Friday, July 30, 2004

Verse(s) of the Day

I’ve been troubled today and this passage came to mind. I don’t feel like explaining why this is applicable for me right now, but it is. It has nothing to do with politics or work, just something that happened today that I don’t feel like rehashing on the blog.

Hebrews 12: 1-3

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

I love the whole passage in chapter 12, but those three verses are for today. Posted by at 07:06 PM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

GWOT News

When I arrived at work this morning, I noticed some TV trucks parked out front. This is why.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - A prominent U.S. Muslim activist who provided details of a Libyan plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader pleaded guilty on Friday to illegal financial dealings with Libya.

[...]

After his arrest last year, al-Amoudi told the FBI he was a participant in a plot to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. He said the plot was approved by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi who has recently improved ties with the United States and has vowed to renounce terrorism.

Officials said the statements from al-Amoudi regarding the assassination plot were part of a plea bargain to avoid a trial. His accusations were similar to those made by a Libyan intelligence officer in Saudi custody.

The U.S. government had originally accused al-Amoudi of being involved in a number of groups that provided financial assistance to Hamas and al Qaeda—which the U.S. government has labeled “foreign terrorist organizations.”

Al-Amoudi pleaded guilty to illegally receiving and attempting to export $340,000 in cash while in London in August 2003. The money was from the World Islamic Call Society, a group controlled by the government of Libya.

He also pleaded guilty to an immigration and a tax violation.

We’ll get them one by one, by hook or by crook. Justice served. Posted by at 04:26 PM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Final Thoughts

I was getting a little punchy towards the end of the speech and I don’t think I was clear enough about my position when I said the following:

I will say this for him. I believe him when he says that he will do what he can to keep Americans safe against terrorism. I believe him when he says he’ll use deadly force and our military if it’s required. My concern is that he’ll be a little behind the 8-ball because he’ll be trying to “restore alliances” that we shouldn’t have to have in order to protect ourselves.

So let me clarify a little bit, to calm the nervous Nellies.

1. I believe him because I have to. The idea that any President wouldn’t do what he needed to do to keep Americans safe is horrifying. So I say that I believe that he will do what he can to keep Americans safe is as much me trying to reassure myself on that fact.

2. Again, I believe that he’ll use the military if it’s required because I need to believe it for my own sanity.

Look, I think that President Clinton proved that a President will try to do what he thinks is the right thing for America. Say what you will about the former President, I do think that he tried. And what it gets down to is the philosophy about America’s defense.

I believe that the next President will need to continue to be proactive on the potential for further terrorist attacks than reactive. And that is the substantial difference between President Bush and Senator Kerry. Bush is proactive, he’s proved it. I believe that a President Kerry will be more reactive - because of his stance on war and the military and his world view.

In addition, I’m a bit isolationist, so I don’t give a flying fig if France and Germany are on board with how we protect ourselves (and them, for that matter). What I care about is that we, America, do what we need to do to keep our citizens safe. Period. Now, if other countries want to join the fight, then they’re welcome. All others need to shut it and go on about their business and don’t come whining for our help when you’re attacked.

So, to be clear - I do not want to see a President Kerry. The thought horrifies me, to be honest. But I think back on the Clinton years and I realize that while he can screw some things up, it’ll be done with what he thinks is the best interest of America in mind. Does that make sense?

Posted by at 11:37 AM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Damaged Goods

I first started reading blogs in spring of 2002, shortly after Jaynee and Denis started theirs. It didn’t take long for me to get hooked and I eventually started my own in the late summer of that year.

One of the first blogs I read on a regular basis was on the Cooties’ blogroll, Damaged Goods. Phern writes snarky, short little snippets of posts, but he always cracks me up. And he’s got cute ferrets.

He decided to take a break from blogging a few months ago and I feared he had decided to give it up all together when his domain no longer worked. So imagine my glee when I noticed the “-Speaking!” next to his link in my blogroll.

Welcome back, Phern. You’ve got a lot of catching up to do.

Posted by at 01:30 AM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Thursday, July 29, 2004

Nominee Kerry

I’m watching the Kerry Campaign Video on C-SPAN. Easily half of the length of it was about Vietnam. Does this count towards the bingo or drinking game?

One other thought - doesn’t he ever get sick of talking about Vietnam? I mean, my dad is a Vietnam vet but he doesn’t bring it up every time he meets new people or whatever. Sheesh.

LATER:  Note to the GOP - cut back on the banner/sign budget. Man, are those annoying.

Update (Fri 9:30am):  I moved the rest of the commentary to save space on the main page. Click the link…

Posted by at 11:47 PM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Tolkien’s Triumph, 50 Years Later

BBC News Online has a cool article about the initial reviews of Fellowship of the Ring, which was published 50 years ago.

One of the most popular books in literary history it is also a regular winner of recent polls to find the nation’s favourite novel - last year it topped the BBC’s Big Read survey.

But Tolkien’s public did not alway look so favourably upon this epic work.

The Spectator’s Richard Hughes, writing in October 1954, opened his review praising the pleasures of reading Tolkien’s The Hobbit - published 17 years earlier - to his children.

“This is not a work which many adults will read through more than once,” said the anonymous reviewer in the Times Literary Supplement, while American critic Edmund Wilson, dismissed the entire trilogy in 1956 as “juvenile trash”.

Ouch! Happily, his sentiments turned out not to be true.

There are a ton of Rings-related links at the website linked. Some interesting trivia:

The Lord of the Rings took 11 years to complete

Only 3,500 books were printed for the first print run

In the US in 1965, 100,000 pirate trilogies were sold

Tolkien sold the film rights to the books in 1969 for £10,000

Tolkien created 37 new languages for 34 books

[via Ith]

Posted by at 11:13 PM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Llamas Round-Up Tolkien Links

Robert the Llama Butcher has a smorsgabord (did I spell that right? looks weird without the umlau) of links for Tolkien fans, to include a quiz that tests your knowledge of Middle Earth and a Tolkien Crackpot Theories page. I didn’t link them here so you’d have to visit the Butchers. Fine fellows are Steve and Rob, despite their propensity to slaughter harmless llamas.

Posted by at 06:28 PM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Resplendent Wrap-Up

Katie’s blog is fast becoming a favorite (I see a promotion to “This Roll” in her future). So I’m perusing her DNC Convention Day 3 stuff and there are some choice quotes:

Now here comes John. It’s like Vice President Ken Doll. ... Personally, I’d take Bush-in-a-flight-suit any day. This speech is brought to you by the word, “smarmy.”

[...]

Did Edwards just say that “Your problems are [Kerry’s] problems”? Right… Kerry doesn’t have student loans and I’m not henpecked. We have different problems.

[...]

“We’re going to reward work, not just wealth.: Then how about you actually reward work? Like by letting the people that work for the money KEEP the money.

[...]

“Raise the minimum wage.”
Or we could just print more money. Then everyone would be rich. My tunnels are carping.

I just like the “my tunnels are carping” line. Heh.

Continuing the fisking:

“Restore respect in the world, bring allies to us. It’s how we won the Cold war, it’s how we won two World Wars.”
No, dear, it isn’t. We won the Cold War by arms-racing the USSR into bankrupcy and the only way in which our allies came to us in WWII was in that “Help, help, we’re being blitzkreiged!” sort of way. We were isolationists then, John. We didn’t build broad coalitions because we didn’t need them.

[...]

“Hope is on the way.” Oh good grief, they have “Hope is on the way” signs. They’re like a weird flag corps. I’d never seen Edwards in action before. He seems like someone who Hollywood cast to portray a young southern politician. He’s a bit shifty. And he blinks a lot.

Nice job, Katie. Posted by at 02:27 PM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

55 Minutes to Mind-Numbing

I just heard Laura Ingraham say that Kerry’s speech is supposed to be 55 minutes long tonight.

I’m bored already.

I see the potential for a drinking game**:

1. Chug when he says “Vietnam”
2. Drink twice when he says “purple heart”
3. Drink when he says “two Americas”
4. Chug when he says “restore respect”
5. From Craig: One drink for “unilateral”, three drinks for “multilateral”
6. From Denis: You win the game if he says, “Where are the WMD?” Or “pre-emptive strike”
7. From McGehee: 1 drink if he reverses himself within one minute. Chug if he then reverses the reversal within the same minute.

You get the point…

**I’ve never even played a drinking game. Seriously. The thought just popped into my head.

UPDATE: I added a new #4 to the list. Because you know that will get said at least one time.

UPDATE #2: Add your game suggestions in the comments and I’ll add them to the list above.

UPDATE #3: In a similar vein, play Kerry Bingo during the speech tonight courtesy of Mango Katie. Her bingo cards are hilarious.

Posted by at 01:04 PM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monthly Close-Out

Light blogging for today since we have our monthly close-out of the books tomorrow. I’ve got a basket full of vouchers still to be paid and input into our financial system and then the usual reconciliation process before we can “push the button.”

I didn’t watch any of the DNC convention last night. I just couldn’t do it...and I was falling asleep by 9pm, so I wasn’t going to make it to Edwards’ speech anyway. From what I hear this morning, it was a little weak. And we’re still not hearing anything of substance (hint: specifics on what you plan/want to do if you’re President). Kerry’s got a bit of an uphill slog tonight, methinks.

Posted by at 12:05 PM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

More on Moore/O’Reilly

Thanks to commenter, Larry for the link to the Drudge Report transcript of the Michael Moore interview with Bill O’Reilly. From a quick perusal, it looks pretty accurate. Some snippets:

[O:] ...you’ve been calling Bush a liar on weapons of mass destruction, the senate intelligence committee, Lord Butler’s investigation in Britain, and now the 911 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush.  Plus, Gladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction.  Wanna apologize to the president now or later?

M: He didn’t tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction.

O: Yeah, but he didn’t lie, he was misinformed by - all of those investigations come to the same conclusion, that’s not a lie.

M: uh huh, so in other words if I told you right now that nothing was going on down here on the stage…

O: That would be a lie because we could see that wasn’t the truth

M: Well, I’d have to turn around to see it, and then I would realize, oh, Bill, I just told you something that wasn’t true… actually it’s president Bush that needs to apologize to the nation for telling an entire country that there were weapons of mass destruction, that they had evidence of this, and that there was some sort of connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th, and he used that as a –

O: Ok, He never said that, but back to the other thing, if you, if Michael Moore is president –

[...]

O: Just the issues.  You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, US intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction, you say, “he lied.” This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious –

M: Well, that’s almost pathological – I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true, they could pass a lie detector test –

O: Alright, now you’re dancing around a question –

M: No I’m not, there’s no dancing

O: He didn’t lie

M: He said something that wasn’t true

O: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources

M: Now you know that they went to the CIA, Cheney went to the CIA, they wanted that information, they wouldn’t listen to anybody

O: They wouldn’t go by Russian intelligence and Blair’s intelligence too

M: His own people told him, I mean he went to Richard Clarke the day after September 11th and said “What you got on Iraq?” and Richard Clarke’s going “Oh well this wasn’t Iraq that did this sir, this was Al Qaeda.”

O: You’re diverting the issue…did you read Woodward’s book?

M: No, I haven’t read his book.

O: Woodward’s a good reporter, right?  Good guy, you know who he is right?

M: I know who he is.

O: Ok, he says in his book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said “President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, “slam dunk” if you’re the president, you ignore all that?

M: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.

O: I agree.  The lieutenant was fired.

M: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence.  This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn’t communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn’t have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th

O: Nobody disputes that

M: Ok, so he screws up September 11th.  Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a “slam dunk” and your going to go to war.

O: You’ve got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they’re all saying the same thing that’s why.  You’re not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.

M: Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can’t think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war, I mean, I don’t know a worse –

O: It wasn’t a lie

M: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?

O: I call that bad information, acting on bad information – not a lie

M: A seven year old can get away with that –

Like I said in my post last night, Moore is so blinded by his hatred of the Bush Administration that he won’t even admit to the difference between an outright lie and an inadvertent lie. Not that I’m saying that the President lied - he didn’t. He may have been misinformed, but there have been WMD found in Iraq, although not the huge stockpiles that were expected.

The Hitler stuff:

O: Any government? Hitler, in Germany, not a threat to us the beginning but over there executing people all day long—you would have let him go?

M: That’s not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States.

O: Before—from 33-until 41 he wasn’t an imminent threat to the United States.

M: There’s a lot of things we should have done.

O: You wouldn’t have removed him.

M: I wouldn’t have even allowed him to come to power.

O: That was a preemption from Michael Moore—you would have invaded.

M: If we’d done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, woah, I’m trying to stop this war right now.

And then we get to the “sending children into war” argument:

M: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.

O: I would sacrifice myself—

M: Your child—Its Bush sending the children there.

O: I would sacrifice myself.

M: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old—

O: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.

M: Say ‘I Bill O’Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah’

O: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous

M: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?

I don’t like his constant use of the word “children” because it’s misleading. Yes, the adults that are sent are somebody’s children, but they’re not children. And, with very few exceptions they’re happy to serve and are happy to have been a part of liberating the oppressed Iraqi people.

The discussion then moved to how a democracy starts:

M: Look let me tell you something in the 1990s look at all the brutal dictators that were removed. Things were done, you take any of a number of countries whether its Eastern Europe, the people rose up. South Africa the whole world boycotted---

O: When Reagan was building up the arms, you were against that.

M: And the dictators were gone. Building up the arms did not cause the fall of Eastern Europe.

O: Of course it did, it bankrupted the Soviet Union and then it collapsed.

M: The people rose up.

O: why? Because they went bankrupt.

M: the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up—

O: Alright alright.

M:--that’s how you, let me ask you this question.

O: One more.

M: How do you deliver democracy to a country? You don’t do it down the barrel of a gun. That’s not how you deliver it.

O: You give the people some kind of self-determination, which they never would have had under Saddam—

M: Why didn’t they rise up?

O: Because they couldn’t, it was a Gestapo-led place where they got their heads cut off—

M: well that’s true in many countries throughout the world__

O: It is, it’s a shame—

M:--and you know what people have done, they’ve risen up.  You can do it in a number of ways . You can do it our way through a violent revolution, which we won, the French did it that way. You can do it by boycotting South Africa, they overthrew the dictator there. There’s many ways—

O: I’m glad we’ve had this discussion because it just shows you that I see the world my way, you see the world your way, alright—and the audience is watching us here and they can decide who is right and who is wrong and that’s the fair way to do it. Right?

M: Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would?

O: I would sacrifice myself.

M: You wouldn’t send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?

O: I would.

You can’t fight a revolution without some bloodshed and lost lives. Our own revolution was possible because the people had guns with which to fight. The fact that ordinary people had weapons was the only reason they were able to “rise up” effectively. Civil disobedience will only get you so far against a brutal dictator, and it’s usually to your death. The Iraqi people were so oppressed that if they had attempted to “rise up” they would have been killed. In fact, many were killed for the smallest real or perceived resistance to Saddam. It’s idiotic to think that the people of Iraqi could have had a revolution without some assistance - it’s why they were under Saddam’s rule for 35 years.

And he just wouldn’t let go of his question about Bill sending his child to save Fallujah. I’ll answer your question, Mr. Moore - with no hesitation I would gladly send any family member who wears the uniform of the US military to protect and defend and liberate where our President deems it necessary for him/her to go. It doesn’t mean I don’t love them or wouldn’t fear for them. But some things are worth sacrifice and there’s no greater or nobler sacrifice than to give your life for someone else. The proud folks in our military understand that and were prepared to do just that when they signed on the dotted line at their enlistment.

Posted by at 12:37 PM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

TAR5 League, Week 4 Results

I had a very good night last night. By my count, I only got one question wrong on the quiz, but I haven’t checked the game forum page yet to see how the Quizmaster scored this week’s quiz.

The results:

The Amazing Race 5 Weekly Challenge
kdeweb—805
chrissw—770
jenspeaks—685
SteenShell—615
tygertyger—610
denis—510
Jaynee—500
princessjami—495

Well done, kdeweb, on taking the lead in our league.

I have a lot of thoughts about the episode, but I’ll post them in a minute. And they’ll be in the “Still Speaking” section.

UPDATE (11:00am): My thoughts on the episode are now posted (spoiler heavy)- click the link.

Posted by at 11:21 AM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

Affleck, Moore, & O’Reilly

So I managed to catch both the Affleck and Moore interviews on O’Reilly tonight. Katie watched it too, and posted about it before I could muster up the energy.

On Affleck:

He comes off as moderate and intellegent though. Not as much of a lefty-ditz as you’d think. He’s a gun supporter, amazingly. And doesn’t hate Bush. And managed to have a good, friendly conversation with O’Reilly. He says he respects the president, even if he doesn’t agree. Alright, I can respect that. His facts are a little funny, but he’ll do.

Yeah, I came away respecting his rational if misinformed opinions. He’s actually a pretty articulate guy and while I disagree with him on most things political (and his bad women-dating decisions), he makes his case. What I most appreciated that he said was that he wished both sides would talk about their ideas. Gee, I wonder if he saw my letter to the GOP leaders?

On Moore:

O’Reilly is trying to get him to grasp the concept of being wrong versus lying. Now he says that Bush is pathological, because Bush thought it was true. ... O’Reilly asked him what he would do if he was President and recieved overwhelming information that Saddam had WMDs. Michael Moore said that he would have known that the information was false. Michael Moore seems to only have hindsight capacities.

[...]

O’Reilly: “You wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan?”
Moore: “I would have gone after the man who killed 3000 of our citizens”
...who was in Afghanistan, you baboon.

Michael Moore says he wouldn’t have let Hitler come to power. Impressive. Hindsight is a handy thing.

I wish I had written down what I was yelling at the TV during that interview. I think O’Reilly summed it up nicely after the interview was over - Moore is a rabid Bush-hater who is so blinded by his hatred that he’s moved beyond reason. It doesn’t matter how much direct and irrefutable evidence is provided to the contrary, in Moore’s mind Bush is a liar.

The segment about Hitler was illuminating - O’Reilly had Moore on the ropes regarding his arguments against any pre-emptive action. First, he claimed that he would have stopped Hitler from coming to power in the first place - oh yeah? How? When Hitler came to power in the 30s I don’t think anyone was expecting his reign to end up being what it was. Oh, and he also stated that Hitler and Japan were in cahoots to attack the US.

Moore’s an ignorant buffoon. Unfortunately, he has a lot of ignorant lemmings who are buying into his lies and propaganda.

Posted by at 11:19 PM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

The Latest Numbers

Some Republicans are worried. They’re complaining that the President hasn’t been campaigning hard enough. I don’t know about that - I prefer that he actually work at the job rather than campaign at this point. I don’t think we should be complacent, but we shouldn’t be despondent either. And the latest numbers back me up.

The critical convention season begins with John Kerry losing momentum at just the hour he’d like to be gaining it: President Bush has clawed back on issues and attributes alike, reclaiming significant ground that Kerry had taken a month ago.

Kerry has lost support against Bush in trust to handle five of six issues tested in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, including terrorism, Iraq, taxes and even health care. And Kerry’s ratings on personal attributes — honesty, strong leadership, consistency, empathy and others — have softened as well.

The bottom line has shifted only very subtly. Head-to-head, the Massachuestts senator has slipped from a slight lead in late June to a dead heat today, with 49 percent support for Bush and 48 percent for Kerry among registered voters. Including Ralph Nader, it’s 48 percent-46 percent-3 percent.

So let’s take a look at the pretty pictures that accompany the article.

Looks like the President is doing pretty well on all but health care.

Again, the President is doing pretty well.

Finally, the President is still doing well.

Look, I don’t understand why he and Kerry are tied in the overall polls, but I think this poll is a lot more telling about how people will vote in November. Let the Dem and GOP have their conventions and then the real campaigning will begin. The debates will be the true, final test for each candidate. I’m still very positive that the President will be reelected.

Posted by at 01:20 PM
(1) Trackbacks • Permalink

An Open Letter to the GOP Convention Planners

To Whom it May Concern:

You’re complaining rather loudly about the Bush bashing at the DNC already. Surely you expected it? Just watch what you complain about because you’re own bash fest is coming next month.

Personally, I’d love to see the Republicans who take the stage rise above the petty and snide remarks about the Democratic nominee. Talk about his record in the Senate. Talk about his plan for America should he win the election (assuming he puts forth one for you to talk about). Do not talk about his Vietnam years - in war and after he got home. Do not get personal. Do not get snippy.

Think high. You are the party of the sitting President of the United States. Talk about his first term. Remind people of the good things that have been accomplished in the past four years. Remind people about the Global War on Terror - don’t just talk about 9/11, show pictures and feature people directly affected. Yes, the Dems will accuse you of exploiting people’s pain - they’re free to think that, but they’re short-sighted in that thinking. This presidency is defined by that day and the days after - it’s one of his greatest strengths. In my mind there’s nothing more important than the safety of the American people, as a nation. I believe that the most important task before any President is the security of our land and citizens. If we’re not safe, then the rest doesn’t matter.

Remind people that we no longer live in a 9/10/2001 world.

Then talk about your vision for a second term. Talk about what you hope to accomplish in the next four years. Don’t dwell on the past. Look forward and cast the vision. People want a leader who will spell out his vision for the future. Be clear, be concrete, be enthusiastic, be resolute, and be positive.

I have four words for you - Rise Above The Fray. Don’t stoop to the level that the Democrats are displaying this week. Be better than that because you are better than that. Don’t just spout off the tired old rhetoric. Rather, use that week to show people what you’re about - freedom, justice, compassion, strength - for each individual and our nation.

I look forward to seeing President Bush reelected and another four years of his leadership. Don’t screw it up.

Posted by at 12:34 PM
(1) Trackbacks • Permalink