Monday, October 18, 2004
Here's the link:
With joy, that is.
Friday, October 15, 2004
The Washington Redskins have predicted the outcome of every presidential election since 1936. If they have lost their last game before the election, the challenger has won. When they have won their last game before the election, the incumbent has stayed in power.
Well, it just so happens that the last game the Redskins play before the upcoming election is against...Green Bay.
Given the SORRY friggin' state of the Packers this season, I'm feeling pretty good about Bush's chances.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
He's Looking at You, Soulfully. I just wanted to post this picture to see if the Hello program actually works.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
John Kerry: “Whatever you need, it’s yours. Need a job? YouDid anyone else watch it? I was flipping between the Cards/Astros game (go Cards) and the debate. But it seemed that every time I flipped back to the debate, Bush was on a roll. Kerry just looked a bit…I dunno…worn out. Some of the President’s answers were a bit off. Like talking about education when you’re asked about jobs (granted, I understand that education leads to better jobs…but the world needs ditch diggers too, Mr. President). Or his soft stance on the assault weapons ban (ask a business owner in South Central L.A. if his store would have been looted if he could have stood on top of it with a machine gun and a full load of ammo). But overall, there was passion. Passion I had not really seen from the President since the weeks following September 11th. In a way, it was magical. But I’m sure to some it came off as desperate. But I really think the President feels very strongly about domestic issues. These are the things that get his blood boiling. And there is no reason to feel a need to hide that passion.
got it. Need a higher living wage? Done. Need cheap, universal
healthcare? I’m your man. Need a better education? Have at it,
paid in full. Relying on social security for your retirement? I’ll
put it in a lock box. Tax relief? I can give you that, too.
Want to lose your virginity to a teenage Mexicali hooker and a donkey?
I’ll print coupons. And the best part is, every single one of my plans
comes with free cole slaw and a plate of homestyle biscuits!” George Bush:
“Anybody who believes this guy can deliver on even one percent of his promises
deserves four years of John F’n Kerry. God bless, and good night.”
If you didn’t get a chance to watch this debate, you will undoubtedly hear the following quote from Kerry replayed (probably in a future Bush ad) numerous times over the next few weeks:
And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, sheOh, sure. Take a swipe at Cheney’s daughter. Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice. And John Edwards did it too during his debate with the Veep. I simply don’t understand why his daughter needs to be brought into this. Sure, she's out and proud (or whatever they call it now), but she’s never been a political figure and there was no reason to bring her up. It was simply a cheap swipe to rattle the conservative base. Uncalled for, and unforgivable. Hopefully Bush can take this clear debate victory and ride it all the way till November 2nd.
would tell you that she’s being who she was, she’s being who she was born as.
Total votes cast in city in the 2000 Presidential election: 245,670.
Ballots requested by City of Milwaukee under Tom Barett: 938,000.
Update: You can read the PDF version of the Fox News / O'reilly Complaint here. You can also read the PDF version of the sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Fox News / O’reilly here. Both via The Smoking Gun.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
“We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’sHoly crap! The Kerry-Edwards ticket is holding the secrets to curing some of the worst diseases known to man, and they aren’t sharing! It’s so inhumane to make these people suffer when you have the knowledge and the expertise to cure these diseases. Oh, wait. These guys won’t actually do anything about these problems. All they are going to do is sign legislation allowing the harvesting of stem cells from murdered babies. I’m sorry. I must have misunderstood.
and other debilitating diseases. When John Kerry is president, people like
Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk
Now where do these two guys get off promising to cure diseases? They aren’t scientists. They aren’t researchers. What the hell do they know about curing diseases? It seems to me that such a statement is absolutely ludicrous. Why didn’t he finish his speech with the following: “America, vote for the Kerry-Edwards ticket, and we’ll cure AIDS, all cancers, paralysis, chromosomal birth defects, and any other disease you can name. We’ll cure them all. And we’ll feed the world’s hungry with our genetically modified foods! So keep having those abortions, America. Without those stem cells from the aborted fetuses, none of this is possible. Good night. And God Bless France.” I think it would be appropriate.
Prior to my visit to the Marquette University bookstore, the BookMarq, on Tuesday, I had never had the opportunity to call into question the politics of the bookstore. However, on Tuesday, I entered the BookMarq to pick up a couple of things, and I noticed a collection of books prominently displayed in the front of the store. The sign above the display stated something to the effect of “Vote ’04 Read up on the issues and candidates”. I consider myself very well versed in the world of politics, but the display drew my attention anyway. As I was looking at the books that were prominently displayed for my perusing and edification, I noticed that nearly all of the books were, in one way or another, left-leaning. Nearly every book in the display was anti-Bush, anti-Bush Administration, or pro-Democrat. For example, a few of the books displayed: “Bushwacked”, “The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America”, “House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World’s Two Most Powerful Dynasties”, “Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War”, “A Call to Service: My Vision for a Better America” (author: John Kerry), “John Kerry: A Portrait”, “Cover Up: What the Government is Still Hiding About the War on Terror”, “Four Trials” (author: John Edwards), and “Against All Enemies”.
There was, however, one book that was right-leaning: “Uncivil Wars”. By my count, and math is not one of my strong points, that is nine books either attacking the Bush Administration or supporting Democrats, and one book that is conservative in nature (although, by no means political in nature). The only books that I could see that were missing were Kitty Kelley’s slanderography “The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty” and any book of lies written by Michael Moore.
Now, I have no problem with authors writing slanderous books, or books that attack Bush or his administration. The freedom to question and attack the people in power is a freedom that is necessary and fundamental to our great country. What I do have a problem with is when an individual or group attempts to “educate” voters in a manner that is biased from the outset, and they fail to plainly state the bias. Which brings me back to the BookMarq. Instead of entitling this selection of books as informative on the issues and candidates, how about plainly stating that this group of books favors those of the liberal persuasion? Then the bias is open and obvious, and a group of books can be put together that favors the conservative viewpoint. Having a potential voter that is uneducated on the issues or candidates look through a selection of books that heavily favors one side, without giving the same potential voter an opportunity to examine the other side of issues or other candidates, defeats the entire purpose of voter education. If you only offer one side of a series of issues, you have simply achieved voter indoctrination, not education. And if your goal is voter education, you have failed.
Maybe I’m overreacting. Maybe the people responsible for overseeing operations at the BookMarq are simply unaware of the bias nature of the display. Maybe one lone employee was responsible for this horrible attempt at voter “education”. If that is the case, then consider yourselves informed. Now that those in charge are aware of the situation, they can provdie a remedy. If and how the display is balanced is beyond my control. But let me make a suggestion. Stock the bookstore with a few more books written by authors spouting a conservative viewpoint. I easily found any Michael Moore book I wanted, but finding a conservative author required a much more dedicated search. If the BookMarq stocked more books by conservative authors, a second display could easily be made in order to achieve the balance necessary to reach the stated objective: voter education.
Again, maybe I’m overreacting. Maybe it was an innocent mistake. If so, it is easily correctable. If it was not an innocent mistake, then I think it speaks volumes about the willingness of the university to accept a diversity of viewpoints.
Monday, October 11, 2004
First, after sarcastically noting that he is a practicing Catholic, Kerry concluded that abortion raises nothing but a dogmatic religious issue. Specifically, Kerry said, "I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith."
I'm guessing that Kerry defines "faith" in an "opiate of the masses" sense, so here are just a few things we can expect Kerry to eliminate as supreme mullah of the U.S.: school choice, Stafford loans for students at private colleges, faith-based initiatives, the Pledge of Allegiance, "In God We Trust" on currency, ministers employed by the military and Congress, prohibitions on euthanasia, and any meaningful restriction on access to abortions (even partial-birth), just to name a few. But that's not all. We're going to actually have to pay for the things John Kerry finds in his own religion, the Church of the Living Constitution.
Second, during a cryptic statement affirming his support for taxpayer-funded abortions, Kerry noted that he supports "making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise." What does this mean? We'll have to fund every constitutional "right" found to exist by a Kerry-appointed Supreme Court. This may be good news for gay prostitutes servicing poor clients (see Lawrence v. Texas), but it is most certainly bad for the rest of us.
If Bush wants to draw a good distinction between himself and Kerry, he should use these Kerryesque lines:
- "My opponent wants to fund abortions, but this just takes away from funding the military in its search for Osama Bin Laden."
- "My opponent supports cutting taxes on the middle class, but this would take away from valuable government services, such as funding abortions for teenagers."
Sunday, October 10, 2004
If I happened to land a job in one of these practice areas sometime before November 2nd, I would have to answer some tough moral questions: Would Kerry/Edwards now be the right choice to secure my family's financial future? Should I vote for these guys to secure my future career, trusting guys that get money (and votes) based on the stupidity of others?
But fear and avarice only got so far. Within seconds, I realized that even tolerating a guy like Edwards would place any self-respecting Republican or Libertarian on an equal philosophical plane with your average whining, sniveling teacher's union member. Come to think of it, pretty much every liberal group (unions, trial lawyers, welfare recipients, public employees--to name a few) completely depends on Kerry/Edwards-advocated handouts, or other unnatural regulations of the free-market, to be successful. Like their constituencies, these guys are bad news.
What got me thinking about all this in the first place was reading a news story ripping a new 527 group, The November Fund, that is currently conducting a campaign against trial lawyers generally and John Edwards specifically. They are about to start running an ad with a doctor who gives a testimonial claiming that Edwards and his counterparts have closed hospitals, put doctors out of business, etc.
In this not-too-subtle testimonial, the doctor is wearing ridiculous looking scrubs and delivering his monologue from a darkened operating room. For these reasons, the ad is sort of funny, in an unintentional way. Here's a link:
In this same article, John Berard states his very strong feelings on the subject: “I’d rather see Satan himself on the throne of the presidency than George W. Bush.” Wow. Now THAT is conviction. However, I think it also demonstrates the sad state of the left. I’m yet to find one single lefty that can articulate to me the reasons s/he so opposes the current President. And I have a feeling that Mr. Berard could not do it either. These lefties get so riled up by their leaders because they hate Bush so much. But they don’t really like Kerry either. They don’t vote on principle, they vote on hate. They don’t have to know Kerry’s platform, they only need to be told that Bush is bad, and so they should vote for the other guy. If that’s case, then maybe you shouldn’t vote. If you can’t articulate a reason, other than “I hate Bush” or “At least Kerry isn’t Bush”, for voting against Bush, then yes, I don’t think you should vote. A vote should be a representation of your ideology; your convictions. And if Nadar embodies your conviction, your ideology, then great. Cast your vote for Nadar and the Greens. If the Libertarians are your cup of tea, don’t “cross over” to the big two parties, simply so that your “vote counts”. It counts no matter whom you vote for. Third parties will never grow if their members continue to be wishy-washy at the polls. I can only imagine the conversation a Green party member has with himself inside the polling booth: “I know I should vote Green. But I hate Bush. And if I vote Green, that only helps put Bush back in the Whitehouse. Ok, I’ll vote Kerry, but never again. After this election I’ll stick to my ideology and vote Green. But this election is too important and my vote must count. I’ll vote Kerry, but not tell anyone.” How one becomes so wishy-washy is beyond my comprehension.
In the end, if you’re willing to cast aside your ideology and vote against a candidate, not for an ideology, then you simply need to reevaluate your convictions. Why do you spend your time campaigning and canvassing for your Third Party candidates if in the end, you’ll simply vote against Bush, not for your ideology? After this election, no matter which of the Big Two parties wins, the Third Parties will continue to complain about the election process. But their real problems remain within their own camps. The real problem is with their member’s commitment and dedication to the cause. Without motivated and driven members that will to cast a vote for a cause, instead of against a candidate, the Third Parties will never be successful.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
So...the state has given the power to approve voter registrations to an alcoholic, drug-addicted, semi-literate felon. Oh, yeah. No vote fraud going on here, I'm sure.
NOTE: It turns out that as I understand it, this is not even legal. You must be eligible to vote in order to be a deputy voter registrar.
So in West Allis, Wisconsin, these wacko-leftists attacked the Milwaukee republican headquarters. The volunteers in the office were, momentarily, overcome by the “shock and awe” of the attack (pic). After regaining their composure, the volunteers told the wacko-leftists to get off the desks, put down the bullhorn, and get the hell out of the office. These crazy people kept dancing around, defacing campaign materials, and shouting on the bullhorn. Finally, after about fifteen minutes, these wackos got tired of trashing the office (or about the time the effects of the joint they smoked on the bus started to wear off) and they left.
The cops were never called. Why? I don’t know, but if someone had just run into my office and started trashing the place, I’d have called the cops. But that’s their prerogative.
It seems that the AFL-CIO (democratic party) was responsible for at least the attacks in Wisconsin and Florida. Chanting something about overtime pay. Whatever. Trying to destroy Bush’s campaign headquarters doesn’t get your message across. Which I guess just proves my point all along: union members are dumb thugs that cannot think for themselves.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
An unknown suspect fired several shots into the Bearden office of the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign Tuesday morning.
One shot shattered the glass in the front door and the other cracked the glass in another of the front doors.
No wonder liberals are in favor of gun control; give them guns, and they can't control themselves. Seriously, folks, this is the United States of America. We don't pull this kind of crap here.
The citizens of Madison, being one of the few remaining bastions of liberalism, should be all about diversity and understanding. But that seems not to be the case. And it seems to prove my point all along that liberals don’t really want true diversity. They want their “diversity”. Diversity of ideology is, in the liberal’s opinion, is not truly diversity. But how so? Aren’t liberals supposed to be all about peace and love? How does putting swastikas in yards promote liberal ideology? The liberal cannot defend his views by logic and facts, he must turn to name calling and mudslinging. You can’t argue in favor of your position, so you burn Swastikas into the yards of those you disagree with.
Monday, October 04, 2004
So it seems that John Kerry might be a cheater. It appears that he brought into the debate something white, folded, and concealed in his pocket. Now as the rules indicate, you are not to bring anything into the debate. The only things present on your lectern should have been so previously placed.
So does it matter? Ya, I think it matters. If one candidate had notes, outlines, or any supplemental material, it could provide a huge advantage for him. I realize that none of the answers we heard were “spontaneous”, but imo, having notes would be a big help. When you violate the rules that you yourself imposed, it takes away from your credibility. Then again, maybe Kerry wasn’t worried all that much about his credibility. Or what shred of it he had left to lose.
UPDATE: Apparently, Kerry pulled out a pen.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Add to this the recent bizarre phrase from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The head of the Figaro press group went to see him about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."Now correct me if I'm wrong; aren't these the very same "allies" that John "F-Is-For-French" Kerry promises to get troops and support from?
How? Elect me, I'll tell you later.
Color me skeptical.
In other news, here's a picture of me from my summer in D.C.:
Friday, October 01, 2004
Around 1987, newly sworn in Chief Justice Rehnquist came to the University of Missouri to give a talk as a guest of the political science department. All fine and good. Prior to the speech, the heads of the political science department and a few other dignitaries from the university took the Chief Justice out for an extravagant dinner. Everyone ate, drank, and was merry. However, the Chief Justice had a bit lot to drink and was pretty drunk when he arrived back at the university. The professors stalled for a while, trying to force coffee down his throat and get him to sober up, but nothing worked. Finally, the Chief Justice got tired of waiting to give his talk, so he decided to take the stage. As he stumbled up the stairs to the stage, few in the audience questioned him. Nothing remarkable came out of the speech, but watching the Chief Justice sway and hang on to the podium for balance was apparently very entertaining.
And it seems its happened again.
Justice Antonin Scalia gave a twenty-minute speech, followed by a twenty-minute question-and-answer session, last night at Harvard. And, if the story can be believed, Scalia quipped “I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged[.]” What? Did I miss something? Will the aliens that took the real Scalia and replaced him with a sex-loving hippie, please return my Supreme Court justice? Other than being drunk, I don’t know what would possess a man of Scalia’s stature and moral conviction to make such a comment. I suppose I’m just baffled. Honestly, when I first saw this headline, I figured it would be Justice Souter. Because, of course, the rumor is that he’s a bit light in the loafers. But not Scalia. I’m devastated at the moment. I can’t go on.