|
| |
The Lunch Counter
|
Thursday, March 31, 2005
|
|
Jesse Jackson must believe that some humans are more valuable than others when it comes to who lives and who dies. Still without clarifying exactly what it is about the Schiavo case that he is against, he makes it clear that the unborn have less right-to-life than the undead. Jesse has both ends covered and somehow gets a pass.
Saying he is unsure when life begins, how can he claim to err on the side of life when it comes to Terri Schiavo and on the side of death when it comes to a mother aborting her child. Isn't life life?
8:48:04 AM 
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
|
|
First Lady Laura Bush met with Afghan women who were training to be teachers. Just a couple years ago, they weren't allowed out of the house. A seismic event happened and practically no one notices. She did I'm sure what she does best, just being herself. Herself an educator, and with heartfelt compassion and passion for these women to succeed in their chosen profession, she accomplished a lot in the 6 hours she was in the country.
A better ambassador for the United States you won't find.
"This matters much more than hundreds of millions of dollars," Karzai said of Mrs. Bush's visit, although the fragile democracy is heavily dependent on international aid. "Much more."
Laura Bush Shows Support for Afghan Women. Laura Bush Visits Afghanistan, Expresses Support for Women Freed From Taliban Repression [ABC News: Politics]
11:25:26 PM
|
|
Why the AARP can't see the benefits is beyond me. They're supposed to be older and wiser. So why are they spending millions of dollars campaigning against fixing the Social Security program?
Private investment accounts to suplement Soc. Sec. has a better yield to the account holder than the current system, and it creates jobs because it is investing in America. It's a win-win situation.
Buying U.S. Savings bonds won't create jobs, neither will increasing taxes. Investing in America does. Everyone wins. Even democrats if they'll admit it. Grand children of the AARP will win too, and so on. But they won't because they are not part of the legislation. There is no change in anything for those over 55 (born before 1950). So it's a bit odd that they're spending their resources to be so political.
Isn't it a little ironic that the government has taken this long to see the benefits of that which made us a superpower, our freedom and free enterprise.
What Winston Churchill said:
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
All the AARP wants to do is to preserve the failing system for the sake of having it. Never mind that it is useless in today's demographics and where we are headed. All the while forgetting that it is the recipient who needs the help, not the 'system'.
9:52:17 AM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
|
|
"She is being starved to death, she is being dehydrated to death. That's immoral and unnecessary," says the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
Is it the starvation watch, common practice in hospices and hospitals that you are calling immoral, or the fact that she's been sentenced to death via removal of the feeding tube?
4:35:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Monday, March 28, 2005
|
|
Thumbing his nose at all Iraqi citizens, Kofi Annan (co-conspirator to be) and the United Nations have decided to pay legal bills of Benon Sevan, the former head of the U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq. That is bad enough right there. Perpetrating a fraud on humanity ought not to be a reimburseable expense. The guy was wealthy enough even before the illegal oil deals.
What's worse than that? He says he'll use the Iraqi's oil-for-food money to pay this schiester's bills. That money, for the last time, belongs to the Iraqi people, not the U.N., not friends of Chirac or Schroder.
Wassupwidat?
2:27:58 PM
|
|
He is seeing both he and his son becoming targets of the corruption investigation in the UN known as the OFF (oil for food) program, which was meant to help the Iraqi people in terms of food, medicines, and other necessities of life. This, as a means to not make the people suffer under the sanctions upon Saddam.
And Kofi has the gall to propose another gold mine of corruption called official development assistance (ODA), tax to all countries. The UN of course would be the tax collector and money manager. And the UN would give the money to the have-nots. Right. Kofi insists there is an immediate need for a lot of money to keep things going. I understand the need, after all, they just lost the sugar daddy called the oil-for-food program. And the UN has no credible track record of handling large sums of money. They haven't the willpower sufficient to keep their hands out of the cookie jar. Which is what their track record shows.
The people who need aid would be better served if none of the money was in control of the UN. Instead, leave it up to the spending countries to send their cash themselves, only coordinated perhaps by the UN. But the UN never gets their hands on it to corrupt them. All the UN will need money for is their supply of toilet paper and other stationary to run an office, their utilities and building maintenance.
TIMESOnline.co.uk story.
1:29:48 PM
|
|
|
|
Sunday, March 27, 2005
|
|
"I can't believe it, I am watching my grandchildren being children again," said Sahra, their grandmother, a grin breaking out on her face.
All the fun of the fair for Baghdad's war children. Baghdad's streets are typically lined with concrete blast barriers topped with razor wire. But head out of the centre of the city towards the notoriously dangerous suburb of al-Doura and a burst of gaudy colour suddenly breaks from the monotonous grey. [Telegraph News | International News]
10:28:05 PM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, March 26, 2005
|
|
After 67 years of marriage, and a 'record holder' of sorts. 'Lord Callaghan was also the longest-living Prime Minister in British history.' And that's just the beginning.
I hardly remember when he became Prime Minister in 1976. My memory of British Prime Ministers begins with Margaret Thatcher, who succeeded Lord Callaghan in 1979. I remember feeling good about the fact that she was the first woman Prime Minister. And a great one at that.
Lord and Lady Callaghan
Lord Callaghan dies 11 days after wife [Telegraph News | Breaking News]
Guardian
3:21:30 PM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
|
|
As bloggers and websites become the next target.
Never mind that it should never have become law. Never mind that the President signed a bill that restricts political speech. Supreme Court? No problem.
Now that we've been through the first election cycle under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance 'reform' legislation, I pose the question, did it work? More money was spent this last election than ever before. That answers the question. A loophole called 527's was allowed, by the Supremes, to continue. Soros, MoveOver.org (according to them), and hundreds more like 'em. 'McCain-Feingold has failed spectacularly in its stated goal of reining in fat-cat donors.'
Not undaunted by failure, they've set their sights on the internet, especially bloggers. They think they can make a case that a blog that claims to support a candidate or has a link to a candidate's website on your website, can be included in the excluded class. Well, I think we need a special congressional investigation, with as much humiliation possible, you know, like they did to the baseball players. 'Torture', according to Sen. Joe Biden. And the senate select panel on government BS will ask Sens. McCain and Feingold if they think their bill did what it was intended to do. How do they explain the record dollar amounts spent? What is their plan to fix it? Or should the Congress step in and rescind the bill if they don't come up with a plan the panel likes? The track record would warrant such a fix.
Apparently, operating under the assumption that they know what they're doing, that is, that they know how to limit more free political speech and get away with it, the're looking at enlarging the silenced population to include bloggers and website operators. That, in order to comply with the legislation.
McCain-Feingold Online. Will the FEC make bloggers kiss the First Amendment goodbye? [OpinionJournal.com]
1:15:49 AM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
|
|
I'm not a doctor, but I used to watch Ben Casey all the time. I'm getting mixed signals on the Terri Schiavo case, especially in her medical condition.
Those coming down on the side of her parents refer to her as brain damaged, and possible to rehabilitate.
Those on the other side say she'd brain dead, with no chance for any sort of rehabilation.
I understand the political calculation in using the different terms because each one affirms their argument. My point is, why is this even debatable? Isn't there a machine somewhere in the hospital that can tell the difference? I'm sure there is, and it wouldn't it be nice to clear the smoke on this case and someone somehow get this fact OUT?
5:40:27 PM
|
|
For the liberals and the democrats in general, it seems their idea of an energy policy is to do whatever you can to not use it. But more than that, it's also important not to get it. We declare oil and coal fields national parks. How does that reduce dependence on foreign oil? It's been over 4 years now that the President's energy policy has been ignored. The time for a change is long overdue.
About a year ago, before John Kerry was picked as the democrat presidential candidate, he made a statement that this country should drill in the Gulf of Mexico. And my congressman, Jeff Miller (R) reacted to Kerry's comment, quotes below. A year later, now post hurricane Ivan, we have seen many of the rigs in the gulf get damaged and/or destroyed, and yet, no desctuctive oil spills. The record shows that these structures and the technology is as safe as it could be, while at the same time becoming marine life habitats. There's nothing negative about it.
We've already let decades go by, knowing of our need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, without doing anything to effect the changes needed.
This problem belongs to the country, not just the state of Florida. And the NIMBY principle needs to go. I'm an American before I'm a Floridian, and so is everyone else in Florida. Rep. Jeff Miller's words are in bold italic font. Mine are in normal font. Text of the letter follows. . .
Re:Rep Jeff Miller, Jeff Miller Blast Kerry For Advocating Drilling in Gulf
"I think it's unconscionable for a Senator from Massachusetts to come down here and tell the people of Florida what's right for them," Miller said. "It's arrogant and irresponsible."
I agree, sort of. First of all, I don't believe Kerry really wants to get our own oil out of the Gulf of Mexico. In his case, he's only for it because the Florida republican admin. is against it. I've never before heard any democrat support the idea of drilling for our own oil anywhere within our territories.
Unlike you and apparently a majority of voters here, I'm all for using our resources to reduce our dependency on oil from other countries.
And unlike you, I don't make an automatic connection that drilling for oil is an automatic doom for our state's economy. I think technology to mine our oil and gas underwater is safe enough to go forward. Even in a worst case scenario, it is well worth the risk to proceed, we can recover from an accident. If our imported oil stops coming in, candles will be in high demand for about 10 years. That's the case that I wish someone would make. If it takes 10 years to get oil out of the ground from beginning to end of an exploration/drilling project, then that's where we ought to be focused.
If it'll take 20 or 30 years to come up with viable (not experimental) alternative sources of energy to propel our economy, then why on earth aren't we doing everything we can to get us there in the meantime?
Ten years ago, if our leaders had the gonads to stand up to the environmental lobby and actually DO something to reduce our dependence of foreign oil by getting to our own, we'd be in a whole lot better shape. We would have increased our refinery capacity so we could be refining our own oil now, all the while developing the next generation of energy. Instead, we're looking at high fuel prices and dependence on unreliable allies for our fuel; doing nothing to get our own resources out of the ground, including low sulfur coal, and putting our hopes in a substitute energy source that is decades away. To me, THAT is taking a greater risk to our lives than drilling in the Gulf today, AND irresponsible.
'Protecting our beautiful beaches and clean water is important,' Miller said, 'but we also need to remember that those gas leases are right in the middle of Eglin's water ranges. Drilling platforms could encroach upon weapons testing and the Navy's use of those ranges for training. We've already lost Vieques. Where will the Navy train if they can't train in Florida?'
Isn't it easier to find another place to train than to move our oil & gas resources to another part of the earth, before we can get to it? That argument is too weak to repeat.
Push comes to shove; we'll find a place. Cynically, I'd choose the border between Mexico and the U.S. We'd solve two problems simultaneously.
'Don't wait 'til you're thirsty to dig a well.' Heard that the other day on a Geico commercial. But in terms of energy policy and oil, it applies perfectly .
5:01:34 PM
|
|
Judge number 20 upholds the 19 previous decisions in the Schiavo case. So, is it over now? Everybody, except Terri's parents, got what they wanted, a review by a federal judge, albiet not what they expected.
Federal Judge Denies Request to Reinsert Schiavo's Feeding Tube. Judge Dames D. Whittemore said the severely brain-damaged woman's parents had not established a "substantial likelihood of success" at trial. By By ABBY GOODNOUGH. [NYT > Home Page]
8:27:59 AM
|
|
|
|
Monday, March 21, 2005
|
|
|
|
Saturday, March 19, 2005
|
|
The republican movers and shakers in Congress need to get a grip and look at how hysterical they are becoming, over something they have no business getting into. They're looking more like democrats as each day goes on, over the last 2 or 3 days. Quit with the feelgood actions already. Your good intentions are trampling the privacy and personal decisions of a family unit.
They're acting like democrats when they say they are fighting to save a life. Sounds good, but the one they're talking about is already taken care of, by her husband, and doesn't need saving. But, who could be against saving lives? Now they are beating their chest, going to make a law that will make it legal for them to get involved in the, shall we say, disposition of the body. Just a bit grotesque.
The larger picture is how this behavior will affect the politics of it all? It looks like a golden opportunity for the republican party to fracture. A dream come true, for democrats. Third parties lose, especially after shooting themselves in the foot.
Congress needs to butt out.
Congress Aims to Pass Schiavo Legislation. Congress Tries to Pass Legislation Allowing Federal Court Review of Brain-Damaged Woman's Case. {Yeah? And then what?}
4:39:46 PM
|
|
|
|
Friday, March 18, 2005
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
|
|
Well isn't it about time? It's a great day, although it is a small step, in the beginning of an energy policy that finally is doing something to GET some. ANWR was set aside by Congress as land to be used for oil exploration and drilling. Expect the environmentalist wackos and the democrats like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy to just go berserk over this.
So the 10-year process begins. Short sighted ethically challenged politicians like Sen. John Kerry are out there saying that this won't change the price at the pump. As if he has a better solution. Like usual though, if he has a better idea he's keeping it to himself. This politician knows it takes 10 years on average from beginning to end in getting oil from the ground and gas in your tank. And for him to talk about the effects this will have on today's gas prices, which is nothing, is showing the lack of respect he has for the truth, and the American people. It's also illustrative of a political party that puts 'getting their power back' over everything and anything to do with the country.
In fact, the gas prices of today are a result of what the Clinton administration did 10-12 years ago. Nothing.
Senate Votes to Open Alaskan Oil Drilling. Sharply Divided Senate Votes to Open Oil Drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ABC News: Politics]
5:26:14 PM
|
|
I've deliberately avoided writing about this case, hoping that all the hoopla and press and the federal legislature would just let this case end. But it isn't.
A few things about this case bother me.
The covenant between a husband and wife, a marriage, is the beginning of a new family. Both partners become a family of their own, where their respective families before marriage no longer have any legal claim or responsibility over their adult children. When Terri's father gave her up for marriage, as the saying goes, legally, contractually, he's giving her up to begin a new family of her own. Terri's husband has control and neither her parents, Jeb Bush nor the legislature should try to usurp that responsibility.
Then there's the matter of removing the feeding tube, which will literally starve her to death. This is common practice in hospitals and has been for I don't know how many years. For the media to act as though this doesn't normally happen is simply rediculous, and typical of them. It's one of those things that, to a brain dead human, will hurt the survivors more than the patient. Terri has no conscious feeling or emotion; she's brain dead except for respiratory & digestive functions, a vegetative state.
It think the thing that has everyone's shorts in a bind is the method of termination of her life.
Why do we use a lethal injection in death penalty cases and starvation in hospital wards?
In this case and others like it, a lethal injection should be used. Starvation is inhumane. Does the vet starve your pet if it needs to be put down? Why is it that your spouse is treated worse than an animal or a death row prisoner?
In Terri's case, keeping her in a vegetative state for years is just as inhumane as starving her to death.
9:05:27 AM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
|
|
The huge crowd repeatedly cried ‘Syria out, Syria out’
12:31:24 AM
|
|
|
|
Monday, March 14, 2005
|
|
Starting with Sen. Ted Kennedy and Sen. Robert Byrd, past big leader in the KKK.
Better yet, lets have a little get together on the lawn at the White House, like the time at the Clinton Impeachment Pep Rally. Step up to the mic and tell us again who lied, if you have the courage. And also tell us who was wrong.
Now, tonight's network news will also have apologies for how wrong they were as well.
mmmmmmm What? Whew, I must have had a dream or something. Yea, that's what it was. I'm OK now.
ref: New York Times proves they were wrong without admiting it. UNMOVIC and IAEA documented it. more
3:34:47 PM
|
|
Here they go again. Libs that can't stomach a loss are losing their sense of decency, hospitality, to those of us with a different opinion.
Always one to help my fellow citizen, I suggest these people get rid of their blinders and send them to Kofi Anon, then listen to Rush Limbaugh for a few weeks. Time to re-think how you're going to live in this country and still be able to 'have a nice day.'
No vacancy at the inn, if you voted for Bush or you drive a Hummer.
8:38:43 AM
|
|
It's no wonder why organized labor membership is dwindling. One reason is they're not needed any more. The other reason is from actions like this.
If you drive a foreign car, or your bumber has a pro Bush sticker on it, you can't park in their lot.
Yes, the champions of free speech show themselves yet again just how selective they are with the concept of free speech.
3/15/05 update. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger reversed his decision to ban Marine Corps reservists driving foreign cars or displaying pro-President Bush bumper stickers from parking at the union's Solidarity House headquarters in Detroit.
"I talked to Ron; I let him know that I understand he has rescinded his decision," said Lt. Col. Joe Rutledge, a top-ranking officer at the reserve infantry rifle battalion. "However, I've made my decision -- either you support the Marines or you don't."
8:25:46 AM
|
|
|
|
Sunday, March 13, 2005
|
|
WMD materials removed from Iraq. How could this possibly be? There are no WMD's in Iraq, there never were WMD's in Iraq. To believe this you have to ignore how Hussein used them against his own people and Iranians. You also have to believe that Saddam Hussein actually complied, like he claimed, with the U.N. resolutions, but just didn't tell any one. Nevertheless, that has been the anti-war anti-Bush rhetoric that the media can't share with you fast enough.
I remember pre-invasion reports of materials being trucked out of Iraq in convoys. It was suspected then that these were Saddam's prohibited materials, like WMD's. I also remember the left saying all that 'intelligence' was trumped up, phony, and merely propaganda to support going to war.
Now, it's the Iraqi government itself who seems to be validating that pre-war intelligence. Which brings me to the toughest three words in the left's dictionary, Bush Was Right. Not that I've seriously doubted Bush's motives or intentions, but I'm getting some satisfaction in knowing they were wrong.
The New York Times hasn't changed its stripes, however. They report that looters went into specific weapons plants after specific highly technical equipment, using cranes and tractor trailer trucks, and describe their work as highly organized. To me, that smacks of Russian / Syrian cooperation. For the Times, it's just looters. Looters always have cranes and trucks at their disposal don't they?
3:09:13 PM
|
|
|
|
Friday, March 11, 2005
|
|
President Bush began his 2nd term with fixing Social Security being a priority. Social Security as it exists today is doomed to fail. On that, there is no disagreement.
Bush told us his plan at the State of the Union speech. First, he had to convince Congress and the American people that there is a problem. After getting that consensus, he wants suggestions on how to fix it. He has ideas of his own of course, but wants participation by everyone in coming up with recommendations on how to fix it. Then he'll fix it.
So the President and Vice-President, and others in the administration are out on a 60 day campaign to educate the public on the matter. I call that fulfilling a campaign promise. The biased media mocks the process as if the president was selling used cars. He's out 'pushing his plan,' putting on the 'hard sell'. I'm sure the word snake-oil has come up somewhere too. You get the point. What's the left call it? They call it pandering to Wall Street.
The last thing the dems want to do is fix Social Security using any part of private accounts. Their answer is higher taxes. Isn't investing in America and its future, with rates of return higher by orders of magnitude than anything Social Security could possibly provide under current legislation, better than investing in a government hell-bent on taxing you more to give to someone else? What Winston Churchill said:
| We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. |
|
Buying U.S. Savings bonds won't create jobs. Investing in America does. Everyone wins. Even democrats if they'll admit it. Isn't it a little ironic that the government has taken this long to see the benefits of that which made us a superpower, our freedom and free enterprise.
What really drives dems crazy about the people owning their own accounts, is that they really will own it and be able to pass it on to survivors upon your demise, and, out of their reach to tax. Not possible under today's system. The government gets to keep it, your family gets nothing of what might have been paid out in benefits regardless of how much the departed had paid into SS over the working lifetime. Dems today are benefiting from the peoples' false impression that the money they've been paying for taxes is being held for them until they retire, so they don't see any difference between private accounts and the current system. You can see the hill the administration has to climb to win this debate.
5:22:39 PM
|
|
Kondracke's 'Saving Milly' Airs Sunday.
 The story of Mort Kondracke, Roll Call's executive editor and a FNC pundit, and his wife's struggle with Parkinson's will air as a movie on Sunday night on CBS. The movie, "Saving Milly," is based on Kondracke's 2001 frank and heart-breaking memoir of the same name.
Kondracke says actress Madeleine Stowe, who plays his wife of 35 years, was fantastic: she "just is Milly. She's got the verve and the strength and assertiveness of the old Milly. She really studied hard to duplicate the physical symptoms."
In an AP preview of Sunday's showing, Kondracke said, "If you write a book you can only dream that it's going to be made into a movie.... The idea that this can happen is enormously gratifying and I think they've done a fantastic job with it." [mediabistro.com: FishBowlDC]
2:14:10 PM
|
|
Watch how ABC News is not biased. Here's a story about election fraud in Florida. Re-read the article like I did and see if you can find the party affiliation of the persons arrested.
They're charged with buying absentee ballots, oh, in predominately black neighborhoods. Just one more fact was omitted. Darn. How could party affiliation not be a pertinent fact in a voting fraud case? If the mayor was a republican, do you think ABC would not give up that fact?
Orlando Mayor Surrenders in Ballot Probe. Orlando Mayor, Judge, Campaign Worker Surrender in Probe of Absentee Ballot Collection [ABC News: Politics]
10:24:40 AM
|
|
Newspaper Nosedive. More evidence of the establishment media's continued decline: The Prudential Equity Group issued a biting 72-page report this morning on the state of circulation and found that both quality and quantity continue to decline. [...] "Decline in both quality and quantity of circulation at several key newspapers owned by the New York ... [>bt: Evan's Journal]
10:14:36 AM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, March 10, 2005
|
|
Well, I would have expected American Muslims to be first to do this, what with 9/11 and a war to stop it.
American Muslims around here, and I suspect in your neighborhood too, have been astonishingly silent on the war on terror, terrorist attacks, law enforcement, Patriot Act, profiling; all of this.
And they still are.
Watsupwidat?
Spanish Muslims issue fatwa on bin Laden. Muslims in Spain have issued a fatwa against Osama bin Laden on the eve of the first anniversary of the Madrid train bombings, which were linked to the al-Qa'eda network. [Telegraph News | International News]
10:39:00 PM
|
|
For the liberals and the democrats in general, it seems their idea of an energy policy is to do whatever you can to not use it. But more than that, it's also important not to get it. We declare oil and coal fields national parks. How does that reduce dependence on foreign oil? It's been over 3 years now that the President's energy policy has been ignored. The time for a change is long overdue.
About a year ago, before John Kerry was picked as the democrat presidential candidate, he made a statement that this country should drill in the Gulf of Mexico. And my congressman, Jeff Miller (R) reacted to Kerry's comment, quotes below. A year later, now post hurricane Ivan, we have seen many of the rigs in the gulf get damaged and/or destroyed, and yet, no desctuctive oil spills. The record shows that these structures and the technology is as safe as it could be, while at the same time becoming marine life habitats. There's nothing negative about it.
We've already let decades go by, knowing of our need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, without doing anything to effect the changes needed.
This problem belongs to the country, not just the state of Florida. And the NIMBY principle needs to go. I'm an American before I'm a Floridian, and so is everyone else in Florida. Rep. Jeff Miller's words are in bold italic font. Mine are in normal font. Text of the letter follows. . .
Re:Rep Jeff Miller, Jeff Miller Blast Kerry For Advocating Drilling in Gulf
"I think it's unconscionable for a Senator from Massachusetts to come down here and tell the people of Florida what's right for them," Miller said. "It's arrogant and irresponsible."
I agree, sort of. First of all, I don't believe Kerry really wants to get our own oil out of the Gulf of Mexico. In his case, he's only for it because the Florida republican admin. is against it. I've never before heard any democrat support the idea of drilling for our own oil anywhere within our territories.
Unlike you and apparently a majority of voters here, I'm all for using our resources to reduce our dependency on oil from other countries.
And unlike you, I don't make an automatic connection that drilling for oil is an automatic doom for our state's economy. I think technology to mine our oil and gas underwater is safe enough to go forward. Even in a worst case scenario, it is well worth the risk to proceed, we can recover from an accident. If our imported oil stops coming in, candles will be in high demand for about 10 years. That's the case that I wish someone would make. If it takes 10 years to get oil out of the ground from beginning to end of an exploration/drilling project, then that's where we ought to be focused.
If it'll take 20 or 30 years to come up with viable (not experimental) alternative sources of energy to propel our economy, then why on earth aren't we doing everything we can to get us there in the meantime?
Ten years ago, if our leaders had the gonads to stand up to the environmental lobby and actually DO something to reduce our dependence of foreign oil by getting to our own, we'd be in a whole lot better shape. We would have increased our refinery capacity so we could be refining our own oil now, all the while developing the next generation of energy. Instead, we're looking at high fuel prices and dependence on unreliable allies for our fuel; doing nothing to get our own resources out of the ground, including low sulfur coal, and putting our hopes in a substitute energy source that is decades away. To me, THAT is taking a greater risk to our lives than drilling in the Gulf today, AND irresponsible.
'Protecting our beautiful beaches and clean water is important,' Miller said, 'but we also need to remember that those gas leases are right in the middle of Eglin's water ranges. Drilling platforms could encroach upon weapons testing and the Navy's use of those ranges for training. We've already lost Vieques. Where will the Navy train if they can't train in Florida?'
Isn't it easier to find another place to train than to move our oil & gas resources to another part of the earth, before we can get to it? That argument is too weak to repeat.
Push comes to shove; we'll find a place. Cynically, I'd choose the border between Mexico and the U.S. We'd solve two problems simultaneously.
4:28:00 PM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
|
|
Dan who?
11:43:28 PM
|
|
Well alright. And how much money did France, Germany, or Russia pony up for Sudan?
House Panel Backs Iraq Funds, Adds Sudan Aid (Reuters). Reuters - A U.S. House of Representatives panel on Tuesday easily backed an $81 billion spending bill to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and lawmakers added in extra money for food aid in Sudan. [Yahoo! News: Politics]
11:21:11 PM
|
|
Reminder: Brainwashing 101 Screening at NYU. The College Republicans of New York University are hosting a public screening of Brainwashing 101 next Thursday, right in the heart of Greenwich Village: What: Brainwashing 101 screening and Q&A session When: Thursday, 10 March 20055:00PM - 6:30PM Where: New York UniversityKimmel Center - Room 40660 Washington Square South(between LaGuardia and Thompson) I will be on hand ... [>bt: Evan's Journal]
11:10:30 PM
|
|
|
|
Monday, March 07, 2005
|
|
Iraqi farmers get their marshes back from the desert created by Saddam. The marshes are thriving now with vegitation, crops, fish, shrimp. A good story somehow got past the Times' staff.
For Iraq's Great Marshes, a Hesitant Comeback. In Iraq, a grand experiment in turning back the environmental clock is underway. By By JAMES GLANZ. [NYT > Home Page]
10:07:22 PM
|
|
Bolton is a good choice to be the next Ambassador to the U.N. He is meeting the expected opposition from the left characterizing him as some kind of loose cannon who won't be best for mending fences with the U.N.. You can see where the priorities of the left lay. I'm sorry, I see no compelling need to mend fences with a body who so far has done nothing to clean up and expose its corrupt goings on with the Oil-For-Food Program, and other scandals that include systematic rape of children.
No, what this nation needs representing us in the United Nations is exactly someone who will forcefully represent us and not kowtow to the corrupt, ineffective and impotent U.N.. He is being chastised for commenting that if the U.N. lost 10 floors from its building that no one would notice. Politically speaking, which is the context he was using, he's exactly right, and isn't afraid to call a spade a spade. Another great choice by President Bush.
Bolton Tapped to Be Next U.N. Ambassador. Bush Taps Fiery Arms Control Expert John R. Bolton to Be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations [ABC News: Politics]
6:27:24 PM
|
|
Expanding the definition of what constitutes the press, Garrett M. Graff recieved his daily press credentials for the Whitehouse press room to write for his blog, FishbowlDC. This event marks the bestowing of certain credibility to blogging and the role they play in keeping the world informed via the internet.
Reference New York Times article by Katherine Q. Seelye.
7:55:23 AM
|
|
|
|
Sunday, March 06, 2005
|
|
Fighting the war on terror has seemingly spread to a wider scope than simply eliminating terrorist groups and those that support them. Who would have thought that among those who support terrorists would be trading partners Russia and China? When digging deeper into the war and the intelligence that facilitates it, that is exactly what is coming to light. The war isn't spreading or getting larger, it is in fact still being revealed as to all that we've been up against all along.
Those who are in denial about the war on terrorism will call this a widening war, widening because we're in it. As if to say that if we were not in it, things would just be peachy keen. The terrorists would then like us as they kill us, for making their jihad that much easier. They can't figure out how an opposition party can stay alive when in a fight for our lives. There can only be one response to people bent on killing you.
President Bush, true to his word, is not letting anything stand in the way of winning this war, by fighting it where ever it may take us, including Russia and China, and all the other spy networks that wish us harm or otherwise help the enemy overtly or covertly.
Bill Gertz column, U.S. targets spy services abroad.
2:09:47 PM
|
|
|
|
Friday, March 04, 2005
|
|
Below is a transcript of a communication from my Senator Bill Nelson (D) Florida during the last Congress. He is responding to a communication from me on the subject of the judicial nomination blockaid being waged by the democrats. To his credit he replied. Graham’s robot ack'd receipt, that’s it.
It does offer a glimpse into the democrat psyche. His words are in bold italics, my words are in normal font.
----- Original Message -----
From: Senator Bill Nelson
To: Ross Calloway
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Your response from Senator Bill Nelson
Dear Mr. Calloway:
Thank you for contacting me regarding judicial nominations.
Although I am not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which holds hearings on each individual nominee, I pay close attention to each candidate. I conduct a thorough review and inquiry into each nominee’s
qualifications, integrity, and past record. The confirmation of qualified nominees is important to ensure that the judicial branch can execute its constitutional duties.
Yes, absolutely, "review and inquiry into each nominee’s qualifications, integrity, and past record." That is the proper way to examine a nominee.
I believe that the recent 30-hour debate held on judicial nominations was the result of too much partisanship in Congress.
Yes, absolutely. By Ted Kennedy, Leahy, Shumer and the rest of the liberal senators on the judiciary committee. You might disagree with me on where it's coming from, but you'd be wrong. But using the filibuster tactic on judicial nominees is wrong and an affront to the Constitution you were sworn to preserve Senator. The Constitution does not dictate that only liberal thinking judges are acceptable. What you and the democrats that support it are guilty of is ideological discrimination. It's not a matter of who's on top, who's got the power; that fight isn't in the constitution. The fight, the partisanship, the obstruction is in your party.
You said yourself in the first para that a nominee's qualifications, integrity, and past record is what matters. Logically then, you cannot support what Leahy & Co. are doing. So why are you? Please, before you answer this, read the rest of my reply.
Ideally, I would like the process of nominating and confirming judges to be less divisive through consultation between the president and senators -
"Ideally" to you must mean that just judges you like should be confirmed, and the ones that the other party likes should not. Take your lumps Senator. The nominating and confirming process, if done the way it's been done for the last couple hundred years, would be a pretty much necessary formality, when considering the criteria that you say you use.
so that judges would be acceptable to the broad mainstream of Americans.
Senator, a nominee who is "acceptable to the broad mainstream of Americans" is the nominee the President picks. It was a broad mainstream of Americans that elected him and every President before him. Sorry, I realize you haven't recovered from 2000 yet, but remember it was your guy who went to court first. And did you hear, none of the subsequent independent recounts changed the result?
Back to the subject at hand, its the senate that decides who makes the cut, by voting on it, simple majority. You are attempting to say that the constitution now gives YOU the right to, in addition to determining a nominee's qualifications, integrity, and past record, that you must also 'determine' what is 'acceptable' to the 'broad mainstream' of Americans. That's a leap and smear on the Constitution that neither I nor you should accept. Sure sounds good when you say it, but it doesn't make it right. That is way and far beyond the scope of responsibility given to you when it comes to judicial nominations.
I believe we need to fill judicial vacancies promptly, but at the same time, we must be sure to approve the best judges for the job.
If your view of "the best judges" for the job means that they should cross both hurdles, the qualifications, integrity, and past record, AND your filter of what you think the public wants, then I can see who is being divisive, and why. If the best judges are what you are looking for, then let the people decide, end the filibuster on the nominees, and let the full senate (otherwise known as the broad mainstream of Americans) vote. You guys are like sand in the axle grease. Quit being cute with the Constitution and get on to business. If the senate doesn't confirm them, then the President will have to find someone else. The onus is on him, not you. Don't obstruct, please.
I appreciate you sharing your opinion with me on this issue. Your communication helps me serve you better in the Senate.
Thank you, Senator, for your reply. I would appreciate it if you would please respond to this letter with equal candor.
Best regards,
Ross Calloway
---------------------------------
July 18, 2004: I suppose 9 weeks is long enough to assume that the good senator has no intention to reply. This is how well he represents his constituents.
All this tends to support the notion that, on the basis of ideas, the Dems have no standing. Ever quick to say what sounds good and politically expedient at the time. To them, history began this morning, and reality is what they say rather than what they do.
12:11:04 AM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, March 03, 2005
|
|
There is still hope for the majority of Democrats to come around on the issue of how cutting taxes stimulates the economy and creates jobs.
They'll never admit they were wrong on tax cuts. They're not stupid, they know that tax cuts work. It has worked every time it was tried. JFK in the 60's, Reagan in the 80's, Bush and Richardson in the 00's. They’re against it because they believe they have to be an opposition party in order to exist, which by definition makes them against everything Bush tries to do. Richardson has it right on taxes and is part of the solution.
Politically speaking, the Democrat party today is digging its own grave. Were they to be intellectually honest with themselves and their constituents, they would go a long way in restoring a smidgen of respect by also becoming part of the solution.
Democratic governors eye tax cuts?. The nation's governors came to Washington this week to do what they always do at their annual winter meetings here -- ask for more money from the federal government.
But one governor came here with an additional message for his fellow governors: Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico wants his party to stop bashing tax cuts, which he says are critical to encouraging economic growth and to creating jobs.
The Washington news media focused almost entirely on the governors' annual complaints about the rising costs of Medicaid, an issue that was still not resolved by the time they left town. They want more money to pay for the program's mounting bills, but the Bush administration wants to curb those costs as part of larger reforms.
But in an interview with The Washington Times, Mr. Richardson, who is the new chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, said he wants his party to change its position on taxes and begin supporting tax cuts that help create more investment, economic growth and new businesses that will boost employment.
While Democratic leaders here, and many fellow Democrats in the state capitals were bashing President Bush for cutting taxes and even raising taxes in their states, Richardson was doing what Mr. Bush did: He cut state income tax rates sharply across the board and slashed the capital gain tax rate in half.
The result over the past two years has been a nearly 50,000 increase in new jobs in New Mexico and new businesses coming into the state.
There's a lesson here for his fellow Democrats, he says, and he wants them to begin embracing sensible, targeted tax cuts and start talking about "putting more money into peoples' pockets."
Mr. Richardson did something even more daring. He joined tax cut crusader Stephen Moore at a news conference to discuss the Cato Institute's latest fiscal scorecard on the governors. Mr. Moore, of course, is one of the biggest boosters of Mr. Bush's tax cuts and one of the Democrats' severest critics on tax and spending policies.
But there was the leader of the Democratic governors standing right with Mr. Moore to unveil a report card that gave failing or near-failing fiscal grades to many of Mr. Richardson's fellow Democratic governors.
Mr. Richardson, by the way, earned the highest score from CATO: a B. "He talks like a supply-sider and he believes in the power of tax cuts," Mr. Moore said.
-- Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent [TWT Politics]
12:00:30 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2005 Ross Calloway.
Last update: 11/27/2005; 8:39:39 PM.
|
|
|
|
