Sorry for the long time away. Been busy... very busy. Though I did have the opportunity to attend my third straight Official Farscape Convention in Burbank last weekend. Farscape is (in my humble opinion) by far the best science fiction TV program yet to be produced. The program aired for four seasons on the Sci-Fi cable network, then was cancelled before they had the chance to produce and air the promised fifth season.
The fans (worldwide) didn't care for that treatment of our weekly hour of fun, so we loosely organized a campaign to save our show. The result? Two years later, we got a 4-hour mini series which aired in October. And the future of Farscape appears to be on "The Big Screen" (here's hoping)!
Last weekend was the 5th Annual Official Farscape Convention at the Burbank Hilton, with quite a number of cast & production people from the show - including series creator Rockne O'Bannon, mini series director (and Henson Company co-owner) Brian Henson, actors Ben Browder, Claudia Black, Gigi Edgley, and many others.
Follow this link for my detailed report on the fun and festivities at the Convention. While you're there, poke around in that web site for more information about the show and the campaign.
If, in two years, we were able to bring back a TV show... imagine what we as a human race could do in trying to improve our culture, our society, our world.
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Why, HELLO there!
It's been two weeks since I last posted here. Election Year Burnout, plus "real life" taking precedence. I'll be away for quite a few more days, but I promise to return soon. Although I will continue to bring up important political topics (as they arise, or as they move/prompt me), I will tend to post in more varied fields ranging from issues of faith and family, film reviews and music interests, general commentary on society and culture, and other oddities and levity.
I'll be back soon... I promise.
In the meantime, for general political day-to-day discussions I'd highly suggest Hugh Hewitt, Capt. Ed, and PowerLine. For the GWOT, definitely read the Belmont Club. For news headlines commentary, Betsy's Page. And, for faith and society topics, I'd recommend Mark Shea and Gerard's "Blogs for Lovers".
All links can be found to the right. Enjoy! ---->
I'll be back soon... I promise.
In the meantime, for general political day-to-day discussions I'd highly suggest Hugh Hewitt, Capt. Ed, and PowerLine. For the GWOT, definitely read the Belmont Club. For news headlines commentary, Betsy's Page. And, for faith and society topics, I'd recommend Mark Shea and Gerard's "Blogs for Lovers".
All links can be found to the right. Enjoy! ---->
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Monday, November 01, 2004
Sunday, October 31, 2004
And then there's the other 12 minutes of the Bin Laden tape...
The New York Post reports that the media have only released 6 of the full 18 minutes of the recent Osama Bin Laden videotape. What can we glean from the other 12 minutes?
"Osama bin Laden doesn't seem nearly so cocky in the unedited version of a videotape aired on al-Jazeera, complaining that the manhunt against him has hampered al Qaeda...
"...bin Laden bemoans the recent democratic elections in Afghanistan and the lack of violence involved with it.
"On the tape, bin Laden also says his terror organization has been hurt by the U.S. military's unrelenting manhunt for him and his cohorts on the Afghan-Pakistani border."
As Charles at LGF states:
"This is outrageous. After three years unseen, Osama bin Laden releases a video acknowledging the Bush administration’s record of success in Afghanistan, and in hunting down the Al Qaeda network, and showing his particular hatred for the man who brought this ruin upon him—but the media doesn’t think we should see it? Instead we get a whitewashed, edited version that seems to be equally critical of Bush and Kerry, and wire stories extolling Bin Laden’s confidence and health?"
It's to be expected from the MSM (mainstream media). Hat-tip to Capt. Ed and LFG.
"Osama bin Laden doesn't seem nearly so cocky in the unedited version of a videotape aired on al-Jazeera, complaining that the manhunt against him has hampered al Qaeda...
"...bin Laden bemoans the recent democratic elections in Afghanistan and the lack of violence involved with it.
"On the tape, bin Laden also says his terror organization has been hurt by the U.S. military's unrelenting manhunt for him and his cohorts on the Afghan-Pakistani border."
As Charles at LGF states:
"This is outrageous. After three years unseen, Osama bin Laden releases a video acknowledging the Bush administration’s record of success in Afghanistan, and in hunting down the Al Qaeda network, and showing his particular hatred for the man who brought this ruin upon him—but the media doesn’t think we should see it? Instead we get a whitewashed, edited version that seems to be equally critical of Bush and Kerry, and wire stories extolling Bin Laden’s confidence and health?"
It's to be expected from the MSM (mainstream media). Hat-tip to Capt. Ed and LFG.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Of Integrity and Al Qaqaa (or is that "all caca"?)
The Washington Times has broken two great stories this week.
1) Kerry's claim that he met with all 15 members of the UN Security Council just before the vote for Resolution 1441... it didn't happen. Redstate also has a great analysis.
2) So what happened to the 380 tons (that's three quarters of a million pounds, people) of explosives/weapons in Al Qaqaa? Maybe over the Syrian border (with the help of the Russians)?
I urge all of you to read the entire week's worth of posts at the following places. In fact, read every post in these places from October 25th through to Election Day!:
Hugh Hewitt
Captain's Quarters
PowerLine
RedState
Belmont Club
Little Green Footballs
Kerry Spot
1) Kerry's claim that he met with all 15 members of the UN Security Council just before the vote for Resolution 1441... it didn't happen. Redstate also has a great analysis.
2) So what happened to the 380 tons (that's three quarters of a million pounds, people) of explosives/weapons in Al Qaqaa? Maybe over the Syrian border (with the help of the Russians)?
I urge all of you to read the entire week's worth of posts at the following places. In fact, read every post in these places from October 25th through to Election Day!:
Hugh Hewitt
Captain's Quarters
PowerLine
RedState
Belmont Club
Little Green Footballs
Kerry Spot
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Weekend Odds & Ends
Little Green Footballs has Kerry's list of Senate accomplishments.
The NY Post has info on Tereza's taxes.
Victor David Hanson gives six reasons why people have a problem with Kerry as a presidential candidate.
Lawrence O'Donnell blows a gasket (following in the footsteps of Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Kerry, Chris Matthews, Terry McAuliff, Michael Moore, and Al Franken).
The AP has a news report on the FBI's dogged determination to track down anybody with any information about potential terrorist attacks before the election.
And there's word out (via PowerLine) that come Monday morning one of the major newspapers will break a big story regarding Kerry (possibly uncovering a discrepancy about a specific foreign policy stance or statement of his). Should be interesting, I'm sure.
The NY Post has info on Tereza's taxes.
Victor David Hanson gives six reasons why people have a problem with Kerry as a presidential candidate.
Lawrence O'Donnell blows a gasket (following in the footsteps of Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Kerry, Chris Matthews, Terry McAuliff, Michael Moore, and Al Franken).
The AP has a news report on the FBI's dogged determination to track down anybody with any information about potential terrorist attacks before the election.
And there's word out (via PowerLine) that come Monday morning one of the major newspapers will break a big story regarding Kerry (possibly uncovering a discrepancy about a specific foreign policy stance or statement of his). Should be interesting, I'm sure.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
How I think it'll break down on Nov. 2nd
As I had stated way back in July when I first started this blog, there is only one true “national” election every four years. And, going back to the earliest presidential election that records popular votes (1824), you will always find a minimum of approximately 40% of the population that will always vote for the losing candidate no matter what. There are a couple rare exceptions to this rule, but even that secures 35% to the loser.
What does this mean? It means that any given election will have 40% of the population on either side of the electoral divide, leaving the remaining “middle” 20% for the candidates to fight over. In some elections, this “middle” group of citizens will make up less than 20% of the electorate (such as in 2000), in other cases you find them so disenfranchised (I hate that word, but you get my drift) that they take their vote elsewhere (see the 19% Perot got in 1992). They may just stay at home and not even bother to vote.
But, in the end, there’s always… ALWAYS… a 10-20% middle group that determines which way the election will go.
Now, this middle 10-20% is a feckless bunch. They don’t take politics too seriously. They make up their minds in the last few weeks of the campaign. They sway in the breeze on issues that the majority of the voters take very seriously. Sometimes they may include the odd mix of the pro-life or fiscal-conservative democrat, or the pro-abortion or social liberal republican, thereby never fully happy with the choices at hand. They complain about being in the minority and not being given any attention to. Yet, this group is exactly who gets the most attention in each election. And they have more power than they even realize. This group drives the other 80% of the population (and the politicians) absolutely crazy.
This is NOT a monolithic bunch that can be swayed as a whole. Each tiny segment of this small group of the electorate is made up of a multitude of views with varying positions, differing emotions, shifting priorities. But, each individual will be ultimately affected by that one key issue (whatever that is for that individual) that will determine whether he or she votes D or R, something else, or not at all.
Of this year’s 10-20% (my best guess is that this year there’s approx. 15%... less than in 1992 but more than in 2000), who has Kerry lost?
• The segment of that 15% who are veterans who have total disdain of his anti-war activities when he returned from Vietnam. Nothing Kerry can do will sway this group. He sealed his fate in 1971, and saluting at the July convention didn’t help. The SwiftVets remind them in case they should forget.
• The segment of that 15% who classify themselves as “reasonable” on the issue of abortion. They are against partial-birth abortion, and they are for parental notification for minors. With abortion as a whole they may have varying views, but on these two points they all agree. Kerry made it clear in the last two debates that he’s against these two positions.
• The segment of that 15% who want the institution of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman. They may not have a strong position on homosexuality as a whole, but on this issue they feel reasonable to place a line in the sand when it comes to defining marriage. This segment takes their marriages and their children seriously. They see and hear Bush speak about his wife and kids and they see genuineness. They look and hear Kerry, and they do NOT see genuineness. They are also disgusted with Kerry’s tactless mention of the VP’s daughter in the last debate, done for obvious political purposes.
• A significant portion of the segment of that 15% who are under 30. They’re sharper than people think they are. They’re informed (thanks to the internet). They see through BS. And Kerry BS’ed them with the false claim that Bush will re-institute the draft. They also are the most concerned about Social Security, and they are the most vocal about wanting to be able to invest that money (their money) as they see fit – to get a better rate of return over the long haul. In debate #3, Kerry just shut them out completely by denying them that issue.
• The so-called “Security Mom’s.” Actually, they’re moms AND dads. Similar (but not the same as) the “Reagan Democrats” of the 80s, I call these people the “9/11 Democrats & Independents.” They GET 9/11. They don’t forget 9/11. They may not like parts of the Iraq situation, but overall they “get it” – “it” being the global war on terror. Kerry keeps stating he “has a plan” (ad infinitem), yet he never explains the plan. What details he does eventually give ends up being nothing different from what Bush is already doing (except wanting to get the approval or support of France & Germany). This group hears “global test” and they wretch.
• The segment of that 15% who own their own businesses. Especially those who lost their jobs after 9/11 and started up their own business when they couldn’t find work anywhere else. They’ve finally gotten a leg up on their finances. Kerry lost them with his tax plan. They know if his plan goes through, their taxes go up significantly.
• The segment of that 15% who never thought they’d ever be able to own a home, and now they do. It wasn’t Kerry’s policies that helped them in this regard.
• The segment of that 15% who just want someone to take a position on an issue and stick with it. Doesn’t matter whether they agree with the stance, just be resolute. And Kerry’s consistent and persistent flip-flopping just rubs them the wrong way.
• The segment of that 15% that never knew of Kerry’s 20 year senate record. And now that they know, aren’t too happy with it (or the lack thereof).
• The segment of that 15% that will vote for a change for change’s sack, but only if the opposing candidate offers something clearly different. And they look at Kerry and the can’t see him clearly at all.
Who has Bush lost?
• The segment of that 15% that lost their job during the last three years, and are not happy with their current financial or career situation. They don’t care about how 9/11 or the recession or the tech bubble affected things. They don’t care how things got the way they are, they just want to be in a better place and are frustrated.
• The segment of that 15% that does not like the Iraq war. They consider it a distraction. They buy into the “Bush Lied, People Died” rhetoric. They prefer focusing on OBL and Al Quaida only.
• The segment of that 15% that feels uncomfortable with his outspokenness about faith and religion.
What does all of this mean come November 2nd? I said it before, and I’ll say it again:
BUSH – 55-56% (35-38 States)
KERRY – 42-43% (12-15 States)
NADER – 1-2%
Another thing of note... I was at the local Blockbuster a couple times this past week (in southern California). “The Passion of the Christ” has been out for seven weeks now, yet there seemed to be about as many copies of that film rented out as there was “Fahrenheit 911” which was just released this passed Wednesday. The handful of copies of the counter-documentary “Fahren-Hype 9/11” were completely rented out.
What does this mean? It means that any given election will have 40% of the population on either side of the electoral divide, leaving the remaining “middle” 20% for the candidates to fight over. In some elections, this “middle” group of citizens will make up less than 20% of the electorate (such as in 2000), in other cases you find them so disenfranchised (I hate that word, but you get my drift) that they take their vote elsewhere (see the 19% Perot got in 1992). They may just stay at home and not even bother to vote.
But, in the end, there’s always… ALWAYS… a 10-20% middle group that determines which way the election will go.
Now, this middle 10-20% is a feckless bunch. They don’t take politics too seriously. They make up their minds in the last few weeks of the campaign. They sway in the breeze on issues that the majority of the voters take very seriously. Sometimes they may include the odd mix of the pro-life or fiscal-conservative democrat, or the pro-abortion or social liberal republican, thereby never fully happy with the choices at hand. They complain about being in the minority and not being given any attention to. Yet, this group is exactly who gets the most attention in each election. And they have more power than they even realize. This group drives the other 80% of the population (and the politicians) absolutely crazy.
This is NOT a monolithic bunch that can be swayed as a whole. Each tiny segment of this small group of the electorate is made up of a multitude of views with varying positions, differing emotions, shifting priorities. But, each individual will be ultimately affected by that one key issue (whatever that is for that individual) that will determine whether he or she votes D or R, something else, or not at all.
Of this year’s 10-20% (my best guess is that this year there’s approx. 15%... less than in 1992 but more than in 2000), who has Kerry lost?
• The segment of that 15% who are veterans who have total disdain of his anti-war activities when he returned from Vietnam. Nothing Kerry can do will sway this group. He sealed his fate in 1971, and saluting at the July convention didn’t help. The SwiftVets remind them in case they should forget.
• The segment of that 15% who classify themselves as “reasonable” on the issue of abortion. They are against partial-birth abortion, and they are for parental notification for minors. With abortion as a whole they may have varying views, but on these two points they all agree. Kerry made it clear in the last two debates that he’s against these two positions.
• The segment of that 15% who want the institution of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman. They may not have a strong position on homosexuality as a whole, but on this issue they feel reasonable to place a line in the sand when it comes to defining marriage. This segment takes their marriages and their children seriously. They see and hear Bush speak about his wife and kids and they see genuineness. They look and hear Kerry, and they do NOT see genuineness. They are also disgusted with Kerry’s tactless mention of the VP’s daughter in the last debate, done for obvious political purposes.
• A significant portion of the segment of that 15% who are under 30. They’re sharper than people think they are. They’re informed (thanks to the internet). They see through BS. And Kerry BS’ed them with the false claim that Bush will re-institute the draft. They also are the most concerned about Social Security, and they are the most vocal about wanting to be able to invest that money (their money) as they see fit – to get a better rate of return over the long haul. In debate #3, Kerry just shut them out completely by denying them that issue.
• The so-called “Security Mom’s.” Actually, they’re moms AND dads. Similar (but not the same as) the “Reagan Democrats” of the 80s, I call these people the “9/11 Democrats & Independents.” They GET 9/11. They don’t forget 9/11. They may not like parts of the Iraq situation, but overall they “get it” – “it” being the global war on terror. Kerry keeps stating he “has a plan” (ad infinitem), yet he never explains the plan. What details he does eventually give ends up being nothing different from what Bush is already doing (except wanting to get the approval or support of France & Germany). This group hears “global test” and they wretch.
• The segment of that 15% who own their own businesses. Especially those who lost their jobs after 9/11 and started up their own business when they couldn’t find work anywhere else. They’ve finally gotten a leg up on their finances. Kerry lost them with his tax plan. They know if his plan goes through, their taxes go up significantly.
• The segment of that 15% who never thought they’d ever be able to own a home, and now they do. It wasn’t Kerry’s policies that helped them in this regard.
• The segment of that 15% who just want someone to take a position on an issue and stick with it. Doesn’t matter whether they agree with the stance, just be resolute. And Kerry’s consistent and persistent flip-flopping just rubs them the wrong way.
• The segment of that 15% that never knew of Kerry’s 20 year senate record. And now that they know, aren’t too happy with it (or the lack thereof).
• The segment of that 15% that will vote for a change for change’s sack, but only if the opposing candidate offers something clearly different. And they look at Kerry and the can’t see him clearly at all.
Who has Bush lost?
• The segment of that 15% that lost their job during the last three years, and are not happy with their current financial or career situation. They don’t care about how 9/11 or the recession or the tech bubble affected things. They don’t care how things got the way they are, they just want to be in a better place and are frustrated.
• The segment of that 15% that does not like the Iraq war. They consider it a distraction. They buy into the “Bush Lied, People Died” rhetoric. They prefer focusing on OBL and Al Quaida only.
• The segment of that 15% that feels uncomfortable with his outspokenness about faith and religion.
What does all of this mean come November 2nd? I said it before, and I’ll say it again:
BUSH – 55-56% (35-38 States)
KERRY – 42-43% (12-15 States)
NADER – 1-2%
Another thing of note... I was at the local Blockbuster a couple times this past week (in southern California). “The Passion of the Christ” has been out for seven weeks now, yet there seemed to be about as many copies of that film rented out as there was “Fahrenheit 911” which was just released this passed Wednesday. The handful of copies of the counter-documentary “Fahren-Hype 9/11” were completely rented out.
Friday, October 15, 2004
FARSCAPE: THE PEACEKEEPER WARS
Watch the new two-part mini-series, FARSCAPE: THE PEACEKEEPER WARS, airing this Sunday and Monday (October 17th & 18th) at 9:00 PM --- on the Sci-Fi Network.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Aren't Liberals Lovely???
Key Findings of the Duelfer Report
(Hat-tip to LGF) Here are the key findings directly from the Duelfer report:
Key Findings
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
• Saddam totally dominated the Regime’s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq’s strategic policy.
• Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.
• The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.
• By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.
Saddam wanted to recreate 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 to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
• Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi offi cials considered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.
• Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam’s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi’a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.
• The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.
Key Findings
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
• Saddam totally dominated the Regime’s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq’s strategic policy.
• Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.
• The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.
• By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.
Saddam wanted to recreate 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 to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
• Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi offi cials considered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.
• Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam’s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi’a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.
• The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.
Crunching Kerry's Tax #s
B4B has a follow-up to their commentary about who Kerry's tax plan (as per his website) would affect. Read the original report here. The follow-up report is here.
Bottom line... your taxes will go up under Kerry's plan if you make as little as $81,000 (not $200,000). As many as 1.3 million small businesses will also be affected.
Bottom line... your taxes will go up under Kerry's plan if you make as little as $81,000 (not $200,000). As many as 1.3 million small businesses will also be affected.
Rudy has some words for John
Rudy Guiliani has some choice words in response to John Kerry's comment about this terrorists "nuisance" of ours:
"For some time, and including when I spoke at the Republican Convention, I’ve wondered exactly what John Kerry’s approach would be to terrorism and I’ve wondered whether he had the conviction, the determination, and the focus, and the correct worldview to conduct a successful war against terrorism. And his quotations in the New York Times yesterday make it clear that he lacks that kind of committed view of the world. In fact, his comments are kind of extraordinary, particularly since he thinks we used to before September 11 live in a relatively safe world. He says we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.
"I’m wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were just a nuisance. Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?
"This is so different from the President’s view and my own, which is in those days, when we were fooling ourselves about the danger of terrorism, we were actually in the greatest danger. When you don’t confront correctly and view realistically the danger that you face, that’s when you’re at the greatest risk. When you at least realize the danger and you begin to confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him to say that in the good old days – I’m assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and the 70s -- they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he’s not defining it correctly.
"As a former law enforcement person, he says ‘I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it.’ This is not illegal gambling; this isn’t prostitution. Having been a former law enforcement person for a lot longer than John Kerry ever was, I don’t understand his confusion. Even when he says ‘organized crime to a level where it isn’t not on the rise,’ it was not the goal of the Justice Department to just reduce organized crime. It was the goal of the Justice Department to eliminate organized crime. Was there some acceptable level of organized crime: two families, instead of five, or they can control one union but not the other?
The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we’re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we’ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry’s thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.
"It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam. It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas. It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy communism. It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian Gulf War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry’s global test is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone’s global test. If it were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he’d still be controlling Kuwait.
"Finally, what he did after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, where I guess at that point terrorism was still just a nuisance. He must have thought that because that’s why he proposed seriously reducing our intelligence budget, when you would think someone who was really sensitive to the problem of terrorism would have done just the opposite. I think that rather than being some aberrational comment, it is the core of the John Kerry philosophy: that terrorism is no different than domestic law enforcement problems, and that the best we’re ever going to be able to do is reduce it, so why not follow the more European approach of compromising with it the way Europeans did in the 70s and the 80s and the 90s?
"This is so totally different than what I think was the major advance that President Bush made – significant advance that he made in the Bush Doctrine on September 20, 2001, when he said we’re going to face up to terrorism and we’re going to do everything we can to defeat it, completely. There’s no reason why we have to tolerate global terrorism, just like there’s no reason to tolerate organized crime.
"So I think this is a seminal issue, this is one that explains or ties together a lot of things that we’ve talked about. Even this notion that the Kerry campaign was so upset that the Vice President and others were saying that he doesn’t understand the threat of terrorism; that he thinks it’s just a law enforcement action. It turns out the Vice President was right. He does and maybe this is a difference, maybe this is an honest difference that we really should debate straight out. He thinks that the threat is not as great as at least the President does, and I do, and the Vice President does."
"For some time, and including when I spoke at the Republican Convention, I’ve wondered exactly what John Kerry’s approach would be to terrorism and I’ve wondered whether he had the conviction, the determination, and the focus, and the correct worldview to conduct a successful war against terrorism. And his quotations in the New York Times yesterday make it clear that he lacks that kind of committed view of the world. In fact, his comments are kind of extraordinary, particularly since he thinks we used to before September 11 live in a relatively safe world. He says we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.
"I’m wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were just a nuisance. Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?
"This is so different from the President’s view and my own, which is in those days, when we were fooling ourselves about the danger of terrorism, we were actually in the greatest danger. When you don’t confront correctly and view realistically the danger that you face, that’s when you’re at the greatest risk. When you at least realize the danger and you begin to confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him to say that in the good old days – I’m assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and the 70s -- they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he’s not defining it correctly.
"As a former law enforcement person, he says ‘I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it.’ This is not illegal gambling; this isn’t prostitution. Having been a former law enforcement person for a lot longer than John Kerry ever was, I don’t understand his confusion. Even when he says ‘organized crime to a level where it isn’t not on the rise,’ it was not the goal of the Justice Department to just reduce organized crime. It was the goal of the Justice Department to eliminate organized crime. Was there some acceptable level of organized crime: two families, instead of five, or they can control one union but not the other?
The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we’re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we’ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry’s thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.
"It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam. It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas. It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy communism. It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian Gulf War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry’s global test is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone’s global test. If it were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he’d still be controlling Kuwait.
"Finally, what he did after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, where I guess at that point terrorism was still just a nuisance. He must have thought that because that’s why he proposed seriously reducing our intelligence budget, when you would think someone who was really sensitive to the problem of terrorism would have done just the opposite. I think that rather than being some aberrational comment, it is the core of the John Kerry philosophy: that terrorism is no different than domestic law enforcement problems, and that the best we’re ever going to be able to do is reduce it, so why not follow the more European approach of compromising with it the way Europeans did in the 70s and the 80s and the 90s?
"This is so totally different than what I think was the major advance that President Bush made – significant advance that he made in the Bush Doctrine on September 20, 2001, when he said we’re going to face up to terrorism and we’re going to do everything we can to defeat it, completely. There’s no reason why we have to tolerate global terrorism, just like there’s no reason to tolerate organized crime.
"So I think this is a seminal issue, this is one that explains or ties together a lot of things that we’ve talked about. Even this notion that the Kerry campaign was so upset that the Vice President and others were saying that he doesn’t understand the threat of terrorism; that he thinks it’s just a law enforcement action. It turns out the Vice President was right. He does and maybe this is a difference, maybe this is an honest difference that we really should debate straight out. He thinks that the threat is not as great as at least the President does, and I do, and the Vice President does."
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Counting the # of times Kerry said "I have a plan"
A reader of Redstate went through last night's debate transcript and counted how many times Kerry referred to his "plans" (you know... the ones he keeps telling us he has, but then never gives us any substantive details - even when repeated prompted for details.)
The number? 29! (And that's just in the second debate! Anyone know the number times in the first debate?)
The number? 29! (And that's just in the second debate! Anyone know the number times in the first debate?)
So, how did it play in Beverly Hills?
The Canyon News (which serves areas such as Beverly Hills/Bel Air/Brentwood, Malibu & the Pacific Palisades, Santa Monica/Westwood/Hollywood Hills) posted this interesting bit of a survey:
"Beverly Hills - Canyon News staff went out into the streets of Beverly Hills, Brentwood, and Westwood to see what readers had to say of tonight’s debate between John Kerry and George Bush in Missouri.
"Three staff members talked to 30 people who (1) saw or knew of the debates… (2) but did not watch the after-debate analysis by the media and (3) wanted to talk to us. Out of 30 people, 21 people said Bush won tonight’s debate. 6 people said Kerry won. 3 people thought it was a tie."
(Hat-tip to Betsy)
"Beverly Hills - Canyon News staff went out into the streets of Beverly Hills, Brentwood, and Westwood to see what readers had to say of tonight’s debate between John Kerry and George Bush in Missouri.
"Three staff members talked to 30 people who (1) saw or knew of the debates… (2) but did not watch the after-debate analysis by the media and (3) wanted to talk to us. Out of 30 people, 21 people said Bush won tonight’s debate. 6 people said Kerry won. 3 people thought it was a tie."
(Hat-tip to Betsy)
The economic numbers...
The Heritage Foundation (back on Oct 7) published this worthwhile analysis of the state of the economy. Keep in mind that this was before yesterday's revised (and improved) unemployment figures.
Bremer sets the record straight!
Thanks to both PowerLine and LGF. They point out to a New York Times OpEd piece by Paul Bremer:
In recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I’ve made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it’s important to put my remarks in the correct context.
In my speeches, I have said that the United States paid a price for not stopping the looting in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of major combat operations and that we did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish that task. The press and critics of the war have seized on these remarks in an effort to undermine President Bush’s Iraq policy.
This effort won’t succeed. Let me explain why.
It’s no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations. I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq’s already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we’ll never know.
But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration, the military and I all agreed that the coalition’s top priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. This effort, financed in large measure by the emergency supplemental budget approved by Congress last year, continues today. In the end, Iraq’s security must depend on Iraqis.
Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq.
The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president’s strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.
The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.
In recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I’ve made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it’s important to put my remarks in the correct context.
In my speeches, I have said that the United States paid a price for not stopping the looting in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of major combat operations and that we did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish that task. The press and critics of the war have seized on these remarks in an effort to undermine President Bush’s Iraq policy.
This effort won’t succeed. Let me explain why.
It’s no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations. I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq’s already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we’ll never know.
But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration, the military and I all agreed that the coalition’s top priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. This effort, financed in large measure by the emergency supplemental budget approved by Congress last year, continues today. In the end, Iraq’s security must depend on Iraqis.
Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq.
The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president’s strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.
The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.
Kerry still lags behind in campaign finance disclosure!
According to the independent OpenSecrets.org, John Kerry's financial disclosure rate for his presidential campaign is still at a horrible 78% (second only to Wesley Clarke's 70.8%). President Bush's disclosure rate is at almost 93%.
And Kerry still has yet to release his medical records, his military Standard Form 180, or his billionaire wife's financial/tax records.
And Kerry still has yet to release his medical records, his military Standard Form 180, or his billionaire wife's financial/tax records.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)