Michael Moore Writes From The RNC

Michael Moore was the journalist that USA Today decided to send to the RNC this week. This was quite interesting yesterday when the media saw that he was there. They began to gather around him to ask him questions. In fact, on NPR they were able to ask him two questions before the Secret Service wouldn't allow the reporters to ask him any more questions. In fact, it seems to be strange that the freedom of speech should be compromised at a political convention. But, here in the USA many freedoms are restricted everyday.

Read Michael Moore's column here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2004-08- 30-moore-gopamerica_x.htm" title="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2004-08- 30-moore-gopamerica_x.htm" target="_blank"http://www.usatoday.com/news/...

Idiot Leaders and the Republican Party

Why is it that Republicans continue to select the stupid over the smart to lead their party? They had Ronald Reagan, Dan Quail, George W Bush. Any of the intelligent Republicans seem to be put into the back of the party bus. For example, John McCain was a good guy with some good ideas. He held the line on the Fundamentalists who wanted to take over the Party, but the Republicans in South Carolina vote for the idiot from Texas instead of the Bright guy from Arizona. Is it really the smear campaign of George W Bush, or is it just that Republicans prefer to be lead by an idiot? I guess we will have to wait until 2008 to see if they select another idiot or if they default to Cheney as their selection.

What Did Rudy Mean?

Rudy Giuliani the former Mayer of New York City said that during 9/11/2001 he said, “thank God that George W Bush is our president.” Well, if you think about it for a moment you may realize why he would say something like that. Perhaps like most local official they like to be in control of the situation. Since he knew that George W Bush was clueless he was sure to have the authority to get things done which needed to be done without interference. Almost any other president of the last 50 years would have been more prepared than George W Bush. In fact, with Bush’s deferment of decisions to the lower ranks he actually did very little in regard to the issues on 9/11. Bush himself claims that he has a good staff to do the thinking so he doesn’t need to worry about it. So, Rudy was glad that George W Bush was president so that he would defer the larger more important tasks to him so that he could get the job done.

More Lies About Kerry to Air

This new round of attacks comes from a familiar name -- Ted Sampley -- who has a long history of irrational public attacks against both John McCain and John Kerry. In 1992 Sampley created a fake photo of John Kerry shooting an American MIA. He has been jailed for starting a fight with John McCain's staff, and has called McCain the Manchurian Candidate, accusing him of being "brainwashed by the Vietnamese" and being a "KGB spy."

Ted Sampley is now the head of "Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry" and a supporter of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." He has been telling lies about John Kerry, and today he launched an extraordinarily false ad smearing John Kerry's military service.

To view this ad click here:

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjoh nkerry.org/video/kerry.wmv" title="http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjoh nkerry.org/video/kerry.wmv" target="_blank"http://www.vietnamveteransaga...

Ted Sampley's group is also still attacking Senator McCain. To view this page click here:

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjoh nkerry.com/mccain_myth.htm" title="http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjoh nkerry.com/mccain_myth.htm" target="_blank"http://www.vietnamveteransaga...

Bush Flip Flops on the War on Terror

So, first he thought the war on terror was winnable. Then he thought the war on Terror wasn’t winnable. Then he thought it was winnable again. No, we are not talking about John Kerry here. We are talking about the King Hypocrite of the Republican Party, George W Bush. He goes out and claims in every one of his campaign speeches that John Kerry is a flip flopper, and here he is flip flopping on the most important issue in the 2004 election. All that I can say is this: Kerry never flipped on an issue like this one. Either George W Bush doesn’t understand English, or he didn’t read the cue cards the Karl Rove wrote for him or he is just plain stupid. I’m guessing it is all three. But even if it is just one of the three you have to admit that Bush Should not be doing what he is accusing Kerry of doing.... Flip-flopping!

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=6116611§ion=news" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=6116611§ion=news" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

Triumph on Fresh Air

Maybe most people don’t know what Fresh Air is, and perhaps only a few more know who Triumph is, but this little segment on the radio was one of the funniest things that I have heard in a long time. Terry Gross is the host of Fresh Air, a National Public Radio program in which she interviews writers, singers, and many others in the entertainment industry. Triumph is a rubber puppet seen on Connan O’Brian, a late night talk show on NBC.

So, the ten-minute segment broadcast Friday on NPR was a segment where Terry interviews Triumph in character. Instead of describing it I’ll just give you a link to where you can listen to it for yourself.

http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?display=day&todayDa te=08/27/2004" title="http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?display=day&todayDa te=08/27/2004" target="_blank"http://freshair.npr.org/day_f...

Facts Don’t Stop Bush From Spreading Hate

Factcheck.org finds that George W Bush is still lying about John Kerry's tax record. Earlier in the election Bush claimed that Kerry had voted to raise taxes 350 times. The Bush campaign has revised its number to 98, but it is still wrong! at least 43 were not votes for tax increases, merely votes for budget goals. They did not change a tax law. The Bush campaign has searched through over 6000 of Kerry's votes in the search of any inconsistency, or any way they can make Kerry appear inconsistent. The American people should be upset with George W Bush for fostering these lies that many uninformed people accept as fact. Bush must hate the country to be able to think that this selfishness is acceptable.

Check it out at:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=247" title="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=247" target="_blank"http://www.factcheck.org/arti...

Bush vs. Kerry on Vietnam

During the Vietnam War there was quite a bit of talk of the unfairness of the draft. It was well known that anyone with money could get out of the war. The army was largely made up of the urban poor and lower middle class. Many black leaders used this fact in their speeches. Also, at the time that Kerry volunteered for service the war was still supported by the majority of the public. After the critical years of 1968 and 1969 the view of the war became much more negative. By that time it was obvious that the US had no plan to win the war, and they didn't even have full support of the South Vietnamese that they were supposedly trying to support. So, at the time that Kerry volunteered his act was patriotic and noble.

On the other hand, George W Bush, working for the Republican Party sought the less dangerous route. The waiting list for his spot in the National Guard was quite long, and he mystically found himself pushed to the front of the line. Not only this, but he shot to the front of the line in the pilot training program. Normally it is quite difficult to get such a position and usually requires extremely high grades that George W Bush did not possess.

Ironically John Kerry could have used his influence to take a similar route, but he chose to go into combat. He could have even opted to be support and remain stationed on a ship offshore. This would have been a relatively safe position seeing that very few of our ships were actually attacked.

So, having gone into battle and witnessing the flawed war in Vietnam John Kerry realized that the war was wrong. Instead of remaining quite and sitting on the sideline like most of the returning vets, John Kerry chose to organize a group of vets against the war. Being a vet and being there gave John Kerry the credibility needed to make the claims that the war protesters had been making for over two years. Many people ignored the war protesters by claiming that they didn’t have evidence for their claims. The evidence that they had was mainly second hand knowledge brought back by vets who were to embarrassed to stand up and denounce the war. Little by little many of these claims were substantiated.

So, George W Bush used the political system of the time to get himself out of harms way. And John Kerry not only put himself into harms way, he also realized the flaws in the war and was brave enough to stand up against the war when he got back from serving. From my point of view it is pretty obvious who was nobler, but each American needs to weigh the facts for themselves.

Bush vs. Hitler

George W Bush is not the Hitler of 1945. He has not put the same number of people to death in death camps as Hitler did by then. So, in order to compare Bush to Hitler it would seem like it was pretty obvious that there was no link.

How could people in Germany accept Hitler as a leader if they never saw something positive about his leadership?

He created the VW, he built freeways that the US copied, he got the people out of the depression that was worse for the Germans than the Americans. If you can't compare a person to the time they are taking actions then you can't avoid the errors of history.

Sure, Bush isn't putting Blacks into slave camps, but he is putting innocent Arabs into jail and not allowing them the right to a lawyer. He is fighting against Gay rights. He doesn't believe in equal rights and since he doesn't he will only build from there.

For example, when the French would not support the unnecessary war in Iraq he began to bash the French. This is not the type of American leader that we can be proud of.

So, since George W Bush is just beginning his political career we should compare Bush to Hitler when he was just beginning his political career. Hitler’s career began in a beer hall, and Bush’s began in a church hall. The common thread however is that they both tried to appeal to the common men and began to promote their ideas of supremacy. Supremacy for Hitler was the German race. Supremacy for Bush is the Fundamentalist Christian Faith. Both men believed that they had a destiny to lead their people to the Promised Land. Both men believed that those who are not like them are inferior. Hitler believed the non-Arian races were inferior. Bush believes the non-Christian religions are inferior.

However, the most important similarity between the two is that both Hitler and Bush believe that they are infallible. Neither Bush nor Hitler would listen to the opposition, or compromise. They both believe they are right and they use slander to hide the truth if they are wrong. They both use effective propaganda to make sure that their message is the only message out there.

So, the problem is not that Bush has killed as many people as Hitler, it is that their philosophies are very close to the same. If the American people don’t stand up to him now they may not get another chance. In four more years he may be able to take more of our rights away from us and set the political machinery in place to make it nearly impossible to remove his party from power.

The Web of Lies

President Bush Claims that the Swift Boat Liars for Bush are not connected to his campaign. Then why.....

1 Ken Cordier served on the Bush Veterans Steering Committee and also stars in the latest "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" smear ad. As a member of the steering committee presumably he was involved in policy development. What information about the Bush campaign's veterans policy did he share with the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?" Did he ever discuss his activities with this smear group with anyone in the Bush campaign? How many times did "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" activities come up at Bush Veterans Steering Committee meetings?

2 Yesterday on Fox News, Karl Rove confirmed that he and Bob Perry are longtime friends. Bob Perry is the largest contributor to the Texas Republican Party and a longtime supporter of President Bush. When was the last time Karl Rove and Bob Perry spoke, and did they discuss the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?"

3 Based on newspaper accounts, we know Merrie Spaeth was involved in the underhanded shadow campaign against John McCain in 2000. She also helped organize the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and did the debate prep for President H. W. Bush. She has also admitted that she advised Bush administration officials in the White House as recently as last year. Was Merrie Spaeth ever contacted by anyone from the Bush campaign, including Benjamin Ginsberg, about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?"

4 John O'Neill's law firm, Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson, has many connections to President Bush. In fact, Margaret Wilson, Mr. O'Neill's law partner, served as General Counsel to Governor Bush and followed him to Washington, where she worked as Deputy Counsel for the Department of Commerce. Did she ever discuss "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" with President Bush, members of his administration or any Bush-Cheney campaign officials?

5 If Benjamin Ginsberg says there's no connection, why did the Bush-Cheney campaign office in Florida pass out "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" flyers to promote a joint anti-John Kerry rally in Gainsville, Florida last weekend?

6 According to news reports, Benjamin Ginsberg has worked with "Progress for America," a newly formed 527 group that has announced it's going to spend $35 million to attack John Kerry and whose executive director is a top advisor to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Has Benjamin Ginsberg had any additional contact with this group? Have Karl Rove or other Bush officials -- either in the White House or on the Bush-Cheney campaign -- had contacts with this group?

7 How many times did Karl Rove and Benjamin Ginsberg meet? Did they ever discuss the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?"

What is Competent Management?

In an organization management oversees the organization in order for it to function, as it should.

Every organization has a function or purpose. A widget manufacturer is an organization that manufactures widgets. A school is an organization that teaches children. A government is an organization that governs the people. The management of these organizations has the mandate to make sure that these organizations carry out their functions. This is why a principal who is not in the classroom teaching is responsible if the students are not learning. This is why the CEO of the Widget Company is held responsible if widget sales fall off. And it is why the President of the United States of America (POTUSA) is held responsible for taking a nation into a needless war.

In any school where the students are not learning the defense “I didn’t know what was happening.” would not be justified. In a widget company Wall Street would laugh at the defense, “I didn’t know that widgets were falling out of favor.” So, when the President of the United States of America tells the public that it’s the CIA’s fault for not providing the intelligence on Iraq, why did we just accept the excuse?

The President oversees the various departments in the government. The leaders of each department manage their departments. The President should have known what each of these departments was doing. He should have been the intelligence czar that the 9/11 commission recommended. All the presidents of the past have managed the government in a successful way.

When President Bush was running for office in 2000 he was accused of being an international relations lightweight. And his presidency has proved this accusation true. But, his answer to this accusation tells us everything we need to know about how he runs the government. He said that he would hire good people that knew about those things and he would leave it in their hands.

This is like having a manager in a company figure that the employees know what they are doing, so you don’t need to check on them. The CEO of a widget company wouldn’t get many widgets made if he left everyone in the company to do what they wanted to do. In fact, he would most likely be accused of incompetence. The Principal in the school wouldn’t get many students learned if he left it up to everyone to do what they wanted to do. And, he too would be charge with incompetence. But, that’s how it is in the White House now days.

I couldn't resist this:


Published on Thursday, August 26, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
What Would Machiavelli Do? The Big Lie Lives On
by Thom Hartmann


There is nothing new about the Swift Boat ads.

German filmmaker Fritz Kippler, one of Goebbels' most effective propagandists, once said that two steps were necessary to promote a Big Lie so the majority of the people in a nation would believe it. The first was to reduce an issue to a simple black-and-white choice that "even the most feebleminded could understand." The second was to repeat the oversimplification over and over. If these two steps were followed, people would always come to believe the Big Lie.

In Kippler's day, the best example of his application of the principle was his 1940 movie "Campaign in Poland," which argued that the Polish people were suffering under tyranny - a tyranny that would someday threaten Germany - and that the German people could either allow this cancer to fester, or preemptively "liberate" Poland. Hitler took the "strong and decisive" path, the movie suggested, to liberate Poland, even though after the invasion little evidence was found that Poland represented any threat whatsoever to the powerful German Reich. The movie was Hitler's way of saying that invading Poland was the right thing to do, and that, in retrospect, he would have done it again.

The Big Lie is alive and well today in the United States of America, and what's most troubling about it is the basic premise that underlies its use. In order for somebody to undertake a Big Lie, they must first believe Niccolo Machiavelli's premise (in "The Prince," 1532) that the end justifies the means.

Hitler, after all, claimed to have based everything he did on the virtuous goal of uniting Europe - and then the world - in a thousand-year era of peace, foreshadowed in the Bible. If you believe that a thousand years of peace is such a noble end that any means is justified to reach it, it's a short leap to eugenics, preemptive wars, torture of dissidents and prisoners, and mass murder.

Believing that the end justifies the means is the ultimate slippery slope. It will ultimately kill any noble goal, because even if the goal is achieved, it will have been corrupted along the way by the means used to accomplish it.

In fiction, it's the story of Mary Shelley's good Doctor Frankenstein's attempt to conquer mortality, of Darth Vader's misuse of the Force, and of the tragic consequence of the inquisitive Dr. Jeckyll's attempt to understand good and evil going tragically wrong when, as Robert Louis Stevenson notes, he wrote, "I had gone to bed Henry Jekyll, I had awakened Edward Hyde."

In real life, it's the story of the many tinpot dictators around the world who quote Jefferson while enforcing a brutal rule, of power industry executives pushing for lax mercury rules to "help the American economy," of the legion of lobbyists who work daily to corrupt democracy in the good name of GMOs, pharmaceuticals, and the insurance industry (among others).

Gandhi, Jesus, and Buddha all warned us about it, as did Tolstoy, Tolkien, Hemmingway, and Kafka.

Be it "small sins" like Nader getting into bed with Republicans to get on state ballots, or "big sins" like George W. Bush repeatedly asserting that he had to invade Iraq because of WMDs and because Saddam "threw out the weapons inspectors" (something Saddam never did - inspectors were removed by Clinton in 1998 and by Bush in 2003), trying to accomplish a "good" by using the means of an "evil" like a Big Lie inherently corrupts the good.

Now the Bush campaign and its allies are encouraging a new series of Big Lie techniques to assail John Kerry's Vietnam War record. With a smug assurance of damage done to the enemy, George W. Bush refused to address specifically the misrepresentations in the ads, and called for "the end of all 527s," a goal he cynically knows unachievable in this election cycle.

Defenders of the Bush campaign are overrunning the media, trying to imply equivalence between the Swift Boat ads and the many "attack" ads run by anti-Bush 527 organizations over previous months. But the Bush campaign has never disputed the truthfulness of charges against him (loss of jobs, ruinous Iraq policy, environmental despoliation, etc.) in previous 527 ads.

Thus, there is no equivalence between the MoveOn (and other) ads and the Swift Boat ads, moral or otherwise. Truths and issues - however unpleasant - cannot be weighed on the same scale as lies and character assassination, explicit or implicit.

This is why the Kerry campaign is not complaining about attacks per se - those are to be expected in politics - but about Big Lie techniques used in these particular attacks. Techniques, interestingly enough, that have an uncanny resemblance to character smears used by the Bush family against Michael Dukakis in 1988, against Ann Richards in 1994, against John McCain in 2000, and against Max Cleland in 2002.

Lee Atwater, on his deathbed, realized that the "ends justifies the means" technique of campaigning he had unleashed on behalf of the Bush family was both immoral and harmful to American democracy.

"In 1988, fighting Dukakis, I said that I 'would strip the bark off the little bastard' and 'make Willie Horton his [Dukakis'] running mate,'" Atwater said. "I am sorry for both statements: the first for its naked cruelty, the second because it makes me sound racist, which I am not. Mostly I am sorry for the way I thought of other people. Like a good general, I had treated everyone who wasn't with me as against me."

But Atwater's spiritual and political protégé, Karl Rove, soldiers on. Big Lies are emerging from Bush allies with startling regularity, and old Big Lies are being resurrected almost daily, most on right-wing talk radio.

The most alarming contrast in the election of 2004 isn't between the conservative Bush and liberal Kerry. It's between those who will use any means to get and hold power, and those who are unwilling to engage in the Big Lie.

History tells us that, over the short term, the Big Lie usually works. Over the long term, though, the damage it does - both to those who use it, and to the society on which it is inflicted - is incalculable.

On the Road to Terror

In Jack Kerouac’s novel “On the Road” there is a scene that makes you stand back and take notice. It makes you open up to the front page and check the copyright date. When was the book written? The first copyright is 1955, but the book is a veiled memoir of the late 1940s. Kerouac served in World War II, and went to college on the GI bill. During his breaks from college he found himself traveling around the country visiting the people he knew, meeting new people and describing the country from the homeless to the wealthy.

So, when I read about Kerouac and his friend Neil Cassidy driving up from Virginia to New York on a cold December morning. They had wrapped towels around their heads because they were cold and didn’t have hats. As they drove through the Holland Tunnel they imagined themselves as Arab terrorists come to bomb New York City.

They year was 1949 and they were only four years from the end of World War II. Somehow they knew of the Arab threat to New York City in 1949. In fact they thought of it as common knowledge, because there was no explanation for it at all.

So, when the National Security advisor claims that they had no idea that terrorists would choose to use airplanes as bombs to attack New York City, obviously she doesn’t get out enough. If everyday people in 1949 knew that terrorists were thinking about this action surely the government knew about this way back then.

Republicans Support Racist in Tennessee

These are the changes in society that get under the radar, and five years down the road people will be asking, "How did we let this happen?" Normally the major political parties would distance themselves from racists and racist ideology. The argument is that the 2 American political parties represent the majority of the American people, because they are in the middle of the political spectrum. Unfortunately in the last ten years the Republicans have dragged their political party further and further to the right. They dragged religion into politics and now they have found that Republicans are willing to support the extremist view of racism. This trend began with the intolerance of non-Christians in the Republican Party and has grow to intolerance of foreigners under the Patriot act. Now, James Hart is going the obvious one step further. So when he says: "Every person who opens the door as long as they're white I'll say, 'I'm James Hart. I'm running for Congress. My name will be on the ballot in the Aug. 5 Republican primary. I think white children deserve the same rights as everyone else.'" Republicans take it as just another form of acceptable intolerance. After all if people would just behave the way Republicans think we should then there wouldn’t be any trouble!

Here’s a link to a report on the racist James Hart if anyone doubts my words.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040 803_904.html" title="http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040 803_904.html" target="_blank"http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Po...

Bush Ignores the Handicapped

The Republicans slandered Max Cleland in 2002. They slandered him just like they slandered John McCain in 2000. And they are slandering him just like they are slandering John Kerry in 2004. Every American should see the pattern here. The Republicans have learned that slander works. They know that if they lie often enough some percentage of voters will believe them. They don’t need to convince a large number of people to vote for them. They already have a loyal following of sheep that will vote at their command. However, they need a few more votes than the Democrats to win an election. That’s where slander does the job. They lie and lie and repeat the same lies over and over until a few voters believe the lies. That’s all they need is a few gullible people to vote their way and they win the election.

So, Max Cleland went out to Texas to protest the Bush administration and the Republican party’s slander of John Kerry. He tried as he might, but he could not get George W Bush to even acknowledge that he was there. But this isn’t new for this Vietnam vet. He lost an arm and both his legs in Vietnam and he has been ignored as a disabled vet for years now.

On it goes. The Bush administration and the Republican Party just continue to ignore what they don’t like to see.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=6070337" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=6070337" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

Bush Supports Iraq Over the USA

Maybe its because of the oil. Maybe it’s because he made friends with Achmed Chalabi and his buddies. But George W Bush seems to be placing a lot more attention on Iraq than the USA. When he cuts funding in the US on schools and unemployment benefits, but he spends money in Iraq on schools and unemployment benefits Americans should sit up and take notice. Perhaps some of them have.

But the latest statement to come out of the mouth of George W Bush should make every American angry. I know I am. A reporter asked Bush what he thought was the best moment of the Olympic Games so far. Now, there have been quite a few extraordinary accomplishments by the US athletes. The woman’s softball team is killing everyone. The American swimmers have finished raking in the medals. Many American athletes have done very well. However, Bush said he liked the woman carrying in the Afghan flag and the Iraqi Soccer teams performance. Every American should be ashamed of how the president not only ignored the accomplishments of the American athletes, but used the Olympics for his own political gain. We haven’t seen this behavior since Berlin 1936.

What Do You Know – Cheney Flip Flops on Gay Marriage

It’s great to have all the Republicans on the same page here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3596732.stm" title="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3596732.stm" target="_blank"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/am...

Bush Should have Thought Before Hiring the Swift Boat Liars

So, if the swift boat liars for Bush think that it's OK to criticize a guy for what they did 35 years ago, then it must be OK to criticize Bush for his drinking and cocaine use. Remember cocaine was and still is an illegal drug. Someone who broke the law thirty years ago to party with the in crowd wouldn't be beyond breaking the law to attack another country out of spite if given the power to do it. Maybe Bush is much worse than we thought. Maybe we should consider his hedonistic times.

This article talks about how the Bush campaign is playing with fire by bringing up the question of Kerry's war record. What about Bush's war record? What was he doing in Alabama? Why didn't he show up to the base to get his flight time? Why wasn't he kept current? Was it the drugs or was it because he just didn't give a damn?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2721 0-2004Aug23.html" title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2721 0-2004Aug23.html" target="_blank"http://www.washingtonpost.com...

[line]

A second danger for the Bush campaign was that the Swift Boat Veterans' attack ads exposed Bush's character to greater scrutiny. The public has been forgiving of a rich man's son who avoided Vietnam service, failed in many of his early business ventures and had an early history of alcohol abuse. Bush has gotten a pass partly because he's seen as a likable, decent fellow. That's a precious commodity for the Bush campaign, and it could be put at risk if character flaws of 30 years ago become the issue.

The biggest problem for Bush supporters in condoning the attacks against Kerry was that they may anger the public. Republicans have taken negative advertising to remarkable lengths, questioning the patriotism of legless Vietnam veteran Max Cleland in a 2002 Senate race and the conservative credentials of ex-POW Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries.

Attacks of this sort may work for a time, but they risk destroying the attacker. A famous example is the way Sen. Joe McCarthy's red-baiting crusade self-destructed after he began hunting for supposed subversives in the U.S. Army. The army's counsel, Joseph N. Welch, responded unforgettably: "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" That marked the beginning of the end for McCarthy.

Kerry Doing Well Going into the Republican Convention

The Zogby Battleground State polls are out, and Kerry is doing very well in all but two states. Ohio and West Virginia are the only battleground states Bush still owns. This is mainly because Bush has spent an enormous amount of money on political ads in Ohio and the Swift Boat Liars for Bush are only actually running their ads in Ohio. Check it out at:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/docu ments/info-battleground04 -0823print.html" title="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/docu ments/info-battleground04 -0823print.html" target="_blank"http://online.wsj.com/public/...

Other Electoral Vote Survey has Kerry up by about 100 electoral votes. With the RNC around the corner we’ll see if Bush gets a bigger bounce than Kerry did.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/" title="http://www.electoral-vote.com/" target="_blank"http://www.electoral-vote.com...

Then it’s on to the debates where surprises are known to happen.

Swell the Ranks - Vote

I heard an interview of John Zogby on NPR this morning. There were actually several people involved in the discussion, but a statement that he made seemed important enough to write about. He said that the results of the Swift Boat ads actually didn’t have a very big effect on the election. And, it had a large effect on the people who heard about them. This statement seems to be contradictory at first glance, however it isn’t as he explained. The idea behind the Swift Boat Liars behind Bush was to mobilize the Republican base. It was supposed to give the base a reason to leave home and go to the polls on November 2 and vote for George W Bush. As it turns out, it got a bunch of Republican veterans who already support Bush angrier with Kerry. It may motivate a few of the ones who may have stayed home to go to the polls – if they remember. However, the very same ads have made the Democratic base very angry with Bush for slandering Kerry’s war record. So, if they weren’t already going out to vote they have another reason to tip the balance and the result is more people at the polls, but they likely off set each other. The people in the undecided category are most likely still undecided. John Zogby calls these people the hard-core undecided vote and they won’t make up their minds until a few days before the election.

Anyway, this same concept applies to most of the issues that come up during the election. So, the best hope is to motivate people you know that feel the way you do, but don’t often vote to actually go to the polls this time and make their vote count. This is because the most unpredictable thing to know about the election is who will actually show up to vote this time around.

Saddam Was a Bad Guy

The right wing guys out there, and you know who you are, think that the left wing and moderates don’t know that that Saddam was a bad guy. They think that every time it is demonstrated that the Iraq War was for naught they think that they need to point out that Saddam was a bad guy. He even killed his own people. Funny thing was that the left was pointing this out to the right for more than 20 years. During the Iran Iraq war the left was telling the right that we should not support this idiot, but at the time the right thought that Saddam would help weaken the Fundamentalist Muslim Iran. Funny how the Iranian ideology was so similar to the al Qaeda ideology. The Iraqi ideology is the secular opposite. However, the right seems to be blind to the details just like their leader George W Bush.

So, I think we all agree that Saddam was a bad guy. And, you know what there are other bad guys too. Kim Jong-Il is much worse than Saddam, and he really has weapons of mass destruction, unlike Saddam. Then there are the despots who kill there people inadvertently by stealing money from aid packages. There are governments such as Columbia who refuse to crack down on the drug trade. When are we going to invade these countries and impose martial law? When the Taliban planned to destroy the ancient Buddha statues the liberals were shouting to save the ancient culture. When woman’s human rights are being violated in Saudi Arabia the conservatives say, “Don’t make waves.” However, when a socialist government threatens their investments they fight wars to save their money.

So, before you go saying that Saddam was a bad guy he deserved to be invaded think about how many other places that applies to. And, think about how the invasion of this country only distracted us from the real war on terror.

How Many Iraqis Have Been Killed by the US

In a reply to stepdad I pointed out that the US has already killed more Iraqis than the 9/11 hijackers had killed Americans on 9/11. This is a pretty reasonable assumption based on news reports that have been posted since the beginning of the Iraq war. Since we know that almost 1000 Americans have been killed, and in most attacks reporting the number of Iraqis killed is usually much higher. However, stepdad required the evidence. So, in a short Google search I found a list of all the reported Iraqi deaths and the exact incident reported:

http://www.sadnews.net/CTZ/0Mem/WarM/US-IQ2/ US-IQ2.htm" title="http://www.sadnews.net/CTZ/0Mem/WarM/US-IQ2/ US-IQ2.htm" target="_blank"http://www.sadnews.net/CTZ/0M...

This page claims 4930+ Iraqis killed all which would not have been killed had the US not decided to attack Iraq. So, it seems to me that the US has killed more Iraqis than the Saudis killed American in the 9/11 attack. so, those are the documented deaths.

However, the BBC reported in October that 13,000 Iraqis were killed.

http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/1021" title="http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/1021" target="_blank"http://www.worldrevolution.or...

In a more recent and more detailed report the more specific a report tells us: Civilian Iraqi deaths are estimated between 9,436 and 11,317. So, however the point is that the US has killed more Iraqis than the Saudis killed Americans on 9/11.


http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/08/12/544555 0" title="http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/08/12/544555 0" target="_blank"http://www.infoshop.org/inews...

Aftermath of the Swift Boat Liars Ads

Assuming that the Denouncement of these lies by President Bush means that the Swift Boat liars will cease showing their lies, what have we learned from this? We have learned that a billionaire can hire a bunch of guys to be filmed and lie about the opposition candidates. And, even though these are lies, 30% of the people will believe them regardless. Because of free speech these people are allowed to broadcast their lies, and the candidate can claim he had nothing to do with the ads. In a close race convincing 30% of the undecided voters could be the difference in an election.

So, lying could win an election.

What else is new?

Two Witnesses Expose the Swift Boat Liars

Factcheck.org documents two more witnesses who Support John Kerrys account. Good thing that Bush has finally denounced the anti-Kerry ads, because two more witnesses have come forward to present witness to the heroics of John Kerry. John Kerry is justified to file a slander lawsuit against these idiots. But, John Kerry is to honorable and would never use the Justice System in such a way. Not like George W Bush who has used the government to his political advantage at every chance that he has.

http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports.aspx?docid=245" title="http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports.aspx?docid=245" target="_blank"http://www.factcheck.org/misc...

Bush Flips on Denouncing the Swift Boat Liars for Bush

The Swift Boat Liars for Bush have actually convinced 33% of the American people of their lies according to recent polls. While listening to a caller on the Bill O’Reilly radio talk show I heard a voice of these 33%. The caller told Bill that these guys were there and they didn’t have any reason to lie for Bush. Well, the conservative talk show host had to correct this caller. He told her that these guys had every reason to lie, because that hated John Kerry from the outset. They didn’t like his stand on the Vietnam War and hated him for protesting the war when he returned from service. He also had to remind the caller that Rassman, the soldier that John Kerry saved while under attack was the closest one to John Kerry’s actions and was the best to judge what John Kerry did. I have to applaud Bill O’Reilly for taking the high road in this debate.

George W Bush must have been listening to Bill O’Reilly this morning, because he has finally realized that these guys are not helping his campaign. In fact, with the defection of Bill O’Reilly from the swift boat camp it may actually be hurting his campaign among the people that count the most in this election, the middle of the road undecided voters. These people are more likely to listen to O’Reilly than to Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=6047477" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=6047477" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

Bush Flips on the Effect of Oil Prices

Bush has continuously said that the high price of oil and gasoline would not effect the economy. I guess he had to wait and see that there actually was a correlation and the high price of gasoline has put the brakes on the economy in the last two months. Funny how long it takes for common sense to reach the brain of this president. Actually it’s not funny, its sad.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=6038035" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=6038035" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

Censorship Among the Complainers

I guess dashanews has decided to censor his comments. I posted two comments to his posts and they never showed up. Either there is a flaw in Rocky’s fine software, or dashanews has ironically decided to censor his comments.

I’ll post on further developments.

Same Old Song and Dance

Zell Miller is a Republican in Democrats clothing. Every bill that comes up he votes with the Republicans. So, what’s the point of having Zell Miller address the Republican National Convention? I’m guessing that he is going to use that national public forum to announce that he is switching parties. It really doesn’t matter, because he is going to retire at the end of this term anyway, but this gives the Republicans a chance to make the most of this switch.

The Republicans are using his error in selecting an ideology that corresponds to his politics for their own profit. But what else is new?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=6024933" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=6024933" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

More Distortion from the Rich White Republicans

Factcheck.org just published another lie being propagated by a group called People of Color United (PCU). This group not only lies about Kerry’s record in four different radio ads, they are misrepresenting who they are. The name of the group implies that they are people of color. However, we all know that we should judge a book by its cover. We should also know that we should judge a group by it’s name. The swift boat Vets for Bush lie about telling the truth. Now this groups is completely funded by Rich White Republicans. Check it out at:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=239" title="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=239" target="_blank"http://www.factcheck.org/arti...

Even More Swift Boat Lies Unveiled

Larry Thurlow is a liar. Either that or he just doesn’t remember what happened. Either way it looks like John Kerry did what he said he did. New information acquired by the New York Post, a conservative New York newspaper has reported that Thurlow’s story does not agree with the citation that Thurlow received in Vietnam.

It’s crazy that the right keeps pushing the idea that Kerry was a wimp in Vietnam. George W Bush refuses to use condemn the Swift Boat Vets for Bush’s lies, which means that they must support these now proven lies. They are using these patsies to do the dirty work for their campaign in their effort to distance themselves from it. Karl Rove must be reading Joseph Goebbels propaganda in order to dig up new ways to lie to the people.

Rush Limbaugh told us this morning that The Liberal Left prides itself on pointing out that Vietnam was an immoral war. And, I don’t think that the Liberal Left is the only people to feel that way. Limbaugh calls it hypocrisy that the left claims Kerry as their hero of that immoral war. The point is that John Kerry volunteered to do his public service before he knew the evils of that war. He believed his government, like the Bush supporters of today believe their leader. He honorably went to Vietnam and did what his country asked him to do. When John Kerry was in Vietnam he experienced the truth of the conflict. The truth could no longer be shielded from him and he realized the propaganda he was being fed was just that – propaganda.

How John Kerry differs from many of the other soldiers that experienced Vietnam was that he didn’t shrink away from the public after he knew the truth. Instead, he stood up and told his story to the war protesters, the American People, the US congress and anyone else who would listen. He was part of the effort that turned the tide of the conflict in Vietnam. This is a noble cause and the right wing Republicans are not happy about it. The fact is these Republicans still believe that the effort in Vietnam was justified. Even though people like George W Bush and Dick Cheney pulled strings to avoid service in that conflict. They believe that the conflict in Vietnam was a good place to send the poor and the middle class soldiers to defend their wealth from the Soviet Union.

So, I don’t see any hypocrisy here at all. The simple truth is that a disillusioned young man bought into the lies of the government learns the truth and fights the government to reveal the light.

http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports.aspx?docid=243" title="http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports.aspx?docid=243" target="_blank"http://www.factcheck.org/misc...

Sandals

My kids thought that the Bush Kerry joke told on late night TV a few weeks ago was perfect. I believe it was Conan O’Brian interviewing the portrait of George W Bush. Conan asks Bush what he thinks of John Kerry. Bush begins to go into the whole flip-flop thing. He sounds like a middle school student tormenting the looser in the class. Something like, “Kerry is a flip-flopper nah nah nah....” Then he starts laughing like he knows a really funny joke and he can’t contain it any more. He blurts out, “I bet you don’t know what kind of shoes John Kerry wears...” Conan is about to answer the question, because it is just way to obvious what Bush is about to say. However, Bush can’t have Conan give his punch line, so he jumps in and shouts, “Sandals!” Conan trying to be helpful says, “you mean flip flops sir.” and Bush insists that sandals is the right answer without even listening to Conan.

It’s funny that Kerry has been a politician four times longer than Bush and Bush actually has more flip-flops than Kerry.

Rummy Thinks He Knows Best

So, let me get this straight. The 9/11 commission spent millions of dollars and man-hours studying the problems with US national security. They made recommendations based on the studies. Then, Donald Rumsfeld, a man who hasn’t studied the problems suggests that we shouldn’t move so fast on the 9/11 recommendations.

Apparently protecting the power structure in the department of defense is more important to Donald Rumsfeld than the protection of the American people. The reason Rummy’s issue with changing the power structure is that the defense department looses some of its control. Isn’t that the point, the department was hoarding information and not sharing it with other agencies. Rummy thinks that the Defense Department should continue to hoard information because he believes that they know what’s best for the country. Funny how what he thinks is best for the country is also best for him and his department, and also isn’t the same as what the 9/11 commission recommends.

http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/171155-878 8-010.html" title="http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/171155-878 8-010.html" target="_blank"http://www.indystar.com/artic...

Bush Harasses Black Voter Organizers

The Bush political machine is working overtime to suppress the Democratic vote in Florida. Jeb Bush is sending goons to black neighborhoods to scare the elderly black organizers in Florida. Doesn’t this ring of Nazi Germany? You need to realize that the black vote has a high proportion of Democratic voters, so seems unlikely that this is just a random occurrence of state troopers roughing up voter organizers of either party. Are the police harassing any of the Orlando soccer moms? Are the police harassing any of the Orlando CEOs? Are the police going to the Florida NASCAR circuit and harassing the audience?

No, it looks like the Bush goon machine is up and running in Florida again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/opinion/16 herbert.html?hp" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/opinion/16 herbert.html?hp" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...

Swiftboat Vets for Bush

The whole Swiftboat Veterans for Bush thing just makes me angry. People pay to have lies broadcast as truth on TV, and the gullible American public just assumes that its the truth. Why? Because the Swiftboat Veterans told them that is was. Factcheck.org has investigated this and they have the truth. Unfortunately they don’t spend the same kind of money putting this information on the air as advertising.

So, If I were you I’d look over the whole factcheck.org website. You will see places were Kerry has exaggerated some claims as well, but you will see that the right distorts the truth much more than the left in this particular campaign. And, Bush doesn’t denounce these ads that are clearly over the top.

More facts from factcheck.org:

[line]

In an Aug. 9 update we stated that Kerry's citation for the Silver Star made no mention of killing a Viet Cong. In fact, there are three citations, and one of the three does indeed mention the killing.This merely strengthens our conclusion that George Elliott's second affidavit is misleading. All three citations make clear that Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star for the reasons Elliott implied. We have amended our article on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad to reflect this.

Elliott, who was Kerry's commanding officer at the time, now says he believes Kerry shot a Viet Cong in the back, adding: "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." But the one citation that mentions the killing states that the Viet Cong "fled" and that Kerry "pursued," showing Elliott knew the score when he recommended Kerry for the award 35 years ago. Elliott's affidavit also fails to note that the Viet Cong's rocket launcher was loaded, posing a lethal threat to Kerry and his men.

Furthermore, all three versions of the citation make clear that the basis for the award was not "simply" for the killing alone, but for repeatedly attacking enemy ambushers.



Our article now reads as follows:



Elliott also says in that second affidavit, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." That statement is misleading, however. It mischaracterizes the actual basis on which Kerry received his decoration.

The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation (see "supporting documents" at right.) The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.

The longest of the citations, signed by Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, describes Kerry as killing a fleeing Viet Cong with a loaded rocket launcher. It says that as Kerry beached his boat to attack his second set of ambushers, "an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hooch, and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."

Two other citations omit any mention of the killing. One was signed by Admiral John J. Hyland, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, and the other was signed by Secretary of the Navy John Chafee. Both those citations say Kerry attacked his first set of ambushers and that "this daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers." Later, 800 yards away, Kerry's boat encountered a second ambush and a B-40 rocket exploded "close aboard" Kerry's boat. "With utter disregard for his own safety, and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet away from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy." In these citations there is no mention of enemy casualties at all. Kerry was cited for "extraordinary daring and personal courage . . . in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire."

http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports.aspx?docid=240" title="http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports.aspx?docid=240" target="_blank"http://www.factcheck.org/misc...

Bush Tax Cuts Tilted to Rich

Like it took rocket science to do this study. But it does confirm that Bush essentially raised the taxes on the middle class while cutting them for the wealthy.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=5972952" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=5972952" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

Bush is Planning to Go to Florida Before He Knows It

He doesn’t know it yet, but, Bush will be in Florida before the wind stops blowing. Karl Rove will be sure of it. His father almost lost Florida because he took too long to respond. George W won’t delay to make political Hay this time around.

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/93 95266.htm" title="http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/93 95266.htm" target="_blank"http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/...

Coalition Forces

Even though America does not have a post election coalition system it does have a pre-election coalition system. In European countries the population is asked to vote in support of the party they choose to support. After the election even parties who do not get a majority of the votes get representation in parliament. However, in the United States we have a winner take all system. This means that the voters need to vote against a candidate instead of voting for one. This means that you need to vote for the guy that you like the best that stands a chance of defeating the guy you hate the most.

Of course this is a back assward system of politics, but it is the system that we are stuck with. The major parties like this system because they are in power and without any change to the system they will remain in power.

In the reality of the American political system the opposition is more than one party. The Green Party, the Libertarian Party and the Peace and Freedom Party all oppose George W. bush as President of the United States. Even if there are issues that you have with John Kerry, you should consider joining the coalition forces against George W Bush in order to defeat him in November. And, I am saying this from one who voted for a third party candidate in 2000. I am joining the coalition of the willing force to defeat the Right Wing Fundamentalists in 2004. When we get rid of the extremists we can get back to the politics of reason.

Economist Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman is a columnist for the New York Times. He is also an economics professor from Princeton. He is actually a moderate, not a liberal. He was interviewed this morning on our local radio station. I was intrigued by what he said.

I don’t know if I would call him a Bush hater, but he does write anti-Bush columns in the New York Times. But, he bases his dislike of Bush in fact. He says Bush twists and turns the facts whichever way he wants in order to make himself or his ideas look good. He uses the example of the tax cut that Bush enacted. He marvels at the fact that economics dictates that putting money into the hands of the lower or middle class will stimulate the economy with much less of a tax cut than by putting the money into the hands of the top 2 percent of the population. However, Bush was able to sell his dividend tax cut to the rural farmers who aren’t very likely to have any stocks and are much more likely to be living from month to month off whatever income they have. If the tax cut had gone to these people the economy would be growing at three times the current rate and jobs would be created and more money would be going into the economy. Instead, the economy is about to take another dive, based on the latest data.

He believes that most of the reason for this is propaganda by the Bush administration. This propaganda has people who are in the top twenty percent of the economy believe that they are in the top two percent. It has people believing that they don’t need government services.

But, another thing that he said was that John Kerry’s health plan is one of the best things that John Kerry has come up with. He says that the relief of health care and drug costs would actually stimulate the economy by freeing up the cash that would be spent on health care and allow it to be spent on goods and services. The bad news is that the media is not covering John Kerry’s plan.

You can read more of what Paul Krugman has to say about health care at:

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/070904.html" title="http://www.pkarchive.org/column/070904.html" target="_blank"http://www.pkarchive.org/colu...

You can read about John Kerry’s Health Care Plan at:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr _2004_0811.html" title="http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr _2004_0811.html" target="_blank"http://www.johnkerry.com/pres...

And you can find more Paul Krugman columns here:

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/column.html" title="http://www.pkarchive.org/column/column.html" target="_blank"http://www.pkarchive.org/colu...

Drivers Licenses and ID Cards

Once again that issue of issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants has been debated. The debate was between the current California Senator Barbara Boxer and her challenger Bill Jones. The issue of driver’s licenses for immigrants is really a non-issue if driver’s licenses were used the way they were meant to be used. They should be used to prove that you have passed a driver’s test, and are a capable driver. However, it is also used as an identification card.

Why is a driver’s license being used as an identification card? This question dates back to the 1950s. After World War II there were several issues brought up by the McCarthy group that was trying to weed out Communists from the United States. The idea of having a national Identification Card was put forward. There was a heated debate on this issue and the ID card lost. This was because the congress feared a National ID card would be used to keep track of citizens in an un-American way. The country would be no better than the Soviet Union who kept track of its citizens with ID cards.

So, driver’s licenses were used as a back door ID card.

Now, we want driver’s on the road to be safe. We would like all drivers to take classes and understand the rules of the road. However, we do not want to give ID cards to people who don’t deserve them. The only solution to this problem is to have two different items. An ID card for US citizens and a driver’s license for those who don’t deserve an ID card for whatever reason.

Who Won the 2000 US Presidential Election?

Officially George W Bush won the election. But in most elections recounts of the ballots are allowed and in most places required to verify the winner. There are several ways in which recounts can be conducted, but there are usually official plans and methods written down to be used in case a controversy erupts. In 2000 there were official recount methods for every county based on their ballot system. But, in 2000 the official methods were not used. Instead, each candidate suggested ways in which they would like the recounts to proceed. This of course isn’t the best way to conduct an election. So, the Supreme Court stepped in to rule which candidate should be allowed to dictate which method should be used to count the votes. As we all know, George W Bush won this court case and he determined the method used to count the votes.

After the election had been settled many newspapers went in and conducted a recount of the ballots and several months later the results were in. In the method that should have been followed where each county dictated the recount method based on it’s own studies; Gore actually won by 171 votes. In the method suggested by Gore however he lost by 225 votes. So, based on these results and by following the letter of the law (which Republicans usually pride themselves on) Gore actually should have won the election by 171 votes.

[line]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election" target="_blank"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...,_2000#The_Florida_Ballot _Project_recounts

Candidate Outcomes Based on Potential Recounts in Florida Presidential Election 2000
Review Method

Winner Review of All Ballots Statewide (Never Undertaken)

. . . Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey Gore by 171
. . . Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115
. . . Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107
. . . One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60

Review of Limited Sets of Ballots (Initiated But Never Completed)
. . . Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Volusia counties Bush by 225
. . . Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430
. . . Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493
Certified Result (Official Final Count)
. . . Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537

[line]

In the method that should have been followed, Gore actually won by 171 votes.

Bush Has Made the US Less Safe By Invading Iraq

While Bush has been concentrating on the horrible threat of Iraq the North Koreans and the Iranians have been developing their nuclear weapons. So, why isn’t Bush arguing to invade these countries and perform the regime change operation? The answers my friends are right there in front of our faces. They must have known that Iraq didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction. And, they are afraid to attack North Korea and Iran, because they know that they do have those weapons and missiles to actually deliver them. Iraq was an easy target, and the administration didn’t want to listen to the experts who told us that we would be occupying the country for three to five years.

Instead, Bush has enacted the worst possible plan of all, he attacked and occupied a country that wasn’t any threat to us. This tied down 150,000 troops. He has pulled out troops in South Korea because we need more in Iraq.

North Korea is a known arms dealer. They have sold missiles to rogue states such as Libya and Syria. The reason they sell missiles to these countries is because they don’t produce much of anything else. They need to feed their people, so they look for hard currency wherever they can find it. So, the recent development of their nuclear arsenal will ultimately lead to selling these weapons to rogue nations such as Iran or Syria.

So, by ignoring North Korea, Bush has allowed this dangerous country to develop nuclear weapons that might one day be used against us when we are least suspecting.

Kerry Finally Stands Up to Bush Anti-Science Policy

Today in Nevada Kerry told a bipartisan audience that American needs a president who believes in science. That is true on so many different issues. The Bush position on the environment is pro-destruction. Species that have once been protected have been removed from the protected species list.

Stem cell research, which may be the only way to cure some diseases, is not allowed to be pursued with US government funding. Scientists are fleeing to other countries in order to pursue this research. There was a time when scientists only would only flee countries were their research didn’t support the government positions. In the US science used to be the Holy Grail of hope in the American Society. But now, in four short years Bush and his administration are moving US science to third world status.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N103 73591.htm" title="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N103 73591.htm" target="_blank"http://www.alertnet.org/thene...

You Can’t Argue With a Ditz.

How can you have a debate with someone who doesn’t understand the argument?

Bush doesn’t even understand what Kerry said here. Kerry said that he would still authorize the president to have the authority to attack Iraq. He did not say that he would favor him using it. Since Bush doesn’t understand subtleties he is assuming that Kerry is saying that going into Iraq was a good thing. Of course Kerry said that he would have a plan for the rebuilding of Iraq before going in. He also said that he would have international support before going in.

Unfortunately the American people don’t spend enough time to understand the differences here. The educated Americans will see that Bush doesn’t even understand what Kerry is saying, or he is ignoring the facts....one or the other.


[line]


Kerry on Monday said he would have voted to give the president authorization to use force against Iraq "but I would have used that authority effectively."

Bush and his aides said that was evidence of Kerry flip-flopping from an anti-war stance he held during the Democratic primary last winter.

"Now, almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq, and almost 220 days after switching positions to declare himself the anti-war candidate, my opponent has found a new nuance," Bush told about 10,000 supporters in Pensacola. "He now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq."

"After months of questioning my motives, and even my credibility, Senator Kerry now agrees with me that even though we have not found the stockpiles of weapons we all believed were there, knowing everything we know today, he would have voted to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. I want to thank Senator Kerry for clearing that up," Bush said.

[line]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...;jsessionid=4V2FIRPZBNUGI CRBAE0CFEY?type=topNews&s toryID=5928298

Out of the Mouths of Fools

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," he said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." Washington, D.C. 08.05.04

"As you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say." --George W. Bush, 10.28.03.

"More Muslims have died at the hands of killers than I say more Muslims a lot of Muslims have died I don't know the exact count at Istanbul. Look at these different places around the world where there's been tremendous death and destruction because killers kill.” George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004

"You fucking son of a bitch. I saw what you wrote. We're not going to forget this."
-George W. Bush to writer and editor Al Hunt, 1988

"Perhaps the biggest problem is that we have passed children from grade to grade, year after year, and those -- child hadn't learned the basics of reading and math."
—Washington, D.C., Jan. 8, 2003

"It's very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America.” — George W. Bush, Dakar, Senegal, July 8, 2003

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself.
—Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

Should any Iraqi officer or soldier receive an order from Saddam Hussein or his sons or any of the killers who occupy the high levels of their government, my advice is don't follow that order," Bush said. "If you choose to do so, when Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal."
—St. Louis, Mo., Jan. 22, 2003

"We ended the rule of one of history's worst tyrants, and in so doing, we not only freed the American people, we made our own people more secure."
--George W. Bush, Crawford, Texas, May 3, 2003

"All up and down the different aspects of our society, we had meaningful discussions. Not only in the Cabinet Room, but prior to this and after this day, our secretaries, respective secretaries, will continue to interact to create the conditions necessary for prosperity to reign." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 19, 2003

"The true strength of America happens when a neighbor loves a neighbor just like they'd like to be loved themselves." --George W. Bush, Elizabeth, N.J., June 16, 2003

"If you don't stand for anything, you don't stand for anything!"
Gov. George W. Bush said to a packed rally at Bellevue Community College on Tuesday night.
Nov. 2, 2000, SEATTLE

"I am determined to keep the process on the road to peace."
--George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 10, 2003

"I'm not going to talk about what I did as a child. What I am going to talk about -- and I am going to say this consistently -- [is that] it is irrelevant what I did 20 to 30 years ago. What's relevant is that I have learned from any mistakes I made. I do not want to send signals to anybody that what Gov. Bush did 30 years ago is cool to try."
--Gov. Bush in an interview with WMUR-TV in New Hampshire, when asked if he had used "drugs, marijuana, cocaine"

"I don't want nations feeling like that they can bully ourselves and our allies. I want to have a ballistic defense system so that we can make the world more peaceful, and at the same time I want to reduce our own nuclear capacities to the level commiserate with keeping the peace."
—Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 23, 2000


... I've been talking to Vicente Fox, the new president of Mexico... I know him... to have gas and oil sent to U.S.... so we'll not depend on foreign oil...
 on the first Presidential debate, 10/03/2000


"I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy."
—Redwood, Calif., Sept. 27, 2000


"...more and more of our imports are coming from overseas."
 On NPR's Morning Edition (9/26)


Larry King: "What do people misunderstand about you most"
George Walker Bush: "That I'm running on my dad's name... (!?!)
I'm proud of my dad... I reconciled my love for my dad a long time ago"

"The woman who knew that I had dyslexia--I never interviewed her."
--Orange, Calif., Sept. 15, 2000

"People make suggestions on what to say all the time. I'll give you an example; I don't read what's handed to me. People say, 'Here, here's your speech, or here's an idea for a speech.' They're changed. Trust me."
— Interview with the New York Times, March 15, 2000

"I mean I, there will be debates. I mean every election cycle has the debate on the debates. You know that. I want to, I have a lot of work to do and first things first. I understand exactly what has to happen. And by the way there is a couple of phases left in the campaign. One is the period between now and the conventions, very important to manage as well. There are some tasks at hand." -- U.S. News and World Report interview, March 8, 2004

"I don't bring God into my life to —to, you know, kind of be a political person."
--Interview with Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One, April 24, 2003

"All of us need to step back and try to figure out how to make the U.N. work better as we head into the 21st century. Perhaps one way will be, if we use military force, in the post-Saddam Iraq the U.N. will definitely need to have a role. And that way it can begin to get its legs, legs of responsibility back."
--Azores, March 16, 2003

"One year ago today, the time for excuse-making has come to an end."
—Washington, D.C., Jan. 8, 2003

"There's an old...saying in Tennessee...I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says Fool me once...(3 second pause)... Shame on...(4 second pause)...Shame on you....(6 second pause)...Fool me...Can't get fooled again."
--George W. Bush to Nashville, Tennessee audience, Sept. 17, 2002, MSNBC-TV --Politex, Sept. 17, 2002, 10 PM

The man Kerry saved in Vietnam - Jim Rassmann calls the Swift boat guys liars. He describes the incident in detail. Here's a cut and paste:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460" title="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460" target="_blank"http://www.opinionjournal.com...

[line]

In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal , Jim Rassmann -- the man Kerry rescued to win the Bronze Star -- says the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."

We have updated our article to include Rassmann's vivid account of his rescue. It flatly contradicts the Kerry accusers and says Kerry was under fire, and wounded by the blast that threw Rassmann into the water:

Rassmann said that after the first explosion that disabled PCF-3:

Rassmann: Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

Rassmann said he recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for that action, and learned only later that the Bronze Star had been awarded instead. "To this day I still believe he deserved the Silver Star for his courage," he wrote. Rassmann described himself as a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans," Rassmann said. But he said Kerry "will be a great commander in chief."

"This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency," Rassmann said. "Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam."

Voting For the War

Another misrepresentation of John Kerry is his so-called vote for the Iraq war. In the language of the bill it would authorize "the President of the United States to use the Armed Forces of the United States, as he determines to be necessary and appropriate, in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant United Nations' Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Based on that language the bill that Senator Kerry voted for made a lot of sense. There were several assumptions that the Senate made when voting for this bill. Namely, authorization required the UN to approve the action. It was considered a far reach that the president would act without the UN at least approving of the action. This is written into the bill. However the Administration determined that they didn’t need a vote to enforce a UN resolution – so they acted on their own (With the UK and several third world countries that thought that they might get some addition aid if they sent a few soldiers.

We need to remember that this bill did not say that the Senate knew everything about the Iraqi threat. Instead, it says that it authorizes the President to use force to defend the national security of the United States. It is assumed that we would have intelligence proving there was a threat to national security before we invade another country. It is also assume that there was a plan to win the peace after the invasion. Taking a page out of President Bush’s playbook – “There are people who make it their job to know these things, we have to trust that they do.” Unfortunately we have a president that just doesn’t understand anything on the international stage and he has acted as if he doesn’t. The US will just continue to sink lower on the world leader chart until we change course.

So, basically John Kerry voted for a bill authorizing the president to use his discretion to protect the US. Unfortunately President Bush screwed up and now he is blaming John Kerry for allowing him to do it. I don’t think that he should be able to pass the blame to the Senate who allowed him to screw up. He needs to take the blame himself. At least that’s what a real man would do. Or, is Bush just a girly man?

Bush Censorship

I think that it’s quite interesting how President Bush only allows supporters to the campaign events. This means that they can only see one side of America. I believe that they are doing this because they already understand that the opposition to Bush is way higher than the opposition to Kerry. Kerry on the other hand allows anyone to attend events. They always have a group of Republicans holding flip-flops. Even though the flip-flop issue isn’t really taking hold, except among right wing comedians like Jay Leno. The Bush supporters continue to do this at Kerry rallies. It’s to bad that the Republicans don’t allow free speech at their own rallies, but use these repetitive tactics like the flip-flops to create propaganda that isn’t actually believed by people who actually follow the elections.

If Bush wins, it isn’t because he the smartest candidates. It isn’t because he is the best candidates. It is because he uses the Nazi propaganda technique of telling lies over and over again until the general population begins to actually believe them. It is so sad that the majority of Americans are so uneducated that they can be convinced of lies by repetition.

And, the saddest thing of all is that the Bush supporters actually believe that it is a badge of honor to participate in this lying.

Swift Boat Guys Lie

The non-partisan group factcheck.org has studied the famous accusations of John Kerry and found quite a few glaring errors in the facts presented in the smear campaign. By looking at the facts it is clear that these guys have a bone to pick with Kerry. They are on record as being against Kerry as far back as the Vietnam War, when they didn’t like him for opposing the war at the time.

Check it out:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=231" title="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=231" target="_blank"http://www.factcheck.org/arti...

http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports.aspx?docid=232" title="http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports.aspx?docid=232" target="_blank"http://www.factcheck.org/misc...

The Case For Government Sponsorship of the Arts

Why should the government pay artists to be artists?

When Jesse Ventura won the Governor's race in Minnesota he told the reporters that funding for the arts would be cut. He said that if the public wouldn't reach into it's own pocket and pay for something why should the Government reach into it's pocket and pay for it instead. After all, the government is the public. This argument is coming from the example of what people do reach into their pocket for – Professional Wrestling.

This is what Plato warned us about as the dangerous aspect of Democracy. This danger is unenlightened masses voting for people based on popularity and not on wisdom. So, this same unenlightened mass of people doesn't know much about art and they decide what to pay for based on what they are willing to pay for. This is how we get Brittany Spears making millions of dollars for lip-syncing a concert to a recording of her voice made in a studio.

In our current political and economic climate there are very few opportunities for artists to get funding. They can take the sure fire approach to popular art. This is to appeal to the baser human emotions such as sex and violence, romance and revolting. People pay good money to have these things reaffirmed in their minds. But art that addresses more complicated feelings and emotions do not reach to the larger audience. If people need to work to understand the piece they write it off as not worth the effort or the expenditure.

The result of this is art that walks the fine line between trying to express these feelings and emotions while trying to draw in enough of the sure fire sex, violence, romance and revolting emotions to keep audiences paying.

After having said all this it should be obvious that government funding of the arts gives artists the ability to explore work in these more difficult areas without the fear of lack of funding.

I spoke with an artist from Russia yesterday. He came to the United States after the Soviet Union fell. He first spent 8 years in Germany and then came to California. So, he could compare three rather different government structures for funding the arts. In Russia under Soviet rule there was one way to do art, and others were not tolerated. The effort was to preserve a sense of culture that all Russians could relate to. The effort was to strengthen nationalism. In Germany – democratic Germany – funding for the arts was given in five to ten year chunks. In those five to ten year periods an artist could make many mistakes and also successes as they explore different areas of emotions. In the United States, with so little funding the fear of not pleasing the public made artists find ways to incorporate sex, violence, romance and revulsion into their art in order to keep their money flowing.

After this discussion it should be obvious that government funding for the arts prevents the over use of: sex, violence, romance and revulsion, which are the main complaints from the conservatives when it comes to art.

Kerry is ahead by 2.5% in Florida

The latest Florida polls look like they are all over the map:


Poll | Date | Sample | MoE | Bush | Kerry | Nader |Spread | 2000Vote
ARG | 8/3-8/5 |600 LV | 4.0 | 43 | 50 | 2 | Kerry +7 |Bush +0.01
Str Vis* | 8/2-8/4 | 801 LV | 3.0 | 48 | 47 | 1 | Bush +1
Zog |7/26-7/30 |1,587 LV | 2.5 | 46.7 | 49.5 | 2.0 |Kerry +2.8

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/fl_po lls.html" title="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/fl_po lls.html" target="_blank"http://www.realclearpolitics....

But, they really aren’t all over the place if you work backward from the results.

If you take the ARG poll and the Str Vis data and multiply the sample by the percent you get that 256 out of 600 people picked Bush in the ARG poll. 384 out of 800 people choose Bush – so 642 out of 1400 chose Bush. Similarly 676 out of 1400 chose Kerry. Therefore:

Bush has 45.9% and Kerry has 48.3% This is a spread of 2.4%. Now look at the Zogby poll. It looks like the numbers are very much the same. The Zogby poll has a sample size of about the same size as the other two polls.

So, it looks like Kerry has about a 2.5% lead over Bush in Florida.

Number One Quote of the Week

Bush’s number one quote of the week:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

I thought that it was great that Jay Leno and David Lettermen used this video clip last night on their programs. If you are like me perhaps you click between the two and were able to see it twice. The thing that I noticed isn’t so obvious from the quote. It was the pausing that he did to emphasize the line as if he were thinking about it. But surely we know now that he doesn’t actually think about what he is saying - otherwise he would have caught this glaring problem and corrected it as he spoke. Who ever wrote this line for him should be fired, but the writer is more likely to be promoted if this follows other Bush administration actions on ineptitude.

One thing that Bush can't follow through on.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...;jsessionid=CZDA53U5NQMQQ CRBAEKSFEY?type=politicsN ews&storyID=5890238

If President Bush were to promise a smart war on terror he couldn’t say it with a straight face, because no one would believe him. Bush prides himself on being an idiot. He intentionally does stupid things just to win over the Joe Six-Pack crowd. Now it may all backfire on him if it didn’t already.

During the 2000 election Bush claimed that he didn’t have to know anything about foreign policy. This was shortly after a reporter asked Bush who the leaders of various countries were. Bush couldn’t answer the question, but it didn’t matter to him. He said that his advisors would tell him everything that he needed to know. Well, it is now coming out that Bush didn’t know anything about the Iraq invasion. He let the advisors handle everything. Of course he ran into trouble when Rummy and Powell disagreed. The leader needs to know what’s going on so he can settle the disputes. Of course he let the white guy win, because he didn’t have any other way to settle the issue. And that’s why we are in Iraq today.

New Mexico: Kerry 50% Bush 43% Badnarik 5%

In New Mexico Libertarian Michael Badnarik is polling at 5% of the vote. Ralph Nader is not on the ballot in New Mexico. Five percent seem pretty good for a third party candidate.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/New" title="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/New" target="_blank"http://www.rasmussenreports.c...%20Mexico%20August%205.htm

Who’s the Real Flip-Flopper?

Here’s an excellent column from today’s Washington Post:

[LINE]

By Richard Cohen
Thursday, August 5, 2004; Page A19

Franklin Delano Roosevelt campaigned for the White House as a budget balancer. After his election, he started to spend money the government did not have, throwing one alphabet agency after another (CCC, WPA, etc.) into the black abyss of the Great Depression. FDR called this "the New Deal." In today's politics, it would be called flip-flopping.

John F. Kerry now finds himself accused of aggravated flip-flopping in the first degree. The charge comes from various Republican Party front groups, individual GOP fellow travelers and, of course, the president himself. Campaigning hither and yon, George W. Bush has had great fun mocking Kerry for, among other things, his vote for the war and a subsequent vote not to fund it. Not mentioned is that in between the two votes came ample evidence of incompetence on the part of Bush. And so Kerry, as behooves a thinking man, chose to voice a protest. The vote did not lend itself to sound-bite analysis, but it made a certain amount of sense: The war in Iraq was a mess; Bush had not earned a blank check.

Continue by clicking http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

Let’s look at the Republican record for 2000 – 2004.

In 2000 the Republicans not only won the Presidency, they also won the House of Representatives and gained control of the Senate by Dick Cheney’s tie breaking vote. Even though the nation proved that they were undecided on who had the best ideas based on the closeness of this election the President and his administration took a hard turn to the Right. One of the first programs initiated was the faith-based initiative. This program dangerously mixed Religion and Government. Religious groups that proselytize were to be awarded money to continue their work of assisting the poor, alcoholic and drug addicted through these programs. The Religious groups argued that bringing faith into the lives of these people was the key to getting the homeless off the street or the drug addicted off drugs. This may be true, but which faith. This kind of program would reward whoever gets out there and recruits the most the fastest which would lead to monopolies for groups who already proselytize by the nature of their faith i.e. the Evangelicals. This program was surely not a moderate uniting type program coming from the candidate Bush that claimed to be a uniter and not a divider.

So, the next major program enacted by the Bush administration and the Republican controlled congress was the tax cuts for the wealthy. The majority of the tax cuts went to two main programs, the child tax credit and the tax cut on dividends. The tax cut on dividends was clearly a tax cut for the wealthiest of all Americans. It only effects those who own stocks that are not in an IRA. This is a group of people in the top few percent of the wealth distribution in the US. The child tax credit was only an after thought meant to appease those from the religious right who wanted to see some money from the guy they got into office, in a way that showed Bush had family values. Therefore, people with kids got a tax cut. The child tax credit may have had an effect on the recession by slowing the decline, however the tax cut on dividends only effected the price of stocks on the stock market by putting more money into the market and driving price – but not value of the stock. This was once again an act of dividing the country rather than uniting the country. This is because in order to give these tax cuts existing programs needed to be cut or money needed to be borrowing. Borrowing money benefits the wealthy that are the source of the borrowed money through the bonds that they buy.

What else did the Republicans do? Well, when 9/11/2001 was thrust upon us we also had the sympathy of the world. The Republican reaction to this was isolationism. Leave us alone and we will deal with this is what the Bush administration told the world through its actions – like invading Iraq. The Republican controlled congress rushed the Patriot Act through congress without enough time for most legislators to read it. Don't be bothered with the details the Republicans told us, we need to act decisively. Many well-meaning congressmen were duped into believing the administration was acting in the interest of the American people. However, after the act was passed many civil liberty organizations read the act and were alarmed at the liberty taken away from the American people. So, the Republicans used the window of trust after 9/11 to take our liberties away from us. many Americans are still being duped into believing that the Republicans have the interest of the country behind their motives, but hopefully they will come around as they learn more about these things.

What about the issues the Republicans used to get into office? Since they control both houses and the senate they should easily be able to pass legislation to enact these issues. Of course the Republicans ignore the fact that Republicans control both houses of congress and the presidency. Whatever laws they want to pass they can, so they should stand on their record of what they have done. For example, Abortion is an issue that Republicans use to get elected every election since Roe v. Wade. They finally have the chance to do something about it. They passed a partial birth abortion ban on one procedure. Surely with all this power they could have done more, if they really wanted to. However, abortion is only a wedge issue and Republicans know that passing a stronger ban of abortion would energize the left to get out and vote the Republicans out of office. They don’t want the controversy. They would rather have it as an election issue than actually act on it in a congress that they control.

But, worst of all is the Republican action in Iraq. They disguised the evidence used to drum up support for the war while conveniently leaving out any evidence suggesting the war wasn’t so crucial after all. Then they passed a second tax cut. And an 87 Billion-dollar spending bill was also pushed through congress without much review. Why is it that the wealthy deserve tax cuts while we are at war. Isn’t war about sacrifice? Who needs to make that sacrifice? The poor kids who used the military programs to get a college education, or to get off the street in the ghetto to get a job. Or, the rich who get the tax break on their dividends? Like they say, you make the call. The members of the Bush administration never made a sacrifice during the Vietnam War when they were called to serve. They used their connections to get lighter duty, or didn’t even show up to practice flying a jet. Now, they give tax cuts to the wealthy – which of course Bush and Cheney are, members of this class. They give contracts to companies in which the vice-president is associated with because he worked at the highest levels of Haliburton. When did these guys ever sacrifice for the country they are now running?

Bush – The Weakest President of Our Time

On Sunday the department of homeland security (DHS) told us that we should beware of future terrorist attacks in the financial district of three major cities. On Monday the government revealed that the source of the information regarding these attacks is several years old. Howard Dean and several other people suggested that the terror alert was a political ploy. We may never know if it was a political ploy or not, but it doesn’t matter. The mere fact that this question popped up shows the weakness of the current president. Remember at the build up to the Iraq war last March the majority of Americans were willing to say, ‘ You are the government and you know what is best for us.” But now, nearly 18 months later the majority of Americans need to look at this terror alert through the lens of history. “Bush lied to us once, he isn’t beyond lying to us again,” is what many people are saying.

The question no longer demands us to even know if the warning is true, because the majority of Americans doubt their leader. It doesn’t matter whether the new terrorist warnings are factual or not because the whole issue of their credibility shows the weakness of our current president. How can we have a leader that the majority of Americans doubt. What if we really need to rally against a real enemy? Will we be able to do it? It is beginning to look doubtful.

Republicans who surely want our country protected should consider the weakness of this leader. Republicans who told us of the weakness of Carter based on a fail rescue mission in Iran should consider a leader who has done much worse for our country and the office of the president.

The Pro-Life Hypocrisy

Anti-abortion activists have a one-track mind, much like other groups that have one cause that they actively pursue. However, when you vote for a representative you own it to your community to select a representative that will address the issues that will improve your community. Making your decision based on one issue means that all other issue pale in comparison to this issue. Now, if abortion is your only issue you are not choosing wisely, because the abortion issue will not come up for a vote in the next term. If it were to come up for a vote the Republicans would have already passed the law. After all, they already control both houses of congress and the presidency. That means that it would be a slam-dunk to pass the law. However, they also know that the voters would retaliate and most of these Republicans would be out of a job come re-election.

You could claim that your religion demands that you vote for a Pro-Life candidate. This may be true if you are Catholic, but Pro-Life is more than just anti-abortion. Finding a candidate that is actually Pro-Life is next to impossible. If you decide that you should not vote for any pro-choice or pro-abortion candidate you should not vote for any pro death penalty candidate either. Therefore there are very few candidates that you could actually vote for.

However, if you vote Republican you are choosing the wealthy above the poor, but the Catholic Church teaches us that we should serve the poor.

Voting on only one issue is shooting yourself in the foot because a mosquito bit it. It is hardly a way to make your choice.

The abortion issue has been decided, one should vote for the issues that are currently being decided.

Lies About Teresa Heinz Kerry Spread By the Republican Rumor Mill

Here's another cut and paste from factcheck.org. I figured that it is important to get the truth out there every way possible. Apparently the Republicans have been using e-mail to spread false and hateful lies about Teresa Heinz Kerry. The party of the wealthy is spreading rumors about this wealthy Democrat. It's just sad that they need to stoop so low. And it is sad that these people can fool the American people.

[LINE]


False allegations about Kerry's wife have been circulating for months, but the velocity of the Internet "whispering campaign" picked up substantially with the approach of the Fall campaign.

One false message claims Teresa Heinz Kerry gave $4 million to a foundation that used the funds to support a list of "radical" groups including one with alleged links to Hamas and another that is said to have offered to provide a lawyer for Saddam Hussein. But public records show otherwise. Heinz Kerry's foundation money was directed to projects such as "Sustainable Pittsburgh," which promotes "smart growth" strategies.

Another widely circulated e-mail claims Kerry and his wife "own" dozens of H.J. Heinz Company factories in Europe and Asia. It accuses Kerry of hypocrisy for denouncing offshoring of US jobs while "making millions off that cheap labor."

That's also false: neither of them own Heinz. Public records show Heinz Kerry isn't an officer of the company, isn't on the company's board of directors, and isn't even close to being the largest shareholder. The Heinz Endowments do own Heinz stock -- less than 4% of the company -- but income from that stock goes to charity, not to the Kerrys personally.

Scientific Theory

Many lay (non-scientific) people don’t really understand that a Scientific Theory is actually a serious compilation of scientific facts. When people think about theory they think of the way that non-scientific people incorrectly use the word theory in their every day language. They say things like, “I have a theory about how the stock market responds to hot weather.” What they really mean to say is that they have a hypothesis about the relationship between the stock market and the weather. They can perform an experiment measuring the weather and the market to determine whether their hypothesis is correct. The measurement could determine a statistical relationship between the two, but it is virtually impossible to rule out every other parameter in this relationship.

So, what is a scientific theory if it isn’t a guess about how something behaves? The definition of a scientific theory is: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

In other words, a theory is an explanation of how a series of facts fit together. But, not only that but a theory has predictive power. A theory can be used to create more hypotheses so that further experiments can be performed. Perhaps this is why the public has this misconception about what a theory is. Since you can use a theory to predict completely new hypotheses you always face the point where the theory may hit the wall and fail to be predictive.

An example of this is when the theory of mechanics is used to describe the behavior of objects. However, as the size of the object gets smaller and smaller classical mechanics fails to describe how these small objects behave. So, at the scale of atoms classical mechanics no longer describes how electrons orbit the nucleus of the atom. It doesn’t mean that classical mechanics is just a theory and it is useless. Hardly, instead classical mechanic describes how things which are larger than a few atoms behave. The theory of quantum mechanics must be used to describe the behavior of atoms and molecules.

So, when you hear the fundamentalist Christians tell you that the Theory of Evolution is bunk, because it is only a theory. Then just remember that a scientific theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Remembering this definition makes one realize how powerful the theory of evolution really is.

What did Bush’s tax cuts do?

Bush gave out two tax cuts. One was the child tax credit and the other was the tax cut on stock dividends. The child tax credit was mailed out twice, the last of which was in the summer of 2003. I believe that although the amount of tax cut for each was about the same, the child tax credit was more effective than the tax cut on dividends to stimulate the economy.

If you give tax cuts to the wealthy they will save the money. This doesn't do much for the economy. It may cause the price of stocks to go up, but the value of the stocks remains the same. This is because the value of the company doesn’t change because more people want to own a piece of it. The value of the company changes when the company manufactures and sells something that people want, and they do it more efficiently than their competitors. If you give tax cuts to the poor they generally will spend the money and drive the economy. This means that all companies benefit from increased demand of goods.

So, lets look at what Bush did. He gave out a child tax credit that was distributed to everyone regardless of economic class. Then he gave another tax cut on stock dividends. This tax cut went to people who own stock, which is predominately the wealthy. This tax cut is continuous and is still going on. Every quarter many stocks pay out a dividend, which is now taxed at a lower rate. The dividend is generally paid into a brokerage account and the owner of the account usually just leaves it there to be reinvested. The reinvestment of so much money means that the available cash drives the price of stocks up, because the demand for stocks goes up. But, it doesn’t mean that the actual company is actually doing a better job.

Initially there was a bounce in the economy, which was due to the child tax credits being spent. But today the economy has become stagnant. After the child tax credits have all been spent there was a boost, but now the economy is becoming weaker even though the stock dividend tax cut continues on.

Ten percent of the population will determine the 2004 Presidential Election.

The c