As reported here, terrorist groups in Gaza, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have agreed to a unilateral ceasefire at midnight tonight; the agreement was brokered by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, who are looking for a way out of the crisis.
This crisis was precipitated by repeated rocket attacks by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, 19- year-old Cpl. Gilad Shalit. As a result of the repeated attacks and the kidnapping, Israel's military has been waging war against the terrorists, to both stop the repeated attacks and to retrieve their comrade.
Apparently, the Israeli's are being quite effective in their war against the terrorists, as evidenced by the unilateral ceasefire. But the thing is, also apparently, both Abbas and Haniyeh are clueless as to how to resolve the crisis - a crisis brought about by their own groups.
Well, here's the simple answer. Stop the repeated rocket attacks - permanently - by Hamas and Islamic Jihad against Israel, preferably through disarming - again, permanently - both Hamas and Islamic Jihad (and any other terrorist groups), and return Cpl. Shalit to his comrades.
Now, should Israel agree to abide by the ceasefire as well? I think they should, as long as certain conditions are agreed to, and met, by Abbas and Haniyeh, which I outlined above. Until those conditions are met, however, I think the Israeli's are perfectly justified if they decide to continue killing the terrorists.
If - and this is a big if - those conditions are met, it would mean an end to the wanton killing of Israeli civilians (as well as members of the IDF); would remove a terrorist threat to the existence of Israel from at least one quarter; and would allow Israel then to re-deploy a certain amount of their forces from Gaza to Lebanon.
Hopefully, Israel will not make the mistake of granting concessions to the terrorists, and will make hard demands of Abbas and Haniyeh that can be verified. Israel is in a position of strength, while the terrorists are in a position of weakness, and Israel must not give up their position of strength.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Iran cleric accuses UN of tyranny on atomic work
As reported here, Iranian cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani says that "the UN Security Council risks committing “a historic act of tyranny” against Iran if it passes a resolution demanding Tehran stop making nuclear fuel.".
"UN Security Council permanent members are wrangling over the text of a draft resolution that includes the threat of sanctions if Iran fails to halt making enriched uranium, which the West argues will be used in atomic warheads."
"“On our nuclear issue, we are now witnessing a cruel act,” Rafsanjani told Friday prayers worshippers in Tehran." adding, "“They are going to commit another historic act of tyranny against Iran, despite Iran announcing several times that it is ready to negotiate,”", but not until next month. Meanwhile, their enrichment program continues unabated, which will soon allow Iran to commit an historic act of tyranny when they use a nuclear weapon on, say, Israel or the United States.
"“If Iran accepts, that would mean putting our hands up and surrendering,” he continued.".
That's the whole idea.
"UN Security Council permanent members are wrangling over the text of a draft resolution that includes the threat of sanctions if Iran fails to halt making enriched uranium, which the West argues will be used in atomic warheads."
"“On our nuclear issue, we are now witnessing a cruel act,” Rafsanjani told Friday prayers worshippers in Tehran." adding, "“They are going to commit another historic act of tyranny against Iran, despite Iran announcing several times that it is ready to negotiate,”", but not until next month. Meanwhile, their enrichment program continues unabated, which will soon allow Iran to commit an historic act of tyranny when they use a nuclear weapon on, say, Israel or the United States.
"“If Iran accepts, that would mean putting our hands up and surrendering,” he continued.".
That's the whole idea.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Three plead guilty in Oregon to 6-year 'eco-terror' spree
As reported here, three members of the ELF/ALF domestic terror groups have pled guilty to charges of arson and criminal conspiracy for their parts in a six year eco-terror spree that caused about $20 million in damages.
This is very good news, in that it is very difficult for law enforcement to get a handle on these two related domestic terror groups, but what is even better is that all three have agreed to "... cooperate in the continuing investigation of 10 others who are scheduled to go on trial Oct. 31 in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Ore., for a series of firebombings around the Northwest from 1996 to 2001, according to the Justice Department."
This is a major break for law enforcement officials on the trail of these two domestic terror groups, and it's hoped here that in the next trial some, or all, of the 10 defendants will also agree to cooperate with authorities, so that they can possibly break the back of ELF/ALF once and for all.
UPDATE: More good news! As reported here, three more people have pled guilty in this on-going investigation, and have agreed to cooperate with law enforcement authorities.
This is very good news, in that it is very difficult for law enforcement to get a handle on these two related domestic terror groups, but what is even better is that all three have agreed to "... cooperate in the continuing investigation of 10 others who are scheduled to go on trial Oct. 31 in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Ore., for a series of firebombings around the Northwest from 1996 to 2001, according to the Justice Department."
This is a major break for law enforcement officials on the trail of these two domestic terror groups, and it's hoped here that in the next trial some, or all, of the 10 defendants will also agree to cooperate with authorities, so that they can possibly break the back of ELF/ALF once and for all.
UPDATE: More good news! As reported here, three more people have pled guilty in this on-going investigation, and have agreed to cooperate with law enforcement authorities.
What's in a name? Part 2
In a previous post, I commented that the Association of Trial Lawyers of America was 'concerned' about the perception people had of them, and that they were considering changing their name.
Well, as reported here, they voted to change their name to - get ready - the American Association for Justice.
Folks, you're still trial lawyers, with all the 'baggage' that that implies. You still haven't addressed the rogues in your midst who are only out for as many bucks as they can stuff in their pockets, and simply changing the name of your association is not going to change the perception the vast majority of Americans have for you.
If you want peoples perception of you to really change, then get rid of the rogues. As the saying goes, "A rose is a rose.", no matter what you call it, and greedy trial lawyers are still greedy even if they can now claim to be a part of the American Association for Justice.
Well, as reported here, they voted to change their name to - get ready - the American Association for Justice.
Folks, you're still trial lawyers, with all the 'baggage' that that implies. You still haven't addressed the rogues in your midst who are only out for as many bucks as they can stuff in their pockets, and simply changing the name of your association is not going to change the perception the vast majority of Americans have for you.
If you want peoples perception of you to really change, then get rid of the rogues. As the saying goes, "A rose is a rose.", no matter what you call it, and greedy trial lawyers are still greedy even if they can now claim to be a part of the American Association for Justice.
Monday, July 17, 2006
50 Questions
Seems that a guy by the name of Robert J. Elisberg wants to confuse and dumbfound Republicans, and has come up with 50 questions that "progressives" can ask. Well, Phillip Winn has come up with 50 answers, and asks questions of his own.
I found this over at Rightwingsparkle, and I agree with her response, when she says, "The questions just REEK of the smug self righteousness of the Democrats. I was going to answer the questions myself, but this guy did a pretty good job. Plus, the questions are just stupid."
I really like what I've seen over at Rightwingsparkle. So much so, that I've added her blog to our links. Check her site out You'll be glad you did!
I found this over at Rightwingsparkle, and I agree with her response, when she says, "The questions just REEK of the smug self righteousness of the Democrats. I was going to answer the questions myself, but this guy did a pretty good job. Plus, the questions are just stupid."
I really like what I've seen over at Rightwingsparkle. So much so, that I've added her blog to our links. Check her site out You'll be glad you did!
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Democrats and Republicans: An Unbridgeable Divide
Hearing by secret court opposed
As reported here, "[c]ritics of the Bush administration's program for wiretapping without warrants said Friday that they would fight a new White House agreement to let a secret court decide the constitutionality of the operation."
My, my. First the "critics" say that warrants must be issued by FISA, or it's "unconstitutional" to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists in other countries making contact with people in this country, and now that President Bush has agreed to go along with proposed legislation put forth by Senator Arlen Spector, the "critics" are screeching that this isn't constitutional.
So, on the one hand, you "critics" don't like the fact that President Bush has authorized the NSA to protect the United States from international terrorists trying to recruit people and funds here in America, and have made the demand that the President must go through FISA to do this, while on the other hand, now that he has agreed to do just that, you're saying that's wrong?
What's with you people anyway? You cannot have it both ways! It just isn't logical, but then again, blind hatred does that to people - makes them do and say illogical things.
Your blind hatred of everything "Bush" is endangering this country - including you, you idiots! - but you don't care one whit. All you care about is "getting" President Bush, no matter what the cost is, or may be.
Not only is your argument against this proposed legislation illogical in the extreme, it amounts to a pathological psychosis!
My, my. First the "critics" say that warrants must be issued by FISA, or it's "unconstitutional" to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists in other countries making contact with people in this country, and now that President Bush has agreed to go along with proposed legislation put forth by Senator Arlen Spector, the "critics" are screeching that this isn't constitutional.
So, on the one hand, you "critics" don't like the fact that President Bush has authorized the NSA to protect the United States from international terrorists trying to recruit people and funds here in America, and have made the demand that the President must go through FISA to do this, while on the other hand, now that he has agreed to do just that, you're saying that's wrong?
What's with you people anyway? You cannot have it both ways! It just isn't logical, but then again, blind hatred does that to people - makes them do and say illogical things.
Your blind hatred of everything "Bush" is endangering this country - including you, you idiots! - but you don't care one whit. All you care about is "getting" President Bush, no matter what the cost is, or may be.
Not only is your argument against this proposed legislation illogical in the extreme, it amounts to a pathological psychosis!
What's in a name?
As reported here, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America are " [f]ed up with being vilified as greedy attorneys only out for a buck ", and will be asking their members to approve changing their association name. (What to, however, isn't mentioned.)
"ATLA's president, Ken Suggs, recently wrote members of the group that a name change would help trial lawyers win in "the court of public opinion.""
"The new name would "help us better communicate our mission -- and help us win back the public," Suggs wrote."
"ATLA's political opponents are getting a kick out of the strategy." For good reason!
""If I renamed a shark a 'kitten fish,' would I let my goddaughter play with it?" quipped Victor Schwartz, general counsel of the American Tort Reform Association, a group that wants to crack down on frivolous suits and put limits on jury awards."
"Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform, said the name change amounts to "cosmetic surgery.""
Attorneys, especially in our litigious society, are necessary, and the vast majority of them are sincere in their desire to help people. (Boy, you just don't know how hard it was for me to write that!)
But, it is the few truly greedy attorneys out there that are only after a quick buck (or millions of them) for themselves, with no regard whatsoever to the consequences to the American people, who are the real problem.
Since, as the saying goes, perception is ninety percent of reality, changing the name of your association without changing the practices of the relative few will do nothing in the long run, to engender the trust of the American people in trial lawyers, a trust that was squandered by those seeking to strike it rich at the expense of corporations, and the American people.
Go ahead, change the name of your association, but while you're at it, at least try to rein in the rogues in your midst. Doing that will do far more at changing the perceived image the American people have of your members, than merely changing the name will ever do.
Oh, and this bit of advice was provided to you pro bono.
"ATLA's president, Ken Suggs, recently wrote members of the group that a name change would help trial lawyers win in "the court of public opinion.""
"The new name would "help us better communicate our mission -- and help us win back the public," Suggs wrote."
"ATLA's political opponents are getting a kick out of the strategy." For good reason!
""If I renamed a shark a 'kitten fish,' would I let my goddaughter play with it?" quipped Victor Schwartz, general counsel of the American Tort Reform Association, a group that wants to crack down on frivolous suits and put limits on jury awards."
"Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform, said the name change amounts to "cosmetic surgery.""
Attorneys, especially in our litigious society, are necessary, and the vast majority of them are sincere in their desire to help people. (Boy, you just don't know how hard it was for me to write that!)
But, it is the few truly greedy attorneys out there that are only after a quick buck (or millions of them) for themselves, with no regard whatsoever to the consequences to the American people, who are the real problem.
Since, as the saying goes, perception is ninety percent of reality, changing the name of your association without changing the practices of the relative few will do nothing in the long run, to engender the trust of the American people in trial lawyers, a trust that was squandered by those seeking to strike it rich at the expense of corporations, and the American people.
Go ahead, change the name of your association, but while you're at it, at least try to rein in the rogues in your midst. Doing that will do far more at changing the perceived image the American people have of your members, than merely changing the name will ever do.
Oh, and this bit of advice was provided to you pro bono.
How much does silence cost?
As reported here, about $8,000.00 a month, as Senator Cantwell's campaign manager Matt Butler finally issued a statement regarding what her former challenger, Mark Wilson, is getting paid "... to drop his Democratic primary challenge to the senator and his harsh criticism of her opposition to immediate U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq." to be the campaign outreach director.
"State Republican Party Chairwoman Diane Tebelius, in a statement Friday, called it "highly unusual to pay an outreach director almost the same amount as the top position in a Senate race. It also reveals a 'money-buys-everything' mentality for the Cantwell campaign."" Sure seems to be that way, anyway.
Wow! $96,000.00 a year to be a campaign outreach director! I wonder how they pay their office manager? I used to be an office manager, and I've been critical of the Senator, too ... nah, bad idea. I'd either wind up constantly laughing with derision at the moonbat "policies" put forward by the Senator, or keel over dead with a stroke or a heart attack over the same things. Either way, that wouldn't look good on my resume, you know?
"State Republican Party Chairwoman Diane Tebelius, in a statement Friday, called it "highly unusual to pay an outreach director almost the same amount as the top position in a Senate race. It also reveals a 'money-buys-everything' mentality for the Cantwell campaign."" Sure seems to be that way, anyway.
Wow! $96,000.00 a year to be a campaign outreach director! I wonder how they pay their office manager? I used to be an office manager, and I've been critical of the Senator, too ... nah, bad idea. I'd either wind up constantly laughing with derision at the moonbat "policies" put forward by the Senator, or keel over dead with a stroke or a heart attack over the same things. Either way, that wouldn't look good on my resume, you know?
Council offers lower-cost option
As reported here, the City Council has made a counter proposal to the Mayors $1.8 billion, 20 year tax package, that would supposedly shave 23% off of what the Mayor has proposed "... in hopes that the slimmed-down proposal will be more acceptable to voters. ".
"The council on Monday will discuss the counterproposal, which would trim the mayor's 20-year spending plan for major road projects and street and sidewalk repairs by more than $15 million annually." Oh, goody! They "only" want to spend roughly $75 million dollars a year, rather than the $90 million the Mayor wants to spend. How responsible of them.
"The changes reflect discomfort among council members with the original size of the mayor's proposal and a strong lobbying effort by the parking industry against the parking tax Nickels proposed."
""Our concern was voter fatigue," said Councilman Richard McIver, who said he supports almost all of the revised package. "I think (the change) gets it down to a cost I think is reasonable to the taxpayer.""
I'm glad that the City Council felt 'discomfort' over the size of the Mayor's proposal, and that they are 'concerned' about 'voter fatigue'. Let's see now. Ron Sims wants to increase the sales tax in King County; the State Legislature voted to increase the state gas tax 9.5 cents per gallon (on top of the 38 cents they already had assessed in previous years) - to fix roads by the way, plus other and sundry taxes they passed both last year and this year; the Mayor then dumps a whopping $1.8 billion tax package on the citizens of Seattle, with the City Council making a counter proposal that still comes in at a whopping $1.5 billion dollars, and Councilman McIver thinks this is 'reasonable'?
Guess again. The only real changes in the Councils counterproposal are to cut the parking lot space tax from 10% to 8%, and to cut the property tax by 26% (which still needs voter approval to implement anyway), while retaining the $25.00 per employee tax. Not a whole lot of changes or reductions, really, when you look at the overall numbers.
I'm hoping that the City Council does put the property tax request on the November ballot, so that the voters in the city of Seattle can demonstrate just how 'fatigued' we really are. I for one, am really 'tired' of having politicians dipping into my wallet at the drop of a hat.
"The council on Monday will discuss the counterproposal, which would trim the mayor's 20-year spending plan for major road projects and street and sidewalk repairs by more than $15 million annually." Oh, goody! They "only" want to spend roughly $75 million dollars a year, rather than the $90 million the Mayor wants to spend. How responsible of them.
"The changes reflect discomfort among council members with the original size of the mayor's proposal and a strong lobbying effort by the parking industry against the parking tax Nickels proposed."
""Our concern was voter fatigue," said Councilman Richard McIver, who said he supports almost all of the revised package. "I think (the change) gets it down to a cost I think is reasonable to the taxpayer.""
I'm glad that the City Council felt 'discomfort' over the size of the Mayor's proposal, and that they are 'concerned' about 'voter fatigue'. Let's see now. Ron Sims wants to increase the sales tax in King County; the State Legislature voted to increase the state gas tax 9.5 cents per gallon (on top of the 38 cents they already had assessed in previous years) - to fix roads by the way, plus other and sundry taxes they passed both last year and this year; the Mayor then dumps a whopping $1.8 billion tax package on the citizens of Seattle, with the City Council making a counter proposal that still comes in at a whopping $1.5 billion dollars, and Councilman McIver thinks this is 'reasonable'?
Guess again. The only real changes in the Councils counterproposal are to cut the parking lot space tax from 10% to 8%, and to cut the property tax by 26% (which still needs voter approval to implement anyway), while retaining the $25.00 per employee tax. Not a whole lot of changes or reductions, really, when you look at the overall numbers.
I'm hoping that the City Council does put the property tax request on the November ballot, so that the voters in the city of Seattle can demonstrate just how 'fatigued' we really are. I for one, am really 'tired' of having politicians dipping into my wallet at the drop of a hat.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Plame sues White House figures over CIA leak
Breaking news - as reported here, Valerie Plame and her husband Joe Wilson have filed suit against Vice President Dick Cheney, former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and Karl Rove, alleging that they "conspired" to ruin her career by revealing her identity to columnist Robert Novak.
You know something, folks? This whole "Plamegate" thing just keeps getting weirder and weirder.
Update: John Podhoretz has this take over at The Corner, and HotAir has the Novak interview mentioned, plus more links.
You know something, folks? This whole "Plamegate" thing just keeps getting weirder and weirder.
Update: John Podhoretz has this take over at The Corner, and HotAir has the Novak interview mentioned, plus more links.
Tolls on I-90 could make U.S. 2 busier
As reported here, the State Legislature is proposing to put a $4.00 per trip toll on I-90 to get through Snoqualmie Pass, which would have severe impacts on US Highway 2, which runs through Stevens Pass. Not only that, but it would have a severe impact on the state economy as well, which I'll get into in a moment. First, though, some of the things in this article deserve some attention.
Placing a toll on I-90 not only could make US 2 busier, but will make it busier, as people will endure the longer drive to get to US 2 to avoid the toll. The major problem with that is that US 2 is a two-lane, unlimited access highway, as opposed to the multi-laned, limited access freeway I-90 is. US 2 is notorious in these parts for being a dangerous stretch of road, with many head-on collisions happening quite often. Also, it's in pretty rough shape, making any drive rather arduous, at best.
"Some see this as an opportunity to fix U.S. 2."
"That could happen if U.S. 2 also becomes a toll road, Sultan Police Chief Fred Walser said."
""It makes perfect sense," Walser said."
At first glance, I thought the "opportunity to fix US 2" was from using funds generated from the proposed toll on I-90. Silly me. No, Sultan Police Chief Walser wants to place a use toll on US 2, as well. How absurd! But wait! There's more!
"He envisions doubling the size of the highway to four lanes, keeping one lane in each direction as toll-free local access lanes." That's nice, Chief, but how would you go about differentiating between the locals using US 2, and those who aren't local? And how would you enforce the "local only lanes" provision? Do you really think that the non-local users of US 2 aren't going to try to use the "local only" lanes"? If so, I have some ocean front property in Arizona you might be interested in.
"Toll revenue could be spent on reducing U.S. 2's fatal accident rate - 40 fatalities since 1999 - while easing congestion." Except of course, during construction of the new lanes, a fact that they conveniently fail to mention. Oh, and let's not forget construction of the toll booths, too. US 2 is notoriously congested now. What's it going to be like during construction? While reducing the fatality rate is a noble objective, easing congestion - for a long time, if ever - won't happen. Somebody refresh my memory, please - how many years does it take to build one mile of highway?
"Slapping a toll only on I-90 would only "create more delays and more congestion" on U.S. 2, Walser said." Gee, Chief. Thanks ever so much for a blinding glimpse of the obvious!
"The state is in the early stages of deciding whether tolls have a future here, said Reema Griffith, state Transportation Commission administrator. Proposing a toll on I-90 is a way to get the public conversation started, she said." Now there's an understatement! And just who is going to be conducting this "conversation", anyway? Is it only going to be the State DOT? The Legislature and the State DOT? Or are any of you people going to let the citizens of the state have a say in this matter? Knowing the arrogance of the State DOT (only DSHS is more arrogant), they'll want to keep all the "conversations" in-house, and not allow anyone else to have a say.
"A $4-per-trip toll would raise more than $39 million per year, based on the average of 27,000 vehicles that go through Snoqualmie Pass every day." Those 27,000 vehicles that are traveling I-90 are doing it on a roadway that has no tolls at the present moment, yet the State DOT thinks that when the toll booths go up, the same number of vehicles will still be traveling I-90? Not only is that presumptuous arrogance on their part, but it is pure folly to base a revenue projection on that assumption, because many people will quit using I-90 to go to US 2 to avoid the tolls!
"Drivers on fast-moving I-90 are unlikely to switch to U.S. 2, with its traffic signals, small towns and lack of passing lanes, said Dongho Chang, the state Department of Transportation's traffic engineer for Snohomish County."
"There is a detour. Drivers could choose to avoid the proposed toll by traveling U.S. 97 from Ellensburg and connecting to U.S. 2."
"But that adds 50 miles to the drive - about two gallons of gas and an hour or so of time, Chang said." Perhaps, but I think Mr. Chang is indulging in wishful thinking here. There are so many people that are getting entirely too fed up with how money hungry this state has become, that they will go out of their way to avoid the toll, as a simple form of protest. It hasn't been all that long, really, since I-90 was itself a two-lane highway, and there are plenty of people around who remember that, and wouldn't mind one whit using US 2 and other routes, if it meant not having to give the state even more money than they get already.
"A Snoqualmie Pass toll would have to cost a lot more than $4 to get long-haul truckers to take that kind of detour, said Ed Vander Pol, co-owner of Auburn-based Oak Harbor Freight Lines."
"He predicted that all trucking companies would oppose the fee, but would pay it if the state decides to start charging."
""If they're using Highway 2 now, they'll keep using it," Vander Pol said. "If they're using I-90, they'll use I-90. They won't change for four bucks." Well, that depends on who is paying the toll, don't you think? If the trucking companies foot the bill, then no the truckers won't change what route they're using. But, if it's the truckers who have to pay, it might be a very different story.
If the truckers start using different routes to get across the mountains, such as say, through Portland, OR., this state's economy will suffer drastically. The east side of the state is where the majority of our state's agro-business is, and to get crops to market - especially overseas markets - those crops have to get trucked west over the mountains, to the ports at Seattle and Tacoma, and to a lesser (but no less significant) degree, Everett. If truckers begin using Portland instead, what happens to the shipping industry here? It could very well collapse, which would be a major economic disaster for the entire state.
The State DOT, in greedily going after pennies (400 of 'em), could potentially be throwing away billions of dollars in an ill-conceived "plan", that could be disastrous for the state.
Placing a toll on I-90 not only could make US 2 busier, but will make it busier, as people will endure the longer drive to get to US 2 to avoid the toll. The major problem with that is that US 2 is a two-lane, unlimited access highway, as opposed to the multi-laned, limited access freeway I-90 is. US 2 is notorious in these parts for being a dangerous stretch of road, with many head-on collisions happening quite often. Also, it's in pretty rough shape, making any drive rather arduous, at best.
"Some see this as an opportunity to fix U.S. 2."
"That could happen if U.S. 2 also becomes a toll road, Sultan Police Chief Fred Walser said."
""It makes perfect sense," Walser said."
At first glance, I thought the "opportunity to fix US 2" was from using funds generated from the proposed toll on I-90. Silly me. No, Sultan Police Chief Walser wants to place a use toll on US 2, as well. How absurd! But wait! There's more!
"He envisions doubling the size of the highway to four lanes, keeping one lane in each direction as toll-free local access lanes." That's nice, Chief, but how would you go about differentiating between the locals using US 2, and those who aren't local? And how would you enforce the "local only lanes" provision? Do you really think that the non-local users of US 2 aren't going to try to use the "local only" lanes"? If so, I have some ocean front property in Arizona you might be interested in.
"Toll revenue could be spent on reducing U.S. 2's fatal accident rate - 40 fatalities since 1999 - while easing congestion." Except of course, during construction of the new lanes, a fact that they conveniently fail to mention. Oh, and let's not forget construction of the toll booths, too. US 2 is notoriously congested now. What's it going to be like during construction? While reducing the fatality rate is a noble objective, easing congestion - for a long time, if ever - won't happen. Somebody refresh my memory, please - how many years does it take to build one mile of highway?
"Slapping a toll only on I-90 would only "create more delays and more congestion" on U.S. 2, Walser said." Gee, Chief. Thanks ever so much for a blinding glimpse of the obvious!
"The state is in the early stages of deciding whether tolls have a future here, said Reema Griffith, state Transportation Commission administrator. Proposing a toll on I-90 is a way to get the public conversation started, she said." Now there's an understatement! And just who is going to be conducting this "conversation", anyway? Is it only going to be the State DOT? The Legislature and the State DOT? Or are any of you people going to let the citizens of the state have a say in this matter? Knowing the arrogance of the State DOT (only DSHS is more arrogant), they'll want to keep all the "conversations" in-house, and not allow anyone else to have a say.
"A $4-per-trip toll would raise more than $39 million per year, based on the average of 27,000 vehicles that go through Snoqualmie Pass every day." Those 27,000 vehicles that are traveling I-90 are doing it on a roadway that has no tolls at the present moment, yet the State DOT thinks that when the toll booths go up, the same number of vehicles will still be traveling I-90? Not only is that presumptuous arrogance on their part, but it is pure folly to base a revenue projection on that assumption, because many people will quit using I-90 to go to US 2 to avoid the tolls!
"Drivers on fast-moving I-90 are unlikely to switch to U.S. 2, with its traffic signals, small towns and lack of passing lanes, said Dongho Chang, the state Department of Transportation's traffic engineer for Snohomish County."
"There is a detour. Drivers could choose to avoid the proposed toll by traveling U.S. 97 from Ellensburg and connecting to U.S. 2."
"But that adds 50 miles to the drive - about two gallons of gas and an hour or so of time, Chang said." Perhaps, but I think Mr. Chang is indulging in wishful thinking here. There are so many people that are getting entirely too fed up with how money hungry this state has become, that they will go out of their way to avoid the toll, as a simple form of protest. It hasn't been all that long, really, since I-90 was itself a two-lane highway, and there are plenty of people around who remember that, and wouldn't mind one whit using US 2 and other routes, if it meant not having to give the state even more money than they get already.
"A Snoqualmie Pass toll would have to cost a lot more than $4 to get long-haul truckers to take that kind of detour, said Ed Vander Pol, co-owner of Auburn-based Oak Harbor Freight Lines."
"He predicted that all trucking companies would oppose the fee, but would pay it if the state decides to start charging."
""If they're using Highway 2 now, they'll keep using it," Vander Pol said. "If they're using I-90, they'll use I-90. They won't change for four bucks." Well, that depends on who is paying the toll, don't you think? If the trucking companies foot the bill, then no the truckers won't change what route they're using. But, if it's the truckers who have to pay, it might be a very different story.
If the truckers start using different routes to get across the mountains, such as say, through Portland, OR., this state's economy will suffer drastically. The east side of the state is where the majority of our state's agro-business is, and to get crops to market - especially overseas markets - those crops have to get trucked west over the mountains, to the ports at Seattle and Tacoma, and to a lesser (but no less significant) degree, Everett. If truckers begin using Portland instead, what happens to the shipping industry here? It could very well collapse, which would be a major economic disaster for the entire state.
The State DOT, in greedily going after pennies (400 of 'em), could potentially be throwing away billions of dollars in an ill-conceived "plan", that could be disastrous for the state.
This is a looming economic fiasco that needs to be shelved.
Hat Tip: Denali-Kat
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
DC Police Chief declares crime emergency
As reported here, the crime situation in our nations capitol has gotten so out of hand recently, that a state of emergency has been called by the Chief of Police there. Every major crime is up, with the 13th homicide happening in July alone, apparently being the "tipping point".
All I can say to the people of DC is, you reap what you sow. From laws that help criminals by taking away the Constitutional right to bear arms from law abiding citizens, to electing Marion Berry to be the mayor after the umpteenth time of being arrested for possessing crack cocaine, saying that he was "the right man, at the right time, for the job". Imagine that - a crack addict as a role model!
The solutions to the problems of crime in DC aren't simple by any means, and they won't be easy, but those problems can be overcome. Just ask the people of New York City. Find out what Mayor Giuliani did.
You folks need to change your laws so that law abiding people can live a decent life, and criminals spend a significant amount of time behind bars.
Hat tip: agtiger
All I can say to the people of DC is, you reap what you sow. From laws that help criminals by taking away the Constitutional right to bear arms from law abiding citizens, to electing Marion Berry to be the mayor after the umpteenth time of being arrested for possessing crack cocaine, saying that he was "the right man, at the right time, for the job". Imagine that - a crack addict as a role model!
The solutions to the problems of crime in DC aren't simple by any means, and they won't be easy, but those problems can be overcome. Just ask the people of New York City. Find out what Mayor Giuliani did.
You folks need to change your laws so that law abiding people can live a decent life, and criminals spend a significant amount of time behind bars.
Hat tip: agtiger
Iran Asks IAEA to Remove Chief Inspector
As reported here, "Iran has asked the International Atomic Energy Agency to remove the head of the inspection team probing Tehran's nuclear program, U.N. officials said Sunday."
"The inspector, Chris Charlier, has not been back to Iran since April because of Iranian displeasure with his work, the officials said." [Emphasis mine]
So, let me get this straight. Iran, which is determined to develop nuclear weapons - but says it isn't - has asked the IAEA to remove the chief inspector tasked with finding out just what the Iranians really are up to, who has found evidence of clandestine nuclear research, and documents related to a warhead, and the IAEA grants the Iranians their wish? What are they thinking?
I come up with two conclusions here. One is that, Iran is definitely striving to obtain nuclear weapons capability (as I have asserted many times previously), and Mr. Charlier and his team were getting too close for Iranian comfort to discovering the proof of their desires, and the other is that the IAEA is useless in preventing Iran, or any other nation for that matter, from obtaining nuclear weapons technology, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty notwithstanding.
Hat tip: Supedujour
"The inspector, Chris Charlier, has not been back to Iran since April because of Iranian displeasure with his work, the officials said." [Emphasis mine]
So, let me get this straight. Iran, which is determined to develop nuclear weapons - but says it isn't - has asked the IAEA to remove the chief inspector tasked with finding out just what the Iranians really are up to, who has found evidence of clandestine nuclear research, and documents related to a warhead, and the IAEA grants the Iranians their wish? What are they thinking?
I come up with two conclusions here. One is that, Iran is definitely striving to obtain nuclear weapons capability (as I have asserted many times previously), and Mr. Charlier and his team were getting too close for Iranian comfort to discovering the proof of their desires, and the other is that the IAEA is useless in preventing Iran, or any other nation for that matter, from obtaining nuclear weapons technology, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty notwithstanding.
Hat tip: Supedujour
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
FBI raid on congressman's office was legal, judge rules
As reported here, "[a]n FBI raid on a Louisiana congressman's Capitol Hill office was legal, a federal judge ruled Monday."
"Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said members of Congress are not above the law. He rejected requests from lawmakers and Democratic Rep. William Jefferson to return material seized by the FBI in a May 20-21 search of Jefferson's office."
"Hogan dismissed arguments that the first-ever raid on a congressman's office violated the Constitution's protections against intimidation of elected officials." And rightly so.
""Congress' capacity to function effectively is not threatened by permitting congressional offices to be searched pursuant to validly issued search warrants," said Hogan, who had approved the FBI's request to conduct the overnight search of Jefferson's office." [Emphasis mine]
"Jefferson had sought the return of several computer hard drives, floppy disks and two boxes of paper documents that FBI agents seized during an 18-hour search of his Rayburn Building office." Probably based on the likelihood that there is incriminating evidence that would be useful in the on-going investigation of Rep. Jefferson's activities related to the money found in his freezer, I would have to think.
"At issue was a constitutional provision that protects elected officials from being questioned by the president, a prosecutor or a plaintiff in a lawsuit about their legislative work." That statement is absurd. How can accepting a bribe (most of which Jefferson hid in his freezer) be even remotely construed as "legislative work"? It can't. What is really at issue here, is whether Congress is "above the law" or not - which it isn't - and Judge Hogan quickly put that concept to rest.
""No one argues that the warrant executed upon Congressman Jefferson's office was not properly administered," Hogan wrote. "Therefore, there was no impermissible intrusion on the Legislature. The fact that some privileged material was incidentally captured by the search does not constitute an unlawful intrusion."" Well, no one except the Left, and some misguided Republican Congressmen, who felt "violated" by the fact that the FBI and the Justice Department would dare to conduct a search of a Congressman's office, feeling that their offices are sacrosanct and untouchable. Guess what? Wrong!
Then, because they were angry about the search, some members of Congress threatened retaliation by "tinkering" with the budgets for the FBI and Justice Department, acting like a bunch of petulant three year old kids, until President Bush stepped in - acting like an adult separating the quarreling children - to order a 45 day "cooling off period", which ended Sunday.
"Because Hogan signed the search warrant, Jefferson's lawyers weren't surprised by his ruling." Well, they shouldn't be, since it was the logical thing to do, eh?
""While a congressman is not above the law, the executive branch must also follow the law," said one of the lawyers, Robert Trout, adding that the lawyers intend to appeal." This statement makes no sense, whatsoever. What part of issuing a valid search warrant in an on-going investigation of a public official accepting a bribe, and then basically re-iterating that is was a valid search warrant, is not following the law? Can any lawyers, versed in both Constitutional and criminal law, explain to me - in plain English - how the executive branch was not, or has not been, following the law? Anyone? I doubt it, to be honest. If you can, I'll post your response as an update to this post.
The fact that they intend to appeal the ruling comes as no surprise, either, but I don't believe they will get a favorable ruling, depending on which Court of Appeals hears the case, which will hopefully put this issue to bed, and put Congress on notice that they are not above the law.
"Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said members of Congress are not above the law. He rejected requests from lawmakers and Democratic Rep. William Jefferson to return material seized by the FBI in a May 20-21 search of Jefferson's office."
"Hogan dismissed arguments that the first-ever raid on a congressman's office violated the Constitution's protections against intimidation of elected officials." And rightly so.
""Congress' capacity to function effectively is not threatened by permitting congressional offices to be searched pursuant to validly issued search warrants," said Hogan, who had approved the FBI's request to conduct the overnight search of Jefferson's office." [Emphasis mine]
"Jefferson had sought the return of several computer hard drives, floppy disks and two boxes of paper documents that FBI agents seized during an 18-hour search of his Rayburn Building office." Probably based on the likelihood that there is incriminating evidence that would be useful in the on-going investigation of Rep. Jefferson's activities related to the money found in his freezer, I would have to think.
"At issue was a constitutional provision that protects elected officials from being questioned by the president, a prosecutor or a plaintiff in a lawsuit about their legislative work." That statement is absurd. How can accepting a bribe (most of which Jefferson hid in his freezer) be even remotely construed as "legislative work"? It can't. What is really at issue here, is whether Congress is "above the law" or not - which it isn't - and Judge Hogan quickly put that concept to rest.
""No one argues that the warrant executed upon Congressman Jefferson's office was not properly administered," Hogan wrote. "Therefore, there was no impermissible intrusion on the Legislature. The fact that some privileged material was incidentally captured by the search does not constitute an unlawful intrusion."" Well, no one except the Left, and some misguided Republican Congressmen, who felt "violated" by the fact that the FBI and the Justice Department would dare to conduct a search of a Congressman's office, feeling that their offices are sacrosanct and untouchable. Guess what? Wrong!
Then, because they were angry about the search, some members of Congress threatened retaliation by "tinkering" with the budgets for the FBI and Justice Department, acting like a bunch of petulant three year old kids, until President Bush stepped in - acting like an adult separating the quarreling children - to order a 45 day "cooling off period", which ended Sunday.
"Because Hogan signed the search warrant, Jefferson's lawyers weren't surprised by his ruling." Well, they shouldn't be, since it was the logical thing to do, eh?
""While a congressman is not above the law, the executive branch must also follow the law," said one of the lawyers, Robert Trout, adding that the lawyers intend to appeal." This statement makes no sense, whatsoever. What part of issuing a valid search warrant in an on-going investigation of a public official accepting a bribe, and then basically re-iterating that is was a valid search warrant, is not following the law? Can any lawyers, versed in both Constitutional and criminal law, explain to me - in plain English - how the executive branch was not, or has not been, following the law? Anyone? I doubt it, to be honest. If you can, I'll post your response as an update to this post.
The fact that they intend to appeal the ruling comes as no surprise, either, but I don't believe they will get a favorable ruling, depending on which Court of Appeals hears the case, which will hopefully put this issue to bed, and put Congress on notice that they are not above the law.
Watada lawyer sees slim hopes for acquittal
As reported here, the civilian attorney for Lt. Ehren Watada "... says his client's chances of leaving the Army scot-free are slim.", and, ""Our chances of winning and getting an acquittal are probably not very good," Eric Seitz said at Seattle's University Lutheran Church on Monday." His chances for getting an acquittal on the missing movement charge alone is non-existent, since he refused to get on the bus when his unit shipped out last week. There are five other charges against Lt. Watada which are two counts of speaking contemptuously of President Bush, and three counts of conduct unbecoming an officer.
Of course, Eric Seitz will attempt to get the other charges dropped, citing Lt. Watada's "free speech" rights, regarding his statements about President Bush. I don't see much chance of that happening, either, since the statements are a matter of public record, and officers are proscribed by the UCMJ from making "political statements" - either for or against - while in uniform. So, the best that Mr. Seitz can probably hope for is a reduction in whatever sentence is handed down, if his client is found guilty of any or all charges.
But, if I were Mr. Seitz, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Of course, Eric Seitz will attempt to get the other charges dropped, citing Lt. Watada's "free speech" rights, regarding his statements about President Bush. I don't see much chance of that happening, either, since the statements are a matter of public record, and officers are proscribed by the UCMJ from making "political statements" - either for or against - while in uniform. So, the best that Mr. Seitz can probably hope for is a reduction in whatever sentence is handed down, if his client is found guilty of any or all charges.
But, if I were Mr. Seitz, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Japan considers strike against N. Korea
As reported here, Japan is discussing whether or not their constitution allows pre-emptive strikes as a form of self defense, after N. Korea launched their missiles on July 4th.
The Japanese apparently are gravely concerned over what N. Korea has done, to even begin to discuss such a measure, let alone make the discussion public, as their constitution is rather strict on what they can, and cannot do, militarily.
Although S. Korea "... rebuked Japan for its outspoken criticism of the tests", I have to believe that they are just as concerned over the missile launches as Japan is, and is trying to "pour oil on troubled waters" to smooth things out, so as to hopefully not provoke the N. Koreans from doing anything militarily against the South. The military forces of the North far outnumber those of the South, even with American troops stationed in S. Korea, and hostilities between the two countries is probably looked upon by the South as a major catastrophe that would wreck their economy, and kill potentially hundreds of thousands of S. Koreans, which they obviously want to avoid if at all possible.
Just as "something" has to be done in regards to the lunatic in Iran and his "saber rattling", so too, "something" has to be done about the lunatic in N. Korea's "saber rattling". What that "something" is at the moment, I don't really know (although regime change is a distinct possibility - in both cases).
The Japanese apparently are gravely concerned over what N. Korea has done, to even begin to discuss such a measure, let alone make the discussion public, as their constitution is rather strict on what they can, and cannot do, militarily.
Although S. Korea "... rebuked Japan for its outspoken criticism of the tests", I have to believe that they are just as concerned over the missile launches as Japan is, and is trying to "pour oil on troubled waters" to smooth things out, so as to hopefully not provoke the N. Koreans from doing anything militarily against the South. The military forces of the North far outnumber those of the South, even with American troops stationed in S. Korea, and hostilities between the two countries is probably looked upon by the South as a major catastrophe that would wreck their economy, and kill potentially hundreds of thousands of S. Koreans, which they obviously want to avoid if at all possible.
Just as "something" has to be done in regards to the lunatic in Iran and his "saber rattling", so too, "something" has to be done about the lunatic in N. Korea's "saber rattling". What that "something" is at the moment, I don't really know (although regime change is a distinct possibility - in both cases).
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Border Security First Act of 2006 introduced in Senate
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), has introduced a bill calling for a "first things first" approach, in regards to our national border security and immigration reform, and states that the current House and Senate bills are unworkable.
Although I haven't read the bill in its' entirety, I think Sen. Santorum is on the right track, and we need to encourage our legislators to support, and vote for, passage of this bill. It's a matter of priorities.
The text of the bill, S. 3564, can be found here.
Although I haven't read the bill in its' entirety, I think Sen. Santorum is on the right track, and we need to encourage our legislators to support, and vote for, passage of this bill. It's a matter of priorities.
The text of the bill, S. 3564, can be found here.
FBI Disrupts NYC Tunnel Terror Plot
As reported here, the FBI announced Friday that, "Authorities have disrupted foreign terrorists plotting to attack the transportation tunnels running beneath the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey[.] " FBI Assistant Director Mark J. Mershon said that, ""For most of the year, we have been focusing on a group of al-Qaida followers who have targeted the Hudson River tubes[.]", adding, ""We believe we intercepted this group early in their plotting and, in fact, the plan has largely been disrupted.""
How did the FBI manage to do this? By monitoring internet chat rooms frequented by extremists, and keying on code words the extremists use, that's how.
It's comforting to know that, in spite of the best efforts of the NY Times and other publications at undermining efforts to combat terrorism by the authorities, those authorities are still managing to be able to do their jobs of protecting America from terror attacks.
Kudos to the FBI.
How did the FBI manage to do this? By monitoring internet chat rooms frequented by extremists, and keying on code words the extremists use, that's how.
It's comforting to know that, in spite of the best efforts of the NY Times and other publications at undermining efforts to combat terrorism by the authorities, those authorities are still managing to be able to do their jobs of protecting America from terror attacks.
Kudos to the FBI.
NY DMV has right to demand proof of legal status before issuing license
As reported here, the NY Department of Motor Vehicles has the right to demand immigrants prove they are here legally, before they will be issued a drivers license, in a 5-0 ruling by the Appellate Division in Manhattan, which reversed an earlier decision by "Justice Karen S. Smith, who ordered the DMV last year to stop denying driver's licenses to immigrants who didn't have Social Security numbers or proof they were legal."
"In dismissing the illegal immigrants' complaint, the appeals court said Smith had erred in barring the identity procedures DMV Commissioner Raymond Martinez put in place and said they were "within his authority and enforceable." "
"The court noted cases in which one Social Security number was used to get licenses for 57 people and another in which one taxi driver used two numbers to get two licenses - one for insurance and the other for traffic tickets."
So, let me see if I have this right. One Social Security number was used to get licenses for 57 illegal immigrants, which to Justice Smith is ok, but for the DMV to require proof of legal status in order to legitimately get a license is wrong? What was shesmoking thinking?
"The plaintiffs in the case had argued that their constitutional rights were being violated. State officials defended the identity procedures as an effort to combat fraud and terrorism." Their Constitutional rights were being violated? Since when does the Constitution grant rights to illegal aliens? What Amendment states that illegal aliens have the same rights granted to them as those who have legal status, whether they be immigrants or citizens? Can anyone out there tell me which Amendment that is? I didn't think so.
Of course, an appeal of this proper, rational, and sane decision is planned by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represented the plaintiffs, presumably before the NY State Supreme Court. If this does go before that court, it is hoped here that they will affirm the Appellate Division in Manhattan's decision, and toss out the case as having no merit.
"In dismissing the illegal immigrants' complaint, the appeals court said Smith had erred in barring the identity procedures DMV Commissioner Raymond Martinez put in place and said they were "within his authority and enforceable." "
"The court noted cases in which one Social Security number was used to get licenses for 57 people and another in which one taxi driver used two numbers to get two licenses - one for insurance and the other for traffic tickets."
So, let me see if I have this right. One Social Security number was used to get licenses for 57 illegal immigrants, which to Justice Smith is ok, but for the DMV to require proof of legal status in order to legitimately get a license is wrong? What was she
"The plaintiffs in the case had argued that their constitutional rights were being violated. State officials defended the identity procedures as an effort to combat fraud and terrorism." Their Constitutional rights were being violated? Since when does the Constitution grant rights to illegal aliens? What Amendment states that illegal aliens have the same rights granted to them as those who have legal status, whether they be immigrants or citizens? Can anyone out there tell me which Amendment that is? I didn't think so.
Of course, an appeal of this proper, rational, and sane decision is planned by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represented the plaintiffs, presumably before the NY State Supreme Court. If this does go before that court, it is hoped here that they will affirm the Appellate Division in Manhattan's decision, and toss out the case as having no merit.
Ahmadinejad Warns Israel of Islamic 'Explosion'
As reported here, the lunatic in charge in Iran has once again made threats against Israel, saying that if they don't stop their military actions in Gaza (in search of their kidnapped soldier), that there could be an "Islamic explosion", targeting both Israel and the West, and again calling for the eradication of Israel. ""They should not let things reach a point where an explosion occurs in the Islamic world," he said. "If an explosion occurs, then it won't be limited to geographical boundaries. It will also burn all those who created (Israel) over the past 60 years," he said."
He conveniently forgets that, at the time that Israel was created in 1948, the opportunity existed for the state of Palestine to also be created, which was blocked by the Arab states in the region, as that wasn't in their best interests, as it would have deprived them of their hopes of killing off the Jews.
Ahmadinejad wants regime change, and I think we should oblige him in that desire - just not the regime he wants changed.
He conveniently forgets that, at the time that Israel was created in 1948, the opportunity existed for the state of Palestine to also be created, which was blocked by the Arab states in the region, as that wasn't in their best interests, as it would have deprived them of their hopes of killing off the Jews.
Ahmadinejad wants regime change, and I think we should oblige him in that desire - just not the regime he wants changed.
Officer refusing Iraq duty faces charges
As reported here, 1st Lt. Ehren Watada has had at least three charges filed against him for his refusal to deploy with his unit to Iraq: Conduct Unbecoming an Officer; Missing Movement; and Contempt Toward Officials. All three charges are serious charges, and could result in up to eight years of prison time, and a dishonorable discharge, if he is convicted. This would also severely impact his life as a civilian if he is convicted, limiting his opportunities for 'meaningful' employment.
"Watada's commanders barred him from attending a news conference by his supporters last month, but they played a video in which he said the "war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law." , adding, ""Although I have tried to resign out of protest, I will be forced to participate in a war that is manifestly illegal," Watada said. "As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order.""
As I noted in a previous post, the former regime of Iraq under Saddam was guilty of violating no less than four UN Security Council resolutions, the penalty for doing so was the possibility of renewed hostilities, which has occurred and is completely legal, so therefore, his conclusions about the legality of the war in Iraq are completely false, and without merit.
"Watada's commanders barred him from attending a news conference by his supporters last month, but they played a video in which he said the "war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law." , adding, ""Although I have tried to resign out of protest, I will be forced to participate in a war that is manifestly illegal," Watada said. "As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order.""
As I noted in a previous post, the former regime of Iraq under Saddam was guilty of violating no less than four UN Security Council resolutions, the penalty for doing so was the possibility of renewed hostilities, which has occurred and is completely legal, so therefore, his conclusions about the legality of the war in Iraq are completely false, and without merit.
Sims unveils 10-year plan to repair county levees
As reported here, KC Executive Ron "King" Sims has proposed yet another plan to separate KC home owning tax payers from their money, and is basing it on junk science - "global warming" - and scare tactics - "Your insurance rates will go up!" - saying that local levees are aging and are in need of repair, along several of our regions major rivers.
I'll grant that this is probably something that is needed, in that one particular levee that is in need of repair, if it fails, would impact a source of approximately 30% of the drinking water in the city of Seattle (which admittedly could have an impact on yours truly - I like clean drinking water), but I question the methods of bringing this to our attention.
First of all, they are using scare tactics to get attention, using the "threat" of increased rainfall resulting from so-called "global warming" (and you know how I feel about that subject), coupled with the "threat" of rising home owner insurance rates resulting from the supposed increased rainfall. Well, the increase in the rainfall that they are so worried about "will occur" in the year 2100. Sims plan is a 10 year plan to fix the levees, so let's see ... it is currently July, 2006, so if this proposed plan gets on the November ballot and passes, then all the levees will be "fixed" by 2016. Do I have the math right? Yep. So, does that mean that the proposed fixes will last another 84 years, or will we have to fix the levees again during that time? Will we really need to fix the levees again during that time, because of "global warming", or will the climate shift to "global cooling" (as was described as recently as the 1970's?). No one knows for sure about that, ok? How often does the weatherman "get it right" in their weather forecasts?
Secondly, why all of the 'concern' for property owners now? It sure wasn't there when he was pushing the KC Critical Areas Ordinance, which has severely curtailed the rights of property owners to use their land they way they see fit, in that up to 65% of their property can be set aside by the county for 'wetlands' and/or other 'environmental' protection.
In my mind, the scare tactics, and insincere 'concern' for property owners, to 'make people aware of this dire threat' in order to get it on the November ballot, enabling the county to get more tax payer money, smacks of political grandstanding in order to push another tax down our throats.
Making us aware of a problem is one thing, but trying to scare us into doing something about the problem is another, Ron. Just give us the facts, omit the conclusions based on junk science, and let us decide what we want to do about it, ok?
I'll grant that this is probably something that is needed, in that one particular levee that is in need of repair, if it fails, would impact a source of approximately 30% of the drinking water in the city of Seattle (which admittedly could have an impact on yours truly - I like clean drinking water), but I question the methods of bringing this to our attention.
First of all, they are using scare tactics to get attention, using the "threat" of increased rainfall resulting from so-called "global warming" (and you know how I feel about that subject), coupled with the "threat" of rising home owner insurance rates resulting from the supposed increased rainfall. Well, the increase in the rainfall that they are so worried about "will occur" in the year 2100. Sims plan is a 10 year plan to fix the levees, so let's see ... it is currently July, 2006, so if this proposed plan gets on the November ballot and passes, then all the levees will be "fixed" by 2016. Do I have the math right? Yep. So, does that mean that the proposed fixes will last another 84 years, or will we have to fix the levees again during that time? Will we really need to fix the levees again during that time, because of "global warming", or will the climate shift to "global cooling" (as was described as recently as the 1970's?). No one knows for sure about that, ok? How often does the weatherman "get it right" in their weather forecasts?
Secondly, why all of the 'concern' for property owners now? It sure wasn't there when he was pushing the KC Critical Areas Ordinance, which has severely curtailed the rights of property owners to use their land they way they see fit, in that up to 65% of their property can be set aside by the county for 'wetlands' and/or other 'environmental' protection.
In my mind, the scare tactics, and insincere 'concern' for property owners, to 'make people aware of this dire threat' in order to get it on the November ballot, enabling the county to get more tax payer money, smacks of political grandstanding in order to push another tax down our throats.
Making us aware of a problem is one thing, but trying to scare us into doing something about the problem is another, Ron. Just give us the facts, omit the conclusions based on junk science, and let us decide what we want to do about it, ok?
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Independence Day, 2006
Today marks the 230th anniversary of the birth of our nation. As I am enjoying a day off from my daily job, I have had some time to reflect on just what this day really means, not only to me, but to the entire world.
Without brave men and women willing to stand up to the tyranny they perceived in their day, sacrificing, in many cases, all that they had, such evils as slavery, facism, world wide communism, and totalitarianism would, in all likelihood, be flourishing upon the face of the earth, enslaving billions to the whims of the few. But because of those self sacrifices made 230 years ago, more people today enjoy freedom from tyranny that at any time in the history of the world.
Those willing to sacrifice all for the cause of freedom still exist today, and as Booker T. Stallworth so eloquently puts it in his essay, as you go about your day today celebrating the anniversary of the birth of the greatest nation this world has ever seen, take a moment to reflect on the sacrifices made by those willing to stand up to and defy tyranny, and give thanks.
Give thanks that there were people willing to sacrifice all, those 230 years ago, and that there has been an unbroken line of people willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for freedom through to today.
Be safe, and celebrate this great nation's birth.
Without brave men and women willing to stand up to the tyranny they perceived in their day, sacrificing, in many cases, all that they had, such evils as slavery, facism, world wide communism, and totalitarianism would, in all likelihood, be flourishing upon the face of the earth, enslaving billions to the whims of the few. But because of those self sacrifices made 230 years ago, more people today enjoy freedom from tyranny that at any time in the history of the world.
Those willing to sacrifice all for the cause of freedom still exist today, and as Booker T. Stallworth so eloquently puts it in his essay, as you go about your day today celebrating the anniversary of the birth of the greatest nation this world has ever seen, take a moment to reflect on the sacrifices made by those willing to stand up to and defy tyranny, and give thanks.
Give thanks that there were people willing to sacrifice all, those 230 years ago, and that there has been an unbroken line of people willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for freedom through to today.
Be safe, and celebrate this great nation's birth.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
If Dirt Were $$$$ - an outstanding post
As the controversy over the outrageous 'outing' of legal, covert efforts to track terrorist finances by the NYT and others rages in the blogoshpere, and the lame justification by Bill Keller of the NYT is dissected by various of the big name blogs (Michelle Malkin, PowerLine, Hugh Hewitt, et. al.), I came across one post, courtesy of Another Voice, that is definitely well worth reading.
The poster is the mother of a serviceman serving in Iraq, and she takes Bill Keller to task not only for publishing the story, but for his lame justification for doing so.
Of all of the posts that I have read on this, none have come close to the evisceration that this lady has done.
To Some Soldiers Mom: Bravo, and well said!
UPDATE: Not all journalists are idiots, after all, as former NBC News correspondent Richard Valeriani says what the NY Times, LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal did was irresponsible, "show off" journalism, and akin to giving Anne Franks address to the Nazis.
The poster is the mother of a serviceman serving in Iraq, and she takes Bill Keller to task not only for publishing the story, but for his lame justification for doing so.
Of all of the posts that I have read on this, none have come close to the evisceration that this lady has done.
To Some Soldiers Mom: Bravo, and well said!
UPDATE: Not all journalists are idiots, after all, as former NBC News correspondent Richard Valeriani says what the NY Times, LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal did was irresponsible, "show off" journalism, and akin to giving Anne Franks address to the Nazis.
Tehran 'to continue uranium enrichment'
As reported here, the lunatic running Iran "said yesterday Tehran will continue its uranium enrichment programme despite international calls to halt the sensitive project.", adding, ""The Iranian government and the people have decided, and without any doubt with dignity and glory we will pass this phase."" The "people"? Surely he's not referring to the everyday people of Iran, since they have virtually no say-so whatsoever in their governments activities. No, he must mean the rubber stampers in the Iranian Parliament, who are, after all, people.
Passing "this phase" with "dignity and glory"? To me, that can only mean one thing - that the Iranian government has absolutely no intention of stopping their enrichment program, and are determined to develop nuclear weapons, and that the "negotiations" regarding this are nothing but a smoke screen, intended to humiliate the West in the eyes of the Arab world.
Iran also rejected outright an extension of the deadline for a moratorium on continuing their enrichment program, with the lunatic stating that Iran will not respond until August 22nd at the earliest. Why the significance of that particular date? Why can't, or more accurately won't, they respond before then?
In my mind, the only possible answer to those two questions is that Iran is far more advanced in their enrichment program than anyone either realizes, or is willing to admit, and that Iran plans on making some sort of fait accompli announcement either on, or shortly after, that date.
Passing "this phase" with "dignity and glory"? To me, that can only mean one thing - that the Iranian government has absolutely no intention of stopping their enrichment program, and are determined to develop nuclear weapons, and that the "negotiations" regarding this are nothing but a smoke screen, intended to humiliate the West in the eyes of the Arab world.
Iran also rejected outright an extension of the deadline for a moratorium on continuing their enrichment program, with the lunatic stating that Iran will not respond until August 22nd at the earliest. Why the significance of that particular date? Why can't, or more accurately won't, they respond before then?
In my mind, the only possible answer to those two questions is that Iran is far more advanced in their enrichment program than anyone either realizes, or is willing to admit, and that Iran plans on making some sort of fait accompli announcement either on, or shortly after, that date.
Transportation package faces cut, councilwoman says
As reported here, "Mayor Greg Nickels' $1.8 billion transportation improvement package probably will be reduced before it can be approved for submission to voters, the chairwoman of the Seattle City Council's Transportation Committee said Wednesday.
"Councilwoman Jan Drago wouldn't guess how much the mayor's package might get trimmed but said "there's a general feeling" it is too big " and we need to make it more reasonable."" $1.8 billion too big? You think? Granted, the period the Mayor envisions that this amount will be collected is twenty years, but that still equates to $90 million annually, and it is based on false assumptions, as well.
The Mayor assumes that his parking spot tax of $10.00 per space, and his $25.00 per full time employee tax will remain constant, if not grow in number, and by extension, dollars collected over that twenty year span will either remain constant, or increase. I think the opposite will be more likely, as parking lot owners may sell their properties to developers, reducing the amount of available parking spaces, and/or businesses that don't want to, or can't afford to, pay the per employee tax, will relocate out of the city to somewhere else where the "climate" is more "business-friendly", thereby reducing the amount collected by the city.
If the council passes the parking space, and per employee taxes, I believe the net effect will be to drive both businesses and their customers away from downtown Seattle, as the parking lot owners will surely pass along the tax to those who use their lots, and businesses will also be forced to raise their prices to pay for the per employee tax, making them less competitive with businesses that do not have to pay a per employee tax.
This entire tax package is a bad idea, and I think that the Mayor and the City Council need to re-think this, come to the right conclusion, and scrap the whole thing.
"Councilwoman Jan Drago wouldn't guess how much the mayor's package might get trimmed but said "there's a general feeling" it is too big " and we need to make it more reasonable."" $1.8 billion too big? You think? Granted, the period the Mayor envisions that this amount will be collected is twenty years, but that still equates to $90 million annually, and it is based on false assumptions, as well.
The Mayor assumes that his parking spot tax of $10.00 per space, and his $25.00 per full time employee tax will remain constant, if not grow in number, and by extension, dollars collected over that twenty year span will either remain constant, or increase. I think the opposite will be more likely, as parking lot owners may sell their properties to developers, reducing the amount of available parking spaces, and/or businesses that don't want to, or can't afford to, pay the per employee tax, will relocate out of the city to somewhere else where the "climate" is more "business-friendly", thereby reducing the amount collected by the city.
If the council passes the parking space, and per employee taxes, I believe the net effect will be to drive both businesses and their customers away from downtown Seattle, as the parking lot owners will surely pass along the tax to those who use their lots, and businesses will also be forced to raise their prices to pay for the per employee tax, making them less competitive with businesses that do not have to pay a per employee tax.
This entire tax package is a bad idea, and I think that the Mayor and the City Council need to re-think this, come to the right conclusion, and scrap the whole thing.
The state's highest court hears felony voting case
As reported here, the lawsuit filed by the state chapter of the ACLU on behalf of three convicted felons to get their voting rights restored - even though they have not repaid all of their court mandated fines and/or fees, as required by the State Constitution - is now before the State Supreme Court.
"The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington sued the state on behalf of three people who can't vote because they have not -- and may never be able to -- pay fines and restitutions levied as part of their sentences." I wonder why these people aren't smart enough to be able to get a job, and then budget their expenses, to be able to pay off their remaining debt? Oh, wait - they're convicted felons! They were stupid enough to commit a crime, and get caught, so apparently they are too stupid to get a job now, so the ACLU has to step up for them, and hold their hand, while they sing the blues about not being able to vote.
"In March, King County Superior Court Judge Michael Spearman struck down the state law that denies the vote to thousands of ex-felons solely because they owe court-imposed fines." Another example of a judge legislating from the bench. If Judge Spearman thinks the law is unconstitutional, amounting to a poll-tax, why wasn't this addressed before now, so that the state legislature could have "corrected the problem" (an obviously manufactured "problem")?
"McKenna argued that state law requires felons to complete all the terms of their sentences, including fines and victims restitution, before their right to vote can be reinstated. " He is correct, and it is up to the state legislature to determine the laws regarding who can, and who cannot, vote, and what the requirements for voting are, not a county judge.
"ACLU lawyer Peter Danelo argued that the right to vote can never be tied to the ability to pay, echoing what Spearman wrote in his decision.
"It is well recognized that there is simply no rational relationship between the ability to pay and the exercise of constitutional rights," Spearman wrote. "There is no logic in the assumption that a person in possession of sufficient resources to pay the (legal financial) obligation immediately is the more law-abiding citizen."" It is also widely recognized that those who are convicted of a crime, or crimes, give up certain rights as a result of said conviction, while law abiding citizens remain free to exercise all of their rights as they see fit. If you can't afford to do the time - or pay the fine - don't do the crime!
"McKenna argued that there is a compelling state interest in requiring a felon to complete payments of fines and restitution before voting rights are restored. He said it provided an incentive for felons to repay some of the damages their illegal actions have caused.
And he said the U.S. Constitution allows states to disenfranchise felons and establish their own criteria for disenfranchisement and re-enfranchisement -- including requiring felons to complete the terms of their sentences." What is so hard about this to understand? Is this beyond Judge Spearman's ability to comprehend, or is it a case of Judge Spearman wanting to re-write part of the US Constitution? It may be both.
"The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington sued the state on behalf of three people who can't vote because they have not -- and may never be able to -- pay fines and restitutions levied as part of their sentences." I wonder why these people aren't smart enough to be able to get a job, and then budget their expenses, to be able to pay off their remaining debt? Oh, wait - they're convicted felons! They were stupid enough to commit a crime, and get caught, so apparently they are too stupid to get a job now, so the ACLU has to step up for them, and hold their hand, while they sing the blues about not being able to vote.
"In March, King County Superior Court Judge Michael Spearman struck down the state law that denies the vote to thousands of ex-felons solely because they owe court-imposed fines." Another example of a judge legislating from the bench. If Judge Spearman thinks the law is unconstitutional, amounting to a poll-tax, why wasn't this addressed before now, so that the state legislature could have "corrected the problem" (an obviously manufactured "problem")?
"McKenna argued that state law requires felons to complete all the terms of their sentences, including fines and victims restitution, before their right to vote can be reinstated. " He is correct, and it is up to the state legislature to determine the laws regarding who can, and who cannot, vote, and what the requirements for voting are, not a county judge.
"ACLU lawyer Peter Danelo argued that the right to vote can never be tied to the ability to pay, echoing what Spearman wrote in his decision.
"It is well recognized that there is simply no rational relationship between the ability to pay and the exercise of constitutional rights," Spearman wrote. "There is no logic in the assumption that a person in possession of sufficient resources to pay the (legal financial) obligation immediately is the more law-abiding citizen."" It is also widely recognized that those who are convicted of a crime, or crimes, give up certain rights as a result of said conviction, while law abiding citizens remain free to exercise all of their rights as they see fit. If you can't afford to do the time - or pay the fine - don't do the crime!
"McKenna argued that there is a compelling state interest in requiring a felon to complete payments of fines and restitution before voting rights are restored. He said it provided an incentive for felons to repay some of the damages their illegal actions have caused.
And he said the U.S. Constitution allows states to disenfranchise felons and establish their own criteria for disenfranchisement and re-enfranchisement -- including requiring felons to complete the terms of their sentences." What is so hard about this to understand? Is this beyond Judge Spearman's ability to comprehend, or is it a case of Judge Spearman wanting to re-write part of the US Constitution? It may be both.
Iran rejects July deadline for deal on incentives
As reported here, Iran again is using delaying tactics in its quest to develop nuclear weapon capabilities, by rejecting a July 5th deadline to respond to an incentive package, saying that they "can't" respond sooner than mid-August.
It isn't that they "can't", it's that they don't want to, so they won't respond, and the reason that they won't respond, is that they know the "stick" that comes with the "carrot" isn't big enough, and that those who are wielding the "stick" aren't really willing to use the "stick". They are also relying on China and Russia to prevent the "stick" from being used, so Iran knows that they basically have no worries.
I think it's beyond time to raise the prospects of economic sanctions against both China and Russia to get them to get in line on this issue with Iran, if the rest of the countries are truly serious about solving this problem.
It isn't that they "can't", it's that they don't want to, so they won't respond, and the reason that they won't respond, is that they know the "stick" that comes with the "carrot" isn't big enough, and that those who are wielding the "stick" aren't really willing to use the "stick". They are also relying on China and Russia to prevent the "stick" from being used, so Iran knows that they basically have no worries.
I think it's beyond time to raise the prospects of economic sanctions against both China and Russia to get them to get in line on this issue with Iran, if the rest of the countries are truly serious about solving this problem.
McDermott given new hearing in taped-call case
As reported here, " A federal appeals court has agreed to hear new arguments in a case involving an illegally taped telephone call leaked to reporters by Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. " [Emphasis mine] That Appeals Court happens to be the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which seems to be in competition with the 9th Circuit Court to see who can hand down the looniest decisions.
In handing down this decision to re-hear this case, they also vacated the monetary judgment against "Baghdad Jim", which amounts to about $700,000.00 ($60,000.00 in damages, with the rest being legal fees).
This case has dragged on long enough. McDermott broke the law, and should suffer the consequences for his actions, but the DC Court has decided to waste more tax-payer money (which makes McDermott "elated", by the way), to hear "new arguments". What new arguments? "Baghdad Jim" broke the law! I mean, come on!
To say that I'm incredulous, not to mention outraged, at this latest twist in this case, would be an understatement.
In handing down this decision to re-hear this case, they also vacated the monetary judgment against "Baghdad Jim", which amounts to about $700,000.00 ($60,000.00 in damages, with the rest being legal fees).
This case has dragged on long enough. McDermott broke the law, and should suffer the consequences for his actions, but the DC Court has decided to waste more tax-payer money (which makes McDermott "elated", by the way), to hear "new arguments". What new arguments? "Baghdad Jim" broke the law! I mean, come on!
To say that I'm incredulous, not to mention outraged, at this latest twist in this case, would be an understatement.
Friday, June 30, 2006
VA laptop returned, with the data 'intact'
As reported here, the laptop stolen from the home of a VA employee contained millions of records that included personal identification information that could have been used for ID theft, has been returned with, according to the FBI, the data 'intact'.
"The FBI said in a statement from its Baltimore field office that it appeared that the data had not been copied or misused. "A preliminary review of the equipment by computer forensic teams has determined that the database remains intact and has not been accessed since it was stolen," the statement said."
Hopefully, that will prove to be true, so that all of us who were possibly affected can breathe a little easier.
"The FBI said in a statement from its Baltimore field office that it appeared that the data had not been copied or misused. "A preliminary review of the equipment by computer forensic teams has determined that the database remains intact and has not been accessed since it was stolen," the statement said."
Hopefully, that will prove to be true, so that all of us who were possibly affected can breathe a little easier.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Gorey Truths - 25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore
Al Gore's "global warming" movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", is full of discrepancies according to Iain Murrey, in this article. In it, Mr. Murrey shows the movie's makers - and by extension, Gore's - lack of scientific knowledge, and their lack of careful research.
If the movie's makers - and by extension, Gore - had done their research properly, they would have discovered that "global warming" is in fact, not caused by anthropogenic (man made) emissions, as protagonists of "global warming" love to assert, but that, by and large, I believe that "global warming" is in fact, a myth of (dare I say it?) global proportions that is being foisted upon us by extremists, and their media enablers.
While I believe that "global warming" is a myth, I firmly believe that climate change is not, and that, yes indeed, the world's climate is changing. But, guess what? The world's climate is constantly changing - always has, always will. It is not a static thing, as the "global warming" alarmist crowd want you to believe. The only way for the climate of our world to become static, is if the world stopped rotating, at which point, everything would become moot, as there wouldn't be a climate - or us either.
If the movie's makers - and by extension, Gore - had done their research properly, they would have discovered that "global warming" is in fact, not caused by anthropogenic (man made) emissions, as protagonists of "global warming" love to assert, but that, by and large, I believe that "global warming" is in fact, a myth of (dare I say it?) global proportions that is being foisted upon us by extremists, and their media enablers.
While I believe that "global warming" is a myth, I firmly believe that climate change is not, and that, yes indeed, the world's climate is changing. But, guess what? The world's climate is constantly changing - always has, always will. It is not a static thing, as the "global warming" alarmist crowd want you to believe. The only way for the climate of our world to become static, is if the world stopped rotating, at which point, everything would become moot, as there wouldn't be a climate - or us either.
Khobar Towers - 10 years later.
Ten years ago today, the Iranian controlled Saudi Hezbollah terrorist group detonated a 25,000-pound TNT bomb that killed 19 U.S. airmen in their dormitory at Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
In this impassioned piece by Louis J. Freeh, FBI Director from 1993 to 2001, he details his efforts at bringing the perpetrators to justice, and excoriates former President Clinton and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger for their utter failure to press the issue with the Iranians.
When will the last of the stones be turned over to bring justice to the families of the 19 U.S. airmen killed in an overt act of war perpetrated by the Iranians?
In this impassioned piece by Louis J. Freeh, FBI Director from 1993 to 2001, he details his efforts at bringing the perpetrators to justice, and excoriates former President Clinton and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger for their utter failure to press the issue with the Iranians.
When will the last of the stones be turned over to bring justice to the families of the 19 U.S. airmen killed in an overt act of war perpetrated by the Iranians?
Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
As reported here, a recently released report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, states that since 2003, 500 chemical weapons munitions have been found in Iraq. While not the huge stockpile that many people expected, and while a 'mere' 500 chemical weapons munitions doesn't seem all that significant, the fact that any have been found is definitely significant. (The declassified document is at this link. Note - it is a .pdf document, and that Adobe Reader is required to read it. Go here to download Adobe Reader if needed.)
Why is this finding of chemical weapon munitions significant? Because it shows that Saddam was actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and that he was in violation of these specific UN Security Council Resolutions:
- UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
- UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
- UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
- UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
...immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
Just a reminder, folks - violation of any one of these resolutions (let alone all of these) carried with it the consequence of possible military action against Iraq, pre-approved by the UN Security Council, which is exactly what happened.
Still think the war in Iraq is "illegal" and "unjustified"? Think again, folks (and that includes you, too, Koffi!).
Hat Tip: Hollie-is-Right
Why is this finding of chemical weapon munitions significant? Because it shows that Saddam was actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and that he was in violation of these specific UN Security Council Resolutions:
- UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
- UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
- UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
- UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
...immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
Just a reminder, folks - violation of any one of these resolutions (let alone all of these) carried with it the consequence of possible military action against Iraq, pre-approved by the UN Security Council, which is exactly what happened.
Still think the war in Iraq is "illegal" and "unjustified"? Think again, folks (and that includes you, too, Koffi!).
Hat Tip: Hollie-is-Right
Bush wins EU support on North Korea, Iran
As reported here, "President Bush won solid European support Wednesday for his handling of escalating nuclear crises with North Korea and Iran but was challenged over the Iraq war, the U.S. prison camp in Cuba and rising anti-American sentiment." Part of that anti-American sentiment was voiced by a reporter who apparently voiced an "... assertion that the United States was regarded as the biggest threat to global security." I really like President Bush's response to that one - " "That's absurd." adding, ""We'll defend ourselves, but at the same time we're actively working with our partners to spread peace and democracy.""
The other thing I like is that, "[u]nbidden, Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel rose with an impassioned defense that seemed to surprise the president. "I think it's grotesque to say that America is a threat to the peace in the world compared with North Korea, Iran, a lot of countries," Schuessel said. "Europe would not enjoy peace and prosperity if not for U.S. help after World War II, he said.", adding, ""We should be fair from the other side of the Atlantic," Schuessel said. "We should understand what Sept. 11th meant to the American people.""
Thank you, Chancellor Schuessel, for saying what should have been said some time ago, although the fact that it needed to be said at all speaks volumes on the attitude of the Europeans, EU support on North Korea and Iran notwithstanding.
The other thing I like is that, "[u]nbidden, Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel rose with an impassioned defense that seemed to surprise the president. "I think it's grotesque to say that America is a threat to the peace in the world compared with North Korea, Iran, a lot of countries," Schuessel said. "Europe would not enjoy peace and prosperity if not for U.S. help after World War II, he said.", adding, ""We should be fair from the other side of the Atlantic," Schuessel said. "We should understand what Sept. 11th meant to the American people.""
Thank you, Chancellor Schuessel, for saying what should have been said some time ago, although the fact that it needed to be said at all speaks volumes on the attitude of the Europeans, EU support on North Korea and Iran notwithstanding.
Another update on the VA data theft
As reported here, Vets tied to data theft are to get free credit monitoring.
"The Department of Veterans Affairs said Wednesday that it would provide a year of free credit monitoring for people whose personal information might have been compromised in the recent theft of department computer data." Well, that's a half-step in the right direction I guess.
"Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson said his department would solicit bids from monitoring companies and send letters by mid-August to those who might have been affected by the data loss, which occurred May 3 when the home of a data analyst at the agency was burglarized." After the VA employee took the laptop computer home without authorization - just a reminder, folks.
"Nicholson said the credit monitoring was part of his agency's effort to atone for the "terrible, unfortunate, regrettable" data loss that appears certain to cost taxpayers well over $20 million. "Free credit monitoring will help safeguard those who may be affected and will provide them with the peace of mind they deserve," he said."
Some other ways that you could 'atone' for the "terrible, unfortunate, regrettable" data loss, Mr. Nicholson, would be to fire the idiot who is responsible for this for taking the laptop home in the first place, and his immediate supervisor not ensuring that all of his subordinates were made aware of the fact that it is against Agency rules to take work home with them, and finally, catch the burglar or burglars who stole the laptop, and recover it. That would go a long way to providing us with some "peace of mind".
"The Department of Veterans Affairs said Wednesday that it would provide a year of free credit monitoring for people whose personal information might have been compromised in the recent theft of department computer data." Well, that's a half-step in the right direction I guess.
"Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson said his department would solicit bids from monitoring companies and send letters by mid-August to those who might have been affected by the data loss, which occurred May 3 when the home of a data analyst at the agency was burglarized." After the VA employee took the laptop computer home without authorization - just a reminder, folks.
"Nicholson said the credit monitoring was part of his agency's effort to atone for the "terrible, unfortunate, regrettable" data loss that appears certain to cost taxpayers well over $20 million. "Free credit monitoring will help safeguard those who may be affected and will provide them with the peace of mind they deserve," he said."
Some other ways that you could 'atone' for the "terrible, unfortunate, regrettable" data loss, Mr. Nicholson, would be to fire the idiot who is responsible for this for taking the laptop home in the first place, and his immediate supervisor not ensuring that all of his subordinates were made aware of the fact that it is against Agency rules to take work home with them, and finally, catch the burglar or burglars who stole the laptop, and recover it. That would go a long way to providing us with some "peace of mind".
Soldier's Iraq war stance backed
As reported here, Lt. Watada is attracting people who don't have a clue, to defend his decision to not deploy with the Stryker Brigade, specifically retired Army colonel and diplomat, Ann Wright, who while speaking at University Lutheran Church in Seattle stated that Lt. Watada has the right to disobey "illegal orders", adding " "The country of Iraq did nothing to the United States of America," said Wright, who resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service in 2003 because of the war. "
Well, Col. Wright, I beg to differ with your statement that Lt. Watada is free to disobey his orders to deploy, and that Iraq "did nothing to the United States of America", on the following grounds:
- Saddam ordered a "hit" on former President Bush, which in and of itself, is an act of war, which makes the Iraq War a legal enterprise all by itself;
- Several UN Resolutions, established at the end of the first Gulf War, were either not complied with in full, or were totally ignored (UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991, which states in part that "Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."; UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991, which states in part that, "Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs."; UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998, which states in part that "Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."; and UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002, which makes demands in part for an "immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons."), with the penalty of non-compliance with those resolutions being that military action could be resumed at any time.
So, Col. Wright, how is it that a) the deployment orders to Iraq are "illegal", and b) that Lt. Watada has the right to disobey those deployment orders? The deployment orders to Iraq are completely legal, and Lt. Watada has an obligation to fulfill those orders, whether he likes them or not.
"While Watada, 28, has said he is not a conscientious objector and that he would serve in Afghanistan, he focused on the war in Iraq in his Monday comments." Well, isn't that nice? Lt. Watada says he would go to Afghanistan, but doesn't want to go to Iraq. Lt. Watada does not have the right to pick and choose which orders he will or will not obey.
"Because of his public comments, he is under an administrative investigation by the Army. " and " faces a potential court-martial, imprisonment and possibly hard labor.", which is what I hope happens!
Well, Col. Wright, I beg to differ with your statement that Lt. Watada is free to disobey his orders to deploy, and that Iraq "did nothing to the United States of America", on the following grounds:
- Saddam ordered a "hit" on former President Bush, which in and of itself, is an act of war, which makes the Iraq War a legal enterprise all by itself;
- Several UN Resolutions, established at the end of the first Gulf War, were either not complied with in full, or were totally ignored (UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991, which states in part that "Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."; UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991, which states in part that, "Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs."; UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998, which states in part that "Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."; and UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002, which makes demands in part for an "immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons."), with the penalty of non-compliance with those resolutions being that military action could be resumed at any time.
So, Col. Wright, how is it that a) the deployment orders to Iraq are "illegal", and b) that Lt. Watada has the right to disobey those deployment orders? The deployment orders to Iraq are completely legal, and Lt. Watada has an obligation to fulfill those orders, whether he likes them or not.
"While Watada, 28, has said he is not a conscientious objector and that he would serve in Afghanistan, he focused on the war in Iraq in his Monday comments." Well, isn't that nice? Lt. Watada says he would go to Afghanistan, but doesn't want to go to Iraq. Lt. Watada does not have the right to pick and choose which orders he will or will not obey.
"Because of his public comments, he is under an administrative investigation by the Army. " and " faces a potential court-martial, imprisonment and possibly hard labor.", which is what I hope happens!
King County Council approves all-by-mail elections
As reported here, the King County Council - voting along party lines (5 Dems, 4 Reps) as expected - has approved all mail-in voting for King County. It seems the main rationale for this is that most of the other counties in the state do it, so King County should too, hidden behind the words "efficiency" and "cost effectiveness", which is malarkey.
The Council did vote unanimously to delay the implementation until certain "to do" items get checked off their list, which could push this out to 2009. Items on the "to do" list include:
- Hiring a new elections director and superintendent of elections (that would be a really good idea, and what would be even better is if the two new hires had at least some experience in the positions);
- The new director and the elections staff must complete the cultural change and management training (those are good ideas too - change the culture from "We don't care if the ballots are counted correctly, since the election is rigged anyway!", to one where there's at least some integrity; it's also a good idea if the two new hires actually know what their jobs are and how to do them);
- The cost estimates for the proposed regional voting centers and ballot drop-off centers must be approved by the council (it would be nice if they could figure out how to pay for this without raising our taxes, too, but I don't hold out much hope there);
"The county can begin voter information and other preparations for the switch, "but the actual implementation of vote by mail cannot happen until these requirements are met," said Councilman Bob Ferguson, a Democrat who proposed the amendment that was passed unanimously." It appears that at least one Democrat is thinking reasonably. Too bad the others can't, or won't.
Republican Council member Kathy Lambert says that we need to take a little time because of all of the changes needed to be made in the KC Elections office, and she's correct. I say take all the time you need. Maybe that way, the whole idea will be shelved, even though Ron "King" Sims still wants this whole thing implemented by next year if at all possible.
"Council Chairman Larry Phillips said the authorization was a well thought-out response to an issue that has become a political lightning rod.
"We cannot control the rhetoric of individual members, of political parties, of newspapers or bloggers," Phillips said. "So I want to point out the collaborative nature of this effort, regardless of the white-hot rhetoric which has surrounded it from time to time."
Councilmember Julia Patterson said the idea that an all-mail system provides a partisan advantage for her Democratic Party is "insulting."
"Charges that this is partisan or that it provides some sort of advantage to Democrats is baseless, and it is not supported by voting patterns and by facts," Patterson said."
Oh, really? Obviously, Ms. Patterson, you have not been following what Stefan Sharkansky over at
Cantwell's lead over McGavick nearly gone
As reported here, the latest Rasmussen poll shows Senator "Can't-do-well" losing ground to challenger Mike McGavik. The previous Rasmussen poll taken in January, showed "Can't-do-well" held a 51 to 36 lead, while the current poll shows that her lead has dwindled to 44 to 40 (with a margin for error at plus/minus 4.5 points).
In the article, the erosion is attributed to her stance on the Iraq war (voted for), and that she voted against blocking the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, both of which are anathema to the party extremists, but what I think has eroded her lead is the fact that she really has no coherent message, while McGavik has been putting out a very coherent message of effective change that resonates with the electorate.
Of course, the poll was limited in scope, with only 500 people responding, which hardly constitutes a consensus among the total electorate, and I don't particularly ascribe to poll results being very accurate barometers of how people really feel about issues or candidates, but I believe that this poll at least gives a fairly accurate indication that the Washington voters desire change.
We'll see just how accurate this poll really was, come November.
In the article, the erosion is attributed to her stance on the Iraq war (voted for), and that she voted against blocking the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, both of which are anathema to the party extremists, but what I think has eroded her lead is the fact that she really has no coherent message, while McGavik has been putting out a very coherent message of effective change that resonates with the electorate.
Of course, the poll was limited in scope, with only 500 people responding, which hardly constitutes a consensus among the total electorate, and I don't particularly ascribe to poll results being very accurate barometers of how people really feel about issues or candidates, but I believe that this poll at least gives a fairly accurate indication that the Washington voters desire change.
We'll see just how accurate this poll really was, come November.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Conservative black woman to run against McKinney
This could get interesting, as ""[a] little known African American woman announced Thursday that she will try to unseat Georgia Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who has been mired in controversy since she struck a U.S. Capitol policeman in the chest with her closed fist.
Catherine Davis, a human resources manager who has never held elected office, said she is running because McKinney's "dismal legislative record and her outrageous behavior are an embarrassment to the hard-working folks in my district." McKinney represents Georgia's 4th Congressional District."
Catherine Davis, a human resources manager who has never held elected office, said she is running because McKinney's "dismal legislative record and her outrageous behavior are an embarrassment to the hard-working folks in my district." McKinney represents Georgia's 4th Congressional District."
Planned Parenthood Vows to Help Elect 'Progressive Voices'
As reported here, Cecile Richards, head of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nations largest abortion provider, has vowed to use their 'resources' to get liberal politicians elected in 2006, 2008, and 2010, which would be in violation of their federal tax-exempt status as a 501 C-3 organization. The resources that Ms. Richards vowed to use are all 860 of their clinics, all of their employees, and an unstated amount of the federal tax payer funds that they receive annually. In their latest financial report, they received $272.7 million tax payer dollars from the Federal Government.
"Jim Sedlak, executive director of the conservative American Life League's STOPP International, called Richards' comments "outrageous."
"Planned Parenthood just released its latest annual report showing it received $272.7 million in taxpayer money, and now, its president exclaims that she is going to use the 'power' of the organization to get people she likes elected to office," Sedlak said. "It appears then that our tax money is going to be used to elect public officials."
Sedlak said the Internal Revenue Service should immediately revoke Planned Parenthood's tax-exempt status.
"Planned Parenthood has always tried to hide its political activity behind its lobbying group -- the Planned Parenthood Action Fund," Sedlak noted. "But when its president clearly states that Planned Parenthood will use its 860 health centers and all its employees and staff to do political work, it has clearly positioned itself as a political organization and violated the basic rules of a 501 C-3 organization.
"Now that Ms. Richards has said, in her own words, 'Planned Parenthood has got to become more political,' people all across the country should bring any PP political activity to the attention of the IRS and to the attention of elected officials," he added.
"It is time we cut off its tax-exempt status and stopped giving it our tax money.""
I agree with Mr. Sedlak, and you should too. Using tax payer funds to help get pro-abortion liberals elected is beyond outrageous, is illegal, and needs to be stopped now.
"Jim Sedlak, executive director of the conservative American Life League's STOPP International, called Richards' comments "outrageous."
"Planned Parenthood just released its latest annual report showing it received $272.7 million in taxpayer money, and now, its president exclaims that she is going to use the 'power' of the organization to get people she likes elected to office," Sedlak said. "It appears then that our tax money is going to be used to elect public officials."
Sedlak said the Internal Revenue Service should immediately revoke Planned Parenthood's tax-exempt status.
"Planned Parenthood has always tried to hide its political activity behind its lobbying group -- the Planned Parenthood Action Fund," Sedlak noted. "But when its president clearly states that Planned Parenthood will use its 860 health centers and all its employees and staff to do political work, it has clearly positioned itself as a political organization and violated the basic rules of a 501 C-3 organization.
"Now that Ms. Richards has said, in her own words, 'Planned Parenthood has got to become more political,' people all across the country should bring any PP political activity to the attention of the IRS and to the attention of elected officials," he added.
"It is time we cut off its tax-exempt status and stopped giving it our tax money.""
I agree with Mr. Sedlak, and you should too. Using tax payer funds to help get pro-abortion liberals elected is beyond outrageous, is illegal, and needs to be stopped now.
Liberals Urged to Take on 'Right-Wing Nuts' on Talk Radio
As reported here, "Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) challenged liberals attending the "Take Back America" conference to take on the "right-wing nuts" on talk radio and demand that local radio stations and newspapers provide "alternative points of view.""
First of all, just who does he think he is, calling conservative talk radio hosts "right wing nuts"? Secondly, local media is saturated with "progressive points of view", with an even higher percentage of national media being "progressive" (read liberal), yet he wants liberals to "demand" that even more liberal points of view be heard. But Mr. Sanders wasn't content to just call conservative talk radio hosts "right wing nuts". He goes on to add this little nugget:
""If you have a right-wing station in your community, you've got to go up to those people and say, 'You've got to give us alternative points of view,'" he stated. "If you have a newspaper in your community that does not allow columnists from a progressive perspective, you've got to go challenge those people."" The last time I looked, Mr. Sanders, people in this country were allowed to run their companies in whatever way they see fit to, as long as it's within the law, so why should a conservative media outlet be made to provide a liberal alternative to existing programming? If that is the case, then wouldn't liberal media outlets have to allow conservative points of view to be heard as well? I mean, fair is fair, right? But that is not what Mr. Sanders wants at all, of course.
Mr. Sanders also goes on to decry "corporate control" of the media, but as Tim Carney with the free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute says, ""It's fine for the congressman to worry about corporate ownership of the media, but it's dishonest of him to equate 'corporate' with 'right-wing,'"", adding, ""Sanders knows very well that big businesses are no free market swashbucklers or conservative crusaders - or maybe he's never heard of Ted Turner and George Soros.""
Also, " Michael Harrison, publisher of "Talkers magazine," disagreed with many of Sanders' other points.
"What he's saying doesn't fit within the First Amendment," Harrison told Cybercast News Service. "First of all, he's characterizing people he doesn't agree with as nuts, but they have legitimate points of view, just as the left has a legitimate point of view.
"And even nuts have the right to speak in this country," Harrison added.
Regarding conservative talk radio, Harrison said that "there's nothing wrong with somebody being successful and having a following. There's nothing illegal about it, either.
"There are other kinds of radio, too, as evidenced by the fact that Air America is out there, and we have National Public Radio" plus a wide variety of other formats, Harrison said.
In addition, "I think newspapers have the right to be whatever they want to be," Harrison said. "If you don't like it, start your own newspaper or don't frequent the advertisers.""
The fact that there is a certain segment of media pundits out there who happen to disagree with Mr. Sanders point of view - and are getting more attention than he is - doesn't make them "nuts". What is does make them is, Americans citizens exercising their rights to speak freely, just as Mr. Sanders felt free to express his "nutty" opinions.
First of all, just who does he think he is, calling conservative talk radio hosts "right wing nuts"? Secondly, local media is saturated with "progressive points of view", with an even higher percentage of national media being "progressive" (read liberal), yet he wants liberals to "demand" that even more liberal points of view be heard. But Mr. Sanders wasn't content to just call conservative talk radio hosts "right wing nuts". He goes on to add this little nugget:
""If you have a right-wing station in your community, you've got to go up to those people and say, 'You've got to give us alternative points of view,'" he stated. "If you have a newspaper in your community that does not allow columnists from a progressive perspective, you've got to go challenge those people."" The last time I looked, Mr. Sanders, people in this country were allowed to run their companies in whatever way they see fit to, as long as it's within the law, so why should a conservative media outlet be made to provide a liberal alternative to existing programming? If that is the case, then wouldn't liberal media outlets have to allow conservative points of view to be heard as well? I mean, fair is fair, right? But that is not what Mr. Sanders wants at all, of course.
Mr. Sanders also goes on to decry "corporate control" of the media, but as Tim Carney with the free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute says, ""It's fine for the congressman to worry about corporate ownership of the media, but it's dishonest of him to equate 'corporate' with 'right-wing,'"", adding, ""Sanders knows very well that big businesses are no free market swashbucklers or conservative crusaders - or maybe he's never heard of Ted Turner and George Soros.""
Also, " Michael Harrison, publisher of "Talkers magazine," disagreed with many of Sanders' other points.
"What he's saying doesn't fit within the First Amendment," Harrison told Cybercast News Service. "First of all, he's characterizing people he doesn't agree with as nuts, but they have legitimate points of view, just as the left has a legitimate point of view.
"And even nuts have the right to speak in this country," Harrison added.
Regarding conservative talk radio, Harrison said that "there's nothing wrong with somebody being successful and having a following. There's nothing illegal about it, either.
"There are other kinds of radio, too, as evidenced by the fact that Air America is out there, and we have National Public Radio" plus a wide variety of other formats, Harrison said.
In addition, "I think newspapers have the right to be whatever they want to be," Harrison said. "If you don't like it, start your own newspaper or don't frequent the advertisers.""
The fact that there is a certain segment of media pundits out there who happen to disagree with Mr. Sanders point of view - and are getting more attention than he is - doesn't make them "nuts". What is does make them is, Americans citizens exercising their rights to speak freely, just as Mr. Sanders felt free to express his "nutty" opinions.
Captured Papers Show Weakening Insurgency
As reported here, documents seized in either the hunt for, or the aftermath of the attack on Zarqawi (one account has it being on a computer taken while they were hunting him down, while another account has it being in paper form taken from the house that was bombed, but who cares, as long as it's authenticated?), show that al Qaida in Iraq is in deep trouble, and "in "bleak" shape, saying that it is losing strength and proposing ways to stir up trouble between the U.S. and Iran to divert American attention.".
Which is only getting worse, as American and Iraqi forces continue their raids against the terrorists. "American and Iraqi forces have killed 104 insurgents in 452 raids nationwide since al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed last week, the U.S. military said.", with the Iraqi's making 143 raids by themselves. Good for them!
The terrorists know they are on the losing side, and if these documents are authenticated, what will the "quit now", defeatist crowd have to say, I wonder?
Hat tip: Reality Hammer
For a translation of the captured documents, go here.
Hat tip: Hollie_is_Right
Which is only getting worse, as American and Iraqi forces continue their raids against the terrorists. "American and Iraqi forces have killed 104 insurgents in 452 raids nationwide since al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed last week, the U.S. military said.", with the Iraqi's making 143 raids by themselves. Good for them!
The terrorists know they are on the losing side, and if these documents are authenticated, what will the "quit now", defeatist crowd have to say, I wonder?
Hat tip: Reality Hammer
For a translation of the captured documents, go here.
Hat tip: Hollie_is_Right
Grand jury declines to indict McKinney
As reported here, "[a] grand jury declined Friday to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney in connection with a confrontation in which she admitted hitting a police officer who tried to stop her from entering a House office building."
In case you haven't been paying attention, Rep. McKinney (D-GA) tried to enter a House office building without walking through a metal detector or wearing the lapel pin that identifies members of Congress, and was stopped by Officer Paul McKenna - who was simply doing his job - allegedly by grabbing her arm, at which time she struck him. She was subsequently allowed entry after she provided the DC Police with proper identification.
After the incident, though, McKinney then went on a PR blitz, saying how she was assaulted (but she hit him, remember) by a cop using Gestapo-type tactics (he grabbed her by the arm, as she tried to brush past him, remember), and pulling out the race card at every turn ("I'm just a poor little black - oh, excuse me - African-American woman, who was assaulted by a mean old white, card-carrying member of the Gestapo, male cop! Oh, poor me!"), claiming that the DC Police Department is racist to the core, and that they never, ever show proper decorum towards African-Americans - which of course is a crock of ... well, you know what.
I guess if you're a black woman Member of Congress, you automatically get a free pass for everything, including assaulting a police officer in the performance of his duties.
Shame on the grand jury for bailing on this, and shame especially on Rep. McKinney for not following the rules, and then making false claims about what happened.
In case you haven't been paying attention, Rep. McKinney (D-GA) tried to enter a House office building without walking through a metal detector or wearing the lapel pin that identifies members of Congress, and was stopped by Officer Paul McKenna - who was simply doing his job - allegedly by grabbing her arm, at which time she struck him. She was subsequently allowed entry after she provided the DC Police with proper identification.
After the incident, though, McKinney then went on a PR blitz, saying how she was assaulted (but she hit him, remember) by a cop using Gestapo-type tactics (he grabbed her by the arm, as she tried to brush past him, remember), and pulling out the race card at every turn ("I'm just a poor little black - oh, excuse me - African-American woman, who was assaulted by a mean old white, card-carrying member of the Gestapo, male cop! Oh, poor me!"), claiming that the DC Police Department is racist to the core, and that they never, ever show proper decorum towards African-Americans - which of course is a crock of ... well, you know what.
I guess if you're a black woman Member of Congress, you automatically get a free pass for everything, including assaulting a police officer in the performance of his duties.
Shame on the grand jury for bailing on this, and shame especially on Rep. McKinney for not following the rules, and then making false claims about what happened.
Canada unveils new anti-terrorism measures
As reported here, the Canadian government, under new Prime Minister Stephen Harper is beefing up security measures for airports, airports, railway systems and marine ports in the next few months, as well as at border crossings, in the wake of the major terrorism arrests made recently in Toronto. There will also be examinations of current anti-terrorism legislation, with the idea of bolstering those laws.
After years of having a liberal government in power that basically did nothing to protect its citizens (and by extension, its neighbor to the south), Canada now has a PM that gets it, in the global war on terror. This is very good news, indeed, and most welcome.
After years of having a liberal government in power that basically did nothing to protect its citizens (and by extension, its neighbor to the south), Canada now has a PM that gets it, in the global war on terror. This is very good news, indeed, and most welcome.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
County elections director resigns
As reported here, King County Elections Director Dean Logan has resigned, effective July 14th. As a result, KC Executive Ron "King" Sims has delayed implementing the all vote by mail program until at least 2008, and possibly even later than that. Logan will be taking a job with Los Angeles County in California.
After the total fiasco of the 2004 gubernatorial race, where so many problems arose, that were both partially and directly attributable to Logan's mismanagement of the Elections office, this comes as extremely good news, with the added bonus that there will be a further delay in the implementation of the vote by mail program (boy, do I ever want to say "scheme") that Sims so desperately wants to see happen here, even though the County is not prepared for it, both from a security standpoint, and a cost effectiveness standpoint - not to mention that VBM makes it even easier to commit vote fraud.
As to who Sims will name to replace Logan remains to be seen, but I'm guessing that it will more than likely be another Sims political crony.
After the total fiasco of the 2004 gubernatorial race, where so many problems arose, that were both partially and directly attributable to Logan's mismanagement of the Elections office, this comes as extremely good news, with the added bonus that there will be a further delay in the implementation of the vote by mail program (boy, do I ever want to say "scheme") that Sims so desperately wants to see happen here, even though the County is not prepared for it, both from a security standpoint, and a cost effectiveness standpoint - not to mention that VBM makes it even easier to commit vote fraud.
As to who Sims will name to replace Logan remains to be seen, but I'm guessing that it will more than likely be another Sims political crony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)