I.T. Skill Areas
Computer Certifications I currently hold
Self-Study Certification Books
News, Web log, Weblog, Blog
Veiled Chameleon Care Sheet
Veiled Chameleon Care Sheet
Frequently Asked Questions
If you like this website or webpage, please link it. I could use the help. Thanks.

September 30, 2004

Who Won?

I don't think either or John Kerry won the debate. It seemed like a tie, to me.

Unfortunately, since Bush has been leading by so much, he'd have to have won the debate by as much as he was leading in order to maintain his status. Instead, Kerry's achieving of a tie is going to help to raise his campaign up nearer to a tie.

Posted by Jeff at 08:32 PM | Comments (0)

The Ultimate John Kerry Ad

The Ultimate John Kerry Ad

Posted by Jeff at 01:37 PM | Comments (0)

September 28, 2004

Who is Dividing America?

I saw a recent article about a new aquarium in Kazakhstan where onlookers enjoy the sights of sharks and piranhas being fed. The article says that when an ox's heart is dropped in with the piranhas, about 500 of them rush over and devour the piece of meat in less than five seconds. This prompted one of the aquarium guides to remark, "We can learn a lot from piranhas, whose strength lies in their unity."

I'd be nice if the Democrats would learn that lesson, rather than polarizing the country the way they have this election season.

Just imagine the difference if they'd said, "George Bush has done many of the right things and we respect his service, but there are things than need to be done just as much if not more urgently and importantly; here's what they are and we intend to do them if elected."

Bush, of course, has kept his promise to be a uniter and not a divider. He hasn't lashed out at house Democrats, or senate Democrats, or...hell...any Democrats. He's not shown a bit of anger or resentment toward any law abiding Americans. He's been good natured and friendly - a true ideal of a good and caring politician.

The Democrats, however, have been the most politically devisive elements which we've seen in decades.

Last year the country saw George Bush with uncharacteristically high approval ratings for a president and even Democrats were suggesting that beating him would be impossible, and Republicans were predicting the end of the Democratic party as we have known it. Some were saying that this election wouldn't be a question about which president would be elected, but instead would be an election about how many legislators were going to lose their seats. THIS was what Democratic strategists had to contend with.

What they came up with - DIVIDING AMERICA - has been very difficult on all of us. But, in terms of actually giving them a chance in the election, it was an excellent strategy. It's been like chemotherapy, which sickens the patient nearly to death in order to rid the body of a cancer...except, in this case, there was no cancer, just beautiful hair that the Democrats are trying to make fall out. Kerry can't appear to be better than that because he isn't.

Posted by Jeff at 04:29 PM | Comments (0)

September 20, 2004

Bush is running against self, not Kerry

I've said that over and over and over and over and over again. But it wasn't until about 60 seconds ago that I realized that it's true for Kerry, as well:

Kerry's Knockout Punch
(Image is clickable.)

The difference is that Bush either makes the people happy, or he makes them mad. Kerry just makes us laugh.

Posted by Jeff at 10:40 PM | Comments (4)

CBS News Apology

CBS News has finally owned up to their mistake. I'm not impressed. The requisite apology to President Bush was not there. You'd think that, if they had any character at all, they'd at least include that.

From CBS News President Andrew Heyward:

"Nothing is more important to us than our credibility and keeping faith with the millions of people who count on us for fair, accurate, reliable, and independent reporting. We will continue to work tirelessly to be worthy of that trust."


"Nothing is more important to us than our ability to influence public policy to the left, by any means necessary including dishonest reporting, and not get caught. We will continue to work tirelessly on behalf of those who share our ideology to more effectively mislead the public, yet retain an undeserved expectation of credibility. We apologize to our loyal viewers for having been caught this time."

Posted by Jeff at 10:52 AM | Comments (0)


Well, here it is already. I awoke this morning to see this sight out of my window:

First Snow of 2004

Posted by Jeff at 10:06 AM | Comments (0)

Panties Placed on Your Head

Oh, lord...I don't know where this came from, but it's hilarious:

Kerry and Edwards Sue to Stop Terrorism

Posted by Jeff at 12:23 AM | Comments (1)

September 18, 2004

Bush Captures Ohio, Increases Lead

Well, yesterday I pointed out that George Bush would have to...

a) Lose Ohio,
b) Lose 50% of the "Barely Bush" category, AND
c) Fail to gain a single "Barely Kerry" state

...in order to WIN by the narrowest margin of 270 electoral votes.

Well, the new day's polls have come in and the electoral votes have been estimated. Bush has now moved Ohio into the "Barely Bush" category, making the possibility of those three things happening all the less likely, especially since we're one day closer to the election than we were yesterday.

09/18 = 211 Kerry, 327 Bush (from the Kerry supportive site, electoral-vote.com)

And there's more:

September 19, 2004: New Poll Shows Bush Lead Widening

Posted by Jeff at 09:38 PM | Comments (0)

September 17, 2004

How Democrats Can and Will Win in November

Before I get started, take a look at the following electoral vote prediction map from the Kerry supporting site: electoral-vote.com. Pay close attention to Ohio, to the "Barely Bush" electoral vote count, to Bush's total (down from 311 yesterday), and also take note that 270 electoral votes is a win. The map will not fit conveniently within a blog entry, so you'll have to click and use your back-button (or hold down your shift-key before clicking):

September 17th's prediction from electoral-vote.com.

As you can see, Bush has 307 electoral votes coming his way according to current polls, Ohio is dead even with 20 electoral votes, and the "Barely Bush" electoral vote count is 74 votes. Also, the Republican National Convention has been over for more than two weeks, the "convention bounce" phase is over, and there's only just over six weeks left - a month and a half - before we vote on November 2nd.

After the Democratic National Convention, John Kerry suffered the first negative bounce in convention history, according to some polls. At best, he had 2 points, but that's a stretch, and it evaporated quickly. The Democrat's rationale was that we're a very divided country and that there were few people left to convince...Bush wouldn't get a bounce, either.

But they were wrong. Following the Republican National Convention, Bush's numbers went up...then up...then up...then they fell down and finally leveled off with Bush way, way ahead. Bush convinced a lot of people. And the Democrats see the writing on the wall:

John Kerry is not going to win this election.

Now here's why I asked you to pay special attention to a few things: Ohio is a major battleground state with it's 20 electoral votes, and Bush could win it as easily as Kerry. But, just suppose that Kerry were to win it; would he win the election then, based upon everything else on the map? No, George Bush is still way ahead. In fact, if George Bush were to not only lose Ohio, and he were to lose fully half of the "Barely Bush" electoral votes (37 of them) to Kerry, AND he were not able to convert a single Kerry state from the current polls to himself, Bush would still win. THAT is how significant is Bush's lead. He could lose all of the "Barely Kerry" states, he could lose Ohio (20), New Jersey (15), Colorado (11), Iowa (6), and Arkansas (5), and he'd still win the election. That's BIG. And who believes that, in these strongly contested states, he's going to lose all of that, and that he's not going to gain any of the "Barely Kerry"s?

The title of this blog entry isn't a mistake, however, because the Democrats are going to win this November. No, their candidate isn't going to win the election, but the Democrats are still going to score a win.

First note that even the Democrats tend to despise John Kerry. They were given a Democratic primary in which the ultra-leftist, "Bush=Hitler", Deaniac, very loud small subset of the Democrats set the agenda for the Democratic party. The result was one of the lowest voter turnouts in Democratic party history; few people who would ordinarily be interested in voting wanted to show up to vote for any of those guys. In fact, according to recent polls, 12% of Democrats are going to bother to get themselves down to the polls just so that they can help to ensure a victory for George Bush by voting for him. That whole platform that the Democrats have been running on, if you can even call it that, is something that they just don't like, and Democratic voters - who are primarily Clinton Democrats - aren't going for any of it, but most of them would still rather see Kerry in the White House than Bush.

So what of the Democrats, those who would very much prefer for John Kerry to win the White House over Bush? What are they to do? These are the Democrats who are now seeing the writing on the wall. They don't particularly care for Kerry, they just think that he's the lesser of two evils. And they know that he's not going to win. Well, I'll tell you what they're going to do, barring anything really dramatic that happens between now and election day: They're going to vote for Ralph Nader.

These Democrats will know that they're not "throwing away their vote", because Kerry hasn't a prayer of winning in the first place whether they vote for him or not. But by voting for Nader, they don't have to vote for either of the two big evils: Bush or Kerry. Instead, they get a unifying rallying cry to trumpet for the next four years: "Bush didn't win because the people wanted him! Bush won because Nader split the vote!!!" And the more votes Nader gets, the more potent will be their cry.

THAT is their win. You watch.

Posted by Jeff at 07:13 PM | Comments (0)

September 14, 2004

Davy Crockett: Not Yours to Give

"Not Yours To Give"

Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.
Provided as a courtesy by US Rep. Ron Paul (http://www.house.gov/paul/)

"Not Yours To Give", Col. David Crockett, US Representative from Tennessee

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

"We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---

"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.

"'Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'

"'I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

'But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'

"'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'

"'Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'

"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

'What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

'If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.

'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.

'The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied, 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

"If I don't,' said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

"'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'

"'Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.'

"'My name is Bunce.'

"'Not Horatio Bunce?'


"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

'Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.'

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

'And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

'It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came up to the stand and said:

'Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'"

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing which I will call your attention, you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."


Col. Crockett later died defending liberty in the Battle of the Alamo, in the War for Texas Independence.

Posted by Jeff at 03:05 PM | Comments (4)

September 11, 2004

Authentic whether they're fake, or not:

Years ago, I had a conversation with my uncle about a town in (I think) Montana within which no one was paying their federal income tax - and, provided that they had no property to confiscate, they were getting away with it (no jailtime). It seems that the people in Montana at the time were so against income tax that, whenver a case came to trial, the opinion of the jurors was, "This guy is innocent whether he's guilty or not," thus no convictions.

I don't know if that was true or not, but I suspect that this issue is going to be similar. Why?

Can anyone remember serving with Bush?

"If they are forgeries, then the race is over," said one influential Democrat strategist. "Democrat officials have gotten themselves so involved in this issue that if the papers are not authentic, they're going to be blamed for it."

I suspect that, for the Democrats/liberals/anti-Bushies, and that certainly includes Dan Rather and CBS, those documents are going to be authentic whether they're fake or not.

Posted by Jeff at 06:59 PM | Comments (0)

September 10, 2004

The Kerry Campaign Strategy

Oh, I just love this one:

Bush 'lies' show faulty character

Washington, DC, Sep. 9 (UPI) -- The Democratic National Committee Thursday charged allegations about President Bush's failure to fulfill his Air National Guard service during the Vietnam War pointed to serious character flaws that should bring questions as to whether he is suitable for the White House.

We've had FOUR YEARS of him actually IN the White House which demonstrate quite convincingly that his suitability for the White House is exemplary, many times better than his twice elected predecessor.

Yet, in spite of this overwhelming mountain of evidence about his suitability for office, they want us to focus on his guard service to determine suitability?!

Okay, now, read that line in bold again. Don't you suppose that IF they thought that those four years would be DAMNING to Bush, that they'd be focusing on them, rather than something from 30 years ago? Apparently, THEY THINK that scrutinizing the last four years of Bush's presidency will actually help Bush in his re-election campaign. And they're right!

Too funny.

Is this really the depths to which the Kerry campaign has fallen?

Posted by Jeff at 08:24 PM | Comments (0)

New Memos about Bush's Guard Service

Isn't it weird that "new documents" have allegedly been found which raise questions about Bush's guard service, the very same questions which were raised during the previous year 2000 election against Al Gore??? Why are they regurgitating this old stuff that didn't prevent Bush from being elected last time?!

But that enigma is just the introduction. The real question is: Why are they so eager to re-introduce this failed attack that they're willing to fake the new documents?

I mean, this is so bad...it not only demonstrates a lack of credibility and character on the part of the anti-Bushes (Democrats? Liberals?) involved, but in addition you have to ask: Just how stupid are these people?!

Too funny. Maybe Karl Rove faked them to make the anti-Bushes look like bumbling idiots who can't be trusted. But don't we know that already?

Posted by Jeff at 05:29 AM | Comments (0)

September 08, 2004

Academic Bias (dot com)

AcademicBias.com is working to document the lack of intellectual diversity on American college campuses. Regrettably, the academic environment at most of our universities is dominated by political correctness, a view of the world that is invariably anti-free market, suspicious of the United States, and reflexively intolerant of opposing views. Because true intellectual debate is often stifled in college, students graduate woefully uninformed about the philosophical foundations of Western liberal democracy, the true workings of capitalism, and the full history of America.

You can see the short pre-documentary, "Brainwashing 101" there.

Posted by Jeff at 03:00 PM | Comments (0)

Fertile Ground for Kerry?

Ooooooooooooooooh! Let's see the White House dance around this one! I see some fertile ground for Kerry, here:

130,000 in Moscow protest terrorism after deadly siege

Putin rejected calls for negotiations with Chechen rebel representatives.

"Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels (Belgium) or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace?" Britain's Guardian newspaper quoted Putin as saying.

"Why should we talk to people who are child-killers?"

Differing with Putin, the Bush administration said only a political settlement could end the Chechen crisis. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said U.S. officials had met with Chechens in the past, although "we do not meet with terrorists." Additional meetings might be scheduled in the future, though none is planned, he said.


Posted by Jeff at 01:41 AM | Comments (0)

Conversation With An Anti-Bush

I had such a fun conversation today, a conversation which demonstrated what, to me, is a significant difference between the Bush supporters and the anti-Bushes: intellectual depth.

For me, this difference has always been apparent, beginning with the Bush Lied crowd, then cruising on to the ridiculous arguments of Michael Moore:

Michael Moore

And now, as I suspect will continue to be the case for a long, long, time, I've had the most priceless conversation on a bulletin board with an anti-Bushie whom I'll refer to as "Lefty" (also as a contributor was a Bush supporter whom I will refer to as "Righty"):

From a news story: In Missouri, CNN's Dana Bash offers a "Bushism" from the president's rally yesterday. While discussing malpractice lawsuit reforms in Poplar Bluff, Bush said that "too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."

Righty: I love the guy, I really do. He's got a great strategery. I think it was awesome that he poked fun about his grammar skills during his convention speech.

Lefty: LOL. BTW, where are all these poor doctors anyway? I don't see them in the unemployment line, nor do I see them begging on the street. Also, I usually don't see American cars in the employee spaces of their offices. And, again, you do choose your profession now don't you.

Me: Lordy. The issue of OB/GYN's not being able to practice (due to unaffordable malpractice insurance) isn't a "oh, those poor doctors" issue, it's an issue with lower income patients being unable to receive care:

Part of the problem:

John Edwards is one reason why the Regina (my wife, a physician) does not deliver babies. We can't afford the labor & delivery malpractice insurance. (Oh yeah, did I mention that my wife works in an ability-to-pay health clinic?)

We want this guy to have the spare time to work on national health care policies?

Lefty: I don't recall hearing any babies not being born due to ob/gyn's [sic] not being able to pay malpractice insurance.

One could argue that he was joking the whole time. That much seems apparent...except that such arguments are typical for the lad. If he was kidding, I must ask myself: How could anyone familiar with him tell?

It makes me glad to find myself voting with the right side of the aisle.

Posted by Jeff at 12:42 AM | Comments (1)

Why "Dumb George W. Bush" is Politically Bullet Proof

It's been speculated by pundits that part of what put George Bush into the presidency was the framing of his image, by Democrats, as a buffoon. The Democrats were so successful at making the public believe that George Bush was an idiot, that when they finally saw him in debates with Al Gore, and in spite of Bush coming across very average, he stunned the audience on the upside because they expected him to fail miserably. As a result, he shined as compared to their expectations, whereas he might've actually looked bad if they'd been expecting someone brilliant.

This election, things are different: everyone's seen actual "Bushisms" for themselves. Yet, he's still stronger in the polls than his more articulate competitor, John Kerry. Why?

Nearly everyone has encountered a parent (perhaps even one's self) who very proudly boasts about how well their small child speaks at an early age. This parent seems to associate being able to speak well earlier than other children with the child being highly intelligent. But, recall that Albert Einstein didn't speak until he was four years old and wasn't fluent in his primary language until at least age eight. One should realize that the ability to articulate thoughts does not necessarily suggest that one's thoughts are all that brilliant. Similarly, the inability to articulate one's thoughts well doesn't necessarily mean that one isn't very bright. So while we've all seen President Bush sometimes getting tangled up in his words or using poor grammar, this doesn't necessarily suggest that he's an idiot.

John Kerry is different. Kerry is very articulate when he tells us his opinion for this week on specific subject matter. However, after a while, it becomes apparent that what he articulates so well this week directly contradicts what he so articulately expressed last week on the same issue. So we know that he is either wrong this week, or he was wrong last week. Which is it? And, worse, we can see this continual flip-flopping on conclusions happening over and over again, on the same issues, months - or even years - into the past. The person who is most often telling John Kerry that he is wrong is John Kerry himself. And John Kerry listens...again...and again.

President Bush, on the other hand, tends to maintain a consistent position, only changing his mind very, very slowly on important issues, and on those rare occasions when further thought has convinced George Bush to change his mind, he's very unlikey to change his mind back again.

So the difference between President Bush and Senator Kerry is the difference between the superficial and the substantive, between the shallow and the deep, and between the apparent and the real. And everyone, whether they've put this idea into words or not, grasps this at some level in their thinking.

Anyone can stumble over his words once in a while - I know that I do it - and George W. Bush does it more often than most. But if you think that means that he's stupid, then just imagine for a moment how foolish you'd think he was if, in addition to his verbal tripping, he couldn't maintain a position on any issues any longer than can John Kerry!

Posted by Jeff at 12:01 AM | Comments (27)

September 05, 2004

The Wounds of Vietnam

Younger people, especially, need to be aware of and understand Kerry's role in the Vietnam defeat and subsequent stain on America's self-image. This is an excellent article:

Who's to blame for nation's Vietnam wounds?

...So when John McCain sternly warns the swift boat veterans of ''reopening the wounds of Vietnam,'' it's worth asking: Why is Vietnam a ''wound'' and why won't it heal? The answer: not because it was a military or strategic defeat but because it was a national trauma. And whose fault is that?

Well, you can't pin it all on one person, but, if you had to, Lt. John F. Kerry would stand a better shot at taking the solo trophy than almost anyone. The ''wounds'' McCain complains of aren't from losing Vietnam, but from the manner in which it was lost. Today Sen. Kerry says he's proud of his anti-war activism, but that's not what it was. Every war has pacifists and conscientious objectors and even disenchanted veterans, but there's simply no precedent for what John Kerry did: a man who put his combat credentials to the service of smearing his country's entire armed forces as rapists, decapitators and baby killers. That's the ''wound,'' Sen. McCain. That's why a crummy little war on the other side of the world still festers. That's why the band didn't play ''Fings Ain't Wot They Used T'Be'' and move on to the next item of business. Because Kerry didn't just call for U.S. withdrawal, he impugned the honor of every man he served with.

In his testimony to Congress in 1971, Kerry asserted a scale of routine war crimes unparalleled in American history -- his ''band of brothers'' (as he now calls them) ''personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.'' Almost all these claims were unsupported. Indeed, the only specific example of a U.S. war criminal that Kerry gave was himself. As he said on ''Meet The Press'' in April 1971, ''Yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I used 50-caliber machineguns, which we were granted and ordered to use.''

Really? And when was that? On your top-secret Christmas Eve mission in Cambodia? If they'd taken him at his word, when the senator said ''I'm John Kerry reporting for duty,'' the delegates at the Democratic Convention should have dived for cover.

But they didn't. So Kerry is now the first self-confessed war criminal in the history of the Republic to be nominated for president. Normally this would be considered an electoral plus only in the more cynical banana republics. But the Democrats seemed to think they could run an anti-war anti-hero as a war hero and nobody would mind. As we now know, a lot of people -- a lot of veterans -- do mind, very much. They understand that, whether or not he ever mowed down civilians with his 50-caliber machinegun, Kerry is responsible for a lot of wounds closer to home.

Posted by Jeff at 03:25 PM | Comments (0)

September 01, 2004

Experience The Republican National Convention

Unlike that snoozer, the Democratic National Convention, the Republican National Convention has been unbelievably uplifting, encouraging, positive, optimistic, and is just loaded with reasons to be enthusiastic about America.

If you haven't watched any of it, you can pick and choose speeches to watch here:

The Republican National Convention on streaming video.

I recommend first watching Zell Miller's speech, by the way. It's truly a diamond.

Truth. Facts. And pride in being an American!

Posted by Jeff at 10:28 PM | Comments (0)

Zell Miller (Democrat)!

The only thing wrong with Zell Miller's speech is that it ends!

What an excellent individual.

Posted by Jeff at 09:51 PM | Comments (0)

For? Or Against?

A great many people are making the observation that people are planning to vote FOR George Bush, or AGAINST George Bush, or AGAINST John Kerry. Not surprisingly, given his record in the senate, it's very difficult to find anyone making a case to vote FOR John Kerry.

But there is more to vote FOR and AGAINST in this election than just the individual candidates, so here's a list of the prominent items in this election season which I am voting FOR and AGAINST.


1) I am voting AGAINST the people who (quite ignorantly) assert that Bush is an appointed president, rather than the duly elected president. I want to see President Bush re-elected into office with such a large number of votes as to suggest a slap across the face to the "Re-defeat Bush" contingent.

2) I am voting AGAINST the governments which opposed the United States initiative for action against Iraq in the United Nations last year.

3) I am voting AGAINST the citizens of the coalition countries which loudly opposed their own countries' involvements in the Iraq war. I want to see President Bush re-elected into office with such a large number of votes as to suggest to those citizens that the United States is against them, and frankly doesn't give a smeg what they think (thanks for nothing, jerks).

4) Although these people are contained in #3 above, they deserve special mention: I am voting AGAINST the citizens of The United States of America which loudly opposed the Iraq war. I want to see President Bush re-elected into office with such a large number of votes as to suggest to those citizens that mainstream America is against them and will not allow their minority ideas to overwhelm our government (perhaps Cuba or China will?) Further, I want to pass the message: Thanks for nothing, liberals; the Cold War was won without any help from you, and so will be the war on terror.

5) I am voting against the "Bush ~ Hitler" crowd.

6) I am definitely voting against John Kerry, against his post-Vietnam service slander of the U.S. soldiers in Vietnam, against his taking a leading role in causing the U.S. to lose that war through battles at home which resulted in tremendous human rights violations in Vietnam to go unchecked which should've ended with a victory in Vietnam.



1) I am voting FOR a continuation and an expansion of fair economic practices; i.e., that people may make as much money as they are capable of making in a free market, and that they shouldn't have to pay for anything that they don't, on their own, decide to pay for themselves (if they want to donate to the poor, they can; if they don't, no government will steal from them to give to the poor). ELIMINATE THE IRS!

2) Pre-war, the citizens of Iraq (and even some other countries) said such things as, "It's not the people of America we are against, we are against the American government". I can think of few statements which should be taken more offensively by an American. I am voting FOR demonstrating that We the People ARE the government - and a resounding re-election of President Bush, with as many votes as possible, would convey that message better than any other method. It was We the People who invaded Iraq, NOT a separate American government.

3) And I am voting FOR President Bush, who deserves tremendous respect for his post 9/11 decisions, and whose pre-9/11 economic policies dramatically limited the economic fallout which otherwise would've occurred after 9/11. Thank you, President Bush. You have earned our admiration and respect.

Posted by Jeff at 12:39 PM | Comments (2)

. Original Copyright, May 2004. All Rights Reserved.