Saturday, November 17, 2007
From plane flights to light bulbs - taxes to fight global warming. And who will be most impacted - the poor and middle classes. Al Bore will be able to continue his globe trotting, as will Google Billionaire, Microsoft Billionaire, John Kerry billionaire ... they will even have the cash left over for some light bulbs.
Based on what evidence should we enact a tax?
The evidence that exists all falls within a reasonable and statistical standard or norm for weather changes. No evidence exists to counter this. So based upon feeling, emotions, we should enact a world wide tax - impacting industrialized countries the most, and the US specifically - all because someone feels that a tax is warranted based on highly emotive language.
Listening to the world wide spokesman for global warming - El Nino weather is the evidence.
It has always appealed to me - direct world attention at an issue that is non-existent, or if it exists is within the norms of change - rather than toward issues of international importance and moral relevance - the genocides of Africa. If the UN got off its collective ass and acted with as much emotion (crying and banging on tables and podiums, held conventions and conferences around the globe) they might actually save one life rather than failing in Darfur and ignoring genocide when it occurs.
No moron, its one year from January 20 at noon. At January 20, 2009, 9 am PDT, George W. Bush turns over the keys to the office of the president to the next person.
Get it right. I suppose all they need is the election to make them feel better, but what happens dear whack jobs if in your wildest nightmares, a Republican wins and given one may drop out for a lovechild problem, another may lose all four primaries, and the third has as his biggest platform a TV talk show host, George W may well leave office, but it isn't until the 20th and not one second before.
While the Constitution places no restraints upon a president in the last months, it is unlikely during that time that a president would create foreign policy that would place his predecessor under any restrictions.
January 20, 2009, 9 am PDT and not one second earlier. THATS OFFICIAL.
The columnist goes on and on but he does point out that the 'glorius collapse of the evangelical Christina right marches on apace, as Pat Robertson, now a dejected, lonely widower after the death of secret boy-toy husband Jerry Falwell ..."
What I loathe about the left is they conduct themselves with a holier than thou attitude in their condemnation, condescension, and criticism of the evangelical right - and the main attack since the 70s, on the right has been their holier than though attitude on religious issues, of which the left cannot take the mantle given they have no moral platform.
It is lost on me - I hate you because you are a holier than thou son of a gun and I am better than you because I am more open and accomodating and more tolerant ... I simply make libelous statements about people and think it is witty.
You are actually worse than the evangelicals - much worse, because you hate, they do it for other reasons.
The columnist adds the eloquent statement of excising Bush and his policies like a malignant turmor ... widely spread tumors ... he must mean like Bill Clinton and his lies ... in the weeks during and after Bill's crimes and misdemeanors, many a score of people in ordinary life around America began using his lies and excuses in Court. Whether students, fathers, husbands, neighbors, or defendants - all began the long malignancy. That is after all what a malignancy is - it infects the culture and alters otherwise good or sane behavior and causes bad or painful behavior.
I wish people would put their rhetoric on the shelf and stop with the non-sequitors.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Sesame Street used to have, as part of its regular program, One of These Things is Not The Same as the others. They still have it, but not very often.
So, let's do the same with the following.
House Passes $50B Iraq Withdrawal Bill
Nov 15 03:12 PM US/EasternBy ANNE FLAHERTYAssociated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats pushed through a $50 billion bill for the Iraq war Wednesday night that would require President Bush to start bringing troops home in coming weeks with a goal of ending combat by December 2008.
The legislation, passed 218-203, was largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who already has begun reducing force levels but opposes a congressionally mandated timetable on the war. And while the measure was unlikely to pass in the Senate—let alone overcome a presidential veto—Democrats said they wanted voters to know they weren't giving up.
"The fact is, we can no longer sustain the military deployment in Iraq," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Staying there in the manner that we are there is no longer an option."
The White House pledged to veto the bill, and Republicans said they would back the president.
"These votes, like the dozens of previous failed votes, put the interests of radical interest groups ahead of the needs of our military and their mission," an administration statement said.
The bill represents about a quarter of the $196 billion Bush requested for combat operations in the 2008 budget year, which began Oct 1.
It would compel an unspecified number of troops to leave Iraq within 30 days, a requirement Bush is already on track to meet as he begins in coming weeks to reverse the 30,000 troop buildup he ordered earlier this year. It also sets a goal of ending combat by Dec. 15, 2008, and states that money included in the bill should be used to redeploy troops and "not to extend or prolong the war."
The measure also would set government-wide standards on interrogation, effectively barring the CIA from using such harsh techniques as waterboarding, which simulates drowning.
The bill was on shaky ground this week, after some liberal Democrats said they were concerned it was too soft and would not force Bush to end the war. Conservative Democrats said they thought it went too far and would tie the hands of military commanders.
The bill's prospects brightened somewhat after three leading anti-war Democrats announced they would support it. California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they had agreed to swing behind it because the bill explicitly states the money should be used to bring troops home.
But still uncertain the bill would pass, Pelosi on Wednesday delayed a vote by several hours while she met with supporters and asked them to help her round up votes.
Fifteen Democrats broke ranks and joined 188 Republicans in opposing the measure. Four Republicans joined 214 Democrats in supporting it.
Republicans fought bitterly against the timetable in the bill, as well as the restrictions on interrogations. Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, his party's leader, said the bill would lead to "nothing other than failure."
Hours before the scheduled vote, the White House dispatched Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers on Iraq.
In one closed-door meeting, Gates urged a group of senators not to support the bill. He said the same lawmakers who criticized Pentagon civilians for previously ignoring the advice of its uniformed generals were asking him to ignore them now, according to an official who attended the meeting. The official requested anonymity because the meeting was private.
Similar legislation has passed repeatedly along party lines in the House only to sink in the Senate, where Democrats hold a razor-thin majority and 60 votes are needed to overcome procedural hurdles.
It is expected that if the measure fails in the Senate, Democrats will not consider Bush's war spending request until next year. Democrats say the military won't need the money until then and the Pentagon can transfer money from less urgent accounts or from spending set aside for the last three months of this year.
The Pentagon says moving money around is a bureaucratic nightmare that costs more in the long run. And if taken to the extreme, the military would eventually have to freeze contracts or lay off civilian workers to ensure troops in combat have what they need.
In another provision that drew White House opposition, the House bill would require that all government interrogators rely on the Army Field Manual. The manual is based on Geneva Convention standards and was updated in 2006 to specifically prohibit the military from using aggressive interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding.
The White House said in its statement that the Geneva Conventions shouldn't apply to "captured terrorists who openly flout that law."
The bill also would require the president to certify to Congress 15 days in advance that a unit being sent into combat is "fully mission capable," although Bush could waive that requirement if necessary.
US Democrats slam Iraqi government
Nov 15 03:28 PM US/Eastern
Democratic leaders on Thursday warned the Iraqi government was locked in a stalemate, as they jockeyed for position ahead of another Senate showdown over Iraq war funding.
They also threatened Republicans with a rare weekend vote, after the start of the scheduled break for the Thanksgiving holiday, on a bill including troop withdrawal dates which cleared the House of Representatives Wednesday.
"Every place you go you hear about no progress being made in Iraq," said Senate Democratic majority leader Harry Reid.
"The government is stalemated today, as it was six months ago, as it was two years ago," Reid told reporters, warning US soldiers were caught in the middle of a civil war.
"It is not getting better, it is getting worse," he said.
Democrats are using perceived lack of reconciliation and political development by the Iraqi government to refute claims by Republicans that President George W. Bush's troop surge strategy has yielded concrete results.
The Senate was expected to start work on the 50 billion dollar emergency war funding bill by Friday, though the measure is considered dead on arrival due to Republican opposition.
President George W. Bush, who has repeatedly outmuscled Democrats attempting to tie his hands on the war, has threatened to veto the measure in the unlikely event it reaches his desk.
The emergency budget provides only four months of funding for the war, and only a 50 billion dollar chunk of the 196 billion dollars requested by Bush.
It calls for troop withdrawals to begin within 30 days and sets a goal of December 15, 2008, for the pullback of most combat troops to be completed, and outlaws the use of torture by US government agencies.
Should the bill, as expected, fail to pass, Democrats say they will not give Bush any more money this year for the war. That would force the Pentagon to dip into its regular budget to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"The days are over when the money is sent no questions asked,, when the money is sent without a price," Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer said.
And then this
November 15, 2007
Budget bills contain $20 billion in pork
It looks like Congress won’t even come close to giving up those irresistible earmarks. Citizens Against Government Waste, which closely monitors federal spending, is putting the finishing touches on its tally of pork projects in the pending spending bills — and the picture isn’t pretty.
The group estimates that there will be at least 8,000 earmarks this year, costing U.S. taxpayers, $18 billion to $20 billion. Democrats and Republicans alike had promised to curtail the practice of directing money to specific projects.
They have, but not nearly as dramatically as their campaign rhetoric had suggested. In the last fiscal year, when Republicans controlled Congress, there were $29 billion in total earmarks.
So Democrats can rightly claim they are reducing the practice, perhaps by as much as 33 percent, as Congress Daily’s Keith Koffler reported this afternoon.
Republicans will rightly claim they have put intense pressure on the Democratic Congress to eliminate many earmarks. Of course, the GOP argument is undercut by the explosion of earmarking when they ruled Congress. Koffler, who got an early look at the figures, reported that Defense bill was a huge magnet for earmarks. It included 2,074 projects, totally $6.6 billion.
Citizens Against Government Waste is basing its overall projections on a detailed examination of three spending bills, and applying the trend to the remaining appropriations bills.
and finally, this gem ...
Democrats Plan a Shorter Workweek
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 — Shortly after winning a majority last year, Democrats triumphantly declared that they would put Congress back to work, promising an “end to the two-day workweek.” And indeed, the House has clocked more time in Washington this year than in any other session since 1995, when Republicans, newly in control, sought to make a similar point.
But 10 months into the session, with their legislative agenda often in gridlock with the Bush administration and a big election year looming, the Democrats are now planning a lighter schedule when the 110th Congress begins its second year in mid-January.
The House majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, told fellow Democrats this week that the House would not be in session next year on Fridays, except in June for work on appropriations bills.
Explaining that decision to reporters, Mr. Hoyer said, “I do intend to have more time for members to work in their districts and to be close to their families.”
His comments drew snickers from Republicans, who are quite happy to share their view that the American people did not get much value for all the extra time lawmakers spent in Washington.
“Is this a reward for our accomplishments in 2007?” asked Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican whip.
And on Friday, President Bush once again hammered Congressional Democrats, accusing them of failing to meet basic responsibilities like approving annual budget bills and confirming his nominee for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey.
“This is not what Congressional leaders promised when they took control of Congress earlier this year,” Mr. Bush said. “Congress needs to keep their promise, to stop wasting time, and get essential work done on behalf of the American people.”
The Democrats, by contrast, say that after 10 months of putting in longer days and weeks, they have made significant gains. They cited legislation, including an increase in the minimum wage and new ethics and lobbying rules, as well as in the nitty-gritty work of House committees, which they say has provided much-needed oversight of the Bush administration and will also set the stage for an ambitious agenda next year.
And they blame Mr. Bush and Republicans for Congress’s low approval ratings, which they say will only help the Democrats expand their majority in 2008.
“Certainly, it has been a sprint and a marathon at the same time this year,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “We have accomplished a lot, especially on the domestic front.”
Mr. Van Hollen said he was not worried about Congress’s low approval ratings. “Every one of those polls also shows much stronger support for Democratic leadership than Republican leadership,” he said. “The president is lashing out because he recognizes that people see the White House as an obstacle to change.”
Still, Democrats conceded that the hectic pace had taken a toll, especially on lawmakers who must travel long distances home and who have small children. And members of Congress have not gotten a raise or cost-of-living increase this year.
On Wednesday, the House cast its one-thousandth roll-call vote of the year, the first time that it reached that mark since the Constitution was ratified. Democrats hailed the occasion, while Republicans sniped that only 106 of the votes were on bills ultimately signed into law, and that 45 of those bestowed names on post offices or other property.
“Unlike Congress, the American people do not mistake motion for progress,” said Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter, Republican of Michigan. “They want results. And given the approval ratings, they are certainly convinced they aren’t getting them.”
Mr. McCotter said changing the schedule was an example of Democrats’ breaking promises. “They said ‘five-day weeks,’ ” he said. And he scoffed at the notion that Mr. Hoyer was also responding to Republicans who wanted more time in their home districts.
“I wish he had that much concern and was as responsive to Republicans’ calls for input on major legislation,” Mr. McCotter said.
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida, said the Democrats had to put in the hours to make up for Republican failings last year. “There was so much left undone by the 12 years of Republican control of the Congress, it was absolutely essential that we put our nose to the grindstone,” she said.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz has three children, 8-year-old twins and a 4-year-old. “It’s tough,” she said in a telephone interview from Orlando, where she had taken the children while she attended the Florida Democratic Convention there this weekend.
Mr. Blunt said he thought Democrats would regret this year’s schedule, which he said had distanced lawmakers from constituents.
Still, he said he and his colleagues would appreciate the Fridays out of session next year. “I would welcome, as I am sure all of our members would, a schedule that is more reflective of how the Congress should work,” Mr. Blunt said. “Rather than how it has worked in the last year.”
One of these things ... well, they are all like the other and proof we need grown ups, even if they are not the brightest bunch, in charge.
No sentient being living in the United States, Canada, or Europe missed an opportunity to know or be told, be made aware or knowledgeable about STDs and or pregnancy. No one who wanted to know or was able to learn or understand and comprehend, was unable to know/learn or comprehend the facts.
Yet, according to the AP, November 13, 2007 - US Sets Record in Sexual Disease Cases.
And do not say we need more education or more money.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
[MS GREENBERG - THE WOMAN AT THE CENTER OF THE CONTROVERSY]
Part of that article reads:
Ms. Greenberg said she decided to put up the sign in response to questions from players from other countries about American interrogation techniques, the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues.
“There was a lot of anti-Bush feeling, questioning of our Iraq policy and about torture,” Ms. Greenberg said. “I can’t tell you it was an overwhelming amount, but there were several specific comments, and there wasn’t the same warmth you usually feel at these events.”
Ms. Rosenberg said the team members intended the sign as a personal statement that demonstrated American values and noted that it was held up at the same time some team members were singing along to “The Star-Spangled Banner” and waving small American flags.
“Freedom to express dissent against our leaders has traditionally been a core American value,” she wrote by e-mail. “Unfortunately, the Bush brand of patriotism, where criticizing Bush means you are a traitor, seems to have penetrated a significant minority of U.S. bridge players.”
Not once in seven years has it been suggested that criticizing Bush meant you were a traitor - no sentient being has ever suggested anything like your statement Ms Greenberg. Not one. You are grabbing at straws and the easiest one is - the one every Democrat grabs - the questioning of patriotism.
It is similar to an argument between two siblings. One says: You did it. Automatically, the other child will say: Did not, you did. That is this knee-jerk response from losercrats. Blame it all on Bush.
Ms Greenberg, no one has questioned your patriotism, but it is clear you are a fool and more.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
AP: Saudi Prince Buying 'Flying palace' Jet
More than $300 million, 6000 sq ft, 13th richest person in the world.
Another reason we need to get off oil, quickly. They need all their oil to fly these monstrous greenhouse gas emitting machines!
Monday, November 12, 2007
Al-Qaeda Leader Abu Yahya Al-Liby: We Will Continue the Jihad until All the People in the World Submit to the Rule of Islam
Following are excerpts from a statement by Al-Queda Leader Abu Yahya Al-Liby, which aired on www.aekhlass.net in August 2007.
Al-Liby: Only a few years ago, America, which is one of the major evil-doers of this era, used to brag about its power and boast about its army and military equipment. Everyone was subjugated to it and surrendered to its decisions. Nobody criticized America or objected to it. They were all just begging and pleading, kissing the threshold of the White House and the shoes of its politicians. But today – where is America? Where are its power and hollow pomp? Whatever happened to the slogan: "You are either with us or against us"? Where are all the threats and warnings? Whatever happened to the vanity and arrogance of the American army and politicians? Whatever happened to the worth of the American soldier, to the killing of whom used to make headlines in all the media? Today, these soldiers are dragged through the streets of Baghdad, hung on the bridges of Fallujah, rolled on the rocks of Afghanistan, and burned to charcoal in the hear of its capital, Kabul. Nonetheless, reports of these matters go by unnoticed – if they receive any mention at all in the media, and are not considered marginal reports, unworthy of air time on news bulletins.
Al-Liby: We are not like those people who draw a distinction between types of Jihad – permitting and supporting it against the Jews in Palestine, and forbidding and preventing it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Algeria, and elsewhere. Jihad, which is the highest form of dissociation from non-Muslims, should be waged against the Jews, like it should be waged against the Christians, the Zoroastrians, the Hindus, and the apostates.
Al-Liby: We fight all the polytheists, just like they fight us all. We do not limit ourselves in this. We do not restrict ourselves to one type [of infidels] or to one region. This [Jihad] will continue until they all submit to the religion of Allah, yield to its laws, and surrender to its rule.
Al-Liby: Yes, we believe that the entire world must be ruled by Islam, and no grain of soil should be made an exception, because the Prophet Muhammad was sent to all people without exception. This does not mean, however, that we must fight all peoples of the world at once, in order to subject them to Islamic law. Islam did not command us to do so. Islam commanded us to fight the closest and then the next, from among the people who refuse to submit to the rule of Islam. We should move from the closest to the next, and widen the circle, until all people submit to the rule of Allah. We are now at the beginning of the road, when we try to regain the lands taken over by the infidels, from among the Jews, the Christians, their apostate supporters, and treacherous rulers.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Nov 11, 2007 11:39 AM (ET)
By PAMELA HESS
WASHINGTON (AP) - A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.
Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information.
Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act.
Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission, so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S.
The original law required a court order for any surveillance conducted on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering.
The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to shield telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the government access to people's private e-mails and phone calls without a court order between 2001 and 2007.
Some lawmakers, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appear reluctant to grant immunity. Suits might be the only way to determine how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy without court permission.
The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of the bill will protect telecommunications companies.
The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they pass through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco.
Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in 2003 that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every call, e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.
I survive silly students, with a few days off. I can even manage poor driving skills demonstrated daily on the roadways and freeways in Los Angeles. What I find distressing is the above.
How much distress I have - a lot. Anger toward politicians, democrats, republicans, leaders, followers, intelligence, courts, the far left, left, moderates, academics, and not so academic. It didn't need to happen, but it has. It wasn't Bush alone, that drivel is for the left-wing nut bags who have the brains of a turtle, it was much more and it never needed to happen. For that I am most especially distressed with the ACLU and courts - heaven forbid we pick on someone, lest we pick on everyone equally. Well, that's where we are and we won't be moving back to a privacy based society. I am distressed at Republicans for allowing it, at conservatives for foolishly and wrongly telling their audiences that there has never really been any change and we haven't lost any freedoms.
I am very distressed by the willingness of the masses - Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Obama, Boxer, and the entire left wing, Soros, Move-On.org who feign passion for privacy and have put us smack dab in the middle of this bloody mess with foolish commentators telling us nothing has changed and not to be paranoid.
Imagine your little brother or sister, literally little as well as figuratively, comes running in to your room and says 'my little friend is bothering me, he's coming to beat me up' and you tell him that his little friend is small enough he can take care of by himself. he begs you to help and finally you relent and pull yourself up and walk outside while talking to your sibling (looking down) and asking him where his little friend is. He opens the door and replies 'in front of you' as you look up and see a 7 ft 425 lb giant in front of you with a fist coming at your chest.
In that one moment you realize you are screwed, out of luck, way over your head, and in deep trouble - then it hits you and you're unconscious. By the time you opened the door it was too late. Your realization was much too late.
The door is opened and only fools still tell us nothing has changed and not to worry.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
American Gangster has 3-4 times that many people.
The BEE MOVIE has 3 or so many times as many people.
FRED CLAUS beat Lions for Lambs (2x as much) and no one knows who is in Fred Claus. It has a budget of pennies compared to Lions. Whereas we all know the three stars of Lions - Tom (Alien) Cruise, Robert (I am always right) Redford, and Meryl (Alar) Streep.
An expensive film ($35 million with Cruise taking next to nothing for his role), in part filmed in two places of some note to me - about a mile from where I am and the auditorium at the university I attended. The surrounding areas where I live have nearly that many people (650,000) - it is a nothing number. In the end, it will do a little better, but the mold has been cast - it is a failure. In any case, this film is about to flame out and no film better deserved the crash and burn as Lions for Lambs. It could not have happened to three better actors and people.
To the three of them - stop pontificating, stop shoveling your views down our throats in our movies, just stop doing everything you are currently doing and instead - ACT. No acting is not a difficult endeavor after the first or second time. It is not a reflection on society, it does not require you to educate us. It requires you to do as you are told, make a film, entertain us, and go home and be quiet. When and if we want more, we will seek out those who know and it will not be you. Your job is to act - not to make moral / political statements and rarely do the moral statements succeed. The political films are even less likely when they are as flamboyant as your silly lions and lambs. It doesn't take much to catch the meaning of the title and less to figure out who is who and what your message is. Unfortunately for you the NYT, LAT, Chicago tribune, the entire Democratic party, George Soros, John Kerry, Hillary, Jimmy, and every other loser wanna be/has been has already made the point you now try to make to an audience that is fast asleep after so many efforts.
Dislike and disagreement for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are not signs the American people accept your premise nor should you believe it does. Opposing the failure does not equate with success in the theater, in our films. They are after all, our films - we pay a great deal to watch the crap - we pay for the film and everything to do with the film, they become our films. And we expect more than politically driven drivel.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Robinson informs his readers who have not been alive for the last seven years, that the polls all stand against Bush and his policies, and history will be very unkind to Bush.
Start Sidebar: I want a job at a major newspaper spouting off rhetoric and getting paid for my insight that is neither insightful nor useful and is as political and left leaning s Karl Rove is right leaning. End Sidebar.
What brilliance in his column, what insight from a scholar and historian. He defines the best in what we hope for in a reporter, columnist, editorial writer, and an American. I hope his pay check from Soros is large enough to cover his modest lifestyle.
While it may appear that Robinson is a hack for Soros or worse, while his writing is clearly picked up verbatim from a Soros memo, Robinson is not that ignorant - he is a purveyor of his political ideology at the expense of truth.
Here is my poll:
1. Do you believe the direction this country is heading in is positive?
2. Do you agree with the direction we are heading in (country)?
3. Do you think Congress is doing a good job?
4. Do you feel that Congress is doing the best it can?
5. Are Republicans acting like Republicans?
6. Do you support the Republicans in Congress?
7. Do you agree with Bush's position on immigration?
8. Do you agree with Bush's position on trade with Canada?
9. Do you agree with Bush's policy on trade with Mexico?
10. Do you believe the trade agreement with Central American countries will help us?
11. Do you accept Bush's argument in favor of our expanding debt as necessary for war spending?
12. Should we be spending $10-12 billion per month on the war?
13. Do you feel Bush had handled the Iraq war well?
14. Do you agree with bush's Iraq policy in supporting the Iraqi government when they go on vacation, cannot reconcile, troops are abandoning their posts, Americans are being killed, al qaida is still around, bin Laden has never been caught?
15. Do you think Republicans have handled their time in control of Congress well (until 2006)?
Now, a surprise - the answer to all those questions is NO. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.
That is it: 100% of those polled oppose Bush. He will go down in ignominy. He is hated. He is loathed. He has failed. Republicans will be wiped out in 2008.
That is Robinson's understanding of the polls.
The truth is more complicated and grown-up than that simple approach.
Bush will not go down in ignominy like Nixon. He will be remembered much better than Clinton by more people around the world. He will be considered a good president if not slightly more. It will take time. And Robinson will never realize how foolish his column was for he will be long gone.
A person who fully supports the basics of the Bush message, and the war, and a strong stand against people who wish to annihilate everything you believe in would also answer each of those questions with a NO.
Stupid questions that lead you to an answer. Grow up Eugene et al.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Someone mentioned to me that I interrogate with my questions in class, much like a lawyer. I felt bad, for the person and for others who feel similarly.
My response is, quite simply - I don't.
What I do is direct the question to get the answer or phrase I want or need.
We have 20 seconds to get an answer out and move on. If I asked a question that was, preferable, it would be open-ended and discussion would be free-flowing with an answer located somewhere in a long-winded monologue consuming ten minutes and never fully accomplishing anything I want to accomplish.
I need to direct the question and the answer - not because you do not have something useful to say, rather I do not have the time to figure out what it is you are trying to say and make any sense of it and accomplish that task in my lifetime.
I want 1-10 word answers and I would prefer the answer to be given promptly and not the time schedule for a long lost tribe that sleeps all day.
It has nothing to do with interrogation, it has to do with making a point. I can tell you the point and you can ignore it, or I can pose it in a question form and have you answer it, thereby making my point.
Monday, November 5, 2007
I was explaining, not an opinion, but an understood fact as to whole language and phonics, when a student begins making a hand gesture - the squawking hands, the hand gesture one makes for a puppet. It is true the nexus between the subject and the example was a struggle, it was none the less, my example and my class. That was not the issue, and instead, should have been a learning exercise for all.
Unfortunately, one student decided they did not learn to read using phonics and strongly disagreed with my assertion that all students can learn to read with phonics. I am sure some students can learn to read through osmosis while others learn to read through smoke rings, and others still learn to read by drawing pictures - all of which say nothing and is irrelevant to my point.
At a ripe age of maybe 18 or 19, the student knows more than I about the issue and has decided that their opinion invalidates my opinion (the hand gestures were the give away that they regarded what I had to say as an opinion). In fact, their opinion somehow supersedes mine in terms of authority - although I am always at a loss to understand this condition. The fact that the student would so boldly say aloud that it was just my opinion is another not so indirect way to make that point equally as clear.
First, can a student learn to read using whole language - yes. They are exceptional and the outlier - not the norm, usual, average. They are statistically, irrelevant. I also question whether they did indeed learn to read without phonics as that language tool was resurrected by the time the student was old enough to benefit from it. LAUSD reintegrated it in their education program by the early / mid 90s which would be just in time for our winning student to reap the benefit.
Second, to state as clearly as the student might utter their name, that it was my opinion as to the deficiencies of whole language is stupefying and it is on this point, I stop. The end of civilization.
The fact every study, every policy, every position, and the outcome of the failed system all prove me correct is a bit overwhelming. The fact the state of California along with every other state has reverted to another system and away from whole language as the functionary tool for a classroom to learn, is also, I suppose my opinion.
Had it been my opinion, every state and the federal government, and the educational system in Australia would not have reverted back and or away from whole language, if it was anything but an abysmal failure. Stupefying what substitutes for opinion now.
NEWS FLASH - A meteor 14 miles wide is hurtling toward earth and will impact in five minutes, killing hundreds of millions and sending the earth hurtling off into the sun, ending earths existence.
The mind-numbingly impertinent student would naturally respond with the wit and wisdom of their age - that is just your opinion.
In either case - the end of civilization.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
A l'Universite de Delaware, les 'Resident Assistants' subissent un programme d'entrainement dans lequel tous brins sont definis dans un de deux groupes : les racistes ou les racistes dans le dementi.
Les idiots sur le cote gauche de l'equation n'ont jamais compris le racisme jusqu'a ce qu'ils commencent a detruire leur propre philosophie et ils doivent commencer avec le francais.
It is so deeply held that it is not racism as much as a way of life. In considering the southern states through the 1860s, racism was palpable and one could sense it in words and expressions. Racism was very nearly a tangible thing throughout the early and mid 19th century in the US. It was never so tangible nor palpable in Europe yet it was more pervasive - then and now.
One may argue the US is racist and the US invades poor little countries whose inhabitants are merely peace loving families, while Europe stands ready to protect the down-trodden. While this is an exageration of the condition many believe and accept, it is a foolish pipe dream believed by those who are in the later stages of dementia.
We need to fix and repair and help - may seem inoculous enough, but is no more inoculous than the US position of invading and installing. In fact, it is intellectually more dishonest and as immoral or more, for it hides its true intentions and motivations in a cloak of goodwill.
The French may not even know how deeply racist they and their actions really are, but that is why we have the University of Delaware and other stellar instiututions - to let us know that there are les racistes ou les racistes dans le dementi.
Zoe's Ark does exactly what and for what reason? Why do they need to and who says they should, based upon what international law are they entitled.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Thursday, November 1, 2007
He is an idiot. He is also a dangerous idiot. He knows full well what he is suggesting and he knows the consequences of his action and he is ploughing ahead.
When I read about people like Ellison, or Harry " 'We have lost in Iraq' before the surge is complete and in place" Reid, or Hillary 'Doublespeak' Clinton, I am amazed at the temerity of anti-Bush people. We really must be on different planets, which does not bode well for the Republic (despite this concern being raised since the inception of the Republic).
The Examiner has an article from October 31, 2007, with Ellison's mind-numbingly stupid proposal.