8
Jan
Been following this today:
I was kind of concerned about it until I read what Mayor Bloomberg had to say:
The mayor said that "these things are normal, happen all the time."
I think I’ll stick with the country life for a little while longer.
John Bolton received this rousing letter of support from Congressman Scott Garrett on Friday:
Bolton’s response? He resigned rather than facing the most obvious result of the Democrat Senate refusing to confirm his nomination. We need a strong presence on the United Nations. That’s not going to happen with the politics at play right now. The Democrats can do nothing but obstruct any nomination Bush makes. So, look for no presence on the United Nations any time soon while the issues of Iran, North Korea, and others fester and become a bigger problem when one party or the other does take control.
The next two years are going to be the epitome of a useless and incapable Congress and Senate. Some people think this "divided government" is a good thing. I think it’s dangerous as hell at this time.
27
Nov
Jennifer Diaz has a problem. Her problem is she is allowing her political interests to obscure the real issue here. Malachi Ritscher’s son has a different take on what happened:
He was different people at different instances and so, so erratic. I loved him no doubt, but he was a very lonely and tragic man, said Ritscher, 35, who is estranged from the rest of the family. The idea of being a martyr Im sure was attractive. He could literally go out in a blaze of glory.
In other words, Malachi Ritscher’s problem wasn’t political, it was apparently rather severe mental illness. Jennifer Diaz et al could do the world a lot more good researching the real reason for Malachi’s suicide than making it a soon-to-be forgotten political statement of their own by ignoring the obvious and promoting the rhetoric. The more she/they promotes this as a political protest, the more people will dismiss it due to his illness. In order for him to be the martyr he apparently wished to be, he would have needed to die for something he can affect. His death can make a difference, but it has to be dealt with honestly. And, as usual, SOME people can’t and won’t do that. I will. Malachi Ritscher wants to be a martyr, but no one is listening to his real message. And because of that, Malachi Ritscher has died in vain.
A lot of people are reading things into this week’s elections. Some people claimed these elections are nothing but a national referendum on Bush and/or the Republicans. As such, I posted my “anticipated results” from the elections a few days ago. I’m still sticking with those “predictions” post-election. Now, here’s what happens when “national” expectations are thrust on individual elections:
Tuesday’s election results certainly sent a powerful message to President Bush about his policy on Iraq – but on the scientific front, there was also a strong message sent in support of embryonic stem cell research. And Gail Pressberg, one of the authors of an upcoming book on the stem cell debate, says that message just might reverberate in the Oval Office as well.
“One has to wonder what his attitude will be now,” Pressberg told me today.
Now, the caveat here is, correct me if I’m wrong, but not one of those candidates endorsed EMBRYONIC stem cell research. They endorsed “expanding” stem cell research. The catch here is that Bush is the ONLY president to ever EXPAND stem cell research. The ONLY one. So, I’m gonna tell you the headlines for next year now. The new Senate will pass legislation EXPANDING stem cell research, which Bush will sign because he’s ALWAYS supported stem cell research to some degree. They will not allow EMBRYONIC stem cell research as there’s too much political negativity attached to it. In simpler terms, nothing will have changed.
The media will have a field day with headlines citing how Bush has ditched his religious convictions, his ethics, and everything else and caved in to political pressure from the Democrats on this subject. All the while, nothing will have changed.
The reason nothing will have changed is threefold.
-
The legislation to expand stem cell funding IS ALREADY IN PLACE. IF this truly was a deciding factor by voters in those races, they were duped. Which isn’t hard to do. Rather than using the internet to actually research topics, I have found most people advocating an issue choose to use it to reinforce their bias on the issue. Nothing will get done, and people will be happy with that because it’s the Democrats getting nothing done instead of the Republicans.
-
My experience here is that the people advocating EMBRYONIC stem cell research were the same people advocating spit government ( as long it leans Democrat ). The problem we have now is that the government is not only split, it’s a balanced split. What you will see happening for the most part will be basically nothing getting done for two years as Bush knows he can veto anything he wants and there is absolutely nothing either chamber can do about it. Nothing. Expanding stem cell research is already on the books. EMBRYONIC research is not. EMBRYONIC research is what gets conservatives worked up and united. The Democrats’ hold on the Senate is dangerously tenuous. They lose one seat in ’08, it’s lost. The very last thing they are going to do is unite the neo-conservative base that basically didn’t show up at all last Tuesday. Proposing legislation that would do just that and have no chance of getting signed is not something I think Pelosi or the Senate leader are stupid enough to do. So, look for NOTHING TO HAPPEN while they try to take credit for legislation that’s already passed.
-
And, all politics IS local. Most of the pro-stem cell candidates won by hairs. They’re not indiviudally going to intentionally unite the conservatives in Missouri or anywhere else. They didn’t support embryonic stem cell research, they supported what Bush has supported, just putting more money in it. They can get by with that, but if Pelosi puts embryonic stem cell research on the table, those hairs they won by are gone.
So, I stand by my original assumption, Michael J. Fox put the screws to stem cell research. How long is Fox going to let McCaskill off the hook when nothing gets done by the Democrats?
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.
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?
