31
Jan
Left2Right does a lengthy job doing what most media is trying to do, understand what went wrong with the exit polls. We’ve had quite a few theories that just haven’t held up very well.
The exit polls may well have been flawed, but we have yet to see a plausible account of how or why.
They dance all over the reason why, but just don’t get it. They cite their experience in polling as justification of why things seem rather askew. I’ll cite my experience as well. I was very active in the George Bush I re-election campaign. We did exit polls all over the county I live in. Bush won hands down, it was a HUGE turnout. When this county turns out big, and the Republican wins this county, it usually bodes well. However, we were shocked to find out Bush lost the state. And, he lost the country. Our exit polls in Kentucky didn’t mean squat in Los Angeles apparently.
Here’s the root of the exit polls problem:
Now, what’s the first thing you notice? Kerry didn’t take much of the country did he? Second thing, Bush didn’t take much of the metropolitan areas did he?
Now, where are ALL major media located? I bet they’re not in Oklahoma or Wyoming. How many pollsters do you think were working the polls in Albuquerque?
Bottom line, IMO? Laziness on the part of the polling firms.
This election wasn’t polarized red v blue, look at that map again. This election wasn’t even polarized Republican v Democrat. Where the polar difference occurred was rural v urban. I don’t think the pollsters did a very good job polling the rural areas.
You guys can relax now. I’ve answered your quandry.
31
Jan
I could quote a lot of quotes. I could cite a bunch of "I told ya so’s". I could hammer on the libs. I could do a lot bragging. But, it’s not worth it. In a political sense, the big winner here is Dubya. The big loser here is tyranny and those that support it. I’m guessing Chirac has taken a hit for doing everything he could to undermine the Iraqis who wanted this election to happen for years. The Russians and Germans wisely got out of the fray, but not Chirac.
The ultimate winners here are the Iraqis who actually voted. Regardles of the outcome of the election, more than half of Iraq spoke in unision. Whether they be Sunnis, Shiites, Kirds, or Christians, more than half of Iraq spoke at once.
It’s been fifty years since they last got that chance.
Bush will bask in the glow of success, but more media attention needs to be put on those that voted in the election to send a message to Iran, North Korea, a few African countries, and all the other people living under tyrannies. Rumor has it another tyranny is having problems. I sure hope so. Maybe they will be inclined to see "how it works" from the Iraqis. I’m quite sure they’re not considering getting any ideas from Dubya.
31
Jan
Stolen from Volokh:
Now, Creative Response Concepts used the internet as their media forum, since main stream media had shown no interest in "the other side" of the story. PFAW was founded by Norman Lear in the early 80′s to fight the growing trend of "right wing politics". Their style was to use main stream media with expensive commercials and famous people.
Which style do you think was most effective? Either way, given the history of both of these organizations, it’s gonna get real ugly , real quick.
30
Jan
These are the faces of the bravest people in the world right now: 
The Iraqis, despite pressure from terrorists that I could never imagine, voted in numbers that should embarass US citizens. 72% from some estimates. After over 200 years, the US barely gets 50% out.
I’m very proud of the Iraqis.
28
Jan
This is precious:
and
Although Citizens United is "taking on Hollywood" with their campaign, there is a lot more truth in what they are saying than you would immediately think.
26
Jan
Some people will use anything to make their political statement.
The White House has fully reported it will cost about $80 billion this year. That is how much more the war will cost this year. The White House is not at liberty to commit other countries to secure reconstruction aid, maybe she should give it a try instead of telling other countries this is such a divisive issue in the US that they’re probably just as well served by not getting involved. And, if the Pentagon’s so mismanaged, maybe she should blame the people who got it into that shape. Let’s examine, shall we?
President William J. Clinton on January 20, 1993, the day of his inauguration, issued Presidential Decision Directive l to departments and agencies concerned with national security affairs. PDD l revised and renamed the framework governing the work of the National Security Council. A Presidential Review Directive (PRD) series would be the mechanism used by the new administration to direct that specific reviews and analyses be undertaken by the departments and agencies. A Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) series would now be used to promulgate Presidential decisions on national security matters. The Bush administration’s National Security Review (NSR) series and National Security Directive (NSD) series were abolished.
On January 21, 1993, in PDD 2, President Clinton approved an NSC decision-making system that enlarged the membership of the National Security Council and included a much greater emphasis on economic issues in the formulation of national security policy. The President, Vice President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense were members of the NSC as prescribed by statute. The Director of Central Intelligence and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisers to the NSC, attended its meetings. The new membership of the National Security Council included the following officials: the Secretary of the Treasury, the U.S. Representative to the United Nations, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Chief of Staff to the President. Although not a member, the Attorney General would be invited to attend meetings pertaining to his jurisdiction. The heads of other Executive departments and agencies, the special statutory advisers to the NSC, and other senior officials would be invited to attend meetings of the NSC where appropriate.
The new position of Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, which had been promised by Clinton during the election campaign, was intended to serve as a senior economic adviser to coordinate foreign and domestic economic policy through a newly-created National Economic Council (NEC). Robert E. Rubin was the first to be appointed to this position. The NEC was to deal with foreign and domestic economic issues in much the same way as the NSC coordinated diplomatic and security issues, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy was to be included in meetings involving international economic issues.
In January 1993, Clinton appointed W. Anthony Lake as his National Security Adviser. Lake, a former Foreign Service officer, served under Henry Kissinger, President Nixon’s National Security Adviser, and as director of the Department of State Policy Planning Staff during the Carter administration. During the Carter years, Lake had witnessed the negative effects of bureaucratic infighting and squabbling between Secretary of State Vance and National Security Adviser Brzezinski. As Clinton’s National Security Adviser, Lake was effective in maintaining cordial relations with Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher and in developing an atmosphere of cooperation and collegiality. Lake initially maintained a low public profile, avoiding public appearances and television interviews, so as not to upstage the Secretary of State as Kissinger had done in the Nixon administration. In September 1993, however, in response to criticism that the Clinton administration had not adequately explained its foreign policy, Lake began to appear as a public speaker.
The National Security Council framework in the Clinton administration included an NSC Principals Committee, a forum available to Cabinet-level officials to discuss and resolve issues not requiring the President’s participation. An NSC Deputies Committee served as the senior sub-cabinet interagency forum for considering policy issues affecting national security and for reviewing and monitoring the work of the NSC interagency process. This process included Interagency Working Groups (IWGs), which were to convene on a regular basis to review and coordinate the implementation of Presidential decisions in their respective policy areas. Among the most urgent issues the NSC dealt with in the first year of the Clinton administration were Bosnia, Haiti, Iraq, and Somalia. The several dozen other questions the NSC system dealt with initially included such issues as illegal drugs, United Nations peacekeeping, Zaire, strategic arms control policy, China, and global environmental affairs.
Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a longtime foreign policy adviser to Clinton who had been Lake’s deputy since 1993, became National Security Adviser in March 1997, after Clinton nominated Lake to be Director of Central Intelligence. (Lake subsequently withdrew from the nomination.) Berger initiated a review of principles that would guide the foreign policy of Clinton’s second term. These included the integration of Eastern and Western Europe without provoking tensions with Russia; promoting more open trade; improving defenses against such transnational threats as terrorism and narcotics; and promoting a strong and stable Asian-Pacific community by seeking trade cooperation with China and avoiding confrontation on human rights issues. In the spring and summer of 1997, the National Security Council became occupied with such issues as the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Treaty, NATO enlargement, the Middle East peace process, the U.S-Russian Summit at Helsinki, and the Denver Economic Summit.
The guys in charge of National Security during that era were:
| Brent Scrowcroft | January 20, 1989 | January 20, 1993 |
| W. Anthony Lake | January 20, 1993 | March 14, 1997 |
| Samuel R. Berger | March 14, 1997 |
January 2001 |
Now, either Ms. Tauscher assumes Bush totally revamped the entire Pentagon OR Ms. Tauscher is wrong. Bush had approximately one year to do his thing, regardless of the distractions of 9/11. He had nothing to with DC until January 2001. Ms. Tauscher on the other hand, has been in DC since 1996.
Why do you suppose she came to the conclusion nine years after being there that the Pentagon is horribly mismanaged? If she just had her revelation recently, that means she wasted nine years of our money paying her to watch the Pentagon. Or, she’s jumping on the Boxer bandwagon for publicity.
I go with latter.
26
Jan
Two unrelated stories came together to me that IMO fully explains the paradox the libs are stuck in right now.
PART ONE
The President’s State of the Union Speech, 2002:
…….Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.
Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld — including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-i-Mohammed — operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities.
While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere. We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country’s armed forces to go after terrorist cells that have executed an American, and still hold hostages. Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia.
My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf.
But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will. (Applause.)
Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.
Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens — leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections — then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
I included the extended version of that segment of his speech for a specific reason. Bush’s first goal was "shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice." The second goal was "to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. "
PART TWO
Some libs are using this story as a slap against Bush going into Iraq. Here’s the paradox:, seems like the libs are using the "we coulda taken out Zarqawi" argument to debunk the second goal, but totally ignoring the first goal. None of them seem to remember that the first goal, the one I was most concerned with, was dealing with terrorism, period.
This paradox is manifested with Boxer’s attack on Rice:
…..Well, with you in the lead role, Dr. Rice, we went into Iraq.
First of all, Bush speaking to the joint houses would be considered "the" lead role. Second, Bush’s stated objective was not WMD’s, it was dealing with terrorism. What has happened is the libs are now using PART TWO to debunk PART ONE when PART TWO actually confirms PART TWO.
Now, follow this pretzel logic for just one second if everyone doesn’t mind. If you deal with the terrorists, do you have to worry about terrorists obtaining WMD’s?
The libs, by arguing we could have taken out the worst terrorist of them all before we invaded, are confirming the intent of Bush’s first stated goal he gave in the speech that Ms. Boxer is now claiming was full of lies created by Rice. Which is it Ms. Boxer, Ted Kennedy, etc…? Did Bush have justification under his stated objectives he announced to all of Congress and the entire world by going into Iraq to bust the Zarqawis or not? His primary goal was not WMD’s, it was to bust the Zarqawis. The problem this paradox creates is that the average person knows that much.
25
Jan
I’ve seen it plenty of times, but can’t find a link to it right now. But, best I can recall, men think of sex on average, about every six seconds. There’s the factual backdrop.
I have to jump scenes real quick. I spent a week or so a few years ago working in Guadalajara, Mexico. My co-worker and translator ( I know absolutely no Spanish ), was a great looking girl who was even more fun ( I just described every single woman in Guadalajara ). Our office attitude was very casual and very friendly. I had a blast. One particular day my translator/co-worker came to work dressed to kill. It caught me off guard, but, working in the US, I had learned a long time ago not to say anything about it. After a couple of hours, she was obviously upset and wouldn’t hardly speak to me. Now, this is not good, I kinda needed a translator. So, I asked the other workers what the problem was. They were rather stern in the fact that she had gone to a lot of trouble to look good, and I had totally ignored that. So, I asked what to do to make it right. They asked me what the best looking thing about how she appeared was, I told them, since she had fabulous breasts and was wearing a low cut blouse that featured them well, that it had to be her breasts ( I was teasing ). They told me to tell her something to the effect of "busto precioso". I assured them there was no way on this planet I could say something like that to someone I worked with. They assured me there was no way I would survive the rest of the week unless I did. I knew they were setting me up. So, after much debate, I agreed and got the phrase down with my best Southern accent massacred Spanish. We broke the huddle and a little later I bumped into her, looked her straight in the eye, and uttered the phrase to the effect of "You have beautiful breasts." She smiled from ear to ear, and the rest of the trip was good. We all went to lunch, and this guy litereally knocked our table over to assure her exactly what I had said. It then dawned on me. I was in a totally different culture. These people were not the least bit intimidated by sex. A woman took flattery for what it was. Every part of her body was sacred and they expected to be complimented accordingly. Every man was expected to compliment what it was about a woman that appealed to him. It didn’t mean you had to hop in bed. The compliment was what it was and all it was. I relaxed after that, but only as long as I was in Guadalajara.
So, it really bugs me that people have to be so uptight at work here. It really does. I like to compliment people. I like to make people feel good about themselves. But, after having to attend mandatory sexual harassment sensitivity classes. And, reading about all the lawsuits, I just learned not to say anything at all about how a woman dresses or appears from 8am to 5pm. It’s just not worth the risk. All that good will and better working relations have been lost because we are so uptight about complimenting each other.
What brought all this on was seeing this:
Sex Talk Leads Inappropriate List
Is your workplace akin to a frat house or locker room more often than a place of serious business?
More than a third of us, 34 percent, have heard sexually inappropriate remarks at work, according to a survey of workers.
But those who talk apparently are cautious about whom they’re addressing: Racial slurs also linger – 28 percent of whites said they’d heard one at work, more than three times the percentage reported by black employees. Almost a quarter of workers also said they’d heard age-related ridicule at work, but only 13 percent of workers over age 54 said they’d heard such comments.
Now, I have a problem with racial slurs. They are what they are, slurs. But, more often than not, sexual references are usually in a complimentary manner. The reason they are considered taboo for the sake of this report is that you can’t tell a member of the opposite sex something nice in any sexual way at all. If they look better one day than the next, complimenting the one day can be perceived as an insult for all the other days. So, the only sexual references are going to be what’s left. Racial slurs are intended to be an insult. Sexual references don’t have to be, just ask the people in Guadalajara.
"It seems that sexual comments are still thought less objectionable than, say, ethnic or race-related insults," said Mike Hyter, president and CEO of Novations/J. Howard & Associates, a Boston-based consulting and training firm.
I think that is because deep down, people know the difference. Some people are offended by any reference to sex. Most people consider sexuality a good thing. All people are offended by ethnic and racial slurs.
Now, I’m not condoning sexual harassment. There is a major difference in sincerely complimenting someone’s sexuality and acting on it. If I had acted on it in Guadalajara, I probably would have been set straight mucho prompto. But, I was certainly expected to comment on it. I do know how to draw the line.
When I first saw this reference, I thought it was a parody. I honestly did. When I found out she was serious, I seriously laughed out loud at work. This is just precious:
Sen. Barbara Boxer says she is the real victim of last week’s confirmation hearing for Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice, yet continued yesterday to question the national security adviser’s honesty.
“She turned and attacked me,” the California Democrat told CNN’s “Late Edition” in describing the confrontation during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
“I gave Dr. Rice many opportunities to address specific issues. Instead, she said I was impugning her integrity,” Mrs. Boxer said…..
“I personally believe this is my personal view that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth,” Mrs. Boxer told Miss Rice, who has been President Bush’s national security adviser since 2001.
Miss Rice responded that she “never, ever lost respect for the truth in the service of anything. It is not my nature. It is not my character.” “And I would hope that we can have this conversation and discuss what happened before and what went on before and what I said without impugning my credibility or my integrity,” Miss Rice said. Mrs. Boxer yesterday called that response a “good debating technique.” “When you really don’t know what to say about a specific, you just attack the person who is asking the questions,” Mrs. Boxer told CNN.
A specific? Boxer flat out accused Rice of lying. Rice said she didn’t lie. That’s pretty damned specific Barbara. Boxer not only got thumped during the confirmation hearing by Condi, she’s now thumping herself publicly after it’s over.
Advice for Barbara Boxer is given free here: “DROP IT! You’re gone past looking like an obstructionist bitch to a flat out blithering idiot.” They’re mocking you on SNL, which is usually reserved for the President. And where it gets really precious, is some people think SNL made Boxer look good. Honestly, compared to her real life, I guess it did.
24
Jan
Report: Global warming approaching critical point
‘An ecological time-bomb is ticking away ‘
Global warming is approaching the critical point of no return, after which widespread drought, crop failure and rising sea-levels would be irreversible, an international climate change task force warned Monday…..
The report, "Meeting the Climate Challenge," called on the G-8 leading industrial nations to cut carbon emissions, double their research spending on green technology and work with India and China to build on the Kyoto Protocol.
The independent report, by the Institute for Public Policy Research in Britain, the Center for American Progress in the United States and The Australia Institute, is timed to coincide with Blair’s commitment to advance international climate change policy during Britain’s G-8 presidency.
They’re not too subtle about this are they? The Kyoto Protocol has existed on life support since well before Bush was President, for many very jutifiable reasons. It’s lost support in the US, and, it’s losing support in other countries as well. Bush is cutting spending accross the board on federal programs due to justified criticism of outrageous spending. So, the second Bush announces spending cuts, out come the big guns for money. It’s no longer something man has to debate and discuss, it needs to be taken care of NOW by spending more on federal research grants.
