31
Oct
In 2004, President Bush’s ratings were totally in the basement. John Kerry was trashing Bush in the polls, and the media was laughing at Bush’s ineptitude. John Kerry then went to war with some former Vietnam vets that he absolutely would not get over. He hounded and hounded and hounded that one issue and basically cost the Democrats the White House. And, very possibly control of the House or Senate. It was that close. Kerry effectively snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Fast forward to 2006, you’ve got a pretty hot race going in California for governor ( well, maybe not that hot at this point ), but it had potential. The key difference being Angelides insisting he wanted to bring the troops home. But, insisting at the same time he was doing it to support our troops. In order to bolster that image, he invites, you guessed it, John Kerry to stump for him. This is what Kerry had to say:
Yeah buddy, that’s supporting our troops all right. This not only probably is the final nail for Angelides, but it re-enforces everything the Republicans have been doing to paint the picture that Democrats are anti-military. Some of the races where the Democrats are supposed to be winning are tight. All Kerry is doing here is probably sealing the fate of a couple of those Democrats. If the Dems don’t take over the House and/or Senate in a week, I’d put the blame squarely on Kerry’s shoulders for being so stupid. And, he’s living proof that the stupid don’t automatically get sent to Iraq.
- Michelle Maulkin takes this issue to task a lot more than I feel like right now. But, it definitely merits being taken to task.
- GOPandthecity has the video of Kerry’s speech.
That was stupid, Kerry. Really stupid. You owe the troops, all of them, in Iraq or not, an apology.
November 2, 2006 UPDATE: Some people have a better sense about things than I do:
November 2, 2006, later in the day, UPDATE: Kerry has apologized for the remark after basically the entire Democrat Party fled away from him. That’s the smartest thing he’s done in three years.
Well, not exactly. But they did drop a lawsuit against it citing "improvements to the law". Here’s the ONLY part that was changed that appease the ACLU:
So, a bunch of lawyers sue the federal government and the end result is everything is peachy so long as people have to hire a bunch of lawyers to obtain exactly the same result they most likely would have had without hiring a bunch of lawyers that a bunch of lawyers insisted upon.
Bush haters will claim victory since the ACLU claims:
Ann, the policy’s exactly the same. All you did was drag a bunch of lawyers into the mix. That’s it.
I got issues here. Some places don’t benefit from gambling. Some places, like my home town, outright ban gambling. We didn’t ban casinos, we banned gambling. There are a lot of social problems that come with gambling. If it’s legal, then more often than not social support is put in place to deal with those problems FROM the revenues those activities generate. What Antigua and Barbuda are saying is they want the money while towns like mine pay for the problems. That’s just not right folks. I personally could care less if gambling’s legal or not. But, if you’re going to tempt people with a vice that can be very damaging, you better spend some money dealing with it. If Antigua and Barbuda want to send money to the US to compensate for all the damage their activity could incur, then I might ease up on them. As it is, I think this is a horrible suggestion by the World Trade Organization. The United States, along with any other country that does not wish to have gambling, has the right to protect their citizens from that activity. If gambling were legal countrywide, THEN Antigua and Barbuda would have a valid argument.
Secondly, very few of these gambling organizations are even IN Antigua and Barbuda. They sit in places like New York and Los Angeles, form a company in those little countries, and do what they can’t do within the US. So, for Antigua and Barbuda to make the claim this is an "unfair trade practice" is horribly disingenious to me. For the World Trade Organization to not recognize that fact in this dispute to me is equally disingenious.
30
Oct
I really can’t believe this one:
OK, you’ve got these very large vehicles that travel very, very, fast. You’ve got these bare wires that connect to these very large vheicles that go very fast. Wanna guess what’s in those wires? Y’know, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a sign that told me what is in those wires. And, no one’s ever told me exactly what’s in those wires. However, I can assure you, I’d never come close to one. It’s called "self-preservation instinct". Sometimes you just know that if little wires connecting a light socket can hurt, BIG wires can do serious damage. Some people never get it. Some people just don’t have that something called "instinct". Whereas Darwin’s Law would have removed very dangerously stupid people from the gene pool in the past, they are now rewarded for being dangerously stupid. Which leads me to wonder how the jury came up with giving these fellas $24 MILLION for being dangerously stupid. Were they making big bucks before they suddenly became stupid at seventeen? Is that the cost of their medical bills for behaving very stupidly?
I hope this thing is appealed. Sure seems like a get-rich-quick scheme that will get someone equally as stupid killed. Then, we’d have to support their kids I’m sure.
You wanna know how bad things must be getting at Rolling Stone? I cancelled our free subscription. It’s really sad, but they really do suck any more. Following the decline of Rolling Stone over the adult period of my life is like watching an addict grow old. You sense a certain amount of desperation, hallucinations, phobias, and a total lack of regard to the damage they do to those who associate with them.
The articles they have featured this month are so wrong it’s sad to read. What makes it so much sadder is they market themselves to stoned old liberals as well. And, from my experiences here and in real life, they’ll believe anything they’re told without question as long as it comes from another stoned old liberal. Facts are irrelevent. If Rolling Stone said it, it MUST be true.
Problem is, from reading what I read there, even Rolling Stone seems to have a problem with their conviction as they lash out with a high degree of desperation. It’s not enough to say someone hasn’t done a terribly good job at something, they have to embellish it and make it outlandish. I have always been firm in my belief that if you have to lie or make your point sound outrageous, you didn’t have a point in the first place. Rolling Stone lies AND makes unsubstantiated outrageous claims. Not only does that prove they don’t really have a point to make, it really proves to me that at this time, Rolling Stone is completely pointless.
That’s how bad things must be at Rolling Stone these days.
People have accused Google of allowing their political leanings to affect some of their content searches. Google of course denied the allegations. But, it was kind of obvious something was amiss. The reason I yanked Googe AdSense was because no matter what I wrote about Bush, their "unbiased" searches would ALWAYS come up with something anti-Bush. Every, single, time. Now, it’s official, Google NetPAC is an official Washington PAC. They are boasting that the first person to receive any money is a Republican and that the PAC will cater to Republicans since the employees donate about 95% to Democrats.
It really doesn’t matter to me. Google allowing itself to be considered political at all is scary. Too many people rely on their searches and if those searches are skewed for political gain, that’s a bad, bad, thing. Now, because they came out of the closet entirely, that bias will now be more than speculation as every "bad" search result will have the perception of supporting their political philosphies.
Dumb move Google, probably dumber than buying Youtube. I ditched Adsense for the most part a long time ago. I’m in the process of ditching Youtube now because what they allowing and not allowing just don’t seem quite right. I wonder if it’s political ( see Michelle Malkin’s grief with Youtube for the shining example )? People slander her and it stays, she replies and it’s yanked. Go figure huh?
Dumb move Google, really dumb.
24
Oct
Was reading a trashy New York gossip rag that was talking about Rush attacking Michael J. Fox for over-acting his Parkinson’s symptoms for political gain. Well, here is the video in question via Claire McCaskill:
Here’s Fox circa June 2006:
The problem Rush has is just making the allegation is distasteful to just about anyone with a heart. So, he’s totally damned for even suggesting what he suggested. It doesn’t matter whether he’s right or not. And, I do think that just about anyone that sees the video that is familiar with Fox’s public appearances will kinda sit back a little. And, the answer that Fox takes meds in public but sometimes doesn’t at home isn’t truly a sincere response since he can control it to some degree, he might as well show how he "normally" is. Being someone who has a vested interest in stem cell research, as Fox is, I resent people polarizing this issue thereby making it a political hot potato that established politicians don’t want to touch. That’s what Fox is doing here, even if it is a sincere desire to elect people who will advocate stem cell research. The problem is, McCaskill will not be in a position to affect any funding for a decade. And, in the meantime, the political backlash will be people in a position to affect funding. So, either way, Fox, by endorsing individual candidates solely on a promise they can’t keep, is hurting the issue right now.
Now you know what I think. Wanna tell me what you think?
October 30, 2006 UPDATE: Just as I fully expected:
Thanks a lot, Fox. It’s now a political football. By making a lousy ad supporting a candidate running against incorrect assumptions, the conservative right is now polarized and ready to pounce on the entire issue. Is that what you wanted?
Saw this on Michelle Malkin:
Now, as usual, AP goes beyond their mission statement and translates biases the news. Why can’t these organizations do what they are supposed to do and just report the news? Any more, I swear the news media is scaring more than the other two. Bush will be out of office in a couple of years. Bin Laden either is dead, or will be soon enough. Either way, he’s sort of neutered and holed up in a cave somewhere. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can stop the media. You want the heart of the “polarized US”? Right there it is. it’s the media injecting their bias into just about every damn thing reported any more.
And they wonder why blogs are getting as much attention as the media these days.
How long do you think it will take me to see the next example of horrid, biased, news media?
Morgan Quitno Press released this list of the “smartest states” list. Without further ado, here it is, color coded to make it more fun to play with:
Looks kinda grim for all those people who mocked the “Al Gore voters are smarter than Bush voters” thingy from the past. However, Morgan Quitno has kept these records for some time, so, the data’s not static. Let’s look, for example, at what’s happened since those voters got lumped into the red-blue discrimination thing by the media:
Well, that doesn’t really prove much either. Except maybe the smarter you get, the more likely you are to vote red this time? Maybe, maybe not. But as usual, my bottom line is this:
Pick which year you want to apply. In most states, that red-blue tag fluctuates not only over time, but in some cases from one election to the next. My blue/red “statistics” are meant to mock that silly label. It’s the most useless label there is. Not one single state is red or blue, every single one of them are several hundred thousand to millions of mixes of the two colors every single election.
I can’t explain how that ranking got to be where it is. To think that the state that offers us some of the most liberal teaching in the universe, California, could be one of the dumbest really did surprise me ( heh, heh, NOT! ). I really didn’t expect them to be right smack in the middle of several states almost always portrayed as backwards hillbilly hicks. I guess when Mayberry RFD gets remade, they’ll do it Berkeley? The next time, The Beverly Hillbillies will strike it rich in Los Angeles and move to Gatlinburg? ( Yeah, I’m enjoying this a LOT more than I should! )
I was also kinda surprised to see Massachusetts where it is, considering my trashing their school systems’ banning games. I guess sitting around learning nothing but how to read books kinda skews this report?
Other than that, nothing, when using the TWO charts together surprises me. The second chart shows that some states are addressing the issue of education, and some apparently not. Those that are not, or are misdirecting their efforts, will flunk over a five year period. It’s kinda scary tho that the state with largest population, and by far the most electoral votes, is doing so poorly. Really, that is scary. Get with it California. It’s time to stop spending resources trying to figure out the most politically correct thing to teach, and just go back to teaching the fundamentals for now. If your kids can’t read, political correctness is totally moot. And that goes for the rest of the country as well, no matter how well you ranked this time.
Livescience ran a fairly brief article on the 10 Most Polluted Places in the World. Without further ado, here they are in alphabetical order by country:
-
Linfen, China, where residents say they literally choke on coal dust in the evenings, exemplifies many Chinese cities;
-
Haina, Dominican Republic, has severe lead contamination because of lead battery recycling, a problem common throughout poorer countries;
-
Ranipet, India, where leather tanning wastes contaminate groundwater with hexavalent chromium, made famous by Erin Brockovich, resulting in water that apparently stings like an insect bite;
-
Mailuu-Suu, Kyrgyzstan, home to nearly 2 million cubic meters of radioactive mining waste that threatens the entire Ferghana valley, one of the most fertile and densely populated areas in Central Asia that also experiences high rates of seismic activity;
-
La Oroya, Peru, where the metal processing plant, owned by the Missouri-based Doe Run Corporation, leads to toxic emissions of lead;
-
Dzerzinsk, Russia, one of the country’s principal chemical weapons manufacturing sites until the end of the Cold War;
-
Norilsk, Russia, which houses the world’s largest heavy metals smelting complex;
-
Rudnaya Pristan, Russia, where lead contamination resulted in child blood lead levels eight to 20 times maximum allowable U.S. levels;
-
Chernobyl, Ukraine, infamous site of a nuclear meltdown 20 years ago; and
-
Kabwe, Zambia, where child blood levels of lead are five to 10 times the allowable EPA maximum.
Meanwhile, Greenpeace continues to ignore all of those places and STILL blames global warming almost exclusively on the US. As does Al Gore
