FoxNews: Turnout High on Violent Day
Initial estimate is 72 percent of eligible Iraqis cast ballots; at least 36 people did in homicide bombings and mortar blasts.
MSNBC: Officials said turnout appeared higher than expected, although it was too soon to tell for sure. Iraqi officials have predicted that up to 8 million of the 14 million voters — just over 57 percent — would participate.
CNN: BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's historic election day is nearing its close with the independent election commission reporting a 72 percent nationwide turnout by mid-afternoon amid attacks and threats of attacks to disrupt the vote.
"There has been a vast turnout in Iraq," Rashid said.
NY Times: High Turnout in Baghdad Points to Early Success --By DEXTER FILKINS 8:54 AM
U.S. officials were showing confidence that today was going to be an amazing success, although they were still wary of major attacks.
ABC News: Iraqis Cast Their Votes, Despite Violence
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Iraqi Voting Disrupts News Reports of Bombings
Iraqi Voting Disrupts News Reports of Bombings - by Scott Ott (2005-01-30) --
News reports of terrorist bombings in Iraq were marred Sunday by shocking graphic images of Iraqi "insurgents" voting by the millions in their first free democratic election. Despite reporters' hopes that a well-orchestrated barrage of mortar attacks and suicide bombings would put down the so-called 'freedom insurgency', hastily-formed battalions of rebels swarmed polling places to cast their ballots -- shattering the status quo and striking fear into the hearts of the leaders of the existing terror regime.
Hopes for a return to the stability of tyranny waned as rank upon rank of Iraqi men and women filed out of precinct stations, each armed with the distinctive mark of the new freedom guerrillas -- an ink-stained index finger, which one former Ba'athist called "the evidence of their betrayal of 50 years of Iraqi tradition."
Journalists struggled to put a positive spin on the day's events, but the video images of tyranny's traitors choosing a future of freedom overwhelmed the official story of bloodshed and mayhem. An ink-stained finger marks an Iraqi woman as one of "tyranny's traitors."
She Voted!
News reports of terrorist bombings in Iraq were marred Sunday by shocking graphic images of Iraqi "insurgents" voting by the millions in their first free democratic election. Despite reporters' hopes that a well-orchestrated barrage of mortar attacks and suicide bombings would put down the so-called 'freedom insurgency', hastily-formed battalions of rebels swarmed polling places to cast their ballots -- shattering the status quo and striking fear into the hearts of the leaders of the existing terror regime.
Hopes for a return to the stability of tyranny waned as rank upon rank of Iraqi men and women filed out of precinct stations, each armed with the distinctive mark of the new freedom guerrillas -- an ink-stained index finger, which one former Ba'athist called "the evidence of their betrayal of 50 years of Iraqi tradition."
Journalists struggled to put a positive spin on the day's events, but the video images of tyranny's traitors choosing a future of freedom overwhelmed the official story of bloodshed and mayhem. An ink-stained finger marks an Iraqi woman as one of "tyranny's traitors."
She Voted!
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Green Tea & Weight Loss?
If it was on Oprah, it must be true!
Dr. Nicholas Perricone says, "Coffee (and its not the caffeine) can result in elevated levels of cortisol and insulin, leading to weight gain. Remember, elevated insulin puts a lock on body fat. If you substitute green tea for coffee, and do nothing else differently, you will lose 10 pounds in six weeks."
I happened to see the show the week before Thanksgiving (had it TiVoed). I was home sick (2nd time in 8 years) with a strep tonsil. I lost 14 pounds in 8 days. (from being sick, not from green tea, duh) This guy says "Green Tea" is good for you and you still get the caffeine. I figured what the hell, and haven't had coffee since.
I gained some of the 14 lbs back, but having changed nothing but Green Tea for coffee, I am 11 pounds lighter than before I was sick. It's been 4 weeks.
Dr. Nicholas Perricone says, "Coffee (and its not the caffeine) can result in elevated levels of cortisol and insulin, leading to weight gain. Remember, elevated insulin puts a lock on body fat. If you substitute green tea for coffee, and do nothing else differently, you will lose 10 pounds in six weeks."
I happened to see the show the week before Thanksgiving (had it TiVoed). I was home sick (2nd time in 8 years) with a strep tonsil. I lost 14 pounds in 8 days. (from being sick, not from green tea, duh) This guy says "Green Tea" is good for you and you still get the caffeine. I figured what the hell, and haven't had coffee since.
I gained some of the 14 lbs back, but having changed nothing but Green Tea for coffee, I am 11 pounds lighter than before I was sick. It's been 4 weeks.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
No Spin Zone?
To Mr. O’Reilly,
First, let me say that I like your show, “The O’Reilly Factor”. Yeah, I think you’re a tad stuck on the guy in the mirror, but hey – you seem like a nice guy. And I DO think you try to broadcast a “Fair and Balanced” presentation of whatever is the topic de jour.
But I just read, and re-read your Wednesday, Nov 24, 2004 offering on your website (BillOReilly.com) – on the topic of “Dan Rather”. And I have to respond.
Mr. O’Reilly, are you holding back so as to not burn bridges? Are you somehow trying to keep your options open with CBS?
I agree with your first three and one-half paragraphs pretty much. The smears are rampant. The Kitty Kelley stuff was just plain wrong. But your defense of Mr. Rather is flawed. And there are two issues with Mr. Rather – first, the initial broadcast of the “memos”, and second, all of the subsequent activity.
We’re about the same age, Mr. O’Reilly. I’m not a journalist of any kind. Sure, I have a blog, but to date it’s had zero hits other than my own. I use it mainly to vent. My not being close to your profession has an advantage – I’m not (or wasn’t) cynical about your industry. I agreed with my grandmother’s position that, “If it’s printed in the Reader’s Digest, it must be true.”
Don’t laugh that one off, Mr. O’Reilly, please. Walk down the street in a tee shirt and jeans. Sit in Wilson’s barbershop in Fair Haven, Vermont and watch a Dan Rather, or Peter Jennings, or Tom Brokaw special report. Then ask the other viewers what they learned. (not what they saw, what they learned) Most of them would answer, “Well, they showed the proof right there in those letters that the President is a liar, and cheated on his military service.” And later they’d say, “And by God if Dan Rather’s staking his reputation on it, it’s got to be true!”
It doesn’t have to be Vermont, or even New England. And it doesn’t have to be Dan Rather. It could have been printed in the local newspaper, or broadcast on the radio. Any news report from the Associated Press, NBC News, The New York Times, or USA Today is by definition “believed to be true by the person reporting it.” Period. Reporters aren’t allowed to lie.
Take a poll. Show a headline from the National Enquirer: “Cloned human baby born with the head of a turtle!” How many people out of 100 would say they believed it? Then show Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather headlining the same story on the Evening News. Ask the same 100 the same question. What do you think you’ll get?
You must remember Heinlein’s “Stranger In A Strange Land”. Remember Jubal and Anne? Anne was a “Fair Witness”.
When I want the news, and I tune into Dan Rather’s 6:00 CBS Evening News, I expect Fair Witness reporting. Or close to it. I expect the facts, not the beliefs. I expect the truth, not opinions. I expect nothing less from Brit Hume, Peter Jennings, or you for that matter. When you’re behind the news desk and reporting things to me, I expect and even rely on your “facts” being factual. When you’re doing the “Memo”, I know that’s your opinion, and can believe it or not.
“As a CBS News correspondent in the early 80's, I worked with Rather and have
known him for more than 20 years. Listen to me: there is no way on this earth
that he would have knowingly used fake documents on any story. It may be true
that Rather did not vet the information supplied to him by producers, but few
anchor people do. They are dependent on other journalists, and this is a huge
flaw in the system.” So Mr. O’Reilly, I believe you mean it when you say, “Listen to me…” – But I disagree that he wouldn’t have knowingly used “fake” documents. The reason is because he stood by them!
Dan reported that not only was the whole house white, but it was painted with Behr Premium latex house paint stock # 54-231. Then even after Behr proved it only manufactured a single gallon of that stock number and it sold for $4 million dollars, Dan got back on the air and said, “We stand by our story! They could have spent that much, and they could have spread it over the entire house.”
And while we’re right here, let me put a really fine point on it by saying, I would have staked a paycheck on the notion that he wouldn’t use “fake” documents, but I would not have bet even a nickel that he wouldn’t knowingly broadcast “false” information. That sir, is the issue. When after most reasonable persons agreed the documents were fake, and he still maintained the story was correct, I can’t in my own mind agree that he “…wouldn’t have knowingly used fake documents…” in the first place.
When the media, any media, knowingly reports anything that is not true, that’s just plain wrong. Caveats be damned, when you know something is not true, you can’t divorce yourself from responsibility by saying, “Sources said…” You’re a smart man. You know exactly what I’m saying.
“Dan Rather is guilty of not being skeptical enough about a story that was
politically loaded. I believe Rather, along with Andy Rooney, Walter Cronkite
and other guardsmen of the old CBS News, are liberal in their thinking. That is
certainly a legitimate debate, how for years CBS News has taken a rather (pardon
the pun) progressive outlook. But holding a political point of view is the right
of every American, and does not entitle people to practice character
assassination or deny the presumption of innocence. Dan Rather was slimed. It
was disgraceful.” I emphasized a part of the above. You are most certainly correct that, “holding a political point of view is the right of every American”, however, it is not your right to allow that view to distort what you tell me as fact. Dan wasn’t slimed – he dove headfirst into the morass. When you’re doing “The Memo” I expect what you say to be your opinion. But when you sit as anchor, behind the desk that says, “CBS Evening News” you had better be telling me what’s true, because I’m believing what you say. After all, my grandma used to also say, “If Walter Cronkite said it on the air, it must be true!”
First, let me say that I like your show, “The O’Reilly Factor”. Yeah, I think you’re a tad stuck on the guy in the mirror, but hey – you seem like a nice guy. And I DO think you try to broadcast a “Fair and Balanced” presentation of whatever is the topic de jour.
But I just read, and re-read your Wednesday, Nov 24, 2004 offering on your website (BillOReilly.com) – on the topic of “Dan Rather”. And I have to respond.
Mr. O’Reilly, are you holding back so as to not burn bridges? Are you somehow trying to keep your options open with CBS?
I agree with your first three and one-half paragraphs pretty much. The smears are rampant. The Kitty Kelley stuff was just plain wrong. But your defense of Mr. Rather is flawed. And there are two issues with Mr. Rather – first, the initial broadcast of the “memos”, and second, all of the subsequent activity.
We’re about the same age, Mr. O’Reilly. I’m not a journalist of any kind. Sure, I have a blog, but to date it’s had zero hits other than my own. I use it mainly to vent. My not being close to your profession has an advantage – I’m not (or wasn’t) cynical about your industry. I agreed with my grandmother’s position that, “If it’s printed in the Reader’s Digest, it must be true.”
Don’t laugh that one off, Mr. O’Reilly, please. Walk down the street in a tee shirt and jeans. Sit in Wilson’s barbershop in Fair Haven, Vermont and watch a Dan Rather, or Peter Jennings, or Tom Brokaw special report. Then ask the other viewers what they learned. (not what they saw, what they learned) Most of them would answer, “Well, they showed the proof right there in those letters that the President is a liar, and cheated on his military service.” And later they’d say, “And by God if Dan Rather’s staking his reputation on it, it’s got to be true!”
It doesn’t have to be Vermont, or even New England. And it doesn’t have to be Dan Rather. It could have been printed in the local newspaper, or broadcast on the radio. Any news report from the Associated Press, NBC News, The New York Times, or USA Today is by definition “believed to be true by the person reporting it.” Period. Reporters aren’t allowed to lie.
Take a poll. Show a headline from the National Enquirer: “Cloned human baby born with the head of a turtle!” How many people out of 100 would say they believed it? Then show Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather headlining the same story on the Evening News. Ask the same 100 the same question. What do you think you’ll get?
You must remember Heinlein’s “Stranger In A Strange Land”. Remember Jubal and Anne? Anne was a “Fair Witness”.
Fair Witness:To demonstrate, Jubal called Anne outside to the swimming pool where he was explaining the no-spin of a Fair Witness. Jubal told Anne to put on her robe, which indicated to the world that she was then in the role of a Fair Witness. Jubal asked her what was the color of the house on the hill in front of them. As a Fair Witness, Anne answered, “The side of the house facing us appears to be painted white.”
A person rigorously trained to observe, remember, and report
without prejudice, distortion, lapses in memory, or personal involvement.
When I want the news, and I tune into Dan Rather’s 6:00 CBS Evening News, I expect Fair Witness reporting. Or close to it. I expect the facts, not the beliefs. I expect the truth, not opinions. I expect nothing less from Brit Hume, Peter Jennings, or you for that matter. When you’re behind the news desk and reporting things to me, I expect and even rely on your “facts” being factual. When you’re doing the “Memo”, I know that’s your opinion, and can believe it or not.
“As a CBS News correspondent in the early 80's, I worked with Rather and have
known him for more than 20 years. Listen to me: there is no way on this earth
that he would have knowingly used fake documents on any story. It may be true
that Rather did not vet the information supplied to him by producers, but few
anchor people do. They are dependent on other journalists, and this is a huge
flaw in the system.” So Mr. O’Reilly, I believe you mean it when you say, “Listen to me…” – But I disagree that he wouldn’t have knowingly used “fake” documents. The reason is because he stood by them!
Dan reported that not only was the whole house white, but it was painted with Behr Premium latex house paint stock # 54-231. Then even after Behr proved it only manufactured a single gallon of that stock number and it sold for $4 million dollars, Dan got back on the air and said, “We stand by our story! They could have spent that much, and they could have spread it over the entire house.”
And while we’re right here, let me put a really fine point on it by saying, I would have staked a paycheck on the notion that he wouldn’t use “fake” documents, but I would not have bet even a nickel that he wouldn’t knowingly broadcast “false” information. That sir, is the issue. When after most reasonable persons agreed the documents were fake, and he still maintained the story was correct, I can’t in my own mind agree that he “…wouldn’t have knowingly used fake documents…” in the first place.
When the media, any media, knowingly reports anything that is not true, that’s just plain wrong. Caveats be damned, when you know something is not true, you can’t divorce yourself from responsibility by saying, “Sources said…” You’re a smart man. You know exactly what I’m saying.
“Dan Rather is guilty of not being skeptical enough about a story that was
politically loaded. I believe Rather, along with Andy Rooney, Walter Cronkite
and other guardsmen of the old CBS News, are liberal in their thinking. That is
certainly a legitimate debate, how for years CBS News has taken a rather (pardon
the pun) progressive outlook. But holding a political point of view is the right
of every American, and does not entitle people to practice character
assassination or deny the presumption of innocence. Dan Rather was slimed. It
was disgraceful.” I emphasized a part of the above. You are most certainly correct that, “holding a political point of view is the right of every American”, however, it is not your right to allow that view to distort what you tell me as fact. Dan wasn’t slimed – he dove headfirst into the morass. When you’re doing “The Memo” I expect what you say to be your opinion. But when you sit as anchor, behind the desk that says, “CBS Evening News” you had better be telling me what’s true, because I’m believing what you say. After all, my grandma used to also say, “If Walter Cronkite said it on the air, it must be true!”
Fair and Balanced?
On BillOReilly.com today, is a link to “Grade Bill’s coverage on The O’Reilly Factor” and there’s the letters “PM” following the link.
For a guy who proclaims to be “Fair and Balanced”, why is that link only open to those followers who pay Mr. O’Reilly $50 per year for the privilege of “… a Premium Membership is your ultimate V.I.P. pass to all things O'Reilly!”?
I should pay you for the privilege of telling you what I think of your performance?
- PajamaGuy
For a guy who proclaims to be “Fair and Balanced”, why is that link only open to those followers who pay Mr. O’Reilly $50 per year for the privilege of “… a Premium Membership is your ultimate V.I.P. pass to all things O'Reilly!”?
I should pay you for the privilege of telling you what I think of your performance?
- PajamaGuy
Friday, November 12, 2004
What'd I do?
A posting @ North Georgia Dogma
"Let me get this straight:
My daughter is the top reader in her class & has all A's on her report card
My son is talking and on pace to be in a "regular" school (he's already taking classes there)
Bush wins re-election
Daschle lost his senate seat
I've got my basketball "game" back
Dan Rather is discredited
The Dixie Chicks couldn"t sell out 1,500 seats for their Bush-bashing concert
Zell Miller pimped Chris Matthews
Alan Simpson (and Andrew Sullivan) pimped Bill Maher
I have friends on the internet, even though we disagree
Kos' candidates were zero for 15
I broke 90 on the golf course with my brother
I'm soon-to-be-headed for a 9 day trip to Disney World (my first vacation in 3 years)
And now, Arafat is dead
Where's my lottery ticket? Things are going my way. I'm not haunted, things feel so good. Whatever it is...let it keep goin'!"
"Let me get this straight:
My daughter is the top reader in her class & has all A's on her report card
My son is talking and on pace to be in a "regular" school (he's already taking classes there)
Bush wins re-election
Daschle lost his senate seat
I've got my basketball "game" back
Dan Rather is discredited
The Dixie Chicks couldn"t sell out 1,500 seats for their Bush-bashing concert
Zell Miller pimped Chris Matthews
Alan Simpson (and Andrew Sullivan) pimped Bill Maher
I have friends on the internet, even though we disagree
Kos' candidates were zero for 15
I broke 90 on the golf course with my brother
I'm soon-to-be-headed for a 9 day trip to Disney World (my first vacation in 3 years)
And now, Arafat is dead
Where's my lottery ticket? Things are going my way. I'm not haunted, things feel so good. Whatever it is...let it keep goin'!"
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Why "Waitress Moms" Didn't Vote for Kerry
Mark Steyn, in the Telegraph:
I'm convinced that any red-state county knows more about business than your average Massachusetts senator, tenured Harvard professor or Boston Globe editor. When John Kerry gets his hair done at Cristophe's in Washington for somewhere north of $75, that high-priced stylist is an employee. If he'd ever stopped to have it done for $10 by DeeDee in a hair salon in a small town, he'd discover that she's a one-woman business.
When he goes to his favourite restaurant in Washington, the waiter's an employee. When he drops by a diner on Main Street in some nowhere burg to pretend to eat a hot dog for a photo op, the waitress might well be like the lady who served me lunch on Sunday: she has her own house-cleaning business, but does some part-time work at the local school and a couple of shifts at the diner for a bit of extra cash.
She's a small business, and she knows more about her tax return than Teresa Heinz Kerry knows about hers. Mrs Kerry farms it out to the best advisers money can buy, and they do a grand job: she's one of the richest women in the world and she paid 12 per cent tax last year. It makes no difference whether the tax rate is 20 per cent, 50 per cent or 88 per cent: the Kerrys of the world will still pay 12 per cent.
The American people don't want to be condescended to by ketchup heiresses, billionaire currency speculators, $20-million-a-picture Hollywood pretty boys, and multi-millionaire documentary-makers posing as bluecollar lardbutts.
The Democrats keep talking to people as if they're like John Edwards's 40-year mill-workers, but that's not what work is any more, and a 23-year-old hairdresser can know enough about starting and running a bus"
I'm convinced that any red-state county knows more about business than your average Massachusetts senator, tenured Harvard professor or Boston Globe editor. When John Kerry gets his hair done at Cristophe's in Washington for somewhere north of $75, that high-priced stylist is an employee. If he'd ever stopped to have it done for $10 by DeeDee in a hair salon in a small town, he'd discover that she's a one-woman business.
When he goes to his favourite restaurant in Washington, the waiter's an employee. When he drops by a diner on Main Street in some nowhere burg to pretend to eat a hot dog for a photo op, the waitress might well be like the lady who served me lunch on Sunday: she has her own house-cleaning business, but does some part-time work at the local school and a couple of shifts at the diner for a bit of extra cash.
She's a small business, and she knows more about her tax return than Teresa Heinz Kerry knows about hers. Mrs Kerry farms it out to the best advisers money can buy, and they do a grand job: she's one of the richest women in the world and she paid 12 per cent tax last year. It makes no difference whether the tax rate is 20 per cent, 50 per cent or 88 per cent: the Kerrys of the world will still pay 12 per cent.
The American people don't want to be condescended to by ketchup heiresses, billionaire currency speculators, $20-million-a-picture Hollywood pretty boys, and multi-millionaire documentary-makers posing as bluecollar lardbutts.
The Democrats keep talking to people as if they're like John Edwards's 40-year mill-workers, but that's not what work is any more, and a 23-year-old hairdresser can know enough about starting and running a bus"
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
From Ann Coulter
HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE :: Fall Fashion Preview: Cowboy Boots In, Flip Flops Out by Ann Coulter: "If Gore had been elected president, right now he would just be finding that last lesbian quadriplegic for the Special Forces team."
-Read the whole piece!
{Don't you just love Ann's writing? - PajamaGuy}
-Read the whole piece!
{Don't you just love Ann's writing? - PajamaGuy}
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Have They Answered the "Question?"
"Knowing all that you know now, if John Kerry were president, would the United States have invaded Iraq and taken Saddam Hussein out of power - 'YES' or 'NO'?"
Does anyone know if that question has been answered by either Kerry or Edwards?
Does anyone know if that question has been answered by either Kerry or Edwards?
HughHewitt.com
HughHewitt.com: "I was just asked by a caller: Why does George Bush put up with these debates when a biased media slants the questions and the analysis? My answer: The president is not only doing what any president ought to do in appearing and defending his record, he is also showing Karzai, Allawi, and all other would-be leaders of free countries that part of the job is getting hammered by the opposition and the media come election time. It is a tutorial in how real leaders in real democracies act. Too bad Hugo Chavez isn't watching.
And in this era of newly emerging democracies, it is unfortunate that home grown thugs in Florida, Wisconsin and elsewhere are modeling exactly the opposite of democratic behavior."
And in this era of newly emerging democracies, it is unfortunate that home grown thugs in Florida, Wisconsin and elsewhere are modeling exactly the opposite of democratic behavior."
Monday, October 04, 2004
Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties(CNSNews.com)
- Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com , show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders. Full Story
{...wonder how Waffles is going to trivialize this...???}
{...wonder how Waffles is going to trivialize this...???}
So What If It's A Pen?
Why does it matter?
I don't really care if it's the first offering his oldest daughter gave up to the Tooth Fairy! Are we getting so complacent in this country that breaking rules is o.k. so long as no damage is done. Please say it ain't so! Saying something you know to be not true is a lie. Creating a fake or false government record is against the law. It doesn't matter if it's a fake memo from a Texas Air National Guardsman, or an After Action report that lists falsehoods.
Why does no one care that the Democratic Party's candidate for President of the United States broke the rules? Why is it trivial?
I don't really care if it's the first offering his oldest daughter gave up to the Tooth Fairy! Are we getting so complacent in this country that breaking rules is o.k. so long as no damage is done. Please say it ain't so! Saying something you know to be not true is a lie. Creating a fake or false government record is against the law. It doesn't matter if it's a fake memo from a Texas Air National Guardsman, or an After Action report that lists falsehoods.
Section 5, pages 4-5 of the binding "Memorandum of Understanding" that was
negotiated and agreed upon by both political campaigns states: "No props, notes,
charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into
the debate by either candidate.... Each candidate must submit to the staff of
the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils with
which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or
commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium..."
Why does no one care that the Democratic Party's candidate for President of the United States broke the rules? Why is it trivial?
Sunday, October 03, 2004
John Kerry Violated Debate Rules
From INDC Journal-
Check out the video!
John Kerry brought prohibited material into last Thursday's Presidential Debate.
From section 5, pages 4-5 of the binding 'Memorandum of Understanding' (pdf file) that was negotiated and agreed upon by both political campaigns:
(c) No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.
{The video clearly shows the honerable Senator taking something from within his right jacket inside pocket! Check it out!}
{The Trackback from INCD doesn't work; the links in this post take you to the INDC top}
Check out the video!
John Kerry brought prohibited material into last Thursday's Presidential Debate.
From section 5, pages 4-5 of the binding 'Memorandum of Understanding' (pdf file) that was negotiated and agreed upon by both political campaigns:
(c) No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.
{The video clearly shows the honerable Senator taking something from within his right jacket inside pocket! Check it out!}
{The Trackback from INCD doesn't work; the links in this post take you to the INDC top}
Friday, October 01, 2004
James Lileks Bleating -
"Here’s the thing. I’d really like to live in John Kerry’s world. It seems like such a rational, sensible place, where handshakes and signatures have the power to change the face of the planet. If only the terrorists lived there as well.
Who does Zarkowi fear the most - France, summiteers, or Marines? If the rightness of a cause is measured by the number of one’s allies, would Britain have been right if the US had stayed neutral in World War Two?
And that’s what I felt after 30 minutes of the debate. If I’d stuck around for the whole thing, I think I’d be sleeping in the tool shed tonight, chewing on the old discarded Tiki torches. Now it’s time for a scotch and some TV; see you Monday. And thanks for reading this far. God knows I wouldn’t have. I do go on, don’t I. Alas and alack. "
{excerpted from a great read!}
Faces of Frustration
I think I like the video! It's called "Faces of Frustration" and rightly so. It is frustrating when your opponent is an asshole! Go to the DNC site and view for yourself!
I Feel Better Now!
I kept thinking, "C'mon George,...stand up straight... and in a calm, strong voice, tell 'em where the bear shit in the buckwheat!" Jeez, it didn't happen. Pretty soon I said to myself, "God, I hope this is over soon!" - but 30 minutes hadn't even elapsed yet.
Finally, it was over. 60/40 Kerry - I didn't want to hear the spinmeisters - went to bed.
If you replay it, try turning the sound off. Kerry wins that one big time!
So this morning I started reading... and reading... and everyone of the blogs is saying the same 2 things: #1- Kerry wins on points. #2- Everybody believes #1 except Hugh Hewitt!?!!?
I went and read his blog and studied the Hugh Hewitt's Scorecard. Now I feel better!
Finally, it was over. 60/40 Kerry - I didn't want to hear the spinmeisters - went to bed.
If you replay it, try turning the sound off. Kerry wins that one big time!
So this morning I started reading... and reading... and everyone of the blogs is saying the same 2 things: #1- Kerry wins on points. #2- Everybody believes #1 except Hugh Hewitt!?!!?
I went and read his blog and studied the Hugh Hewitt's Scorecard. Now I feel better!
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
John Kerry's Secret Plan for His New DRAFT!
A New Era of National Service
"John Kerry Outlines Plan to Require Service for High School Students
Part of "100 days Plan to Enlist One Million Americans in National Service A Year "
On September 11th, 2001, America experienced the most terrible and deadly attack in its history. John Kerry believes we need to think big and do better and get more young Americans serving the nation.
As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service."
{emphasis is mine}
The above is cached at web.archive.org. The JohnKerry web site no longer contains the posting. It does have an edited posting that does NOT contain the words, "...requiring mandatory service for high school students" In fact, my searching his current postings on the subject fails to find any reference to "high school". See for yourself: National Service Plan
Why did the posted version change? Is he trying to hide the ..."mandatory service for High School Students?" Or did he just change his mind - was this a tack or a jibe?
"John Kerry Outlines Plan to Require Service for High School Students
Part of "100 days Plan to Enlist One Million Americans in National Service A Year "
On September 11th, 2001, America experienced the most terrible and deadly attack in its history. John Kerry believes we need to think big and do better and get more young Americans serving the nation.
As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service."
{emphasis is mine}
The above is cached at web.archive.org. The JohnKerry web site no longer contains the posting. It does have an edited posting that does NOT contain the words, "...requiring mandatory service for high school students" In fact, my searching his current postings on the subject fails to find any reference to "high school". See for yourself: National Service Plan
Why did the posted version change? Is he trying to hide the ..."mandatory service for High School Students?" Or did he just change his mind - was this a tack or a jibe?
How to Correct a Mistake: A Lesson in Journalism from The National Geographic Magazine
From the Editor: A Special Message
In the July 2004 issue of National Geographic, we published a story about elephant hunting in Tanzania by the Barabaig people.
To our profound disappointment, we have learned that we were misled by the photographer and that three of the published photographs do not accurately depict the situation described in the accompanying text.
On pages 78-9 (photograph above), the picture caption reads that hunters are carrying "tusks taken from an elephant found dead in the bush." Soon after the article was published, several readers pointed out that there are faint but unmistakable numbers on the tusk on page 78—which we failed to notice before publishing the story. We now know that the tusks belong to the Tanzania Department of Wildlife. When we asked photographer Gilles Nicolet to explain, he admitted that he himself had supplied the tusks to the hunters after borrowing them from local wildlife authorities.
{read the whole thing}
Bravo! Bravo! It's admissions like yours, and unfortunately non-admissions by others that causes us to question the credibility of our information sources. I'm heartened to see you'all are still to be among the shrinking group of trusted sources!
- PajamaGuy
In the July 2004 issue of National Geographic, we published a story about elephant hunting in Tanzania by the Barabaig people.
To our profound disappointment, we have learned that we were misled by the photographer and that three of the published photographs do not accurately depict the situation described in the accompanying text.
On pages 78-9 (photograph above), the picture caption reads that hunters are carrying "tusks taken from an elephant found dead in the bush." Soon after the article was published, several readers pointed out that there are faint but unmistakable numbers on the tusk on page 78—which we failed to notice before publishing the story. We now know that the tusks belong to the Tanzania Department of Wildlife. When we asked photographer Gilles Nicolet to explain, he admitted that he himself had supplied the tusks to the hunters after borrowing them from local wildlife authorities.
{read the whole thing}
Bravo! Bravo! It's admissions like yours, and unfortunately non-admissions by others that causes us to question the credibility of our information sources. I'm heartened to see you'all are still to be among the shrinking group of trusted sources!
- PajamaGuy
Friday, September 24, 2004
The Washington Times: Inside the Beltway - September 24, 2004
By John McCaslin
Kerry out attack
During a 1997 debate on CNN's 'Crossfire,' Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.
So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr. Kerry on the program.
Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest." While no "Crossfire" transcripts from 1997 are available, Mr. King in recent days produced a tape of the show, sharing it with New York radio host Monica Crowley for broadcast, and this Inside the Beltway column for publication. Stay tuned. "
{emphasis is mine -PjP}
Kerry out attack
During a 1997 debate on CNN's 'Crossfire,' Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.
So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr. Kerry on the program.
Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest." While no "Crossfire" transcripts from 1997 are available, Mr. King in recent days produced a tape of the show, sharing it with New York radio host Monica Crowley for broadcast, and this Inside the Beltway column for publication. Stay tuned. "
{emphasis is mine -PjP}
COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us
"No wonder Kerry left the cookie business. The guy couldn't sell an Ice cube to a bedouin.
'I laid out a plan which will help America protect our troops,' he says. 'We need to bring other allies to the table.'
Ok. So you want other nation's leaders to expend political capital and treasure and send their lads to risk their lives along with theirs.
So why don't you act like it? Why aren't you trying to sell the deal?"
{IraqNow...pretty good blogsite!}
'I laid out a plan which will help America protect our troops,' he says. 'We need to bring other allies to the table.'
Ok. So you want other nation's leaders to expend political capital and treasure and send their lads to risk their lives along with theirs.
So why don't you act like it? Why aren't you trying to sell the deal?"
{IraqNow...pretty good blogsite!}