ESPN.com: "After a gut-wrenching week in the ALCS, Boston has taken the drama out of Game 7. Johnny Damon's two home runs, including a second-inning grand slam, has the Sox up 10-3 in the ninth and the Yanks on the verge of a historic collapse."
10.20.2004
Bush supporter criticizing him 2 weeks before tight election..hmmmm.
CNN.com - Robertson: I warned Bush on Iraq casualties - Oct 19, 2004: "NEW YORK (CNN) -- The founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition said Tuesday he told President George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq that he should prepare Americans for the likelihood of casualties, but the president told him, 'We're not going to have any casualties.'"
I wonder what that means? Does it mean he thinks nobody is going to die? Or does it mean he thinks nobody who matters is goinng to die?
10.10.2004
More reasons why voting should be required
If you required every adult to vote, reguardless of felony convicitons or anything else you would wipe out what is beginning to look like rampant denial of voters' right to cast a ballot. And it's not because they are white or rich...
E-Voting Machines / Vote Integrity
Bush forgets he owns a tree growing company...
Bush's Timber-Growing Company
Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company." Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."
From factcheck.ORG (as opposed to factcheck.com):
"In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)
So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income."
Liar or Idiot?
Why lie? It can't really help you that much and quite obviously you WILL get caught and swiftly. So, logically, that leaves idiot. I suppose there is an arugment for just being too lazy to keep up on the details of your own business ventures. But, if this is the case, this is the man running our country (or is he? see reports of Bush being fed answers during the debate) with a total disregard for the complexity, details or truth of the job.
10.06.2004
the deciding factor.
Cheney Blunder Lauded Anti-Bush Web Site
I really didn't have an opinion one way or the other in terms of who won or didn't, during the VP debate. I agreed, obviously, with what Edwards said, not Cheney. But in terms of convincing undecided voters, which is really all that matters I couldn't objectively say.
That is, until I read this particular story in the link above. I think it was good for Dick to send everyone to factcheck.org. If only he had actually done that. He actually sent them to factcheck.com where there is a message from someone specifically stating why not to vote for Bush. This is comical, but not critical.
Honestly, the only reason I can think that the Bush camp would send people to factcheck.org is because they REALLY believe they are being honest about Kerry. I like the site, because they research the facts and let you know who is lying about what.
So, seems to me that sending people to a website that proves most of your allegations against Kerry are false is not a strategic move. *shrugs* And on that I say Edwards behaved smarter than Cheney.
The best thing I could say about Cheney was that he outperformed Bush. THAT shouldn't be good enough, but probably will be for some.
10.05.2004
VotePair || Uniting Progressives Through Strategic Voting
VotePair || Uniting Progressives Through Strategic Voting
A gift from my blogging friend Rowan. :)
10.04.2004
Why Not?
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
-Plato
I have been thinking about this idea for awhile. I know most likely there has to be some point I am missing as to why this simply isn't a good idea, but here it is anyway.
Americans should be compelled to vote.
We are compelled to support our government both financially and defensively. Regardless of choice, we pay taxes and at the whim of our elected officials, we can be made to take up arms and kill those deamed our ememy.
Seems to me that making someone show up on election day and give their opinion (even if that opinion is that Mickey Mouse can do a better job of running the country than the guy who has the job today) isn't that much of an imposition.
Compelling a citizen to participate in his democracy is so vital to his sucessful representation he should be required to do it for his own good.
We have all sorts of laws on the books that require people to act in defense of their own well being (seatbelt laws for example).
I realize there are details to be dealt with (felons, mental capacity, etc.) but ask yourself: Are they really prohibitive to the concept itself. I don't think they are. The details can be worked out elsewhere.
It can be seen as sacrifice of freedom, to be compelled to vote. There is an arguement for that. However, considering we are a country who compells its citizens to pay for its government and die for it as well, mandatory voting seems a rather minor sacrifice of freewill.
But will it happen? No.
During my short time working in politics, I learned things from people who have been involved for years, and witnessed things myself, that have led me to the opinion that Republicans don't want everyone voting. A great deal of time and effort is spent discouraging large numbers of minority and lower income voters from reaching the polls. Not necessarily overt efforts to block them from the polls (although those do exist - see Florida November 2000) but psychological efforts to alienate and convince these voters they do not matter, their vote doesn't count, even that their vote may be criminal.
Republicans have traditionally (in most recent times) been very successful in discourgaing from voting, citizens who would most likely vote against them in large numbers. There IS a reason Democrats spend time and effort going door to door on election day, asking people to go vote, even offering them rides to the polls. Because it generally works in their favor!
I am sure someone is currently outraged that I would make such an accusation. So, don't take my word for it, take a Republican's:
Bob Herbert:
Curbing black vote aids Republican election bids | The Arizona Daily Star
But, my point here is that I think generally Conservatives will be against this concept and perhaps Liberals would not. To break it down further, I assume Libertarians will dispise the idea and Populists would embrace it. Prove me wrong or reinforce my assumptions, but let me know what you think.
10.01.2004
Thank you Mr. Springsteen
"If you mislead your people into a war, and that costs a thousand lives and many, many more wounded and 200 billion dollars of taxpayer money, and it turns out the grounds for going to war have been false, you lose your job," said the rock star.
Bruce Springsteen, as quoted in an AFP story on Oct 1, 2004 reguarding why he is participating in the "Vote for Change" tour.
Vote for Change Concert Tour | America Coming Together (ACT)
CBS News | Uncommitted Voters Give Kerry Nod
CBS News | Uncommitted Voters Give Kerry Nod | October 1, 2004 08:30:49
See, some people can think for themselves. ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)