Musings Archive October 2004
Sunday, October 31, 2004 LAST CALL: You only have about an hour and a half if you want to contribute during our official fundraising drive. If you'd like to help us stick around, feel free to visit this page and make a donation. Every little bit helps.
Thanks to everyone who donated. You can find their names here.
Posted by steve @ 10:26 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ HAPPY HALLOWE'EN: I hope you had one because here at Fort Sinatra it was a bust. Not one child the entire night unless you count my niece who showed up so we could see her costume. This year she was Snow White.
The lights were on but my sister reports that most of the street was dark so I guess the little goblins and ghosts didn't think it was worth their while to hit my street. That and it was rather cold outside. Disappointing...now I have to eat all that candy.
Posted by steve @ 10:17 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ WHY VOTE FOR BUSH?: While libertarians are tearing themselves apart trying to figure out who to vote for -- Bush, Kerry or the actual Libertarian Party nominee Michael Badnarik -- Objectivists seem to be on the same page: Bush. Joseph Kellard is the latest Objectivist to endorse Bush.
For most Americans and me, the critical issue by far in this presidential election is the threat we face from our would-be terrorist killers. But how should we vote when both President Bush and Senator Kerry appear unfit to win the war against them?
While Bush has toppled two anti-American regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, he's significantly undercut the grounds needed to ultimately defeat the terrorists. Most reprehensibly, Bush has left untouched the world's top sponsor of terrorism, Iran, as that theocracy defiantly continues building nuclear weapons. And rather than crush enemy insurgents cornered in terrorist nests in Fallujah and Najaf, Bush accepted their calls for empty truces. Such inactions and appeasements only embolden our enemies. So contrary to the left, Bush is no "warmonger," nor is he the tenacious, "rock solid" commander-in-chief that the right paints him to be.
What distinguishes Bush, however, is his great rhetoric. Most importantly, by correctly calling Iran, Iraq and North Korea an "axis of evil," he established the moral basis vital for victory: the terrorists are evil; America is good. Adding to this needed black-and-white foundation, Bush told other nations they are either with us or with the terrorists. He vowed to make no distinction between individual terrorists and the states that support them, to end states that sponsor terrorism, and to strike those states before they strike us. He also understands that dictatorships breed terrorists, and proposes a long-range "forward strategy of freedom" to replace Mid East tyrannies with representative governments.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 06:14 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ NO REASON TO ENDORSE KERRY: Says Mark Steyn.
Reading the media "endorsements" of John Kerry is like having lunch with a woman who wants to tell you about her great new boyfriend. She spends seven-eighths of the time bitching about the old boyfriend -- cocky, hot-headed, insensitive, never wants to listen, never gonna change -- and in the remaining few minutes tries to come up with the new guy's good points:
"Mr. Kerry himself is not a compelling candidate. But this year he offers a --"
Yes?
"-- a respite, a pause for reappraisal."
That's The Economist, pining for a quiet night in.
"What the Republicans tar as waffling strikes us as --"
Hmm. What is le mot juste?
"-- flexibility."
That's my Sun-Times colleagues, looking for a man they -- or, at any rate, Jacques Chirac and Kofi Annan -- can mold.
"According to the Almanac of American Politics, Kerry is 'more respectful of economic free markets' and more inclined to an expansionist foreign policy than --"
Than Ronald Reagan?
"-- than other liberal Democrats."
Oh, well. That's the Des Moines Register, arguing that he doesn't seem like a wimp and a loser if you put him in a room full of even bigger wimps and losers.
That's what you get when your entire argument is based on "Anyone But Bush." Now the left is stuck with a candidate that they don't even really like.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 06:10 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ NO, REALLY, I BELIEVE YOU: Mohamed ElBaradei announced that the report of the missing explosives at Al-Qaqaa had nothing to do with the presidential election. Dude, I totally believe you.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 02:43 AM EST [Link] [No Comments]
Friday, October 29, 2004 MEMO TO REUTERS: I don't want to ever see in one of your stories again that Osama bin Laden "allegedly" ordered the 9/11 attacks.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 06:03 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ SOMEONE'S LYING OR NO ONE KNOWS THE TRUTH: The al Qaqaa story took another twist today when Major Austin Pearson of the 3rd Infantry Division -- the same division that fought a two-day battle to capture the facility -- came forward today to announce that a team took most of the explosives there.
Explosives were part of the load taken by the team, but Major Austin Pearson was unable to say what percentage they accounted for. The material was then destroyed, he said.
The Pentagon believes the disclosure helps explain what happened to 377 tons of high explosives that the International Atomic Energy Agency said disappeared after the U.S.-led invasion.
Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita acknowledged the Defense Department did not have all the answers and could not yet account for all of the missing explosives, but stressed that the major's disclosure was a significant development in unraveling the mystery.
Alright, all well and good but how does this square with the media report from April 2003, I believe it was the New York Times, that stated when the 3rd Infantry Division showed up at al Qaqaa there were no explosives to be found? That news story contrasts with the footage taken by a television station that apparently shows the explosives still there on April 18, after U.S. soldiers arrived.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 03:43 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ BUT WHO WILL THE LIBERTARIANS VOTE FOR?: Michael Badnarik can be sure of one thing next Tuesday: he won't be receiving the votes of a lot of libertarians. That's not because Badnarik isn't a good libertarian or that libertarians don't believe in him, it's just many libertarians are either going to vote for or against Bush.
David Brown has an interesting post about it here.
Posted by steve @ 03:35 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
Thursday, October 28, 2004 I'M WEEPING FOR HIM: Despite all of his billions it seems George Soros can't buy one thing: an election. Soros apparently conceeded defeat and said that his efforts -- and the millions he spent -- for were naught.
"I embarked on the tour because I was worried that the dramatic deterioration in Iraq did not produce the decisive lead for John Kerry I had confidently expected," Soros conceded.
Asked what he will do if George W. Bush wins another term, Soros lamented, "I shall go into some kind of monastery. If we endorse him [Bush], my next question will be 'what's wrong with us?'"
Perhaps it proves that billionaire Democrats aren't worth listening to and that Soros should go back to reading Karl Popper and leave the rest of America alone.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 07:04 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ RELIGION OF PEACE ALERT: The Canadian Islamic Congress yesterday refused the resignation of president Mohamed Elmasry after he appeared on television recently and said it was perfectly justifiable for terrorist attacks against Israelis over the age of 18 because they were all potential soldiers.
Elmasry was a panelist on Ontario current affairs program Michael Coren Live last week when he said any Israeli over the age of 18 could be attacked because they are all members of the country's army.
"Anyone and everyone in Israel - irrespective of gender-over the age of 18 is a valid target?" host Michael Coren asked.
"Yes, I would say," Elmasry responded.
In a release issued later by the Islamic group, Elmasry said he was expressing the view of many Palestinians, not his personal opinion. He said he regretted that his comments "were misunderstood and, as a result, caused offence."
Coren has said it was not apparent that Elmasry was expressing anyone's opinion but his own.
"I just do not buy this argument that it's misinterpreted," he said.
I am offended that anyone would condemn Elmasry for his comments. Canada is a multicultural nation of immigrants and it is perfectly valid to support terrorism in other nations. Yes, that was sarcasm.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 03:23 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ STUPIDITY IS CHEAP. THAT'S WHY THERE IS SO MUCH OF IT: A school board in Puyallup, Wash. has cancelled Halloween events for fear of offending...wait for it!...Wiccans.
"We work really hard to teach our students to be respectful of traditions and cultures that are held by people other than themselves. The Wiccan religion is one of those religions," said school district spokesperson Karen Hanson.
Wicca, an ancient pagan belief rooted in worshipping nature, is recognized by the federal government as a religion and followers openly practice witchcraft, complete with magic potions.
However, there are no exact numbers on how many people out there are casting spells -- some say maybe 100,000 nationwide. FOX News was unable to track down a Wiccan in Puyallup.
Does this mean the board will also get rid of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny for fear of offending Christians (and Jews and Muslims, etc.)? So much stupidity.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 03:16 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ THERE'S ONLY ONE PROBLEM?: The American Enterprise editor Karl Zinsmeister appeared on NPR this morning on the topic "The Problem with Democrats." You can listen to it here.
Posted by steve @ 03:08 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ PERHAPS YOU SHOULD GET OFF THE COUCH AND TAKE A DAMNED WALK: You know, I'm a long way off from when I used to run about 5 miles every day, but they haven't had to redesign department store mannequins in response to my eating an extra serving of pasta occasionally. Apparently the growing size of Americans has prompted the introduction of larger mannequins.
With more high-end designers creating profitable lines for larger women, department stores are ordering bigger dummies to replace the skinny manis that traditionally modeled clothes of all sizes.
"Can’t relate to that tall, willowy, perky-breasted model in your favorite store? Fortunately, manufacturers are breaking the mold with fiberglass forms more representative of our curvier proportions and diverse skin tones," writes A.J. Hanley in this month’s issue of Fitness magazine.
The newer dummies, used at stores like Lane Bryant and Marshall Fields and more recently at mainstream department stores like Macy's and Bloomingdale's, make sense in light of today's fuller figures, said Hanley, a senior editor at Fitness.
"They have ample derrieres modeled after J-Lo and Beyonce. They’re sexy. The mannequins of before were like Barbie dolls — they do make people feel bad about themselves," she said. "The goal is healthy-looking mannequins.”
Healthy? If you look at the pictures, one of the mannequins clearly has a gut on it. That's healthy? Drop the ho-hos and take a walk America. Don't blame the mannequins because you're fat.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 02:10 AM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ I STILL HATE THEM: Though I am a Canadian I'm also a New York Mets fan and therefore tradition demands I hate the Boston Red Sox. I laughed so hard after Game 6 of the 1986 series. In fact, I still occasionally think about Bill Buckner and laugh.
At any rate, despite that, I offer my congratulations to the Boston Red Sox for winning the World Series tonight. You beat a team that was better than you and you did it in four straight. Nicely done.
I guess now we have to listen to Chicago Cubs fans bleat until their team stops choking. If it means anything, I know how you feel. My hockey team, the Toronto Maple Leafs, have never won a Stanley Cup during my lifetime. I feel your pain.
Not surprisingly, a braying ass from Massachusetts declared that the Red Sox are "America's team" for winning. Shut up.
Posted by steve @ 02:03 AM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ D.C. MAYOR DISSES CATO INSTITUTE: According to David Brown, Washington, D.C. mayor Anthony A. Williams has a problem with a recent report by the Cato Institute. What the mayor all steamed? Baseball.
Posted by steve @ 12:52 AM EST [Link] [No Comments]
Wednesday, October 27, 2004 VOTE FOR THE DOCTOR: Normally I wouldn't urge people to listen to NPR or visit their web site but today is a very special ESR Musings. Dr. B.L.T. has a conservative country-rock song entitled "Right-wingers Need Love Too" and you can vote on it. Hit this page and scroll down to the first song and give him a good grade after you've listened to it (if you haven't heard it already that is). You know the liberals are ganging up on him.
Posted by steve @ 06:19 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ REMEMBER, WHEN A DEMOCRAT DOES IT, IT'S AN ISOLATED INCIDENT: Except these isolated incidents keep happening every day. Democrats are resorting to violence at an increasing pace to intimidate Republicans. The latest example? Some jerk in Florida tried to run over Florida Congresswoman Kathleen Harris with his car today.
For his part, Seltzer--who's a registered Democrat--told cops, "I intimidated them with the car. They were standing in the street." He added, "I did not run them down, I scared them a little!"
If it's a close election on November 2 and George W. Bush ends up winning, I would not be surprised to hear Democrats and other enemies of the Bush administration resorting to violence to destablize the situation. In that case I'd wish that the Posse Comatitus Act didn't exist.
Read on.
[Update - 7:35pm] Orrin Judd has some thoughts about Democratic craziness here.
Posted by steve @ 04:53 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ I HAVE REACHED MY LIMIT
I am saturated -- saturated with useless press reports from a media too lazy to actually report anything worthwhile. For the past several days, I have heard nothing except the candidates' campaign destinations, candidates' talking points, and polls. The absolute worst is television, no matter what network. TV is closely followed by newspapers.
The media does not bother to actually report substance. When a story does get through the noise, it is usually a hit piece that bears no resemblance to truth. No one in the media bothers to do any actual research, never digs beyond the press releases, never questions the alleged facts on which it is reporting.
Chalk it up to media bias, or laziness, or the desire to be first with a story -- any story. Whatever the reason, American media has abandoned journalism in favor of sound bites, reporters on the scene gushing nonsense, and showing snazzy photo ops.
The so-called mainstream media is contributing to its own death knell -- either through ignorance or the refusal to accept reality. The demise of big corporate media is being accelerated by the existence of new, alternative media on the internet. If you just want to skim the surface in a political year, read a paper or watch TV. After about aminute or so, you have scraped away the pond scum and realized the lack of depth. For depth, for serious discussion, for analysis, you must turn to the internet.
I get 99% of my news from internet sites. I get 100% of intelligent analysis from the internet. Obviously, I rely on the excellent presentations and articles on ESR. But I don't limit myself to just one site. On any given day, I look at probably a dozen sites. I get a broad look at the issues, with information and opinions, analysis and perspectives that allow me to be informed, which, in turn allows me to decide for myself who to support for political office.
I will ignore TV and newspapers until after the election. I'm tired of the garbage that gets pumped out by talking heads and breathless beanbags. If something actually important surfaces, I'll find it on the internet.
cb
Posted by clbloomer @ 12:08 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ U.N. INSPECTORS CALLED FOR CACHE DESTRUCTION IN 1995: Will it seems another hit story aimed at the Bush administration is dying a Killian Memo-like death. Following reports this week that a massive cache of high-grade explosives had gone missing before American soldiers had ever gotten near it comes news that U.N. weapons inspectors had called on International Atomic Energy Agency and Mohammed ElBaradei to have it destroyed back in 1995.
Who released a letter to the media about the "horrible" job the Yanks had done in securing a cache that had already disappeared? Why our friend Mr. ElBaradei! Who are the Yanks not supporting in his bid to be IAEA head again? Why our friend Mr. ElBaradei!
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 11:18 AM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ WHY SULLIVAN IS WRONG: Showing once again why he's one of the best, James Lileks takes on and convincingly dismantles Andrew Sullivan's reasoning why Americans should vote for John Kerry.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 03:10 AM EST [Link] [No Comments]
Tuesday, October 26, 2004 NOT YOU TOO WALTER!: Walter Olson, long-time friend of ESR and Reason contributor, has come out for John Kerry.
Libertarians are tearing themselves apart over this election. Some are going the route of John Hospers and voting for George W. Bush while others are declaring for Kerry. Are they forgetting they actually have a presidential candidate?
Posted by steve @ 03:48 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ THERE'S A SURPRISE: Fox News reports that a total of $25 million has been spent on the presidential election by PACs with nearly all of it spent in favor of John Kerry. Democrats the party of special interests? Say it isn't so!
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 03:33 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ I'M SORRY SIR, BUT YOUR REASONING MAKES NO SENSE: Well, Andrew Sullivan finally came out and officially declared what we all knew already: he's voting John Kerry.
Although I disagree with Sullivan on several issues I've always thought he was a bright man. His essay, however, makes no sense to me. According to Sullivan Kerry is more fiscally responsible than Bush, Abu Ghraib destroyed the moral authority for the war in Iraq, the Democrats need to take responsibility for national security and Bush is religious crazy on social issues. Huh?
Why vote Kerry? Well, Sullivan undermines his own case -- such that it was -- here:
His record is undistinguished, and where it stands out, mainly regrettable. He intuitively believes that if a problem exists, it is the government's job to fix it. He has far too much faith in international institutions, like the corrupt and feckless United Nations, in the tasks of global management. He got the Cold War wrong. He got the first Gulf War wrong. His campaign's constant and excruciating repositioning on the war against Saddam have been disconcerting, to say the least. I completely understand those who look at this man's record and deduce that he is simply unfit to fight a war for our survival. They have an important point--about what we know historically of his character and his judgment when this country has faced dire enemies. His scars from the Vietnam War lasted too long and have gone too deep to believe that he has clearly overcome the syndrome that fears American power rather than understands how to wield it for good.
Ummm, okay.
I'll freely grant that the Bush 43 presidency has been a disappointment in several respects. Domestic spending is exploding which during wartime is unforgivable. Also, Bush seems unwilling or unable to stand out in front of the American people and forcefully defend his record on issues that we actually agree with him on. That aside, conservatives -- of which Sullivan is allegedly one -- have only one clear choice that has a chance of being elected: Bush.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 03:25 PM EST [Link] [2 comments]
~ IS THIS ESR OR PBS?: When is this guy ever going to end the fall fundraiser? Your answer is this week. I don't believe in never-ending campaigns and it's time to throw in the towel. We've raised only a third of the target and it's beginning to feel like an off night in a bar when few of the ladies want to talk to you.
At any rate, this is the final week of our campaign so if you'd like to help us stick around, feel free to visit this page and make a donation. Every little bit helps.
Thanks to those of you who did donate. It's appreciated more than you can possibly understand. ESR is a labour of love for me. Although the work can grind me down -- it essentially takes a good hunk of the weekend to put it all together -- I consider it fun and a public service. It's kind of hard to believe that a magazine I launched on a lark in June 1996 will go into its ninth year on the web next year. It's not going anywhere if I have anything to say about it.
Posted by steve @ 01:54 AM EST [Link] [No Comments]
~ MONDAY NIGHT QUARTERBACK: Well, it seems we know how to guaruntee wins by the Cincinnati Bengals. Have them play home games on Monday nights. The Bengels have played three games on Monday night, twice at home and once on the road, and only lost the away game (1992 in Pittsburgh). At any rate, beating Denver to win was a nice gift to the over 65,000 people who packed Paul Brown Stadium.
Unfortunately my weekend was far worse. Notre Dame kicked it off Saturday by blowing a 17 point lead over Boston College. It got a lot worse on Sunday. I usually tell you which games I got wrong but this week it will be easier to list the ones I got right: Baltimore, Philadelphia, Minnesota, Tampa Bay, New England and Green Bay. Yup, that's six right. In all my years of football prognostication I have never gotten only six right.
How about them Seahawks? The biggest fraud of 2004? Apparently Atlanta forgot they were supposed to play defense. No other way to explain a 56-10 shellacking by the beleagured Kansas City Chiefs. I make this prediction: Michael Vick will never go 7 for 21 ever again.
Week 1 - 8 out of 15
Week 2 - 11 out of 16
Week 3 - 9 of 15
Week 4 - 7 of 14
Week 5 - 7 of 14
Week 6 - 9 of 14
Week 7 - 6 of 14%: 55.8 (-2.2 per cent)
Dallas Cowboys cheerleader Micaela Johnson remains the only cheerleader to ever email me and that pattern continued this weekend. Unfortunately it was a bit time sensitive. Micaela and the rest of the squad appeared on The View Monday morning and the "Making Of" video for their annual calender aired on ESPN Monday night. Two chances to view the beauty that is the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders and I missed them both. I should turn in my official Cheerleader of the Week Judge badge. At any rate Micaela, if you read this, as apology I offer to make you Enter Stage Right's Official Cheerleader if you decide to accept the honour...such that it is. No public appearances necessary and you can even deny ever knowing us.
At any rate, if for no other reason then I've never chosen a Baltimore Ravens cheerleader, our Cheerleader of the Week is Carrie S. Carrie is single and a health education teacher. I'd say more but my eyes are blistered by her beauty.
Posted by steve @ 01:42 AM EST [Link] [No Comments]
Monday, October 25, 2004 BUSH OPENS UP LEAD: According to the latest Time poll, Bush has opened up a five point lead over Kerry. Meanwhile, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows the same thing: 56 to 41.
Posted by steve @ 06:12 PM EST [Link]
~ TIME TO GET OFF YOUR PEDESTAL: The Economist takes some shots at France's foreign policy. Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Posted by steve @ 03:33 PM EST [Link]
~ CONGRATS: It appears that Hamid Karzai, perhaps the best dressed world leader, will win the first democratic election in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban.
With nearly 95 percent of ballots counted, Karzai already has more than half the total estimated 8.1 million votes cast - enough to avoid a runoff, even if all the remaining votes go to his 17 opponents.
A victory for the war on terrorism, the world and most importantly, the Afghan people. Congratulations!
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 03:29 PM EST [Link]
~ LIBERTARIAN WORLD IN AN UPROAR: Just doing my part to stir the pot! A letter from John Hospers, the 1972 presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, has libertarians as angry as heck because he's endorsed George W. Bush. We're running it in this week's issue here.
Posted by steve @ 02:57 PM EST [Link]
Sunday, October 24, 2004 PREDICTING NOVEMBER 2: John over at Right Wing News polled a bunch of bloggers, including yours truly, as to what they believe will happen the night of November 2. Given that he surveyed right of center bloggers, are you surprised that the results indicate George W. Bush and the Republicans will win that night?
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 11:16 PM EST [Link]
Saturday, October 23, 2004 REMEMBER, THERE ARE NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ: Except for the ones the Yanks keep capturing.
Posted by steve @ 03:41 AM EST [Link]
Friday, October 22, 2004 WHO DO YOU THINK THEY WANT TO WIN?: Al-Jazeera reports that the Iranians are waiting to see who wins in the U.S. presidential election before they decide on their nuclear program.
[Gary Samore of the London think-tank International Institute of Strategic Studies] said he thought the Iranians were "waiting for the US elections" on 2 November, with different calculations depending on whether incumbent President George Bush or his challenger John Kerry wins.
Samore said the Iranian goal is to have the international community recognise its right to uranium enrichment, which makes fuel for civilian reactors but can also manufacture the explosive material for atomic bombs.
The Iranians might try to take advantage of a Kerry victory by agreeing to a three-month full extension from November until when Kerry takes office in January.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 07:13 PM EST [Link]
~ LIONS, TIGERS AND BEARS...OH MY!: (Via Instapundit) The new Bush ad "Wolves" is apparently raising eyebrows all over the place with many comparing it to a famous Reagan ad from 1984 dubbed "Bear". You can watch both of them here.
Posted by steve @ 03:24 PM EST [Link]
~ JUST IMAGINE IF SOME NEWSPAPER HAD DONE THIS FOR THE REPUBLICANS: The Guardian has called off its "Operation Clark County" -- a project to get Britains to write people in Clark County and ask them to vote for John Kerry -- after a storm of controversy erupted.
The cancellation of the project came 24 hours after the first of some 14,000 letters from Guardian readers began arriving in Clark County. The missives led to widespread complaints about foreign interference in a US election.
It also prompted a surge of indignant local voters calling the county's Republican party offering to volunteer for Mr Bush.
The paper said it had closed the website where readers collected an address to write to and had abandoned plans to take four "winners" to visit voters in Clark County. Instead, the group would be taken to the "more tranquil" area of Washington.
Albert Scardino, the paper's executive editor for news, simultaneously denied and conceded that an early halt had been called to the project. "It is roaringly, successfully completed. It has been an overwhelming triumph," he said.
Yes, I'm sure it has been.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 01:52 AM EST [Link]
Thursday, October 21, 2004 AT LEAST SOMEONE IS CONFIDENT: Jay Reding is sure that George W. Bush will win on November 2. The problem with his methodology, however, is that he's looking at polling numbers. Remember, the Electoral College elects the president.
Posted by steve @ 06:08 PM EST [Link]
~ LAURA HAS ACTUALLY WORKED FOR HER OWN MONEY: You have to wonder at the cojones of Theresa Heinz Kerry, a woman who married into fabulous wealth and is in a position to lip off on a national stage simply because her husband is running for president. Yesterday she threw down at Laura Bush, insinuating that the First Lady has never worked a day in her life.
"Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good," Heinz Kerry said. "But I don't know that she's ever had a real job — I mean, since she's been grown-up. So her experience and her validation comes from important things, but different things."
Heinz Kerry later apologized for the comment, explaining she had forgotten that Bush had actually worked from the late 1960s to the late 1970s, including earning a master's degree along the way. Judging by Theresa's resume, she has less experience in the workforce then I do and I'm half her age.
Read on.
[Update - 2:20am] - James Lileks addresses this issue in his latest Bleat.
Posted by steve @ 02:18 AM EST [Link]
~ SMART PEOPLE, STUPID CHOICES: (via The Shotgun) I missed this yesterday...well, I wasn't even online to miss it actually...but Paul Cella had an interesting review of a book that escaped by attention. It's Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas by Daniel J. Flynn.
Some of the subjects of Mr. Flynn's study are familiar enough, and have been exposed to the satisfaction of most reasoning men: Who still clings to the idea that Alger Hiss was innocent of espionage? What credibility does Noam Chomsky really have left after predicting a "silent genocide" of "3 or 4 million" when the U.S. overthrew the Taliban in Afghanistan? Other subjects, however, will be less familiar; and thus their exposure more shocking, and indeed, more valuable. Flynn even demonstrates that the great Paul Johnson, in a moment of weakness, endorsed the fabricated probity of one charlatan.
But what emerges as a central theme throughout this book is invincible loyalty, or frightful credulity, of many of the various charlatans' defenders. Chomsky, we learn, is the most cited writer on earth (according to one study). There is an Alger Hiss Professor of Social Studies at Bard College in New York. Rigoberta Menchu's thoroughly discredited autobiography is still assigned to undergraduates across the country as nonfiction. Men will go to their graves defending the indefensible.
Reminds me of university when I debated a guy who defended Communist China. I didn't even know defending ChiComs was a cause but he felt quite strongly about it. I still see him occasionally...he's still a loser.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 02:08 AM EST [Link]
~ KILLING YOUR WAY TO ELECTION LOSSES: Interesting chart over at Survey USA which shows that being pro-life has helped George W. Bush this election year. That would only surprise people who don't know that abortion isn't popular among Americans, despite what NOW would have you believe.
Posted by steve @ 02:02 AM EST [Link]
Wednesday, October 20, 2004 FOREIGN LEADERS FOR KERRY COME OUT OF THE CLOSET
We are slowly learning who the foreign leaders are that John Kerry bragged about earlier this year. Just recently, Yassar Arafat announced endorsement of Sen. Kerry, joining other such great leaders as Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro.
Very impressive. Very impressive, indeed.
cb
Posted by clbloomer @ 01:18 PM EST [Link]
Tuesday, October 19, 2004 FIXING FORT SINATRA: Sorry for the lack of posts from me today. Unfortunately the control center which hosts Enter Stage Right is out of operation today due to some work needed on the walls. I'm currently typing this on the 1996 ESR laptop equipped with a 28.8 modem. I run faster than this thing...
Posted by steve @ 03:41 PM EST [Link]
~ MONDAY NIGHT QUARTERBACK: Bah, St. Louis couldn't even cover the 7 point spread I gave them tonight.
Well, after a few appalling weeks I finally recovered somewhat by going over .500 on a weekend. I would have done better but for some reason I picked Chicago to win. I know they were at home playing a less than stellar Washington team but Chicago was a dumb pick. Picking Detroit over Green Bay was defensible given the Packers' recent problems and their historic difficulties playing in Detroit. Why did I choose Kansas City over Jacksonville? Why did Tennessee lose to Houston?
I thought this past weekend's games were a bit blah though the Seattle-New England game was alright. At least the Seahawks tried to make a game of it near the end. The Pittsburgh-Dallas game was a good one though. Ben Roethlisberger is not, however, the second coming of Dan Marino despite what Bill Parcells said last week. Then again, he has rings and I watch football at home.
Week 1 - 8 out of 15
Week 2 - 11 out of 16
Week 3 - 9 of 15
Week 4 - 7 of 14
Week 5 - 7 of 14
Week 6 - 9 of 14%: 58 (+1.3 per cent)
I wasn't sure who to hand Cheerleader of the Week to but since the Patriots finally beat a team with a winning record to keep their incredible streak alive, I guess I'll go with a woman from New England. Melinda McGrath is this week's CotW not only because she's a fine example of American womanhood but the swinging geeks finally have a goddess to call their own. Melinda is a computer programmer who loves Frank Sinatra. Needless to say we here at Fort Sinatra are thrilled to have a fan of Scarface who likes Etta James cheering in the NFL. Melinda also visits America's soldiers overseas, reason enough to let her handle a weapon of this magnitude. America's cheerleaders -- beautiful and dangerous.
[Update - 3:40pm] How embarassing. I was wondering why Melinda looked so familiar so I did some research. Turns out I picked her as a CotW in January of this year while the Pats were rolling towards a Superbowl win. Well, if a Sinatra-loving woman can't win CotW twice in one year, I don't want to live in this world.
Posted by steve @ 01:44 AM EST [Link]
Monday, October 18, 2004 THE THIRD PILLAR: Goodness, another day, another link to a Mark Steyn essay. Today Mark pens a nice piece about Australian prime minister John Howard.
But Howard, for a man routinely described as having no charisma, manages to hit just the right tone. The French got all the attention in the days after September 11 with that Le Monde headline – "Nous sommes tous Americains" – but even at the time I preferred Howard's take: "There's no point in a situation like this being an 80 per cent ally."
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 03:15 PM EST [Link]
~ THANK YOU!: A thank you goes out to Dan Amish for his kind donation to our fall fundraising drive. Thank you very much!
Posted by steve @ 02:49 PM EST [Link]
~ WHAT'S SO FUNNY ABOUT PEACE, LOVE AND UNDERSTANDING?: “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart’s criticisms of the cable TV shout shows are not without some merit, but Shawn Macomber over at The American Spectator did an excellent job explaining what was irritating about the comedian-turned-lofty-pundit's shtick during a recent appearance on CNN's "Crossfire":
The problem with Stewart is that he demands respect but is unwilling to take responsibility for the things he says. When it is time for a Stewart lecture, there is no room for kidding around. But when his conclusions or statements are questioned, it's suddenly time to roll his eyes and morph back into the Teflon comedian.
I don't think Stewart's alone in this approach. A fair number of lefties have gotten good at lampooning what everyone would recognize as the absurdities of the political system and over-the-top partisanship without ever abandoning liberal orthodoxy in their substantive policy views, even making the latter seem like a necessary component of the former. No major conservative has effectively adopted a comparable tactic, with the possible exception of Rush Limbaugh in his prime.Read on.
Posted by antle @ 01:10 AM EST [Link]
Sunday, October 17, 2004 MUCHOS GRACIAS: I just wanted to thank Robert S. Sargent, Jr., a staff writer for ESR for his kind donation to our fall fundraising drive. Many thanks Robert!
Posted by steve @ 11:09 PM EST [Link]
~ NO MR. TOUGH GUY: Mark Steyn has a good piece in today's Chicago Sun Times on why John Kerry is not the right guy to lead the war on terrorism.
I love that bit in every debate where John Kerry pledges to "hunt down and kill the terrorists.'' You can see him thinking, ''Must remember to say 'kill' very loudly and in a deep voice. And sound as if I'm not gonna be some pantywaist president who uses special forces or unmanned drones. I'm gonna kill -- sorry, KILL -- 'em myself.'' This is to dispel suspicions that in reality he'd hunt down the terrorists and serve them with a subpoena, possibly from one of the less robust judicial systems, such as The Hague or Massachusetts, and possibly for mail fraud, if the whole mass murder thing looks like it won't stick.
But it's exhausting having to remember when to spit out the tough talk, and so your concentration wanders, and you get relaxed, and then you say things like this to the New York Times:
''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise.''
John Kerry is so September 10, 2001.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 05:19 PM EST [Link]
~ SELF-PROMO ALERT: If you happen to live in Orange County, pick up today's Register for a commentary by yours truly on John Kerry's plan to introduce mandatory "volunteerism." If you're a subscriber, just click on this link.
Posted by steve @ 04:45 PM EST [Link]
Saturday, October 16, 2004 NO MOORE ELECTION SPECIAL: A cable pay-per-view show featuring Michael Moore and Farenheit 9/11 that would have aired the night before the presidential election has been cancelled. Moore believes it was because of pressure from "top Republican officials".
Hey, why no outrage over this? I mean Sinclair Broadcasting Group is being crucified by press "critics" who say it's wrong to air an anti-Kerry documentary ahead of the election. Why didn't these same "critics" excoriate a plan to air an anti-Bush documentary? Why do I only hear silence?
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 06:32 PM EST [Link]
~ THE ART OF THE PICK UP: I don't use pick up lines myself as frankly I can't sell them. Sure, in my suaver moments I can be almost James Bondian in my smoothness but for the most part I rely on conversation. I've noticed, however, that women (or at least the ones I talk to) are using pick up lines. And they're getting worse every week.
Week one: You look like a model.
I almost laughed outloud when I heard this one but the navy blue sport coat, charcoal coloured shirt and artfully messy hair did look good.
Week two: You're gorgeous.
This came after the woman told me my politics were extreme, she didn't like how I earned a living and she didn't like what I was wearing that night (medium coloured brown sport coat, light brown pants and a lovely shirt). Eh?
Week three (last night): You're the first person I've offered drugs to since I became single.
Well, how can a man not be entranced by that? It came after she offered to smoke a joint with me (I politely declined of course, my drug of choice is Crown Royal).
I'm almost terrified to hear what the next line is going to be.
Posted by steve @ 06:25 PM EST [Link]
~ LIMITED CAMPAIGN, UNLIMITED GOVERNMENT: Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby notes that the third presidential debate focused on so many issues that are not a part of the federal government's constitutional purview. He wonders where the talk of limited government was.
I could have told him he wasn't going to find any.
Posted by antle @ 05:15 PM EST [Link]
~ THANKS!: To Alan Carroll for his kind donation to our fall fundraising drive! Very much appreciated.
Posted by steve @ 04:37 PM EST [Link]
~ THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY: I know a lot of smart people who don't simply read from Democratic talking points who are asking why it was wrong that John Kerry mentioned Mary Cheney’s lesbianism during the third debate. After all, they point out, she is an adult, she is openly gay (and therefore wasn't outed by the comment) and she has even taken the issue somewhat public herself by doing outreach to gays and lesbians first for the Coors Brewing Company and then for her father's vice-presidential campaigns. What's the big deal?
Here's why I think it was inappropriate: Even in today’s uncivil political climate, campaigns generally observe a line that prevents them from using their opponent’s children to score cheap political points. John Kerry crossed that line.
I realize that this line has been blurred by what I consider to be the regrettable trend of turning entire families into PR spin machines for daddy’s candidacy. I thought the tradition of candidates’ families mostly just waving and smiling rather than giving primetime convention speeches was preferable to the Oprah-fied nonsense we have now. But to invoke a candidate’s daughter against her father (or father’s ticket) strikes me as a fairly low blow. And it sets a precedent that probably should be avoided. Would it have been appropriate, during the course of that discussion of the sanctity of marriage, for President Bush to have brought up Kerry’s past marriage?
Kerry’s position on gay marriage is incoherent. He claims to oppose it, but not only is he against any measure that would ensure that this view continues to be reflected in law he consistently smears supporters of such measures as bigots and homophobes. He should have to defend that confused position without hiding behind somebody’s daughter. And it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Kerry, in making his statement about Mary Cheney, is not above subtly taking advantage of the homophobic sentiment he condemns if it suits his own political purposes.
Interestingly, among people I know who aren’t committed to either candidate, women (especially moms) were offended by Kerry’s remark while men were somewhat more likely to think it was not a big deal.
Posted by antle @ 04:22 PM EST [Link]
Friday, October 15, 2004 BREAKING NEWS: WORLD HATES AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!: I know, I know, you're as surprised as I am. According to a survey conducted in Canada, France, Britain, Spain, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Mexico, Israel and Russia, most people have a more negative view of the American government then they did two or three years ago. Gosh, who was elected back then?
However, many of those polled separated their feelings about the U.S. government from their views of the American people. Sixty-eight percent said they had a favorable opinion of Americans.
Asked whether American democracy remained a model for other nations, 52 percent said yes and 42 percent said no.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 07:32 PM EST [Link]
~ THANKS: Many thanks to ESR staff writer Charles Bloomer for his donation to our fundraising drive!
Posted by steve @ 04:02 PM EST [Link]
~ DON'T DO IT: Daniel Drezner, who I think is an otherwise bright chap, announced today that it is likely that he will vote for John Kerry on November 2. He invites Republicans to email him to try and convince him otherwise and an ex-diplomat who served under Bush I and Clinton sent in a convincing rebuttal.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 03:41 PM EST [Link]
~ REPEAT AFTER ME: SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD NO LINKS TO TERRORISTS: U.S. investigators have discovered that Saddam Hussein fronted the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine a total of £40 million.
The deal has been uncovered by US investigators, trawling millions of pages of documents showing a network of diplomats bribed by Saddam’s regimes, and political parties who qualified for backhanded payments from Baghdad.
The Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which is still working its way through 20,000 boxes of documents from Saddam’s Baath party discovered only recently, found a list of pressure groups bankrolled by Saddam.
Using the United Nations’ own oil-for-food scheme - ironically intended as a sanction to control the behaviour of his dictatorship - Saddam gave Awad Ammora & Partners, a Syrian company, two million barrels of oil.
Documents handed over to US authorities by a former Iraqi oil minister only four months ago show that this was a front for the PFLP - which was then embarked on a spate of car bombings aimed at Israeli officials.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 01:06 PM EST [Link]
~ DON'T MAKE ME GO ALL TELEVANGELIST ON YOU: Just reminding you of ESR's annual fall fundraising drive. Like I said not quite two weeks ago, our growing popularity is actually threatening to kill off the magazine because we're consuming a lot of bandwidth that our hosting company isn't charging us for (yet) and we're going to have to migrate to a more expensive hosting plan soon.
If we had a regular/reliable revenue stream, none of this would be a problem. Unforuntately ESR doesn't bring in much money and I'm unemployed. That makes us dependent upon you for help twice a year. We're not asking you for a boatload of money -- though if you have a boatload you'd like to donate, we're open to accepting it -- just a couple of dollars to help us out.
If you'd like to help us out, you can find more information here.
And thank you to Arthur Oliver for his donation last night. Very much appreciated!
Posted by steve @ 12:23 PM EST [Link]
~ THE DANGER OF BRINGING RELIGION INTO PUBLIC DEBATE: Is that people will debate your adherence to religious ideals. John Kerry made a big show earlier this week of his 'deep faith' but Jonah Goldberg wants to know why some things are proper for a Christian to do while others are not.
What I do object to is this: While Kerry says he's opposed to "legislating" his faith on abortion, he insists that he's in favor of legislating his faith elsewhere. He said more than once Wednesday night, and plenty of times on the stump, that faith must be backed up by deeds. His religious faith, he says, is "why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith."
So, let me get this straight. Fighting for the environment, equality, and education — in the name of God — is righteously doing the Lord's work, but abortion must be kept legal because otherwise we'd be legislating religion?
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 12:14 PM EST [Link]
~ ALAN ALDA FOR PRESIDENT: I've never watched "The West Wing" but it might be worth watching after this season if for only one reason: A Republican president may take over.
"We were a year and a half into the administration when we started the show," Wells said of the NBC drama entering its sixth season. "We have term limits in this country and so, on our electoral schedule, Bartlet's second term would end a year from this coming January."
That fact foreshadows a hybrid season when The West Wing returns Wednesday (Oct. 20, 9 p.m. EDT). Bartlet (Martin Sheen) grapples with his legacy while others fight for the chance to replace him.
Among them are contenders played by two familiar actors: Jimmy Smits (NYPD Blue), who's a potential Democratic candidate, and Alan Alda (M-A-S-H) vying for the GOP nomination.
Fine, but they couldn't have picked someone more appropriate than Alan Alda? Why not Alec Baldwin?
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 02:11 AM EST [Link]
~ SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A DANGER TO NO ONE: Except babies. This story appeared earlier this week but surprisingly (yeah, right) it didn't get much play in the media.
A mass grave being excavated in a north Iraqi village has yielded evidence that Iraqi forces executed women and children under Saddam Hussein.
US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s.
The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said.
Forget the trial, hand him over to the Kurds. They'll know what to do.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 01:58 AM EST [Link]
~ I'M GETTING THE FEELING THEY DON'T LIKE HIM: (via Brothers Judd Blog) The Swift Vets and POWs for Truth have two new ads up attacking John Kerry. I rather liked "Who?", watch I saw on TV earlier this week, if only because they have a Congressional Medal of Honour winner in it. Hard to argue with a cat like Bud Day, a man with more than 50 combat decorations and medals.
Posted by steve @ 01:52 AM EST [Link]
Thursday, October 14, 2004 KERRY WINS: So says a couple of polls. Not surprisingly, Democrats thought Kerry won, Republicans thought Bush won.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 02:58 PM EST [Link]
~ STIR THE ECHOES: Did you know I'm a Notre Dame Fighting Irish fan? There is a picture of me with a Notre Dame hat somewhere on this web site (actually, I think it's in my blog profile at the top of the main blog page). Well, turns out the Fighting Irish have fans among Iraqis.
Posted by steve @ 02:52 PM EST [Link]
~ LILEKS FOR SENATE: Apparently there is a Draft Lileks for Senate movement gearing up. He argues that he would make a poor senator. Just as long as he makes me his Secretary of Keeping It Real.
[Update - 3:00pm] You can find the Draft Lilekls web site here.
Posted by steve @ 03:06 AM EST [Link]
Wednesday, October 13, 2004 THUS ENDETH THE DEBATES: This was President Bush's strongest performance in the debates, perhaps even a narrow win. John Kerry was steady, but the domestic issues lend themselves more easily to the liberal-conservative divide in the country that works to the senator's disadvantage.
To be sure, Bush flubbed a lot of answers and missed his share of opportunities. I cringed at some of his inadequate defenses of tax cuts and personal accounts for Social Security. He was better on abortion during the second debate. He kept oddly bringing up No Child Left Behind and reading standards for elementary students in response to questions about the outsourcing of American adults' jobs. He could have done a better job pointing out that job creation and other economic indicators have improved as the tax cuts have taken effect. He also should have emphasized his support for medical savings accounts instead of solely attacking Kerry's health care proposals. And worst of all, the smirk was back - it seems that smirks and forced laughter were his way of avoiding an angry scowl.
But aside from letting Kerry get ever so slightly to his right on immigration, Bush did a decent job himself appear more mainstream and likeable while Kerry came across as a cold liberal technocrat. Bush is clearly more fluent in domestic policy issues than foreign policy, and his positions on a number of these issues - ranging from partial-birth abortion to gay marriage - are more popular. And speaking of gay marriage, I am alone in finding Kerry's mention of Mary Cheney in his gay-marriage answer bizzare and inappropriate?
Now the debates are over and we'll see how they impact this very close race. If you areare sick of the debates by this point, contemplate this: As a Massachusetts resident, I saw Kerry in eight debates with then Gov. Bill Weld in 1996 (OK, I admit even I didn't sit through all of them). Count your blessings.
Posted by antle @ 11:26 PM EST [Link]
~ WHICH AMENDMENT IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS GUARANTEES ABORTION?: John Kerry just promised not to appoint judges who will rescind any rights granted by the Constitution, such as the First Amendment or the Fifth Amendment. Since he equates legal abortion with these rights, perhaps he can tell us where in the Bill of Rights - or elsewhere in the Constitution - abortion is covered. But he did have a verbal slip that is revealing - he believes in rights "granted" by courts, not the Constitution.
Posted by antle @ 10:04 PM EST [Link]
~ THANK YOU BOB: Whatever else can be said for this debate, at least Bob Schieffer became the first person in these exchanges to raise the issue of immigration.
Too bad the answers didn't mention the immigration component to many of the problems we have heard catalogued tonight, including wage stagnation, poverty and the increase in our uninsured population. Robert J. Samuelson, however, did in his Washington Post column.
Posted by antle @ 09:55 PM EST [Link]
~ AND IN OTHER DEBATES: Barack Obama and Alan Keyes met for their first debate of the Illinios U.S. Senate campaign, amazingly confined to the issues rather than which of them Jesus would vote for and who has a lesbian daughter. There were apparently no fireworks, but it doesn't sound like Lincoln-Douglas material either.
Read on.
Posted by antle @ 08:40 PM EST [Link]
~ SCRAPPLEFACE OBTAINS DEBATE QUESTIONS: Have the questions for tonight's presidential debate been leaked? You decide.
Posted by steve @ 07:43 PM EST [Link]
~ MAKING FRIENDS: John Kerry showed why he's so popular with foreign leaders...well, not all foreign leaders. Kerry decided last night to insult all Italians when he declared that the Iraqi Army was so bad that even the Italian Army could beat them. Not surprisingly Italians are displeased with the man who declares he knows how to conduct foreign policy.
I wonder if the French Army could defeat the Iraqis...
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 07:32 PM EST [Link]
~ BUSH AND DRED SCOTT: Timothy Noah had an interesting essay over at Slate on Monday regarding George W. Bush and the 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision -- the one that affirmed slaves belong to their owners even if they're taken into free states. Noah links it to Bush's position on abortion -- and states if you want abortion to remain legal, don't vote for Dubya. More notable, he links to a Robert S. Sargent, Jr. piece we ran last year.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 07:28 PM EST [Link]
~ A COWARD IN THE SENATE?
Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota, has closed his Capitol Hill office, fearing a terrorist attack before election day. Sen. Dayton said he had read a classified intelligence briefing that led him to believe an attack was highly possible. Sen. Dayton is the only member of congress or the government in DC to take such action. The Capital Police, DC Police, and Homeland Security say they have access to the same intelligence, but see no reason to retreat or evacuate.
The story is at CNSNews.
Related to this issue is a conversation I had with a friend who works in the Pentagon. She said that the view from there is that an attack before the election is not likely. The rationale is that a terrorist attack in the US would not affect the election as the attack in Spain. American response would be to solidify our opposition to terrorists and swing the vote heavily to Bush. Terrorists do not want to see Bush re-elected because of his determined and aggressive effort to destroy them.
A more likely attack scenario would be to attack shortly after the election if Bush wins to "punish" the US. If Kerry wins, the terrorists will wait until after inauguration, lulling us into a false sense of security for having elected a more dovish president.
This is all speculation, and not based on any information or intel at the Pentagon. It made good sense, just the same.cb
Posted by clbloomer @ 11:01 AM EST [Link]
Tuesday, October 12, 2004 THEY BETTER HOPE WE DON'T WIN: That was the message the Kerry camp had for Sinclair Broadcasting on news that the network will preempt its affiliate's broadcasts to air the documentary Stolen Honor on its stations. The DNC is even trying to shut down the broadcast. Remember, it's all that climate of fear and repression that the Republicans engage in. Except it's always the Democrats.
Glenn Reynolds has a full roundup of news and links concerning the story. Read on.
Posted by steve @ 07:30 PM EST [Link]
~ CLIMATE OF FEAR: Except it ain't the doing of the Bush camp. The Seattle Times reports that Bush re-election offices have been attacked all across the United States. Read on.
[Update - 3:05pm] Michelle Malkin has a fuller list of anti-GOP violence that has been taking place.
Posted by steve @ 02:53 PM EST [Link]
~ MONDAY NIGHT QUARTERBACK: Whoo wee! How about that St. Louis/Seattle game! The smart money was on Seattle but reality stepped in and decided otherwise with a galloping comeback by the Rams. That was a fine game. Also an interesting game despite the fact that the Giants have a rep for boring games? The Giants/Cowboys tilt. Of course, I picked Dallas to win.
Another weekend, another poor outing for Steve. I knew, with so many hometeams being favored strongly by the line, that there would be some upsets this weekend. Unfortunately, I didn't pick any of them. In fact, I did appallingly.
Screwing me up this weekend were Atlanta, New Orleans (losing to Tampa Bay? For shame), Dallas, Jacksonville, Seattle, Arizona and Green Bay. Arizona? Yes, Steve actually picked the Cardinals to win. On the road. Sure, the 49ers have been horrible this season but the Cardinals haven't exactly blown anyone away either. Remember Steve's First Rule of Football Gambling: When in doubt, pick the home team.
Week 1 - 8 out of 15
Week 2 - 11 out of 16
Week 3 - 9 of 15
Week 4 - 7 of 14
Week 5 - 7 of 14%: 56.7 (-1.6 per cent)
So Monday night was the battle of the two beaten-up quarterbacks. Steve McNair and Brett Favre have medical files so long that it would take hours to read them. Air McNair came out on top tonight, and convincingly, so our Cheerleader of the Week hails from the Tennessee Titans. Mindy, a rookie member of the squad, is engaged to be married (lucky Matt) and is an ESL Tutor. One of Mindy's hobbies is reading which endears her to us.
Posted by steve @ 03:31 AM EST [Link]
~ WE CAN BE HEROES: Actor and activist Christopher Reeve died yesterday. How sad it is to a man suffer and ultimately lose his life because of a tragic accident, yet how wonderful it is to see a man be an inspiration to so many other people with disabilities and in similar circumstances. God bless him and may he rest in piece.
Read on.
Posted by antle @ 12:37 AM EST [Link]
Monday, October 11, 2004 SOON TO BE A COLLECTOR'S EDITION: For the first time ever with the Telegraph Group, a Mark Steyn column has been pulled by his editor.
The editor expressed concerns about certain passages and we were unable to reach agreement, so on this Tuesday something else will be in my space.
I’d written about Kenneth Bigley, seized with two American colleagues but unlike them not beheaded immediately. Instead, sensing that they could exploit potential differences within “the coalition of the willing”, for three weeks the Islamists played a cat-and-mouse game with Mr Bigley’s life, in which Fleet Street, the British public, governments in London and Dublin and Islamic lobby groups in the United Kingdom were far too willing to participate.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 11:33 PM EST [Link]
~ KERRY'S HOUSE OF KETCHUP: It's been a while but Sean Hackbarth has posted a new Kerry's House of Ketchup. Check it out here.
Posted by steve @ 11:14 PM EST [Link]
~ HAPPY THANKSGIVING!: Happy Thanksgiving to all of our Canadian readers. I'm currently recovering from a bountiful feast like only a mother can provide so it's unlikely you'll see any posting from me today.
Posted by steve @ 06:43 PM EST [Link]
Sunday, October 10, 2004 BIG GOVERNMENT REPUBLICANS, SMALL GOVERNMENT DEMOCRATS: The current issue of Liberty magazine contains an interesting article by editor R.W. Bradford analyzing spending patterns based on which party controls the executive and legislative branches. Counterintuitively, he finds that Republican presidents tend to be bigger spenders than Democratic presidents, though he concedes that Republican Congresses spend less than those controlled by Democrats.
The data is sound though some of the conclusions can be quibbled with. Several years ago, I did some similar comparisons in a piece for Opinionet, drawing in part on an earlier article by Dr. Steve Hanke in Forbes magazine.
Posted by antle @ 11:45 PM EST [Link]
~ BUSH'S BULGE: I thought I'd never write those words again, but here we are. Apparently a minor scandal has hit the interweb concerning a mysterious bulge at the back of George W. Bush's jacket during the debate in Florida on Friday.
Internet websites alleged the apparent bulge, during last week's debate in Miami, was a radio receiver feeding him answers from an offstage aide.
The Bush campaign dismissed the claims, saying it was just a wrinkle in the presidential jacket.
It also denied some web reports that Mr Bush was wearing a bullet-proof vest.
Full story and picture here.
Posted by steve @ 05:28 AM EST [Link]
Saturday, October 9, 2004 AUSTRALIA'S HOWARD WINS FOURTH TERM: Australian Prime Minister John Howard's conservative coalition was returned to power by a wide margin following a campaign against antiwar Laborites. It remains to be seen what this portends for the Anglosphere's other two Iraq hawks with approaching election dates, George W. Bush and Tony Blair.
Read on.
Posted by antle @ 03:16 PM EST [Link]
~ A BUSH WIN?: That's what Wlady Pleszczynski says over at The American Spectator. He rightly points out that the questioners were far better and more balanced than conservatives would have been wise to hope for in a town-hall debate format. And he notes that Kerry's condescension came through several times during the exchange.
Read on.
Posted by antle @ 02:40 PM EST [Link]
~ ALLAH BLESSES PEACE: Afghans began voting today for the first time in a quarter century and there have been no reports of violence. A success for the Bush administration and for the world.
Posted by steve @ 04:09 AM EST [Link]
~ FOR THE RECORD: Fox News reporter Jim Angle and I, Jim Antle, are different people. Just something that I felt the need to say while watching Fox's debate coverage. You'd be suprised how often I get e-mails asking if I'm him.
Posted by antle @ 12:53 AM EST [Link]
~ IMMIGRATION ISSUES AWOL: Once again, immigration policy and border security were totally absent from this debate. President Bush, of course, has been useless on these issues. John Kerry at one point denounced Bush for failing to secure Iraq's borders. Apparently the status of our own borders does not merit much attention.
Posted by antle @ 12:44 AM EST [Link]
~ CHENEY GAFFE? I actually heard a couple of commentators suggest that Dick Cheney might have hurt the GOP ticket by claiming, in one of the vice-presidential debate's strongest moments, that he'd never met John Edwards before when in fact they had appeared on camera together and exchanged a few pleasantries at three public events. I'm not so sure. For one thing, after Cheney got off that zinger Edwards did not appear confident that the vice president had misspoken. Secondly, Lloyd Bentsen was not friends with Jack Kennedy and in fact barely knew him, but that didn't undermine the effectiveness of his 1988 vice-presidential debate line - it underscored public perceptions that Quayle was a lightweight, while Cheney's line underscored the fact of Edwards' poor Senate attendance record.
I'm not, by the way, defending the use of such inaccuracies in debates. I'm only talking about whether this sort of thing, discovered after the fact, really has a negative political impact.
Posted by antle @ 12:29 AM EST [Link]
~ SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE RANDOM THOUGHTS: While our fearless leader wisely used his Friday night as it was intended by going drinking, I gamely watched the second debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry armed only with a few bottles of Michelob. What did I think?
Let me state a few of my biases up front: I tend to disagree with Bush on foreign policy, especially with regard to the war in Iraq, and am more sympathetic with his stances on domestic policy. I also tend to overemphasize the importance of substance and polemical skills, which caused me to feel Al Gore won the first sighing debate of 2000 among other errors of judgement.
Having said all that, I was fairly horrified by Bush's tone in the first half hour or so of the debate. I thought he was too loud and seemed too irritated. He seemed to hector a couple of his questioners and at one point jumped up, cut off the moderator and offered a somewhat unpresidentially (in my view) heated rebuttal. He also failed to effectively rebut some of Kerry's familiar, indeed well-rehearsed, charges, including a few of his weaker foreign-policy talking points. And he conspicuously missed a couple of opportunities to bring up Kerry's vote against the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Kerry was poised, calm and had effective, detailed talking points readily at his disposable even when some of the facts contained therein were debatable to say the least.
But in sharp contrast with the first debate, Bush gathered steam in the second half while this time it was Kerry who seemed to run out of material. Bush counterintuitively was much stronger on the domestic-policy questions and did much better in connecting with the audience. Throughout, he appeared more confident, vigorous and in command than he did in the previous debate. And while he was often on the defensive, Kerry was defensive on the flip-flopping and liberal charges.
Overall, I can understand the consensus that Bush was much improved over his first encounter with Kerry. It will take about 48 hours of spinning, tracking polls and focus groups to determine what impact this will have on the momentum of the race.
UPDATE: According to the CNN/Gallup poll, viewers thought last night's debate was too close to call. Kerry was judged the winner by 47 percent, Bush by 45 percent. Factoring in the margin of error, that's a statistical tie. This is a significant change from the last debate, where Kerry was judged the winner by 53 percent and Bush by just 37 percent.
Posted by antle @ 12:06 AM EST [Link]
Friday, October 8, 2004 IRANIAN SOLDIERS IN IRAQ?: Iran Focus reported today that members of the Qods Force of the Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps have seized territory in Iraq.
Crack troops of the Qods Force (Jerusalem Force), the extraterritorial force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, operating out of their base in the border town of Mehran, have seized Iraqi territories in Zeyn al-Qos, Seif Sa’ad and al-Amarah regions, according to reports from the area.
In recent months, forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) have moved their main headquarters from central Iranian provinces to those on the Iran-Iraq border. These include Marivan in the north, Mehran in the center, and Shalamcheh in the south. Qods Force’s commanders oversee and direct their operations inside Iraq from these border bases.
I'm no expert on the Qods Force but whether they're crack or not, they'd better not meet up with American soldiers.
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 07:29 PM EST [Link]
~ THERE'S NOTHING SCARIER THAN JOHN KERRY: Unless it's running out of money before last call. Dr. B.L.T. has a new Halloween song satirizing John Kerry that you can download here. It's called "Scary Kerry" and it's in MP3 format. While you're at it, get the rest of his free offerings.
Posted by steve @ 04:24 PM EST [Link]
~ ALL WE CAN JUDGE HIM BY IS ON HIS VOTING RECORD: As Mark Steyn said last week, John Kerry has never run a state, a business or anything else so all we can do is judge him by his talking and voting. His voting isn't all that impressive. Reader Michael Crane, editor of the Political Junkie Handbook that you can find at Political Junkie, came up with the following:
These ratings by 6 liberal and 6 conservative organizations indicate the percentage of times Senator Kerry voted for the organization's position.
For example an 85 rating means that 85% of his Senate votes supported the interest of that particular group.
Senator John Kerry's Senate Voting Record According to Various Interest Groups:
Name of Group And Kerry's Lifetime Rating/
The Group's Interest:American Conservative Union: 5
Conservative CausesAmericans for Democratic Action: 92
Liberal CausesHuman Rights Campaign: 100
Gay RightsChamber of Commerce: 0 (2003 rating)
Business ConcernsNational Taxpayers Union: 14
Low TaxesAmerican Association of University Professors: 100
Labor & Progressive CausesCitizens Against Government Waste: 25
Less Waste, Fraud & Abuse in GovernmentPublic Citizen: 85
Consumer RightsFamily Research Council: 0
Maintaining the Traditional Family StructureGun Owners of America: 10
Second Amendment RightsCoalition to Stop Gun Violence: 100
Gun ControlNARAL: 100
Abortion RightsPosted by steve @ 04:20 PM EST [Link]
~ SPEAKING OF SULLIVAN: Ole Andy has been heating up his web site with criticism of the war in Iraq. Ace over at Ace of Spades has two posts which throw a little of it back at Sullivan. Read them here and here. He charges Sullivan (and John Kerry) of being inconsistent with their criticisms.
Posted by steve @ 04:03 PM EST [Link]
~ YEAH, YEAH IT WILL: Andrew Sullivan opined today that November 2 won't even be close: John Kerry is going to trounce George W. Bush.
I'm glad that Sullivan is so confident of a Kerry win -- and a clear one at that -- but count me among the crowd of people who have no idea how this is going to end up the evening of November 2. I think Bush is either going to win by a clear electoral margin or it's going to go down to the wire as the swing vote divides in half as the decided voters have done.
I plan on drinking tonight so I won't see the debate (well, unless I tape it and watch it when I get home...yeah, that'll happen) but I think Bush should perform better tonight than he did last week. I don't think he's as weak on the issues he's likely to be questioned on by the "average" audience that the organizers have put together as people think. He should be able to defend his domestic record fairly well. Of course, it all depends on the "unbiased" questions that Charles Gibson chooses.
Posted by steve @ 03:57 PM EST [Link]
~ Q&A WITH DR. BARNETT: Good interview with Dr. Thomas Barnett, author of the Pentagon's New Map over at Flit.
Dr. Barnett was also kind enough to sit down for a few questions with myself earlier this year. You can find that interview here.
Posted by steve @ 03:48 PM EST [Link]
Thursday, October 7, 2004 I KNOW I'M SHOCKED: Documents released yesterday show that the French were in bed with Saddam Hussein.
To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.
Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.
Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counsellors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign.
They even assessed the chances for "supporting one of the candidates in an upcoming French presidential election." Chirac is not mentioned by name.
A memo sent to Saddam dated in May last year from his intelligence corps said they met with a "French parliamentarian" who "assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the UN Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq."
Read on.
Posted by steve @ 01:37 PM EST [Link]
~ HUSSEIN CONTINUED WORK ON WMD PROGRAMS: That's how the Washington Times interpreted Charles Duelfer's report.
Saddam Hussein's goal through the 1990s and until the 2003 U.S. invasion was to end U.N. sanctions on Iraq, while working covertly to restore the country's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction, a report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector says.
"Saddam wanted to re-create Iraq's WMD capability — which was essentially destroyed in 1991 — after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities," the report said.
Charles A. Duelfer told the Senate Armed Services Committee in testimony yesterday that "Saddam sought to sustain the requisite knowledge base to restart the program eventually."
In the interim, Mr. Duelfer said, Saddam hoped to keep "the inherent capability to produce such weapons as circumstances permitted in the future."
Read
