody Rell, the new Connecticut Governor, was told that she had breast cancer. Yesterday, she underwent surgery to remove her breasts and hopefully, her cancer.
(Yesterdayis the day when the press found out about her diagnosis.) This is extremely shocking, but sadly, it really shouldn't be. Every 2 minutes an American is diagnosed, while every 13 minutes an American dies of this horrible epidemic. Although, luckily, Rell's cancer was cought early while receiving a routine mamogram. But, unfortunately, breast cancer is not caught early for many, many women and men. Something has to be done about this terrible disease that claims the lives of hundreds of thousands every years. But still, Bush&Republicans have done nearly nothing dealing with breast cancer. A bill with 61 cosponsers that examines how breast cancer is related to the environment was not voted on, because Republicans refused to bring it up for a vote. (This research is desperately needed, for 90% of breast cancer cases are caused by the environment.) During his first four years, Bush also ruined the patients bill of rights (after lying, on the 2000 campaign trail, about passing a Texas Patients Bill of Rights, when he actually vetoed it). The Patients Bill of Rights that Bush proposed favored the drug companies/insurance companies over the patients. Hopefully the diagnosis of Rell, a Republican who took over after Rowland resigned, will open the eyes of Bush, the Republicans and America to this horrible disease. Something must be done, but I fear that something can't be done with Bush in office.

Horrible Natural Disaster

2004-12-28T11:33:00.000-05:00

It's so horrible. Over 40,000 people have died from this tsunami from Indonesia to Africa. Over 1/3 were children. Something really needs to be done. What I would like to see is Bush donate all of the money for his innaugural ball ($30 million - $40 million) for relief. America has only pledged $15 for disaster relief. Can you see something wrong with that? Although I'm sure Bush would never do it, it's an idea that would help thousands upon thousands of people.

Ukranian Elections

2004-12-26T09:23:00.000-05:00

Today, Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych go head-to-head in a runoff election after the highly protested and challenged first election. Yushchenko is Ukraine's Pro-West candidate, wanting to increase trade and relations with the EU and Americas, while Yanukovych is the Pro-Russian candidate, who, as CNN puts it, "emphasizes tightening the Slavic country's ties with Russia as a means to maintaining stability." Voter turnout is expected to be through the roof, and voting has already begun. It will be interesting to see who wins (in the third try) and if that ruling will stand.

Merry Christmas

2004-12-25T13:51:00.000-05:00

Just writing to say 'Merry Christmas' to all of our readers.

Also - Bush resubmits nominations for court positions of people who were rejected last time around.

My Favorites

2004-12-24T14:16:00.000-05:00

This post is a variation of a post by myconservative friend, Matt, on Right Wing America.

Favorite Conservative Blogger: Andrew Sullivan
Favorite Liberal Blog: Daily Kos
Least Favorite Conservative Blog: Instapundit
Least Favorite Liberal Blog: None
Favorite Political Columnist: He's not really a columnist, persay, but he's still absolutely amazing - Noam Chomsky. (If you haven't read him, start now.)
Least Favorite Political Columnist: Ann Coulter (Liar)
Favorite Conservative Song: Ummmm, there are no real conservative songs. But a funny story - when Reagan was running for President he asked Bruce (Bruuuuuuuuuuce to some) Springsteen if he could use Born In the USA as his campaign song. But, Bruce (Bruuuuuuuuuce) wisely said no. YEAH BOSS!
Favorite Liberal Song: For What It's Worth. It's not really liberal more than it is amazing.
Favorite Conservative of the First Half of the 20th Century: Hmmm, this is really hard. Very hard. I'd have to go with World-War-Two-Churchill (basically just during WWII).
Favorite Conservative of the Second Half of the 20th Century: Hmmm, this is really hard. I don't have a favorite. But I'd have to say Gerald Ford. He didn't do too much damage as President. But he did pardon Nixon, which, in my mind, is just plain dumb.
Favorite Liberal of the First Half of the 20th Century: FDR. Amazing.
Favorite Liberal of the Second Half of the 20th Century: Ahhhh too many to decide from. Matt said John Lennon, who's amazing. But there's JFK, RFK, Ted Kennedy, Clinton, Martin Luther King Jr, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Gore Vidal. Way too many. There are so many more, also.

Not Good Times for Republican Governors

2004-12-24T07:03:00.000-05:00

...And I'm back. Sorry for the lack of posts recently (compuer troubles). With that aside, I'm still a liberal and I'm still pretty pissed at Bush.

But now I can focus my anger on former governor (of my state) of Connecticut, John Rowland (Republican). This great person "admitted to defrauding the Internal Revenue Service by failing to report gratuities, and to defrauding the people of Connecticut by failing to live up to his legal obligation to provide honest service." Wow, it's a great thing we have people like this (in the Republican Party) running our states. I can basically guess what the Right-wing reply to this will be ("Well Clinton did a lot worse!"). Well here's a pre-emptive response: "No he didn't. He was a great president. Rowland was a horrible governor. Rowland is a crook, Clinton is not. Clinton didn't hurt anybody. Rowland embaressed the people of a great state, and the people of a great nation."
So now, Rowland is going to jail. (WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME!) Now the new governor of CT is former Lt. Governor M. Jody Rell. Her approval numbers are amazing (probably because she hasn't made a real decision yet, and come on, at least she's not "attempting to defraud" the IRS). Rowland can face up to 15-21 months.
As Daily Kos said,

DeLay -- your day is coming soon.

In other bad-news-for-Republican-Governors, the Washington gubanatorial results have just been overturned - now Gregoire (Democrat) is the winner, by 128 votes. This was the closest governer's race in history. Feels good not to worry about this race anymore, although the Republicans claim it's over (Ha!).

Kerik Pulls out of Consideration for Post

2004-12-11T10:48:00.000-05:00

Bush...and Politics

2004-12-08T20:25:00.000-05:00

As I sit here today, I wonder what will become of the United States of America. How will it survive eight years of President Bush? What will happen to all of the "freedoms" and "riches" we know today? Will there even be a democracy when he's ready to leave? Will there even be an America?
We have seen what this man can do in four years. Create defecits beyond our wildest dreams. Anger almost every leading world power except Britain ("screw them" has been his attitude). Bring religion into politics. Bring politics into religion. Forget the little man. Lie, weasel and scheme his way out of everything, then when things become too hard, blame is on the left, the "America-haters." Well I've got news for Bush and the rightys who think that Democrats hate America. You want to hear my advice........take a look at yourself. Trying to restrict political and civil freedoms. Now, that's un-American. Appointing a Senate majority leader when no one else has in history. Now that's un-American. Saying that you will only pick Supreme Court Judges who have a "good belief in god." Now that's very un-American. The left doesn't hate America. The left is concerned, the left cares, the left wants the truth. When President Clinton intervened in Kosos, preventing genocide, Republicans spoke out against him, in a time of war. Objecting when our beloved troops were in harm's way.
"The president said if we did nothing, there would be an instability in the region. There would be a flood of refugees, Kosovars would die, and the credibility of NATO would be undermined. Well, Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all these problems to explode." -Tom Delay
"This is Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem." Senator Richard Lugar
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the begining." -Trent Lott
"They haven't prepared for anything in this. And they're running out of weapons to do it. And drankly, I don't think Clinton has the moral authority or ability to fight this war correctly." -Sean Hannity
Well, Kosovo was a great military and social victory. Milosevic was kicked out, and not one American was shot, killed, taken prisoner or wounded. So, there are four prominent Republicans criticizing the president in a time of war. Anything not sound to great.... Remember what Daschle said, how he would have wanted to have solved the Iraqi problems with diplomacy. Of course, according to non-flip-flopper Sean Hannity (who would never speak out against a President who is at war), it was a "disgraceful attack" and a "cheap-shot." Hmmmm. So the Republicans can speak out against a war time president...but the Democrats can't?? Or, I always thought the Democrats could. That would then mean that the Republicans (or rightys, righties) were trying to limit the Democrat's free speech. How un-Constitutional. How un-American. How, dare I say it...anti-American. What's worse, saying that you would have like it if we didn't have to solve the Iraq "issue" with force, or ciriticizing the troops and president? I'll go with the latter.
The left isn't anti-American. We love this country. And sure, there are the people who hate America and who would be considered, by some "rightys" and "leftys." Well I have news for you. Just because a couple of people hate America doesn't mean that everyone does. And look at the Republicans. They used to be against civil rights, if I remember correctly. Strom Thurmound... Trent Lott (for a good quote see above!)... and many, many, many more. Of course, not every Republican wanted there to be segregation (of this I am sure), but still, for the most part, most anti-civil rights people voted Republican. Now, I don't go around saying that all Republicans hate African-Americans. That's stereotyping, and far off from truth. I know that. You know that. But, unfortunately, many people do not. So, if one "lefty" hates America, then he hates Ameriac. You probably can't change that. But you don't go around saying that all leftys hate America. It isn't right, and it isn't true. Both you and I know that.
I am a liberal. I say it loud and I say it proud. I believe this country can do a hell of a lot better than Bush and his cronies. They are ruining this nation, one bad law at a time. One unfair ruling at a time. One nasty stereotype at a time. One lousy (soon-to-be) Supreme Court Justice nominee at a time. Bush said, after the 2000 election, that he wanted to unify this nation. Well, isn't it obvious he's done quite the opposite?

Happy Hannukah

2004-12-07T20:14:00.000-05:00

Just wishing all of our readers a Happy Hannukah. Sorry for lack of recent posts - my computer has been messing up lately.

Bayh/Hillary 08

Sudan---Does Anyone Care???

2004-12-07T20:11:00.000-05:00

Sorry for my recent lack of posting, for any one who cares. I decided to make a quick "return post" because I am infuriated with the national, governmental, and media attitude toward the situation in Sudan. It's genocide! There is no way around it. And yet how much attention does it receive, compared to the War in Iraq? Why isn't anyone talking about it? And why isn't our oh-so-moral president-- who went into Iraq largely for "moral purposes" and was elected largely because of his "moral values"--doing anything about it? This is on a Hitler-esque scale. We're not talking about a little skirmish. An entire race is being massacred in Sudan, and we don't care? Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator, but the brutality and horror of his actions did not hold a candle to what is going on down in that often-forgotten place called Africa. And our government, meanwhile, instead of going into Sudan and using our force for something that is actually CRITICALLY important, is making it extremely difficult for the few refugees that make it here to enter the country, trying to drive them back to the land where their family is being killed. God forbid they don't have the correct documentation to prove that they are refugees. But I must agree with Bush on this point--how can someone fleeing death in a country thrown into chaos forget to collect all of their papers, many of which may not exist? Sounds quite reasonable to me. Anyway...I, as an American, feel ashamed that we, the citizens and the government, have not taken an interest in this issue and ACTED. That is the only way that anything can improve in Sudan....at least before the genocide is complete.

By the way, tonight is the first night of Hannukah. Any Jews out there: This is just like the Holocaust. We say "never again", but if we really mean it, we will do something about it.

Iraq Quotes

2004-12-05T19:32:00.000-05:00

"Mission Accomplished"-George W. Bush claiming that all major Iraqi combat missions were over. There have been over 1,200 American deaths in Iraq since.

"Bring 'em on."-George W. Bush to hostile Iraqi militants, asking them to "bring it on" (try to attack Americans). I guess Mr. Bush doesn't know that since that idiotic comment, over 1000 Americans in Iraq have been killed.

Writes CNN in May or 2004 -

"During the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner this week, Bush presented a slide show of quirky photographs from inside the White House. In one, the president is looking under furniture in the Oval Office. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," Bush joked. "Nope, no weapons over there ... maybe under here?"

I'm not laughing Bush.

Don't you just hate computers?

2004-12-05T13:32:00.000-05:00

Yeah, well I was writing a two page editorial about the nomination of Bernard Kerik fo the secretary of homeland security...but my computer froze. So while I'm trying to find that post on my computer, here's a smaller, less controversial one...

Dems and Repubs split the two runoff races in Lousiana's third and seventh districts. The Dems gained a former Repub seat (3rd) but the Repubs gained a former Dem seat (7th). Very interesting and surprising. Hey, at least we didn't lose both seats, and managed to cool the thunder the GOP had on election day. So that wraps up most everything from election day (except for potential recounts, such as the Montana state legislature [one race that's dead even - literally] and the Washington gubanatorial race).

A Turbulent World

2004-12-03T06:34:00.000-05:00

Wow - there a tons of things happening in the world we live in. Many good and many bad. It really is mind-boggling.

Another war in the world

2004-12-01T15:13:00.000-05:00

Surprisingly the US is not involved. Writes CNN

Senior Congolese officials have charged that Rwandan President Paul Kagame has made good on his threat to invade their country, claiming Rwandan troops have crossed into eastern Congo and are clashing with militias there.

I'm wondering why this isn't getting much media attention.

Yet another Bush Cabinent Member Resigns

2004-12-01T15:06:00.000-05:00

Tom Ridge, the first and only Secretary of Homeland Security resigned yesterday, brining the total of resignees in the Bush administration up to six...or is it seven?? I've seemed to have lost count there have been so many. This wasn't that shocking - many people expected Ridge, famous for creating the absolutely necessary "color-coded terror alert system" to step aside.

Let me go out on a limb here and predict a successor.... Hmmm this is hard (joke). I'm thinking a former governor from Ohio. Or maybe Florida? Hmmm, or possibly Wisconsin? Oh, and they definately have to have a "true American story."

What the Second Bush 43 cabinent is missing is a big name - someone who will get tons of press time and who is like by many. Colin Powell, for instance, was Bush's first term big name. But now, his cabinent is just moving farther towards the right, and will most likely really hurt America along the way.

Jeopardy

2004-12-01T15:05:00.000-05:00

So long Ken Jennings - it was a great run.

New Poll from CNN

2004-11-29T20:18:00.000-05:00

Six in 10 Americans say there should be a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices, according to an Associated Press poll.
The survey found public support for an idea that has arisen periodically in Congress without ever making headway.
Only one of the nine current justices, Clarence Thomas, is younger than 65. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, appointed to the court by President Nixon, has thyroid cancer. In the survey, people were asked if they could identify what job Rehnquist held, and 59 percent did not know.

Bush Part...Oh whatever I lost count

2004-11-29T20:03:00.000-05:00

Bush + Big Business = True Love
Halliburton. I'm sure anyone readint this blog can guess my opinion on the no big contracts and many more examples of how Bush has gone out of his way to be especially nice to Halliburton. It makes sense also - his VP used to run the company.

But KELLOGG????

Bush is nominating current Kellogg CEO Carlos Gutierrez for the vacated Cabinent level position of Commerce Secretary. This is yet another example of how Bush loves big business. Another example of his crush on Big Business is in the case of Fair Labor Standards Act that was passed in 1938 in order to prevent Big Business from abusing employees in reference to overtime work and pay. Well I'm sure you can guess. Bush basically canceled the law. Now, "all a company has to do is 'reclassify' your job as a 'Professional' or 'Executive' position, and BOOM, you'll no longer be paid for work you put in over the 40 hour week. Yes, Bush did this. It could affect up to 6,000,000 Americans."
Want another example. Writes the New York Times in June of 2004, "In a move that critics say could lead to higher telephone rates, the Bush administration on Wednesday sided with the four regional Bell companies in a court case over the fees they charge their rivals for access to their networks. The administration's decision could affect the phone bills of nearly 50 million customers across the country." Oh, what a shock. Bush sided with Bell, big business. I could get fifty more examples (at the bare minimum) but I won't now.

Also, this is obviously a blatant political move - Bush is trying to help the Republicans win the Hispanic-American vote in the 2006 and 2008 Elections.

There will probably be no public outcry about Bush siding with Big Business again. But just remember, there will only be four more years of this kind of stuff happening...hopefully.

Canada

2004-11-29T19:53:00.000-05:00

From the daily kos from the Toronto Globe and Mail.

Protest organizers are pulling out all the stops as they try to gather crowds in time for a visit to Canada by U.S. President George W. Bush. Mr. Bush comes Tuesday to a nation where many people are deeply unhappy about his policies. He can expect major protests in Ottawa and reportedly cancelled plans to address Parliament because of the likelihood of being heckled.
His pending visit was the source of lively exchanges Monday in the House of Commons, where opposition politicians pressed the government to use the opportunity to push trade and security issues.
...Mr. Bush's two-day visit was announced only a few weeks ago, leaving little time to rally demonstrators. But protest organizers, who say their intentions are peaceful, hope to get thousands of people into the streets.

Is anyone else shocked at this?? Can you remember the time (cough cough under Clinton) when America was loved by Canada? Canada, America's greatest ally through thick and through thin - no matter what they would be there. But now that this president (Bush 43 for all of you who don't know [if you don't see previous post]) has isolated America from the world, pissing off nearly everybody, even the Canadian citizens hate America. I have gone to Montreal for the Jazz Festival each of the last five summers for up to two weeks each time. The first year we went, people couldn't say nicer things about America.
"Oh, wow, you live in America? Wow. Have you been to New York?"
Even last year things were alright - a waiter at an Italian restaurant said,
"Oh, Bush? Hmm, I heard that he's pretty good. I don't know about this war, but if you were in grave danger, then you owe this president a thank-you card."
But this past year, things were startlingly different. For example, the SAME waiter at that SAME Italian restaurant we went to said each of the following statements.
"You didn't vote for Bush did you?" "How can you stand being ruled by that man?" "It's about freedom, and Bush is taking your freedom away." "That war...don't get me started on that war..."
This waiter wasn't the only person who "commented" on Bush. Almost everywhere we went some person had something to say about our president.

What Bush has done in the past four years has totally polarized America from the rest of the world, and has made America the country everyone loves to hate. Even Canada, our friendly neighbors to the North. I shudder to think of what will happen in the next four years - possibly we will become our own planet?

A Comment on American Society

2004-11-29T19:46:00.000-05:00

One of the only non-political (well, I guess everything is political) posts in Of Human Events history. Ok, here it goes....

Why, on the side of my carton of milk, does it say, "ALLERGY CAUTION: THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS MILK"????? Have Americans gotten that stupid?
Why are there instructions on the side of a toothpick box? (via Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series)
How did Bush win? (Yeah, you knew there had to be something about Bush in this post.)

Ukrainian Election Declared Invalid

2004-11-28T07:38:00.000-05:00

The highly contested Ukranian Presidential Election was declared invalid by the Ukrainian Parliament. The Pro-Western protestors won their first large legal battle. The decision increased "the political and legal pressure for new elections that were increasingly seen as acceptable to supporters of the declared winner, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych." {Boston.com}

In a resolution supported by 307 of 450 members, the parliament, or Supreme Rada, declared that the vote did not ''fully reflect the will of the people" and accused the government of a ''massive violation of law."

The European Union, along with opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko (pro-Western), have called for new elections, on the basis that there was voter fraud in heavily incumbent supported territories. In addition, Russia (who is not supporting the pro-Western candidate) has said that they wouldn't mind a new election.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the next couple of days.

Corzine's Running

2004-11-27T16:21:00.000-05:00

Democratic Senator John Corzine of New Jersey has announced that he will run for governor of the state of New Jersey. Corzine, NJ's senior senator, is expected to announce his plan of action for the Governor's race in 2005 at a press conference next week. A former executive with Goldman Sachs, Corzine was accused of "buying his elections" - but it his vast savings acount(s) that will probably scare off potential candidates.
That, and his poll numbers. Writes MyDD

Indeed, last week, a Quinnipiac poll found Corzine would beat Republican challengers by 20 to 25 percentage points. "Corzine's popularity is at 58 percent, the highest it's ever been since he was elected," says Mr. Richards. "And he's viewed as the outsider above the mess in Trenton." The same poll also showed Corzine beating Codey by 40 percentage points.

Let me be one of the first the endorse Corzine for Governor. Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd and New York Senator Chuck Schumer, both Democrats, are also expected to leave Washington behind and run for governor of their respective states. This is how the Republicans rebuilt themselves after the Goldwater mess, and this is how the Democrats will rebuild themselves after the disastrious November 2nd elections - win at the state level, then win at the national level.

The Economy

2004-11-25T15:32:00.000-05:00

"The dollar fell to a record low against the euro for a third consecutive day on Thursday and hit multi-year lows versus other major currencies as broad dollar selling gathered momentum." -AP

"The unemployment rate remained unchanged at 2.2 percent, with 2.755 million Americans looking for work." -AFP

"U.S. won't act to slow dollar drop." -USA TODAY

"EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia warned earlier that the dollar shows no sign of reversing its current slide.
"The level of the dollar is particularly low and gives no sign of recovery," he said." -AFP

"The euro rose to a new all-time high of 1.3244 US dollars." -AFP

"America's factories saw orders for big-ticket goods drop in October." -AP

"The full November reading fell under the estimates of forecasters." -AP in reference to new reports dealing with Consumer Confidence Ratings

"New orders for US durable goods -- items designed to last for at least three years -- unexpectedly dropped 0.4 percent in October after the previous month's increase was revised sharply upward, the Commerce Department said." -AFP

"The ranks of Americans filing initial claims for jobless pay shrank by more than expected last week to 323,000, government data showed on Wednesday." -AP [Unemployment stays the same]

"A senior Chinese central bank official has warned the United States not to blame other countries for its own economic difficulties, a report said." -AFP

"U.S. chain store sales rose modestly in the third week of November." -Reuters

My Endorsement for '08

2004-11-25T15:16:00.000-05:00

Evan Bayh. Former governor of Indiana (the state flourished under his rule) and sitting Senator. Indiana's 11 EVs can help, and his running would solidify the Dems base in the upper midwest. He can and will win if he runs. I will post more about his creditentials and why he should run in a later post.

Washington Recount Over

2004-11-25T15:09:00.000-05:00

Republican Dino Rossi has been named victorious in the Washington Governor's Race recount, seeing his 261 vote lead diminish to 42 votes over Democrat Christine Gregoire - and this was a machine only recount. Wow - this one was close...very close. Expect the Washington Dems to raise enough money to get another recount. The second recount would be of all the votes. The first recount of the Washington Governor's race has ended. Now, let's wait to see what the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh... recounts bring about. Wouldn't that be something if the second recount proves that Gregoire actually won?

Bush Promises More Abstinence-Only Education

2004-11-25T13:46:00.000-05:00

WHAT!?!?!??! This is ridiculous. As Al Franken pointed out in his book when he wrote to many leaders of the Republican Party who preach abstinence, Bush 43 among them, not one of them stated that they remained abstinent before getting married. Not only does Bush not practice what he preaches, but Abstinence-Only Education gets WAY too much money and it doesn't even work.

The gigantic budget bill recently passed allocated $131 million for Abstinence-Only Education Programs. (ONE HUNDRED MILLION LESS THAN BUSH REQUESTED!!!! And he and his party have the nerve to talk about crazy-spending Democrats.) Take a look a couple of articles down - the one about the Breast Cancer Bill with 61 CoSponsers that isn't even getting a bill. That bill could help end breast cancer, a horrible epidemic not only sweeping the nation, but sweeping the world, for $30 million over 5 years. Does someone else besides me see anything wrong with this? Bush requesting $231 million and getting $131 million dollars for programs that don't work and that will only solidify his Evengelical Christian base or spending $150 that could lead scientists on the right way to curing breast cancer?? (Basic Breast Cancer Numbers: every two minutes a person in America (man or woman) is diagnosed. Every 8 minutes, a person in America dies of this disease.)

"The only 100 percent way to avoid a car collision is not to drive, but the federal government sure does a lot of advocacy for safety belts," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth. Why don't we see Bush pushing for more regulations for birth control pills? For Condoms? Why don't we see that???

And, this begs the question - how much education is needed to teach abstinence? Just don't have sex until you're married. How hard is that to teach? No PowerPoints needed, no nothing. Why did Bush ask for $231 million for installing these programs in public schools? Either this is the first step to bringing religion into the White House or this is just a huge "thank you" card from Bush to the people who got him elected. Either way, we know that these programs barely work.

Our tax money can be spent a lot better. Teaching abstinence won't solve anything. Teaching safe sex will have a much greater affect. Bush doesn't even practice what he preaches. I'm sorry, but hearing about him wanting to spend OVER TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS ON THESE SORTS OF PROGRAMS REALLY GETS ME ANGRY! FIX THE HEALTHCARE CRISIS! HELP BALANCE THE BUDGET! CURE BREAST CANCER! Now I'm not telling teens all over America to go around having sex. It's there choice not mine. But, the main point of this article is that reckless spending like this where Bush is uncertain about the effects of abstinence-school-programs work or not (From CNN - Advocates for Youth recently compiled state evaluations that found little change in teens' behavior since the start of the abstinence programs. The states evaluated are: Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington.) can only hurt the economy. He is either doing this for religious reasons, political reasons...or both.

I'm not saying that abstinence shouldn't be taught in schools. I'm not saying that people shouldn't keep abstinent until marraige - it's your decision, not mine. But what I am saying is that reckless spending like this can only hurt America, not help it. If you ask me, it would be a much greater use of our money to teach "safe sex" or, to put some of this money towards solving other problems that our nation faces.

Washington Recount as of today

2004-11-23T13:02:00.000-05:00

The official total in the Washington Gubanatorial Race was Republican Rossi by 261 votes, which immediately resulted in a mandatory recount. As of today, Rossi has gained about 40 more votes than the Democrat, Gregoire. Only about 25% of the votes have been re-tallied though. Writes MyDD, it's all going to come down to King's County, with more than 30% of Washington's population and Seattle, one of the most liberal cities in America.

Letter from Kevin Sites to Marines

2004-11-22T13:20:00.000-05:00

This letter was obtained by MSN

OPEN LETTER TO MARINES
by Kevin Sites

Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 8:29 a.m. ET Nov. 22, 2004
Since the shooting in the mosque, I've been haunted that I have not been able to tell you directly what I saw or explain the process by which the world came to see it as well. As you know, I'm not some war-zone tourist with a camera who doesn't understand that ugly things happen in combat. I've spent most of the last five years covering global conflict. But I have never in my career been a "gotcha" reporter -- hoping for people to commit wrongdoings so I can catch them at it.
advertisementThis week I've even been shocked to see myself painted as some kind of anti-war activist. Anyone who has seen my reporting on television or has read my dispatches is fully aware of the lengths I've gone to play it straight down the middle -- not to become a tool of propaganda for the left or the right.
But I find myself a lightning rod for controversy in reporting what I saw occur in front of me, camera rolling.
It's time you to have the facts from me, in my own words, about what I saw -- without imposing on that Marine -- guilt or innocence or anything in between. I want you to read my account and make up your own minds about whether you think what I did was right or wrong. All the other armchair analysts don't mean a damn to me.
Here it goes.
Nov. 13, 2004
It's Saturday morning and we're still at our strong point from the night before, a clearing between a set of buildings on the southern edge of the city. The advance has been swift, but pockets of resistance still exist. In fact, we're taking sniper fire from both the front and the rear. Weapons Company uses its 81's (mortars) where they spot muzzle flashes. The tanks do some blasting of their own. By mid-morning, we're told we're moving north again. We'll be back clearing some of the area we passed yesterday. There are also reports that the mosque, where 10 insurgents were killed and five wounded on Friday, may have been re-occupied overnight. I decide to leave you guys and pick up with one of the infantry squads as they move house-to-house back toward the mosque. (For their own privacy and protection I will not name or identify in any way, any of those I was traveling with during this incident.) Many of the structures are empty of people -- but full of weapons. Outside one residence, a member of the squad lobs a frag grenade over the wall. Everyone piles in, including me. While the Marines go into the house, I follow the flames caused by the grenade into the courtyard. When the smoke clears, I can see through my viewfinder that the fire is burning beside a large pile of anti-aircraft rounds. I yell to the lieutenant that we need to move. Almost immediately after clearing out of the house, small explosions begin as the rounds cook off in the fire. At that point, we hear the tanks firing their 240-machine guns into the mosque. There's radio chatter that insurgents inside could be shooting back. The tanks cease fire and we file through a breach in the outer wall.
I can't know what was in the mind of that Marine. He is the only one who does.
We hear gunshots from what seems to be coming from inside the mosque. A Marine from my squad yells, "Are there Marines in here?"When we arrive at the front entrance, we see that another squad has already entered before us. The lieutenant asks them, "Are there people inside?" One of the Marines raises his hand signaling five. "Did you shoot them," the lieutenant asks? "Roger that, sir, “the same Marine responds. "Were they armed?" The Marine just shrugs and we all move inside. New gunshot woundsImmediately after going in, I see the same black plastic body bags spread around the mosque. The dead from the day before. But more surprising, I see the same five men that were wounded from Friday as well. It appears that one of them is now dead and three are bleeding to death from new gunshot wounds. The fifth is partially covered by a blanket and is in the same place and condition he was in on Friday, near a column. He has not been shot again. I look closely at both the dead and the wounded. There don't appear to be any weapons anywhere."These were the same wounded from yesterday," I say to the lieutenant. He takes a look around and goes outside the mosque with his radio operator to call in the situation to Battalion Forward HQ. I see an old man in a red kaffiyeh lying against the back wall. Another is face down next to him, his hand on the old man's lap -- as if he were trying to take cover. I squat beside them, inches away and begin to videotape them. Then I notice that the blood coming from the old man's nose is bubbling. A sign he is still breathing. So is the man next to him. While I continue to tape, a Marine walks up to the other two bodies about 15 feet away, but also lying against the same back wall. Then I hear him say this about one of the men: "He's f------ faking he's dead -- he's faking he's f------ dead."Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi. There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging. However, the Marine could legitimately believe the man poses some kind of danger. Maybe he's going to cover him while another Marine searches for weapons. Instead, he pulls the trigger. There is a small splatter against the back wall and the man's leg slumps down. "Well he's dead now," says another Marine in the background. I am still rolling. I feel the deep pit of my stomach. The Marine then abruptly turns away and strides away, right past the fifth wounded insurgent lying next to a column. He is very much alive and peering from his blanket. He is moving, even trying to talk. But for some reason, it seems he did not pose the same apparent "danger" as the other man -- though he may have been more capable of hiding a weapon or explosive beneath his blanket. But then two other Marines in the room raise their weapons as the man tries to talk. For a moment, I'm paralyzed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the Marines again, what I had told the lieutenant -- that this man -- all of these wounded men -- were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here. At that point the Marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir, I didn't know." The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread.
But both the leaders and the grunts in the field like you understand that if you lower your standards, if you accept less, than less is what you'll become.
The wounded man then tries again to talk to me in Arabic. He says, "Yesterday I was shot... please... yesterday I was shot over there -- and talked to all of you on camera -- I am one of the guys from this whole group. I gave you information. Do you speak Arabic? I want to give you information." (This man has since reportedly been located by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service which is handling the case.) Left in the mosqueIn the aftermath, the first question that came to mind was why had these wounded men been left in the mosque? It was answered by staff judge advocate Lieutenant Colonel Bob Miller -- who interviewed the Marines involved following the incident. After being treated for their wounds on Friday by Navy Corpsman (I personally saw their bandages) the insurgents were going to be transported to the rear when time and circumstances allowed. The area, however, was still hot. And there were American casualties to be moved first. Also, the squad that entered the mosque on Saturday was different than the one that had led the attack on Friday. It's reasonable to presume they may not have known that these insurgents had already been engaged and subdued a day earlier.
Yet when this new squad engaged the wounded insurgents on Saturday, perhaps really believing they had been fighting or somehow posed a threat -- those Marines inside knew from their training to check the insurgents for weapons and explosives after disabling them, instead of leaving them where they were and waiting outside the mosque for the squad I was following to arrive.
During the course of these events, there was plenty of mitigating circumstances like the ones just mentioned and which I reported in my story. The Marine who fired the shot had reportedly been shot in the face himself the day before. I'm also well aware from many years as a war reporter that there have been times, especially in this conflict, when dead and wounded insurgents have been booby-trapped, even supposedly including an incident that happened just a block away from the mosque in which one Marine was killed and five others wounded. Again, a detail that was clearly stated in my television report. No one, especially someone like me who has lived in a war zone with you, would deny that a soldier or Marine could legitimately err on the side of caution under those circumstances. War is about killing your enemy before he kills you.In the particular circumstance I was reporting, it bothered me that the Marine didn't seem to consider the other insurgents a threat -- the one very obviously moving under the blanket, or even the two next to me that were still breathing. I can't know what was in the mind of that Marine. He is the only one who does. Dark perilsBut observing all of this as an experienced war reporter who always bore in mind the dark perils of this conflict, even knowing the possibilities of mitigating circumstances -- it appeared to me very plainly that something was not right.
According to Lt. Col Bob Miller, the rules of engagement in Fallujah required soldiers or Marines to determine hostile intent before using deadly force. I was not watching from a hundred feet away. I was in the same room. Aside from breathing, I did not observe any movement at all. Making sure you know the basis for my choices after the incident is as important to me as knowing how the incident went down. I did not in any way feel like I had captured some kind of "prize" video. In fact, I was heartsick. Immediately after the mosque incident, I told the unit's commanding officer what had happened. I shared the video with him, and its impact rippled all the way up the chain of command. Marine commanders immediately pledged their cooperation.
The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.
We all knew it was a complicated story, and if not handled responsibly, could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region. I offered to hold the tape until they had time to look into incident and begin an investigation -- providing me with information that would fill in some of the blanks.For those who don't practice journalism as a profession, it may be difficult to understand why we must report stories like this at all -- especially if they seem to be aberrations, and not representative of the behavior or character of an organization as a whole. The answer is not an easy one. In war, as in life, there are plenty of opportunities to see the full spectrum of good and evil that people are capable of. As journalists, it is our job is to report both -- though neither may be fully representative of those people on whom we're reporting. For example, acts of selfless heroism are likely to be as unique to a group as the darker deeds. But our coverage of these unique events, combined with the larger perspective — will allow the truth of that situation, in all of its complexities, to begin to emerge. That doesn't make the decision to report events like this one any easier. It has, for me, led to an agonizing struggle -- the proverbial long, dark night of the soul. Pool footageI knew NBC would be responsible with the footage. But there were complications. We were part of a video "pool" in Fallujah, and that obligated us to share all of our footage with other networks. I had no idea how our other "pool" partners might use the footage. I considered not feeding the tape to the pool -- or even, for a moment, destroying it. But that thought created the same pit in my stomach that witnessing the shooting had. It felt wrong. Hiding this wouldn't make it go away. There were other people in that room. What happened in that mosque would eventually come out. I would be faced with the fact that I had betrayed truth as well as a life supposedly spent in pursuit of it. When NBC aired the story 48 hours later, we did so in a way that attempted to highlight every possible mitigating issue for that Marine's actions. We wanted viewers to have a very clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fighting on that frontline. Many of our colleagues were just as responsible. Other foreign networks made different decisions, and because of that, I have become the conflicted conduit who has brought this to the world. The Marines have built their proud reputation on fighting for freedoms like the one that allows me to do my job, a job that in some cases may appear to discredit them. But both the leaders and the grunts in the field like you understand that if you lower your standards, if you accept less, than less is what you'll become. There are people in our own country that would weaken your institution and our nation — by telling you it's okay to betray our guiding principles by not making the tough decisions, by letting difficult circumstances turns us into victims or worse ... villains.I interviewed your Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, before the battle for Fallujah began. He said something very powerful at the time — something that now seems prophetic. It was this,"We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here -- because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating. That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old Marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor -- and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground." I listened carefully when he said those words. I believed them.So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera -- the story of his death became my responsibility.The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.I pray for your soon and safe return.

How did America get to be this way?

2004-11-22T08:35:00.000-05:00

I used to think Fear Factor was bad. But that's before I learned of a new video game coming out. I am usually not against violence in video games - I don't play them, so violence in them is just fine. But there is a new video game coming out, which is not only disgusting, but "despicable," as Ted Kennedy put it.
The new game, JFK Reloaded, which comes out today, allows "players" to simulate JFK's assasination from Lee Harvey Oswald's position in the Texas school book depository. The object is for the players to fire three shots at JFK - they get extra points for shooting the way Oswald did, and points off if they hit off target, for example, shoot the first lady.
How terrible is this? It's beyond terrible. Forget how it's totally wrong and vulgar, the worst part is that the creators don't know that they're doing something wrong. "We believe that the only thing we're exploiting is new technology," said the video game's creator.
How could anyone stomach this? Why would anyone buy this? The creators of this game have sunk below any standard in previous American culture. I shudder to think what will happen next. I cannot believe that someone would be so stupid as to make this, or that people would be so idiotic as to buy this.

Excerpt from "Fahrenheit 451"

2004-11-21T09:39:00.000-05:00

This excerpt from Fahrenheit 451, written by Ray Bradbury, can be found on pages 73-74.

"Jesus god," said Montag. "Every hour so many damn things in the sky! How in hell did those bombers get up there every single second of our lives! Why doesn't someone want to talk about it! We've started and won two atomic wars since 1990! Is it because we're having so much fun at home we've forgotten the world? Is is becuase we're so rich and the rest of the world's so poor and we just don't care if they are? I've heard rumors; the world is starving, but we're well fed. Is it true, the world works hard and we play? Is that why we're hated so much? I've heard the rumors about hate, too, once in a long while, over the years."

Wow, Bradbury is good. Real good. Keep in mind this was written in 1953.

Confession

2004-11-20T23:30:00.000-05:00

Steve and I were talking on AIM (the actual screen-names have been edited)

Steven L: in the bill that the house passed today included two million bucks for the government to buy back the presidential yacht
CitizenShane: yes!
Steven L: and that was the same bill with all of the probs in the senate
CitizenShane: my small business built that!

Conspiracy Theories for the Next Four Years

2004-11-20T21:25:00.000-05:00

1. Dick Cheney will resign (in good health) a couple of years before the term is up. Why? Becuase the Republicans will nominate a young, go-getter, energetic man who will run in 2008. This new VP will get tons of media exposure and attention, experience, and will be the highlight of the Republican Party. This will also keep true to Bush's insistance of bringing politics into the Oval Office.

2. Bush will nominate sitting Democratic Senators to his cabinent. Why? To increase the Republican margin in the Senate. Karl Rove has been talking to Senator Ben Nelson (Dem [barely], NE) about the prospect of becoming Secretary of Agriculture. Nebraska is a very conservative state - if Rove offers Nelson the job and Nelson declines, expect a very tough reelection bid for Nelson.

3. A war or "conflict" in October of 2007.

So there they are, my three conspiracies for Bush's second term (assuming that the recount in Ohio, if it happens, doesn't change anything). My prediction: none of them will be right. But it's still fun to guess.

What ever happened to honesty in the Senate?

2004-11-20T19:02:00.000-05:00

It must have disappeared a while ago. Or within the past couple of years - take your pick.
Now, on CSPAN2, Senators are duking out the $388 Budget Bill. It turns out Republicans,

...stuck a provision that removes any expectations of privacy regarding our tax returns in the middle of this 3000 page bill in the middle of the night.

Someone found out today, and the Democrats and Republican Moderates are going off, screaming, banging and really having their voice be heard. This is totally un-Democrat-like (actually giving a crap and showing emotion), so needless to say, I am thrilled. McCain (R, Arizona) and Chuck Grassley (R, Iowa) were both livid and screaming. Senator Conrad (Dem, ND) is screaming and pounding his fist. As was Barbara Boxer (Dem, CA) and Byrd (Dem, WV - well he wasn't screaming or pounding his fist but he was mad). Democrats and some Republicans have gotten the Republican Chair of this committee, Ted Stevens (R, AK) to apologize and state that he will do all he can to pull this provision. According to him, "...some staffer slipped [this] into the bill..."
Sure.
According to him, he never wanted this to happen. Well, that's proving one of two things:

He pays no attention to his job or his work, or
He is a liar

This bill would cost $388 billion dollars. And for some Republicans to do a nasty, cruel and foolish thing like this is not only embarrassing for me as an AMERICAN but is just plain wrong and stupid. Not only should they be ashamed, but the people who voted for these disgraced members should be too.

What ever happened to the truthful, united, peaceful America? I guess it's just gone with the wind.

What is Frist Thinking?

2004-11-20T13:52:00.000-05:00

How can Senate Majority Leader Frist sleep well at nights?

He, and his cronies, are refusing to let the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act with SIXTY-ONE cosponsers in the Senate be voted on. SIXTY-ONE COSPONSERS!!!!!! What's more bipartisan than that? The cosponsers are listed here with the date that each Senator signed on to the bill (List provided by Thomas.loc.gov):

Allen, George [VA] - 5/1/2003
Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 9/29/2004
Sen Bayh, Evan [IN] - 5/23/2003
Sen Biden Jr., Joseph R. [DE] - 5/1/2003
Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] - 9/27/2004
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 9/10/2003
Sen Campbell, Ben Nighthorse [CO] - 5/11/2004
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 1/20/2004
Sen Carper, Thomas R. [DE] - 5/9/2003
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] - 6/18/2003
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 5/1/2003
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] - 6/17/2004
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN] - 6/2/2004
Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] - 5/1/2003
Sen Conrad, Kent [ND] - 5/13/2004
Sen Corzine, Jon [NJ] - 5/1/2003
Sen Daschle, Thomas A. [SD] - 7/14/2003
Sen Dayton, Mark [MN] - 5/12/2004
Sen DeWine, Michael [OH] - 5/6/2004
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] - 2/26/2004
Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] - 5/11/2004
Sen Edwards, John [NC] - 2/23/2004
Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] - 5/1/2003
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 5/1/2003
Sen Fitzgerald, Peter [IL] - 5/1/2003
Sen Graham, Lindsey O. [SC] - 2/27/2004
Sen Grassley, Charles E. [IA] - 5/7/2003
Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] - 7/14/2003
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 5/7/2003
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 5/1/2003
Sen Jeffords, James M. [VT] - 2/10/2004
Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] - 5/1/2003
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] - 5/1/2003
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 6/18/2003
Sen Kohl, Herb [WI] - 5/7/2003
Sen Landrieu, Mary [LA] - 5/21/2003
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 2/9/2004
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] - 5/1/2003
Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 6/14/2004
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 2/26/2004
Sen Lincoln, Blanche [AR] - 10/8/2004
Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 3/3/2004
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 5/1/2003
Sen Miller, Zell [GA] - 5/21/2003
Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] - 1/20/2004
Sen Murray, Patty [WA] - 5/1/2003
Sen Nelson, E. Benjamin [NE] - 5/7/2003
Sen Pryor, Mark Lunsford [AR] - 5/6/2004
Sen Reed, John F. [RI] - 5/1/2003
Sen Reid, Harry M. [NV] - 5/1/2003
Sen Sarbanes, Paul S. [MD] - 4/26/2004
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 5/7/2003
Sen Smith, Gordon [OR] - 7/14/2003
Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME] - 5/1/2003
Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] - 11/11/2003
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 6/3/2003
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] - 6/18/2003
Sen Talent, Jim [MO] - 11/19/2004
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH] - 5/1/2003
Sen Warner, John W. [VA] - 5/1/2003
Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] - 11/16/2004

The summary of the bill is as follows.

Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2003 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to make grants to public or nonprofit private entities for the development and operation of not more than eight consortium centers (each such center shall be known as a Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Center of Excellence). States that the centers shall conduct multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional research on environmental factors that may be related to the etiology of breast cancer

The Facts of Breast Cancer:

Every two minutes an American is diagnosed with breast cancer and every thirteen minutes person dies of this horrible epidemic. Everyone is at risk of breast cancer - men, women, whites, blacks, Jews, Christians, Muslims. Everyone. One in every eight women in America will develop breast cancer during her lifetime. NINETY PERCENT OF ALL AMERICANS WHO ARE DIAGNOSED DO NOT HAVE A HISTORY OF THE DISEASE IN THE FAMILY, THEREFORE, NINTEY PERCENT OF ALL BREAST CANCER IS CAUSED BY THE ENVIRONMENT.

Research is NEEDED in order to help cure this epidemic, especially research involving the environment and breast cancer (what this bill proposes). This will cost America $30 million dollars a year for five years. To put that in perspective:

78 Billion>30 Million

Also, today, a bill is expected to pass that would cot 388 billion dollars. $30 million is nothing compared to the price of a human life. And millions of humans can be saved if this bill is passed. But Frist and his followers refuse to bring this bill to a vote. Inundate him with letters and phone calls and requests! HOW DARE HE DEFY THE WILL OF SIXTY-ONE SENATORS, BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC. THIS BILL CAN HELP END BREAST CANCER. HOW CAN FRIST SLEEP AT NIGHT KNOWING THIS?

Powell's Intelligence Could Be Wrong...AGAIN

2004-11-19T15:47:00.000-05:00

The source of intelligence used this week by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to suggest Iran is working on a nuclear weapons program may not be reliable, knowledgeable sources told CNN Friday.

RECOUNT! RECOUNT! {Take 3}

2004-11-19T15:33:00.000-05:00

Ahhh, lucky number 3 (is three a lucky number?). The Washington Gubanatorial election has been called, but becuase of state law, there will be an automatic recount. Republican Dino Rossi is leadeing Democrat Christine Gregoire by 261 votes. According to Daily Kos,

A statewide recount has never reversed the outcome of an election, but Reed
isn't saying that won't happen after the 2.8 million ballots are tallied --
again.

RECOUNT! RECOUNT! {Part Two}

2004-11-16T14:28:00.000-05:00

The 2004 Presidential Election may not be over just yet. According to Race2008's daily "Washington Buzz"

Greens and Liberterians announced that they have raised enough money to pay for a recount of all votes in Ohio. A 1956 Ohio law requires a payment of $10 per precinct, or about $113,600. Actual recount costs are expected to cost the state about $1.5 million.

Obviously Ohio is an election hotbed, and Democrats would love to have there be a recount. Who knows if the Greens and Libertarians will actually demand a recount. This is an interesting issue that people should keep their eyes on - with a recount all (hopefully) of the votes would be counted, including absentee and provisional (well assuming certain conditions are met I believe). I hope there is a recount. Ohio was extremely close, and no one has ever gotten hurt by "checking their work."
Who knows? Maybe Kerry actually did win Ohio (and consequently the Presidential election). If the recount finds that to be true, America is in for one hell of a national debate this winter.

Marine Kills Wounded Iraqi

2004-11-16T10:53:00.000-05:00

There a videotape of a United States Marine in Iraq shouting a wounded Iraqi prisoner in the head. This is being "looked into" by the United States Marines as to whether this was a merciless slaughtering or an act of self-defense. This killing was filmed by an "embedded" journalist for NBC who was following the soldiers. The Marine responsible for the killing has been dismissed from duty in Iraq, the US Military said.

"It's clearly recognized that people in combat situations are under enormous strain," Westphal said... [but] The Geneva Conventions are clear: protection of wounded combatants once they are out of action is a basic rule" said Florian Westphal, a spokesman for the International Committee for the Red Cross. But, people have been unable to determine whether the executed Iraqi was actually a prisoner, although many believe so.

What also doesn't help America is that this killing took place in a mosque - the place of worship for people of the Islamic faith. Will this anger more and more Iraqis thus creating more terrorists and a worse situation for America? Will people forget about this tomorrow? What will happen to the soldier (Marines 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment).

In the video, there was some very troubling diologue:

On the video, as the camera moved into the mosque during the Saturday incident, a Marine can be heard shouting obscenities in the background, yelling that one of the men was only pretending to be dead.
"He's (expletive) faking he's dead!"
"Yeah, he's breathing," another Marine is heard saying.
"He's faking he's (expletive) dead!" the first Marine says.
The video then showed a Marine raising his rifle toward an Iraqi lying on the floor of the mosque. The video shown by NBC and provided to the network pool was blacked out at that point and did not show the bullet hitting the man. But a rifle shot could be
heard.
"He's dead now," a Marine is heard saying.

I support our men and women in the military. If this Iraqi that was killed was a prisoner of war, this irresponsible Marine should be charged in an International court. But, I would like to know more about the situation and the conditions.

RECOUNT! RECOUNT!

2004-11-16T10:46:00.000-05:00

Come on - you knew there was going to be a recount demanded in the 2004 Elections. What I bet you didn't know was that it was in Indiana. No, not in reference to Presidential votes in which Bush crushed Kerry by over 20%. But, Democrats of Indiana's District Nine are demanding a recount of the National House of Representatives election in which incumbent Representative Baron Hill (D, Ind.) was narrowely defeated by challenger Mike Sodrel (R). Says "Roll Call,"

The recount request was made after an election-equipment malfunction was discovered in Franklin County.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. According to daily kos, Hill was the only Democratic incumbent outside of Texas to lose the election (House of Representative Elections).

Some Major Changes in the Bush Admin.

2004-11-16T06:37:00.000-05:00

Powell Resigned, along with three others in Bush's cabinent yesterday (two others had resigned earlier, bringing the grand total up to 6). He hasn't said why he has resigned yet, but it's fairly obvious I think (he didn't want to be involved in a war as poorly handled as Iraq and he didn't want to be involved in an administration as poor as Bush's (*My Interpretation)). Condaleeza ("Condi") Rice will replace him. She was previously National Security Advisor, and the NSA deputy, Stephen Hadley will replace her.

Who is Hadley? Says daily kos

He was Condi Rice's deputy -- a prime suspect of the Plame outing, and the guy
who took the fall (the blame) for the "yellowcake" reference in Bush's 2003
SOTU address.

Writes CNN in 2003 Article

The admission by Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley marked the
first time the White House had taken any blame in the matter. An administration
official told CNN that Hadley offered his resignation, but Bush didn't accept it.

Let us see how Rice and Hadley handle their new positions and responsibilities.

Where I Stand on Issues Today

2004-11-15T21:35:00.000-05:00

My conservative friend had a post on his website about where he stands on important issues today, so I thought I would do the same thing (with the same topics).

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: I believe that Affirmative Action is necessary in order to give every American a chance. Here's a metaphor a baseball metaphor: Lets say you are the manager of a baseball club, and you are holding tryouts between two prospects. One has had all the training in the world, and has worked for years leading up to the tryout, while the other has never been on a baseball diamond before. They both get similar times (but the trained person gets slightly better). Which one would you take? I'd sure take the one with no training so I can help craft his skill, therefore leaving me with a better baseball player. VERDICT: FOR

ANWR DRILLING: Totally against. Not only will this ruin the environment but we don't know how much oil is there and it won't be worth the cost of permantely damaging a region in America. VERDICT: AGAINST

A BALANCED BUDGET: Of course I'm for - I'm a liberal. But with this president and his deficits the size of Mount Everest, there is no way that the budge will be balanced. VERDICT: FOR

COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM: Umm, such a thing exists? (*Joke) I really don't have an opinion on this, so I might as well be against it (*Yet another Joke). VERDCIT: AGAINST

CLONING BAN: I don't think it's right for people to clone other people. But, if there is evidence that this could help cure major diseases, I would definately reconsider my position. VERDICT: FOR

DEATH PENALTY: The "DP" is not a deterrant of crime. Places that have the death penalty, on average, have a higher "violent crime" rate (violent crimes include murder, rape etc.). Also, wouldn't killing someone just stoop us down to their level? Another point, many of these people who commit "violent crimes" are not scared of death. Killing them would be letting them get off easy. VERDICT: AGAINST

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: I am for a stronger and more secure America. But creating a department for pure political reasons and then appointing a former leader of a swing state in hopes of winning that state in the next election cycle is just wrong. I would be for a similar department (possibly one created by President Obama in 2008 (*Joke)), but not this one. Too much money is being spent here. Fix the healthcare crisis. Balance the budget. End poverty. Do something, just don't pour money into this department. VERDICT: AGAINST

FLAT TAX: Don't get me started. Not only will this unfairly help the rich (the poor would wind up having to pay a larger percentage of their money) but would polarize the country even more, creating two very distinct Americas consisting of the Haves and the Have-nots. I have a lot more to say on this issue. VERDICT: AGAINST

GAY MARRAIGE: "All men [this includes women] are created equally." Enough said. VERDICT: FOR

GUN CONTROL: After reading all of my posts throughout my "When in the Course" career, and judging by the fact that I live north of the Mason-Dixon line, I'm sure most of you can guess. VERDICT: FOR

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: I'm against illegal immigration. But I believe that if people want to be citizens of America, we should do all we can to let them (as long as it won't harm others). VERDICT: AGAINST

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: It doesn't matter where someone is from - if they commit an International crime, the world should charge him/her, not just his/her country. VERDICT: FOR

INVADING IRAQ: So many other countries where people were oppressed more than Iraq. No WMDs. No threat to America. No chance of getting WMDs. Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil. Bush's revenge on Sadam after he tried to kill his father. No connection with Al-Quaeda. And so many more reasons. VERDICT: AGAINST

KYOTO PROTOCOL: I believe every other country signed this. That's saying something. Not only will these help the world, but it's benefits will be priceless. VERDICT: FOR

LEGALIZING DRUGS: Depends on the drug. Marijuana - yes. Crack - no. VERDICT: FOR AND AGAINST IN CERTAIN CASES

Liberals: What keep this country strong and attentive. VERDICT: FOR

MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE: For. The lower class need to be paid more. They need to be helped. Enough with tax cuts for the rich - lets help the people who really need help. VERDICT: FOR

NUCLEAR MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD: I am for some of this. But we don't need to pour more money into defense than we do domestic issues. VERDICT: FOR

PALESTINIAN STATE: Palestinians should be able to have a place they call home. But, I would like it if this state would recognize Israel and become it's ally. VERDICT: FOR

THE PATRIOT ACT: THIS IS AN INVASION OF OUR PRIVACY! THIS IS TOTALLY NOT NEEDED! VERDICT: AGAINST

ROE V WADE: I believe in a woman's right to choose. I agree with the ruling. VERDICT: FOR

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: I AM VERY FOR THIS ISSUE.

...and I will finish this post later. These opinions do not reflect everyone at When in the Course or America in general.

America...

2004-11-15T10:52:00.000-05:00

...is no longer blue and red. Instead, America can be divided into green, orange, brown, tan, red, pink, grey, bright blue, blue-green, navy blue. Last year, Robert David Sullivan ("under the auspices of CommonWealth magazine") found a way to divide America into ten specific regions, ranging from the "Southern Lowlands" to the "Upper Coasts." He provides a brief background , the demographics and the population increase over the past 14 years for each region. This website is highly recommended for anyone interested in national politics.

Here is Sullivan's analysis of the 2004 Election and why Kerry lost.
Writes Sullivan in his article titled 'Beyond Red and Blue (again),'

GEORGE W. BUSH can now claim a clear victory in the popular vote for president,
thanks in part to people in and around the city of New York. But the president
got no reelection mandate from the citizens of Savannah, Ga.

Cheney's in the Hospital

2004-11-13T15:52:00.000-05:00

CNN is reporting that Vice President Richard (Dick) Cheney is in the hospital. He has been checked into George Washington University Hospital where he will undergo tests. The Vice President was, "experiencing shortness of breath, the White House said Saturday." Cheney has had heart problems since 1978 when he suffered his first heart attack.
Will Cheney have to resign in Bush's upcoming term due to health problems? And if he does, who will replace him? Most likely it would be someone in the Bush cabinent, possibly Colin Powell (if he doesn't resign) or possibly a retired Senator. Or possibly someone from his father's cabinent.

Who knows what these next four years will bring? It can't get much worst than Bush's first four.

A New Direction in the Middle East?

2004-11-11T19:58:00.000-05:00

Will a more radical leader take power as the head of the PLO? Will we see a movement toward peace in the Middle East? These questions remain unanswered, at least for now, but we do know that there will be changes. Arafat was the cultural and spiritual leader of the Palestinian people, and his death will rock not only the Arab world, but all seven continents of the earth. It does seem positive that Arafat died naturally, rather than at the hands of the Israelis, but some Palestinians are claiming, nonetheless, that the Israelis poisoned him and were responsible for their loss. A "retaliation" by the Palestinian people would be the worst possible scenario, as we could see a string of devastating suicide bombings in Israel. This could even take place simply in Arafat's honor and memory.

There is no doubt in my mind that Arafat's death is good for the world, but is it truly cause for optimism? Can you really see the Palestinians pledging their loyalty to a leader that is in favor of peace with the Israelis and positive interactions with America? The Palestinians have been brainwashed for far too long. I hate to sound pessimistic, but I feel that, realistically, we may not see peace in the region for another 50 years, if at all in our lifetime. The hatred of many of the Palestinian people for their Israeli neighbors is far too deeprooted for the conflict to end with a peace treaty or a document. If the process of educating the young people of the Palestinian nation to understand peace, acceptance, tolerance, and cooperation were to begin now, we would be lucky to see any changes within the next few generations. There is no easy answer. There is no quick fix. Peace in the Middle East will only be achieved through a lengthy, difficult, and painstaking process.

Arafat is Dead

2004-11-11T06:53:00.000-05:00

Arafat is dead. Wow. I am in shock.

This could either be VERY good for the Iraeli-Palestinian peace process, or VERY bad. For example, a person could take power who wants to work more with Israel and who WON'T pull out of a nearly completed peace deal. Or an even more radical leader, who preaches the killing of all Israelis and Americans, can take the reigns, leading to more warfare and violence. All we can do is wait and hope that there will be peace in the Middle East.

It will be interesting to see how leaders world-wide respond to his death. And even more interesting to see which world leaders attend his funeral in Cairo.

Civilian Deaths in Iraq...

2004-10-28T17:15:00.000-04:00

Over 100,000 Iraqi citizens have been killed in this war.

Stop.

Read that first line again.

Over 100,000 Iraqi citizens have been killed in this war. The study was "conducted jointly by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad." According to the research, the majority of civilian deaths in Iraq have been of women and children.

You do the math.

Swing States

2004-10-28T16:56:00.000-04:00

With only five days until the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, it's time to start getting nervous. Here are the three most important swing states, and the affect that they will have on the election.

OHIO - 20 EVs
Ohio's looking like it will go to Kerry. The most recent polls by ARG, Ohio University, University of Cincinatti, Survey USA, Gallup, Zogby and the LA Times all show Kerry with a small lead (around 3-4%). Ohio is crucial to say the least. No Republican presidential nominee has lost Ohio and won the election. With an election that's going to be as close as this one, 20 EVs could be the difference between retired and hired.

FLORIDA - 27 EVs
Complete and utter tossup. Recent polls have Kerry up 1, Bush up 1 and Kerry tied. Last year, Florida was the difference maker in the election. Whoever wins Florida this year will likely go on to win the White House. The state has the fourth highest population in America, and has flip-flopped between Dems and Repubs in the past presidential elections.

PENNSYLVANIA - 21 EVs
Bush has caught up, but it won't be enough for him to win Pennsylvania. PA is historically Democratic, and recent polls have Kerry up - but by a small margin. It will be interesting to see how this state turns out. If Kerry loses this state, he's all but done. He would have to win Ohio and Florida, and probably keep all of the Gore-2000 states, a feat which most likely won't happen.

It's anyone's guess as to what the outcome will be November thir, assuming that there even will be an outcome on November third.

Disarming the weapon of mass destruction that is our president.

2004-10-26T21:06:00.000-04:00

Eminem aims to do just that with his new song Mosh. The video can be seen here. It is a pro-voting, anti-bush protest song that could be quite an influence on the election.

While this song will mainly reach a demographic that would most likely vote for Kerry anyways, its effect will be to get more of said people, young, generally fairly poor, to the polls. When they get to the polling booth, this song will make them vote Kerry.

Thanks partly to a surge from DailyKos, it will now be showing on MTV's TRL. This is crucial as it will now be aired to many newly registered voters. These voters are the most easily influenced and are the most likely to be exposed to this song as they are part of MTV's main demographic.

The lyrics can be seen by clicking this link.

Debates: Media vs. Candidates

2004-10-23T17:24:00.000-04:00

During a span of two weeks, beginning on September 30 and ending October 13, the two presidential candidates, John Kerry and George W. Bush engaged in a series of three debates. Showing both of the candidates head-to-head, these were supposed to have a huge impact on the outcome of the election on November 2, mostly by swaying undecided voters. However, it is not the actual debating that will influence the undecided voters, but rather what mass media says about the debates.

The night of September 30, both georgewbush.com and johnkerry.com sent e-mails out to their mailing list. Both claimed victory for their respective candidate. But wait, how can two candidates win the same debate? Of course this is not accurate as neither candidate’s website is going to claim to have lost a debate, but it illustrates a fine point to make: if one looks hard enough, one can find whatever they want to hear.

After the first debate, CNN’s headline read “Kerry tops Bush in first debate”. That very night, over on Fox News, one could hear them argue that “Kerry faces uphill debate battle.” The two biggest names in news show two different outcomes for the same debate. These are outlets that are not supposed to be as biased as the candidates’ sites are. Rather, they are supposed to give facts without opinion. They are supposed to shows us what happened and let us decide how we feel.

However, CNN’s viewer ship is highly liberal and Fox News’ is highly conservative. They need to get the best ratings that they can so that they can sell more advertising so that they can make more money. Mainstream news media is not a true fact-provider, but rather just another business. As in all business, their goal is to make as much money as possible. If CNN started running stories depicting a Kerry demolition by Bush, they would lose viewers. If Fox News started running stories about a landslide victory for Kerry, they would lose viewers.

Subconsciously, people go to certain media outlets expecting to hear certain things. Therefore, these outlets have to pander to their viewers in order to keep them coming back. Viewers that tune in to Fox News expect to hear pro-Bush stories. If they do not, they will go elsewhere to hear what they want to hear, deeming Fox News “wrong” or “untruthful.” However, all news media is untruthful. Their motivation is not providing us with information but instead to make money.

The night of October 8, both georgewbush.com and johnkerry.com sent e-mails out to their mailing list. Again, they both raved about their respective candidate’s prowess and clear-cut victory. As I talked about the mass media’s effect on the first debate, the “new media”, namely the online blogosphere, will now be discussed.

After the second presidential debate, online political web logs (called blogs, such as http://dailykos.com and http://blogsforbush.com) were alive with opinion. Daily Kos came right out with a headline “Bush lost.” That very same night, blogsforbush.com, a site in no way affiliated with the Bush campaign, released a post with a headline equally bold: “BUSH WINS!!!”
While it is not as apparent as it is with television news stations, these blogs are fighting a similar battle. They have immense readership (dailykos.com averages over 525,000 unique visits per day) and must cater to their readers. Most people think of blogs as places that people go to rant about how mean Susie was today. They are like that no more. These political blogs are every bit as much a business as CNN and Fox News are.

When the level of popularity that dailykos.com and blogsforbush.com have is reached, a blog is no longer a personal venting zone or a part-time hobby, it is a full-time job. The posters on these sites rely on them as their only source of income and spend all day writing about the latest campaign ad or petitioning for their favorite Senator.

Online media companies pay to publish said blogs and put the cash in the pockets of the writers. In return, advertising is sold on the side bars of these political blogs. The more visits the sites get, the more advertising they can sell (and at a higher price), the more money they can put in their pockets.

To keep visitors coming and not turn any away, they stick to what their reputation is. Dailykos.com is known to be very liberal, while blogsforbush.com is obviously very conservative. People go to each one not to try and become more educated on the situation, but to hear what they want to hear about current events. These blogs manage to spin every event in favor of whomever it is their readers favor.

All of the spin these blogs put on the current events in order to skew it in favor of their preferred candidate puts a shroud of mist over the truth. It is important not to believe everything that any one source says, but rather to take everything heard and make a more educated opinion based on those.

The night of October 13, both georgewbush.com and johnkerry.com sent e-mails out to their mailing list. For the final time, both claimed victory for their respective candidate. So with all of this skewing for both candidates happening, what will these debates do to undecided voters?
Truthfully, very few undecided voters will be swayed in either direction merely by watching the series of debates. The vast majority, if all they do is watch the debates, will become complacent and either not vote or just vote Bush because it is a lot easier than voting for change. However, the main factor that will effect how undecided voters choose to vote on November 2 is the media’s analysis of the debates.

As has been said already, none of these sources are entirely honest in their commentary on the debates. They have to pander to their audience. Since it is impossible to get unbiased accounts of these debates, undecided voters will choose who to vote for based on which side of the story they get exposed to more. If they live in a rich, stuck-up town where most people vote conservative, they are much more likely to vote Republican and vice-versa.

There is truly no such thing as an undecided voter, just voters who are less resolved in their decision. These can be swayed to vote either direction based mostly on what their peers (especially ones that they trust in most areas) are planning on doing.

Spin for Kerry to people you know that are undecided as much as you possibly can. It is time to change. But that’s for another article.

Kerry Pulling Ahead

2004-10-19T17:25:00.000-04:00

Today, in the polling world, Kerry has begun to pull ahead of Bush. http://electoral-vote.com has Kerry at 284, Bush at 247 (Iowa is tied), http://race2004.net has a final prediction of Kerry at 304, Bush at 234, http://mydd.com has Kerry at 316, Bush at 222 and Professor Sam Wang of Princteton has Kerry at 300, Bush at 238. Plus, new polls in recent hours show Kerry taking the lead in Ohio, extending his lead in New Jersey, and holding onto his lead in Florida. Hopefully, this lead that he is taking will last. November 2 could not come any sooner.

"Major" "Terrorism" "Speech" by Bush

2004-10-19T17:04:00.000-04:00

The results, amazingly, are even more ridiculous than I expected:

• Frequency of John Kerry (with the terms "Senator", "Senator Kerry", or "my opponent"): 41
• Frequency of "Saddam Hussein": 4
• Frequency of "Al Qaeda": 1
• Frequency of "Osama bin-Laden" or "bin-Laden": 0"

Wow, can you believe this? Quite frankly, I'm astonished and somewhat ashamed of our president's misplaced values. Terrorism doesn't take the form of a Junior Senator from Massachusetts. Terrorism is Bin-Laden and Al Qaeda (if terrorism is something that can be so clearly defined; for now, let us say that it is). When I first read this, I was shocked. How can our president, who refers to himself as a War President and a "Crusader" for "Infinite Justice" (two terms that that offensive to people of the Islamic faith, two terms that Bush used in describing this war) expect to be taken seroiusly on the issue of terrorism if he mentions John Kerry 41 more times than he mentions Osama bin-Laden? Is this what the president thinks terrorism looks like? Someone who votes for more money and funding for the troops (John Kerry) while he (Bush) slashes military benefits, retirement plans and budgets? Wow.

The Final Debate

2004-10-13T22:37:00.000-04:00

There are just a few things I'd like to point out about the final debate. Well, a few thingst that Bush said. He wants to return illegal immigrants to their countries. He called the people in the US the "citicery"...I think. He says that the wonderful thing about America is that people can practice their religion freely (any religion), yet he wants a constitutional ammendment against gay marriage based on his religion. Hmm...same reason he is opposed to abortion and stem cell research. There are quite a few contradictions that I'm not mentioning, too. I also found it pretty entertaining when Bush began to talk about the credibility of news stations, caught himself, and said, "Never mind." And why does he have a smirk on his face the whole time? Is he using that technique of pretending everyone is in their underwear? Maybe that's why his public speaking has improved some. I do agree with Bush, though, that his wife understands English better than him.

Last point: did anyone notice something strange about the two of them...physically? They looked like they were the same height. Hmmm, that doesn't seem right. If you had taken a closer look, you would have noticed that, in the split screen, Bush is zoomed in on more than Kerry and the angle seemed different. You couldn't see Kerry's podium at all, but Bush's was well into the screen. I wouldn't quite call this a liberal media.

OH NO!!!

2004-10-12T17:44:00.000-04:00

I fear my worst dream has come true (well, second worst, but I'll save my first worst for a later post). It seems that in order for John Forbes Kerry to win the presidential election, he'll have to win Ohio (or possibly Florida, if he wipes the floor with George Walker Bush in the third debate), a state that voted for Bush last election by around 6% points. Currently, 2 major polling firms (American Research Group and Gallup) have Kerry leading the state, 2 major polling firms have Bush leading the state (Rasmussen and Strategic Vision [A Republican Polling Firm]) and 1 major polling firm has them tied (Zogby). The way for Kerry to win Ohio is a) to defeat Bush badly in the debate tomorrow night, b) take energy away from "close" states such as Oregon, Washington and Minnesota and put them into Ohio, and c) come out "firing" in the homestretch of the election.

If Kerry were to lose Ohio, he still could win though. The easiest way for him to do that is to win in Florida. If Kerry loses Florida and Ohio, there still is some hope, but not much. He will have to win every state Gore won in 2000, which shouldn't be too hard. Then, he would have to hope for the Colorado Ballot Initiave to pass, which would give him 4 of Colorado's 9 Electoral Votes if he comes in second. Next, he would have to win Nevada and its 5 electoral votes. That's not much of a stretch, considering Las Vegas is very liberal, and Kerry is currently ahead in the polls. Next, he would have to take New Hampshire, a Bush-2000 state. But, like Nevada, he is currently ahead in the polls. Also, New Hampshire is right in Kerry's backyard, so if he wins it will be a surprise to no one. Without winning Ohio and Florida, and without the ballot initiative passing but with winning Nevada and N.H., Kerry would have 269 EVs to Bush's 269. But, if the initiave passes, Kerry will be awarded (well, let's hope) 273 EVs, making him the newest president of America. Some other close states that are still in Kerry's reach are Missouri, West Viginia, Virginia and Arkansas.

It's anyone's guess as to what happens on the second of November. But, things are looking good for both candidates, and it's still really anyone's game.

Hannity: Bush has more to hide than we expected.

2004-10-09T01:20:00.000-04:00

A Fox News assistant that I have ties with was at the debate tonight. He said the debate was basically a draw, which could be good for either candidate, but is more so for Bush as it was stronger than his last performance.

What's most interesting, however, is what the assistant overheard Sean Hannity say to a secretary before the debate.

He said that "We need to keep him [Kerry] on the defensive to win." What I find more interesting is that Hannity then said that the reason they needed Kerry to be defensive was to prevent him for bringing Bush's record into play. To keep Bush ahead, they needed to keep Kerry off of his game so that Bush's past does not have an effect.

So, what exactly does Bush have to hide?

Based on Hannity's statement, it sounded as though Bush was covering up more than what Kerry pointed out at the last debate.Is there new information that Kerry couldn't get out at the debate tonight? Or is the new WMD development enough? It seems a little bit sketchy (for lack of a better word) when a huge conservative like Hannity is so worried about what will happen if his candidate's record is presented before the American public.

The Case of the Second-Hand Sources

2004-10-05T22:32:00.000-04:00

I have just completed watching the Vice Presidential Debate between Senator John Edwards of North Carolina and Vice President Dick Cheney. I give the edge slightly to Edwards. Cheney was better on foreign policy (even though I disagree with him) but Edwards was a lot better than Cheney on domestic issues. I noticed that throughout the debate, Edwards and Cheney kept on repeating facts and sayings stated by their candidate in the presidential debate. Hence the title.

This debate was a lot more personal than the Presidential. Especially when the issue of gay marriage was brought up. Edwards had nothing but kind words to say to Cheney and his wife about their gay daughter. He said something along the lines of, "I'm sure they love her very much," something nearly UNHEARD of in a debate. Cheney had no 90-response to Edwards's comments, saying only (something along the lines of), "I thank the Senator for his kind words."

I thought the format was a lot better in the VP debates. The candidates were closer together, the questions more specific and the candidates seemed more engaged. Many times throughout the course of the debate, Edwards addressed Cheney directly, which I thought was very interesting. The VP candidates seemed more involved than the presidential candidates, and more energetic. It was more of an actual debate than the presidential "debate." Also, I felt the VP debate was more informative. There were more facts presented (well, Kerry used many facts in the Presidential debate, Bush used, ummmm, almost none [correct ones that is]) and there were more issues debated.

I still am convinced that usually VP candidates can only hurt a president (there are some exceptions though, expect a post dealing about this soon). Both Edwards and Cheney "held their own" in tonight's debate, and no clear winner emerged. This debate should and will not affect the outcome of the presidential election at all, but it was a great chance to take a look at polar opposites - Cheney (old and old fashioned, very still and straight to the point) and Edwards (young, energetic, lively and sometimes doesn't answer the question asked right away).

The VP Candidates Go At It

2004-10-05T22:03:00.000-04:00

Warning: this is complete stream of thought and has very little organization.

The debate is not over, but what a good one. It wasn't all the same old issues: Iraq and terrorism. Yes, they were addressed, and the same arguments were presented as in the presidential debate; and it was as boring as ever. We all know that the Repubs don't think the Dems have conviction and the Dems think the Repubs focused their energy on the wrong front. Edwards did manage to get Cheney to admit that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But then they moved onto much more interesting issues.

They talked about each VP candidate's record. Cheney completely attacked Edwards on his attendance record. Edwards returned the criticism with his own attack on Cheney's voting record. There is no doubt Edwards won on this point. He proved that Cheney does not care about the common people of our country, including the kids and the seniors. Cheney had no response. I don't care about who attended what meetings. I care about the values that will determine their future decisions!

Cheney was quite effective at various points in the debate. He managed to use Edwards' words of criticism about Kerry during the primaries against him. The debate also addressed Halliburton and the Bush stance on Iran. Hypocritical if you ask me. I won't go into it, but Bush took a stance on Iran that was purely strategic, and certainly immoral, and it contradicted everything they say they stand for in Iraq. Halliburton seems to be above the law, and Cheney's corruption came out very clearly. (Yes, Edwards is corrupt too, but it's not as blatant).

Israel: I love Edwards' position. He made clear that Israel couldn't just sit back and watch their children die. Finally a democrat with a strong stance with Israel. Yes, Cheney was right in saying that we need peace, and two states would be nice. But it won't happen! That is not the objective of the Palestinians. They want Israeli obliteration, not peace with the people they have learned to hate. There is no other choice but what Edwards promotes.

Okay...moving on. Gay marriage. Wow, Cheney just said that he supports the president. His daughter is gay! How can he say that? You can disagree with him; it's okay. Edwards went on to talk about his daughter being gay for a while. Yes, it seemed very complimentary of Cheney, but what he was really doing is making sure to show any republicans that are a little uncomfortable with homosexuality that Cheney has a MAJOR moral dilemma that could complicate things a bit. I support gay marriage, so I don't agree with either ticket, but obviously more so Edwards and Kerry than Cheney and Bush. That discussion was pretty interesting.

Then came a chance for Cheney to attack Edwards' morality. He's a trial lawyer, and he's made his living off of slip-and-fall cases--not too admirable. On this point I agree with Cheney. Doctors are being killed by malpractice lawyers that prosecute every case in which anything goes wrong. This is not the way to help our healthcare system. But then Edwards explained his views on healthcare and was pretty effective.

Another issue that I haven't addressed: the economy. Cleveland was a great example of the economic failure of the bush administration. Millions of jobs have been lost throughout the country and almost half of the children in Cleveland are in poverty. How can the Repubs say they've helped the economy!?

The person who ran the debate (black female--very PC) was extremely good. She brought up great issues and ran it quite nicely. She even added in AIDS in America towards the end. I'm a little worried that Cheney was surprised by the stats. I was a little disappointed, though, that she didn't ask about Sudan. Oh well.

In terms of the structure, I thought it was much better than the presidential debate. They were closer together. It was a much more intimate format, and I liked that they were sitting down. They weren't allowed to address each other, but the format was conducive to it; so they did, which certainly enhanced the debate. What was up with Edwards not being able to say Kerry's name though? Hmmm. Very good debate overall. I do think that Edwards had the edge. He is more eloquent, more informed, less redundant, and had a greater appeal to the American public. Come on, he's a lawyer, he should argue better and he did. Cheney paused too much, said there was too much to say too often, repeated himself fairly frequently, and had more of an abrasive style. Edwards had better arguments than Cheney and articulated them better than Kerry did. I hope the American public watched this debate because this is the real stuff. Iraq isn't the only issue at hand here, and both VP candidates did a nice job of making this clear and making clear their views on the other important issues. Bottom line--Edwards and Cheney are smarter and better-spoken than their running mates, and I hope this debate helped to enlighten the American public. It certainly did so for me.

How many of Bush's cabinet does it take to change a lightbulb?

2004-10-05T17:15:00.000-04:00

None. "There's nothing wrong with that light bulb. It has served us honorably. When you say it's burned out, you're giving encouragement to the forces of darkness. Once we install a light bulb, we never, ever change it. Real men don't need artificial light."

Vice Presidential Debate Could Sway Many Undecided Voters

2004-10-05T16:43:00.000-04:00

The election is almost here, and this is one of the most important nights of both parties' entire campaigns. The Vice Presidential candidates face off in what should be an extremely interesting debate. Edwards is a trial lawyer, is extremely eloquent (even if corrupt), and has a charisma about him that he has the chance to show off to the American people tonight. Cheney, meanwhile, is simply a bulldog. He is a ferocious politician and is not afraid to go at it with anyone. He has provided most of the controversial statements for the Bush campaign this year. Edwards and Cheney probably make for a much more intriguing debate than that of the presidential candidates.

Unfortunately, though, it is unlikely that we will say them truly face off. The debate format has been altered this year for all of the debates, and if it is similar to the first presidential debate, they will not be given the opportunity to address each other. That could have made for some real fun. Can't you just imagine Edwards cross-examining Cheney and Cheney barking back? Anyway, because of both politicians' potential for persuasion and the close proximity of the race, this debate could be critical to the outcome of the November election. We shall see...

Senate Election Projection

2004-10-03T19:51:00.000-04:00

There are 100 Senators in America. This year, there are 34 Senate seats (or 34% for the math savvy among you) up for election - 19 Democratic (well actually 18 if you count Zell Miller as a Republican - WHICH HE REALLY IS!) and 15 Republican seats. Currently, the Republicans control the senate 51-48-1. As of the latest projections, the Democrats are expected to take back the senate. This is especially impressive due to the fact that five (well really four if you count Miller as a Republican, which might I state again HE REALLY IS!) Southern Democratic Senators are retiring (the other four are soon-to-be-VP John Edwards (NC), John Breaux (D-LA), , Bob Graham (D-FL) and Fritz Hollings (D-SC)). Here are a look at some of the key senate races:

1. Illinois: Barack Obama really can't lose. Currently he's up over 40% over the Republican candidate, Alan Keyes. An easy pickup for the Democrats (Peter Fitzgerald is retiring).

2. Alaska: This race, between former governor Tony Knowles, will not be close, considering the Republican "incumbent" (her father, the governor, appointed her once he was elected governor) is down currently 6% in polls.

3. Colorado: Ken Salazar, an attorney, is heavily favored to win over Republican candidate Peter Coors. The Democrats pick up another former Republican Senate seat.

4. Florida: Bob Graham (once a presidential hopeful) could have easily held onto this seat if he wanted to. Now, in his place, Education Secretary Betty Castor is favored to win over Mel Martinez.

5. Nevada: Democratic Incumbent Harry Reid barely (and I mean barely) won re-election the last time he was running. Now he's up 12% in the polls and has a "peaceful, easy, feelin'", to quote the Eagles.

6. Georgia: From one Republican (Miller) to the next (Johnny Isakson who just happens to be up by 16% in the latest Strategic Vision Poll (Republican Polling Firm)).

7. Oklahoma: Brad Carson is poised (up 7% in a September 29th poll) to take this previously Republican seat (Don Nickles is retiring). The Republican nominee, Tom Coburn, has just been through a "nasty" primary fight with fellow Republican hopefuls, where many damaging (to say the least) allegations were made.

8. South Carolina: The Republicans have a good shot at taking this seat back. But Inez Tenenbaum (school superintendent) is up in the polls over Congressman Jim DeMint.

9. Louisiana : Surprisingly, Louisiana has two Democratic Senators, but the incumbent is retiring. That leaves Democrats Chris John and JOHN KENNEDY (seriously) to battle against David Vitter. Currently, the Dems are up in polls. Says electoral-vote.com, "If no candidate gets 50%, there will be a runoff election a few weeks later. Insiders think it will be Chris John vs. David Vitter in a runoff...the Democrats have a good chance to hold the seat."

10. North Carolina: Edwards is retiring, and it's a neck-and-neck race between Erskine Bowles(45%) and Richard Burr(44%). It's anyone's guess as to who will win (I say Bowles).

11. Pennsylvania: Four-term Republican (moderate) Senator Arlen Specter is up for re-election, but he just barely (51-49) won his primary battle. His Democratic opponent is Joe Hoeffel.

12. South Dakota: Although Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle (Democrat) is fairly safe, you never know in a conservative state like South Dakota.

So there you have it, twelve of the tightest Senate races in America. Personally, I think the Democrats will re-take the Senate. But, to make matters more interesting, if Democratic Senator John Kerry wins the presidency, Massachusetts Republican Governor will most likely nominate a Republican to fill the seat. That's definitely something to look out for.

Straight from Bush's mouth to your television set.

2004-10-03T18:34:00.000-04:00

That's right! Based on the series of Bushisms books, you can now own your very own copy of Bushims - only on DVD instead of in print. I found out about this through ArchPundit, which also posted a link to a preview clip of the DVD. Watch it, there's some great stuff in it, and that's only a fraction of the full DVD. My favorite from that clip:

"There is not a doubt - not one doubt in my mind - that we will fail."
-Bush

"Most people are very unsure about failure. Is that who we want as president? No, we don't. We want someone absolutely positive that we are going to fail."
-Brian Unger, one of three commentators

That quote alone would be worth the measley $12.98 that it costs to buy a copy. Buying it is definitely worth the investment so that you can replay such memorable lines over and over as you fall asleep at night. However, as I commented on the post at ArchPundit:

That video [promo] tells me to buy the DVD now, but my wallet tells me not to.

I know I'll eventually order a copy. It's a classic of the modern age. Plus, we get the great sounds of the George W. Bush Singers on it!

Out of all the people in this country...

2004-10-03T16:40:00.000-04:00

There are alot of people that have this same feeling. Luckily, the majority of them feel that they need to vote as citizens of this country. Those who do generally consider Kerry "the lesser of two evils." Take votes anyway they come.

The War in Iraq: Is it Democracy or Hypocrisy?

2004-10-03T01:17:00.000-04:00

“I sent American troops to Iraq to make its people free.” That is what President Bush tells our nation time and again. He claims that liberation and democracy for the Iraqi people was the driving force behind the war.

If democracy is our primary global ideal, why does the Bush administration currently support the Chinese government, instead of Taiwan, over the issue of Taiwan’s independence? The Chinese government maintains that, although Taiwan governs itself and acts completely independently, China has the right to take over Taiwan at any point in time. Taiwan asserts that it is independent and should be free of China’s domination. Taiwan at one point was one of five countries with veto power in the United Nations Security Council, but when China was internationally recognized, it claimed that seat, leaving Taiwan without membership and none of the rights of a sovereign nation. The true irony of the situation is that Taiwan is democratic, while China is authoritarian. So why is President Bush supporting an oppressive, dictatorial nation instead of a democratic territory fighting for liberation? If democracy and liberation for oppressed peoples is truly the most important international concern of the United States, we should certainly be siding with Taiwan. In fact, as opposed to in Iraq, democracy has already been established in Taiwan, which would minimize the task of the United States. Thus, it becomes evident that the values of liberation and democracy are obviously not our president’s primary objectives. It is understandable that the United States government would want to appease such a powerful nation as China, but then Bush should not cite moral purposes as the main motivations for the War in Iraq. This may be why, in the court of world opinion, his arguments are rejected.

China also tramples upon freedom in Tibet. This is a Buddhist state, which was previously independent but was conquered with ease by China around 1950 because, under their religion, the Tibetans would not fight. Bush’s failure to support Tibet once again contradicts the principles that he claims to fight for in Iraq. The Tibetans advocate a peaceful approach to politics and the world at large, and peace is supposed to be one of Bush’s ultimate goals. Tibet was conquered because of an aversion to violence, and if any nation needs and deserves liberation, Tibet should certainly be granted it. The people of Tibet, along with countless other nations, live under oppression, and yet we take no military action outside of Iraq. Why? The answer is simply that Bush is not being honest about the real reasons for invading Iraq. In reality, it is not freedom and democracy, so he has no inclination to act in other locations where those ideals desperately need defense.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a horrible and oppressive dictator, but Bush’s actions with regard to Taiwan, Tibet, and other oppressed peoples lead to the conclusion that Saddam’s cruelty to his people was not a major or driving cause for the war. Bush is attempting to appeal to our morality, while his true motives may be purely geopolitical and in pursuit of petropower. As the election approaches, we must see through Bush’s facade of deceptive words and misleading claims, and we must not tolerate inconsistency and hypocrisy.

Vote for Change Tour

2004-10-02T22:20:00.000-04:00

In Philadelphia, REM and Bruce Springsteen began a week and a half long tour through many swing states through which they hope to use music to get people to not just vote, but to vote for Kerry. While these two artists were rocking the Wachovia Center, six other similar concerts were taking place in five other Pennsylvanian cities: Pittsburgh, Erie, State College, Reading and Wilkes-Barre.

Other artists include Dave Matthews, James Taylor, the Dixie Chicks, Jackson Browne, John Mellencamp, John Fogerty, Jurassic 5, Pearl Jam and many others. In total, they number over 20 and will do 37 concerts in 30 cities, ending on October 11 in D.C. They are donating the proceeds to America Coming Together (ACT). That's a hefty sum already as CNN reports that 90% of the shows have already sold out.

For complete tour dates, locations, and artists, click here. Various quotes from artists on the Vote for Change tour:

"Take a real close look at both candidates and then vote for the smart one."
-James Taylor

"A vote for change is a vote for a stronger, safer, healthier America. A vote for Bush is a vote for a divided, unstable, paranoid America. It is our duty to this beautiful land to let our voices be heard. Thats the reason for the tour."
-Dave Matthews

"I think that he's [Kerry's] expressed an interest in re-engaging the world community and saying the last administration is not representative of the way America wants to do business with the world."
-Stone Gossard, Pearl Jam

"As concerned mothers, women and most importantly concerned Americans, we are compelled to do what we can to inspire other voters to get involved in this years election. We hope our participation in the Vote For Change Tour will be a catalyst for positive change."
-Dixie Chicks

"I felt like I couldnt have written the music Ive written, and been on stage singing about the things that Ive sung about for the last twenty five years and not taken part in this particular election."
-Bruce Springsteen

I only wish I knew about this tour earlier. Nevertheless, tell everyone about it and try to see them if you can, which isn't very likely. It's great to see musicians actually standing up for what they believe in and not being afraid of their opinion and the consequences it intells.

Bush, Kerry, Oil and the Economy

2004-10-02T21:26:00.000-04:00

Being an independent, the debates showed me nothing; Kerry didn't seem human, Bush didn't seem smart. It was just what I expected.

Now that I've gotten my debate statement in, on to the economy.

The price of crude oil on Friday closed above $50. To many, this may seem just like a regular fluctuation, but this is the first time crude oil has closed above $50 in its 21 years of trade on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

I want to see Bush and Kerry debate about what they are going to do about the oil prices. It's too bad that the debates are all going to revolve around killing terrorists or protecting against them. If you have been watching the market, it acts on what happens in Iraq and the price of oil.

In the end, Liberals want to blame Bush, Conservatives want to blame terrorists and in reality we should be blaming ourselves. We have the technology to create a fuel cell car and with proper funding we could have the "hydrogen station" infrastructure needed to support these cars. But what are we doing instead? We are debating with OPEC about oil prices. America is known to the world as a place where any dream can be achieved, a place where there's no reason to go for the norm since the radical is accepted (and sometimes pays well), so the real question is why are we so dependent on the Arab oil industries and not on our own hydrogen industries? Anyone have an answer?

Remember: "Oil is only renewable after a few million years"

And the Survey Says.....

2004-10-02T11:24:00.000-04:00

Kerry wins the debate. It's now a few days after the debate and people have had time to reflect on it. Therefore, there are new polls being published every second. Here are some of them:

1. Survery USA - They have polled more than 20,000 people in 15 states. Kerry won 11 states (including key swing states such as Maine, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Oregon and - by far the most important - Florida (by over 20%)), Kerry and Bush tied in one (Colorado), and Bush won in two (Texas and Oklahoma, which are his base).

2. Gallup - 53% say Kerry won, 37% say Bush won. The rest are undecided.

3. American Research Group - Directly after the debate, they announced that three different panels thought Kerry won (two by 10%, one by 18% - the groups were made up by Repubs., Dems., and Independents). Now, in an other poll, they are stating that 58% of Independents thought Kerry won (as opposed to 39% for Bush in that particular panel). Another panel gave Kerry 56% and Bush 40%.

4. Polls done by NBC, ABC, CNN and CBS show that the vast majority of people feel that Kerry won the debate.

5. "Three post-debate polls suggested voters who watched the policy-driven confrontation Thursday night were impressed by Kerry. Most of those surveyed said he did better than Bush," wrote the AP's White House Correspondent Terrence Hunt.

So there you have it; most polls state that Kerry won the debate, which gives him momentum heading into the final stretch.

Also - "George Bush's home town newspaper, the Crawford Lone Star Iconoclast, has endorsed John Kerry for President." Just thought it was a fun little fact.

An Insight on the First Debate and the Common People of America

2004-10-01T23:10:00.000-04:00

By most accounts, Kerry won last night's presidential debate against Bush, but this reflects primarily the views of the particularly intelligent and educated people of America--the political analysts. I thought that Kerry's points were very legitimate and were based in pretty sound reasoning. He certainly seemed to win almost every argument, most notably over the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the North Korean nuclear program.

To understand, however, how this debate will affect the election, we must consider Kerry's communication to the masses. The difficulty is that his points may have been lost upon many people. He speaks above the general public and makes references to events that most people have never even heard of. Rather than speaking simply and concisely, he complicates his sentences.

Kerry needs to observe and learn from Bush's strategies. Bush may be wrong about many of the statements that he made in the debate, but he reiterated them enough that it was hard to ignore. Bush generally uses simple terms to convey his messages and makes himself much more quotable. How many times did he essentially say that Kerry was being unpatriotic and not supporting the troops because he was disagreeing with Bush and stating that it was the "wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time"? Well, yeah, it probably was just that--the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time--but will most people realize Bush's logic gap and hypocrisy? No, they will remember that the president had enough confidence and conviction in that argument to repeat it again and again throughout the debate. They will remember that Kerry "flip-flops" too much and does not have Bush's strength of character, nor his conviction in his causes, another one of Bush's oft-repeated statements.

Kerry could have made clear that Bush said "Mission accomplished" to our troops but now insists that we need more time in Iraq and that our nation's young men must stay there until the job is truly done. He could have connected this to his earlier statement that the end is not anywhere in sight, considering Bush's absence of an exit strategy in this time of crisis. Instead, Kerry decided to allude briefly and only a single time to the words "mission accomplished". Instead of using a concise, simple, and powerful quote to drive it home to the American public that Bush is fighting an unnecessary war with no foreseeable end, Kerry decided to pack enough information into the debate that very little of it actually made an impact.

Granted, Kerry warmed up at the end and is now enjoying very positive reactions from the media, but if he is going to take this election away from the front-running incumbent, he has to do more to appeal to every demographic of the country. It will be quite interesting to observe whether or not the press continues to support him and if the polls are greatly influenced by the debate. For the sake of our country, let's hope Kerry overcomes his political flaws.

FoxGate?

2004-10-01T17:07:00.000-04:00

Fox News ran the following story this morning on the home page of its website:

Rallying supporters in Tampa Friday, Kerry played up his performance in Thursday night's debate, in which many observers agreed the Massachusetts senator outperformed the president.
"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" Kerry said Friday.

With the foreign-policy debate in the history books, Kerry hopes to keep the pressure on and the sense of traction going.

Aides say he will step up attacks on the president in the next few days, and pivot somewhat to the domestic agenda, with a focus on women and abortion rights.

"It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures," Kerry said.

Kerry still trails in actual horse-race polls, but aides say his performance was strong enough to rally his base and further appeal to voters ready for a change.

"I'm metrosexual — he's a cowboy," the Democratic candidate said of himself and his opponent.
A "metrosexual" is defined as an urbane male with a strong aesthetic sense who spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle.

Clearly, this is a satirical piece written by a right-winger. So, why was it on the home page foxnews.com, a reputable (at least it wants to be) news outlet? According to the folks there, it's employees were over-tired after having under-slept on the night of the debate. In an attempt at some good humor, a writer made this story up and submitted it for review. The rest is history (quite literally as it has now obviously been removed from the site).

This could be very bad for Fox News. It is prime meat for the Democrats to sink their teeth into. They can use this very powerfully against the Republicans since Fox News, although it calls itself "Fair and Balanced", is obviously right wing. They therefore represent Bush's media outlet, meaning this can be used as something of a Bush attack. It is very damaging to Fox and its reputation. The impact that it has on Bush will probably be fairly small, but the Democrats can play it to show right wing problems, which are therefore Bush problems.

Check out Talking Points Memo for details as they unfolded during the day. Many are already dubbing it FoxGate, but "Gating" is just a popular trend in the media (especially online) now. This doesn't have near the implications that WaterGate (or even RatherGate) had, but FoxGate is still a nice name to call it. The key is for the Democrats to play this just like the Republicans played RatherGate. Just getting it in the news for as long as RatherGate was would be great for Democrats as it tarnishes the other side. I can already see radio shows in the morning talking about this both seriously and humorously. Any publicity of this event is good for Democrats.

Election Projection

2004-10-01T17:06:00.000-04:00

Hey everyone, it's Steven L. As most of you know there is a presidential election about to take place in November (well, I really hope that most of you know). So, I feel obligated to serve my fellow countrymen by telling you how I feel the election will turn out in a couple of weeks. Here is a state-by-state prediction (my ratings are Very Strong, Strong, Close, Barely). These are purely opinion based on past voting patterns and general feelings in the states:

Alabama: Very Strong Bush. This is in the heart of Bush's base - there is no way he can lose this state. Currently, he is up 16% over Kerry (in Alabama). 9 EVs (Electoral Votes)
Alaska: Very Strong Bush. Can you remember the last time Alaska voted for the Democratic nominee? I can't. Bush winning this state is a surer thing than any other. 3 EVs
Arizona: Barely Bush. Gore lost this state by 7%, yet last month, Kerry pulled within two percentage points of Bush. He will most likely turn his focus to other, more important swing states. With a large Hispanic turnout, though, Kerry could wind up winning the state. 10 EVs
Arkansas: Close Bush: This could have been a close state, but Kerry chose to spend his money elsewhere - let's see if his strategy pays off. 6 EVs
California: Very Strong Kerry: Even though this state has a Republican governor there is no way Kerry can lose. California has a history of being liberal and siding with the democratic nominee - this year will be no different. 55 EVs
Colorado: Close Bush: A new "ballot initiative" is most likely going to pass in this state, which will award Electoral Votes to the person who places second in the popular vote. 5 EVs for Bush, 4 EVs for Kerry.
Connecticut: Very Strong Kerry: Historically Democratic - no exception this year. 7 EVs
Delaware: Strong Kerry: See Connecticut. 3 EVs
District of Columbia: VERY VERY VERY Strong Kerry. Should they even bother having people waste their time to vote? One of the most liberal places in America. 3 EVs
Florida: Barely Barely Barely Barely Barely Kerry: This state (along with Ohio) can go to any candidate, but I'm predicting this will be a MAJOR upset for Kerry. In recent Floridian polls, Kerry has been steadily increasing. 27 EVs
Georgia: Strong Bush: This state is part of Bush's base. I would say it's his to lose, but there is almost no chance of him losing this. 15 EVs
Hawaii: Very Strong Kerry: This state is one of the most liberal in the country. 4 EVs
Idaho: Very Strong Bush: See Hawaii - but insert "conservative" where "liberal" is. 4 EVs
Illinois: Strong Kerry: The rural parts are conservative, but Illinois is home to the third largest city in America (Chicago), which also probably ranks as the third most Democratic (behind New York City and Washington D.C.). 21 EVs
Indiana: Strong Bush: Historically conservative, and Bush is up 15% is the most recent state-wide poll. 11 EVs
Iowa: Very Close Bush: Gore won this state - barely - in 2000, and Kerry has usually been up in the polls since May. But, I think that Bush will pull off a MAJOR upset. 7 EVs
Kansas: Strong Bush: Very Republican state, and given that Bush is up 22 percentage points in the latest poll, it's safe to say that he'll win the state. 6 EVs
Kentucky: Strong Bush: See Kansas (except Bush is up 17 percentage points in the latest poll). 8 EVs
Louisiana: Close Bush: Kerry would have given Bush a run for his money in this state if he hadn't pulled funding (for TV ads, appearances in the state, etc.). 9 EVs
Maine: Strong Kerry: Maine is in Kerry's backyard - he'll win it by 8%. 4 EVs
Maryland: Very Strong Kerry: I just can't, in my wildest dreams, see Kerry losing this state. 10 EVs
Massachusetts: Very Strong Kerry: The question isn't whether Kerry will win here or not. The real question is, will he break 80% at the polls? It's a possibility. 12 EVs
Michigan: Close Kerry: Gore won here in 2000, and Kerry's been ahead in the polls. Michigan is also a historically Democratic state, so I'm predicting Kerry. 17 EVs
Minnesota: Close Kerry: Minnesota is a lot like Michigan in that Kerry has been up in the polls for a while but by a small margin. Still, Kerry wins it. 10 EVs
Mississippi: Very Strong Bush: Bush will win. But, to make matters interesting, Kerry has improved 12% and Bush has decreased 10% in the state polls since April. 6 EVs
Missouri: Very Close Bush: I would say Kerry based on the polls, but this summer, an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state Constitution passed "overwhelmingly." 11 EVs
Montana: Very Strong Bush: No explanation needed. 3 EVs
Nebraska: Very Strong Bush: Bush can't lose here. 5 EVs
Nevada: Very Close Kerry: Kerry pulls an upset in Nevada, only because Las Vegas, a "liberal city" is one of the fastest growing in America. 5 EVs
New Hampshire: Close Kerry: Kerry wins this Bush-2000 state. 4 EVs
New Jersey: Strong Kerry: This state is Kerry's to lose. 15 EVs
New Mexico: Close Kerry: New Mexico barely went to Gore in 2000. This year will be different. The primarily Democratic-Hispanic vote will be the difference. 5 EVs
New York: Very Strong Kerry: Home to, what I believe is, the most liberal city in America. Kerry sweeps all of the "New" states. 31 EVs
North Carolina: Close Bush: Kerry has kept it close in North Carolina, but this is a Republican state. 15 EVs
North Dakota: Very Strong Bush: Bush sweeps all of the "North" states. 3 EVs
Ohio: Very Close Bush: Bush will win this state, you heard it here first (well, probably not first). 20 EVs
Oklahoma: Very Strong Bush: If Bush does not win this state - wait, sorry, there's no way he can lose this. 7 EVs
Oregon: Close Kerry: Kerry will carry (cerry) this state (I've been waiting to use that joke for around half an hour). Polls point to Kerry. 7 EVs
Pennsylvania: Close Kerry: This state isn't as close as most people think. Kerry has a seven point lead on the most recent state poll (done by a Republican polling company). That margin is the biggest, for any candidate, since August 2nd. Kerry has momentum, and a strong base in Pennsylvania. 21 EVs
Rhode Island: Very Strong Kerry: Very liberal. No way Kerry can lose unless Nader wins the state - which WON'T happen. 4 EVs
South Carolina: Close Bush: Edwards is from the Carolina's, but it won't matter on election day. 8 EVs
South Dakota: Strong Bush: Not only will Bush win all of the "Norths," but he will also win all of the "Souths." No surprise. 3 EVs
Tennessee: Close Bush: This state was once close - not the case any longer. 11 EVs
Texas: VERY Strong Bush: This is Bush's home-state = enough said. 34 EVs
Utah: Very Strong Bush: Since May, Bush's lead has not dropped below 40 points. Expect him to win Utah by 50 percentage points on election day. 5 EVs
Vermont: Strong Kerry: If I were Kerry I would be scared in Vermont. His 15 point lead in May has dropped to a 10 point lead in September (joke). Kerry will win by 8-12 percentage points. 3 EVs
Virginia: Strong Bush: This is Bush's state. (Lucky Number) 13 EVs
Washington: Close Kerry: Says Time, "Leans Dem." I couldn't agree more. 11 EVs
West Virginia: Close Bush: Previously a Democratic stronghold. Now WV is turning into a Republican stronghold. 5 EVs
Wisconsin: VERY Close Bush: Bush pulls off an upset in this previously strong-Democratic state. But, Wisconsin is unpredictable (according to Time and other sources), so nothing is 100% certain. 10 EVs
Wyoming: VERY STRONG BUSH: Bush is enjoying a jaw-dropping 36 point lead. EVs 3 (Least populated state in America)

So there you have it folks. Who will win in November? Based on my predictions, Kerry will win the Electoral Vote over Bush by a margin of 279-259 (assuming the Colorado voting initiative doesn't go through. If it passes, Kerry=284 Bush=254). However, it's really too hard to tell at this point who will take the polls. A lot of it rests on the next two debates (as well as the Vice Presidential debates) and either candidate still has time to make one major mistake that could cost them huge votes in the next month.

Steven L.

Bush, Kerry and Debate #1

2004-09-30T23:02:00.000-04:00

Throughout this debate, Bush was on edge, defending his views more than he was attacking Kerry's. He had one argument throughout the entire debate: that Kerry was sending mixed signals to the troops and to the world by saying that we are in "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." If I had a slightly longer attention span and/or a stronger will, I would have counted how many times Bush repeated that single slogan. It had to be upwards of 20, without exaggeration; upwards of 50 if I want to exaggerate for the sake of proving my point.

Kerry, on the other hand, provided a pretty good mix of ideas while not overextending himself (like he accused Bush of doing with our army right now). His main point was that Bush has taken this War on Terror off of its focus which should be on Bin Laden. They both accused each other of mistakes in leadership, Bush noting Kerry's Senate record a couple of times (something he should have pursued more) and Kerry saying that Bush did not form a strong coalition as he had promised to enter the War on Terror with.

Bush seemed to be a bit unprepared as though he were winging it the whole time. He took too many pauses that were too long: pauses that indicated thinking, not ones used for dramatic effect. He also resorted to the simple line "it's very difficult" when he was backed into a corner that he had trouble getting out of. Whenever Kerry noted the too-sparse use of diplomacy or poor troop management, Bush responded, "it's very difficult." When using this response (although not this one exclusively), he would exhale deeply as though he were flustered and getting worn out because, frankly, he was.

Kerry, on the other hand, was much more calm and collected throughout the debate. Yes, he did pause fairly often, but they were short enough to be for dramatic effect. Whether they actually were or whether he's just quicker on his feet is something we can't be sure of. Either way, however, his fewer, shorter pauses were more desirable than Bush's. Kerry felt like he was on more solid ground, like he came in knowing what to say to almost any question and any argument that Bush put in front of him.

However, Kerry was not perfect. He did more arguing against Bush than for himself. He didn't do enough convincing that he should be president. Sure, he did more than Bush, but that's because Bush doesn't have to. Kerry has to convince people to vote for him over Bush because if he does not provide some good reasons for them to do so, many voters will become complacent and either not vote at all or just say, "what difference does four more years make?" In this, Kerry can improve.

Most of the major news channels (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS) conducted in-debate polls that showed Kerry coming out on top. Virtually all panelists agreed that Kerry was the victor as well. However, my last point comes in to play with the results of a CBS poll that shows that, while Kerry was the better debater, he didn't persuade people strongly enough that they should actually vote for him instead of for Bush. Kerry's getting people to think that he can out-smart Bush on the debating floor, but he has to do more convincing that he's worth voting for to be our president.

Various results (Kerry then Bush):
MSNBC: 69-31
CBS: 44-26 (rest voted for a tie)
CNN: 89-10 (1% tie)
CNBC: 65-35

It would also help both of them if they stopped repeating themselves constantly, like I've done throughout this post.

Time to sleep on tonight's events and check in with the lastest developments in the morning. Enjoy.

When in the course of human events...

2004-09-28T21:41:00.000-04:00

Hello World. I am MMeiz, and CitizenShane and I have created this website to facilitate all of your political (and perhaps philosophical) needs. We live in what, in the future, will probably be viewed as one of the most critical political time periods in history, and it is our hope to provide you with the important information and a relatively wide variety of opinions on the pressing issues of our time.

There are three other founding members of this website: SFish, StevenL, and Vice President QuantumBlast7. CitizenShane and I are the Co-Presidents. We hope you enjoy and benefit from our website, and we welcome and encourage comments, criticism, and of course praise. Expect only more from us in the future and we will deliver.