Information you won't see in the MSM regarding the democracy movements efforts in Cuba, via Stefania Lapenna of Town Hall.
If you want to know what real freedom fighters are all about, read the article.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
A few simple rules on how to be a good Liberal
A good friend of mine from an on-line community posted the following list, and I thought I'd share it with all of you.
A few simple rules on how to be a good Liberal
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
18. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.
GOD BLESS AMERICA oops, can't do that either.
H/T Conservative67
A few simple rules on how to be a good Liberal
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
18. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.
GOD BLESS AMERICA oops, can't do that either.
H/T Conservative67
Blabbermouths in play
Still undecided about who you're going to vote for in November? Want some clear, honest advice? Then, read this piece by Michelle Malkin.
Bush rallies base to 'just say no'
As reported here, President Bush yesterday yelled himself hoarse in his first public political rally of the 2006 election campaign, whipping thousands of supporters into chants of "USA!" as he criticized Democrats for being weak on national security and anxious to increase taxes.
Swooping into a Republican stronghold that on Election Day will be an early harbinger of whether Republicans hold control of Congress, Mr. Bush led the crowd in a chant that gave new meaning to an old Reagan-era slogan.
"The Democrats in Washington follow a simple philosophy: Just say no," the president said. "When it comes to listening in on the terrorists, what's the Democratic answer? Just say no. When it comes to detaining terrorists, what's the Democrat answer?" Mr. Bush asked.
"Just say no!" the crowd shouted.
"So when the Democrats ask for your vote on Nov. 7, what are you going to say?"
"Just say no!" the audience replied.
With just nine days to go before the midterm elections, the White House has settled on a simple strategy: Turn out the base.
This is good, and I support the President's efforts. The base of the Republican Party does need to turn out, if we want to retain a majority in Congress.
Swooping into a Republican stronghold that on Election Day will be an early harbinger of whether Republicans hold control of Congress, Mr. Bush led the crowd in a chant that gave new meaning to an old Reagan-era slogan.
"The Democrats in Washington follow a simple philosophy: Just say no," the president said. "When it comes to listening in on the terrorists, what's the Democratic answer? Just say no. When it comes to detaining terrorists, what's the Democrat answer?" Mr. Bush asked.
"Just say no!" the crowd shouted.
"So when the Democrats ask for your vote on Nov. 7, what are you going to say?"
"Just say no!" the audience replied.
With just nine days to go before the midterm elections, the White House has settled on a simple strategy: Turn out the base.
This is good, and I support the President's efforts. The base of the Republican Party does need to turn out, if we want to retain a majority in Congress.
Obama has one eye on White House
As reported here, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged Sunday that he was considering a run for president in 2008, backing off previous statements that he would not do so.
In recent weeks, Obama's political stock has been rising as a potentially viable centrist candidate for president in 2008 after former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner announced earlier this month that he was bowing out of the race.
Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who has done extensive focus-group research on all the Democrats and Republicans considering a White House race in 2008, said of Obama: "I saw how he lit up a crowd in Iowa with barely a B-plus speech -- and that's the worst I've seen him all year. Imagine how politically potent he is when he's on his game. He's got all the best qualities of John and Bobby Kennedy combined, and none of the worst."
Sen. Obama, who is relatively young at 45, is a rising star of the Democrat Party, and if he does decide to run, it could be problematic for Hillary. However, if he does decide to run, I don't think he'll get the nomination over Hillary, but you could see him paired with Hillary as the VP candidate, instead of at the head of the ticket.
I'll be keeping an eye on this.
In recent weeks, Obama's political stock has been rising as a potentially viable centrist candidate for president in 2008 after former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner announced earlier this month that he was bowing out of the race.
Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who has done extensive focus-group research on all the Democrats and Republicans considering a White House race in 2008, said of Obama: "I saw how he lit up a crowd in Iowa with barely a B-plus speech -- and that's the worst I've seen him all year. Imagine how politically potent he is when he's on his game. He's got all the best qualities of John and Bobby Kennedy combined, and none of the worst."
Sen. Obama, who is relatively young at 45, is a rising star of the Democrat Party, and if he does decide to run, it could be problematic for Hillary. However, if he does decide to run, I don't think he'll get the nomination over Hillary, but you could see him paired with Hillary as the VP candidate, instead of at the head of the ticket.
I'll be keeping an eye on this.
Anti-abortion posters infuriate some students
As reported here, [a] small group of anti-abortion activists stood in the cold at the avowedly liberal University of Washington on Wednesday, bearing signs of dismembered, bloody fetuses. But despite the university's commitment to free speech, Show The Truth Washington had a hard time making its point.
Several dozen students supporting abortion rights encircled the sign-bearers, shouting pro-choice slogans into a bullhorn. Some tried to bar a photographer from access to the gruesome pictures.
The images were so gory and disturbing that campus officials had alerted students a week in advance. Because the university is a public institution, groups do not need formal permission to gather on its grounds, said Gus Kravas, who chairs the school's Use of Facilities Committee.
But students were incensed, nonetheless.
"I think it's absurd that they're here," said Grant Mandarino, 25, who is working on a graduate degree in comparative literature. "These people are not wanted. This is a pro-choice campus, and there isn't a place for them here."
So, Mr. Mandarino, you speak for everyone on campus? I think not. As for your statement that there isn't a place for them on campus, could you kindly show me in the US Constitution where it says that free speech is allowed everywhere except where you don't want to see or hear a view that is different from your own? I'm waiting ... oh, wait! You can't show me where that particular clause in the Constitution is, because there isn't one!
Let me remind you of something there, Sunshine. Free speech is guaranteed to every American citizen by the US Constitution, whether you agree with someone's point of view or not.
I don't happen to agree with your point of view regarding abortion (and possibly a whole range of other things as well). I also don't agree with the point of view espoused by that nutjob Fred Phelps, either. But you know what? Just because I don't happen to agree with either of the cited points of view does NOT give me the right to tell you, or Phelps, that you can't express those points of view.
Just as you, and your liberal PC adhering cohorts have no right to tell anyone, whether it's the "Show The Truth Washington" group, or me, what we can or cannot say, just because you disagree with what they, or I, are saying.
Let me say this one more time. Free speech is guaranteed to every American citizen by the US Constitution, whether you agree with someone's point of view or not.
Deal with it!
Several dozen students supporting abortion rights encircled the sign-bearers, shouting pro-choice slogans into a bullhorn. Some tried to bar a photographer from access to the gruesome pictures.
The images were so gory and disturbing that campus officials had alerted students a week in advance. Because the university is a public institution, groups do not need formal permission to gather on its grounds, said Gus Kravas, who chairs the school's Use of Facilities Committee.
But students were incensed, nonetheless.
"I think it's absurd that they're here," said Grant Mandarino, 25, who is working on a graduate degree in comparative literature. "These people are not wanted. This is a pro-choice campus, and there isn't a place for them here."
So, Mr. Mandarino, you speak for everyone on campus? I think not. As for your statement that there isn't a place for them on campus, could you kindly show me in the US Constitution where it says that free speech is allowed everywhere except where you don't want to see or hear a view that is different from your own? I'm waiting ... oh, wait! You can't show me where that particular clause in the Constitution is, because there isn't one!
Let me remind you of something there, Sunshine. Free speech is guaranteed to every American citizen by the US Constitution, whether you agree with someone's point of view or not.
I don't happen to agree with your point of view regarding abortion (and possibly a whole range of other things as well). I also don't agree with the point of view espoused by that nutjob Fred Phelps, either. But you know what? Just because I don't happen to agree with either of the cited points of view does NOT give me the right to tell you, or Phelps, that you can't express those points of view.
Just as you, and your liberal PC adhering cohorts have no right to tell anyone, whether it's the "Show The Truth Washington" group, or me, what we can or cannot say, just because you disagree with what they, or I, are saying.
Let me say this one more time. Free speech is guaranteed to every American citizen by the US Constitution, whether you agree with someone's point of view or not.
Deal with it!
State high court stands by gay marriage ban; Justices' decision is the final word in the case
As reported here, [t]he [Washington] state Supreme Court will stand by its endorsement of Washington's gay marriage ban, justices said Wednesday.
Gay and lesbian couples had asked the justices to reconsider their 5-4 ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1998 law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
The court's denial, signed by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, is the final word in the case. Further appeal is not possible because no federal legal issues were raised.
The high court rarely reconsiders its rulings. Few observers expected it to revisit a ruling that took nearly 18 months to craft.
"Having taken as long as they took to make up their minds, I thought it was unlikely that they would change them," said Assistant Attorney General Bill Collins, who defended the gay-marriage ban in court.
Gay marriage supporters said the ruling was particularly disheartening because it came on the same day New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to benefits heterosexual couples have.
Over 40 states have some sort of variation of our law on their books, with 20 states having amended their state constitutions, specifically defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, with the rational being to promote stable families. I'm glad that we can count Washington State among that group.
Listen. If you are a gay or lesbian that wants to see changes made to the laws, your best recourse for doing so is by going through your state legislature, and stop trying to get the courts to legislate from the bench, ok? Depending on where you live, you can either simply lobby your legislative representatives to ask them to either change current laws, or write new laws, or try to get an initiative or referendum on the ballot, and let the voters decide. That's how the process works.
Gay and lesbian couples had asked the justices to reconsider their 5-4 ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1998 law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
The court's denial, signed by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, is the final word in the case. Further appeal is not possible because no federal legal issues were raised.
The high court rarely reconsiders its rulings. Few observers expected it to revisit a ruling that took nearly 18 months to craft.
"Having taken as long as they took to make up their minds, I thought it was unlikely that they would change them," said Assistant Attorney General Bill Collins, who defended the gay-marriage ban in court.
Gay marriage supporters said the ruling was particularly disheartening because it came on the same day New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to benefits heterosexual couples have.
Over 40 states have some sort of variation of our law on their books, with 20 states having amended their state constitutions, specifically defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, with the rational being to promote stable families. I'm glad that we can count Washington State among that group.
Listen. If you are a gay or lesbian that wants to see changes made to the laws, your best recourse for doing so is by going through your state legislature, and stop trying to get the courts to legislate from the bench, ok? Depending on where you live, you can either simply lobby your legislative representatives to ask them to either change current laws, or write new laws, or try to get an initiative or referendum on the ballot, and let the voters decide. That's how the process works.
We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News
What bias? Oh, that bias!
Just as the BBC is full of liberals, so too is the majority of US newspapers and network news, which they steadfastly deny. Read the article. It's an eye opener.
H/T: Reality Hammer
Just as the BBC is full of liberals, so too is the majority of US newspapers and network news, which they steadfastly deny. Read the article. It's an eye opener.
H/T: Reality Hammer
Sunday, October 22, 2006
China sides with U.S. against North Korea
As reported here, [a]n exasperated China took a newly tough approach to communist ally North Korea on Friday, siding with the United States in saying the North must back away from nuclear confrontation, and moving to cut Pyongyang's vital supply of hard currency.
Chinese banks have stopped financial transfers to North Korea under government orders, bank employees said Friday. And at an appearance with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, China's foreign minister nudged the North to resume negotiations over its nuclear program and assured Washington that China would carry out United Nations sanctions on Pyongyang.
China losing patience with N. Korea and finally siding with the US is a start; cutting off money transfers with N. Korea will definitely hurt them, and may impel Kim to agree to return to the six nation talks, but what I think may really hurt is the cutting off of luxury goods, which go exclusively to the elites in the North, who won't like that at all, and I'm sure they will put pressure on Kim that will actually accomplish something.
Chinese banks have stopped financial transfers to North Korea under government orders, bank employees said Friday. And at an appearance with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, China's foreign minister nudged the North to resume negotiations over its nuclear program and assured Washington that China would carry out United Nations sanctions on Pyongyang.
China losing patience with N. Korea and finally siding with the US is a start; cutting off money transfers with N. Korea will definitely hurt them, and may impel Kim to agree to return to the six nation talks, but what I think may really hurt is the cutting off of luxury goods, which go exclusively to the elites in the North, who won't like that at all, and I'm sure they will put pressure on Kim that will actually accomplish something.
Bush signs law on terror suspects
As reported here, [s]ome of the most notorious names in the war on terror are headed toward prosecution after President Bush signed a law Tuesday authorizing military trials of terrorism suspects.
The legislation also eliminates some of the rights defendants are usually guaranteed under U.S. law, and it authorizes continued harsh interrogations of terror suspects.
"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said in a White House ceremony.
This is a good thing in the fight against Islamofascist terrorists, yet there are some - most notably the ACLU, and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis) - who would have us give more rights to those who perpetrate acts of terror, over the victims of their acts of terror.
Civil libertarians and leading Democrats decried the law as a violation of American values. The American Civil Liberties Union said it was "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history." Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said, "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history."
What about the civil rights of those who died in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in a lonely field in Shanksville, PA? What about the civil rights of those who died on the USS Cole? What about the civil rights of those who died in the bombings of our two embassies in Africa? What about the civil rights of those who died in the Khobar Towers in Saudia Arabia? Don't their civil rights count? Oh, wait - they're dead, so they don't have any civil rights any more. Silly me.
As for this being "a stain on our nation's history.", this law goes hand in hand with the Patriot Act in giving us tools to bring those who commit acts of terror to justice, whether that justice is through military tribunes (which FDR also used during WWII, I'd like to point out), or the death of other terrorists from the information obtained from those terrorists already held. This law is far from being a stain. Rather, it is a welcome bright spot in this war we must win at all costs!
I'd like to ask the ACLU, and most Democrats one question, and that is - what part of they want to kill us all don't you understand?
The legislation also eliminates some of the rights defendants are usually guaranteed under U.S. law, and it authorizes continued harsh interrogations of terror suspects.
"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said in a White House ceremony.
This is a good thing in the fight against Islamofascist terrorists, yet there are some - most notably the ACLU, and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis) - who would have us give more rights to those who perpetrate acts of terror, over the victims of their acts of terror.
Civil libertarians and leading Democrats decried the law as a violation of American values. The American Civil Liberties Union said it was "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history." Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said, "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history."
What about the civil rights of those who died in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in a lonely field in Shanksville, PA? What about the civil rights of those who died on the USS Cole? What about the civil rights of those who died in the bombings of our two embassies in Africa? What about the civil rights of those who died in the Khobar Towers in Saudia Arabia? Don't their civil rights count? Oh, wait - they're dead, so they don't have any civil rights any more. Silly me.
As for this being "a stain on our nation's history.", this law goes hand in hand with the Patriot Act in giving us tools to bring those who commit acts of terror to justice, whether that justice is through military tribunes (which FDR also used during WWII, I'd like to point out), or the death of other terrorists from the information obtained from those terrorists already held. This law is far from being a stain. Rather, it is a welcome bright spot in this war we must win at all costs!
I'd like to ask the ACLU, and most Democrats one question, and that is - what part of they want to kill us all don't you understand?
Democrat Staffer Linked to National Security Leaks
As briefly reported here, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Rep. Peter Hoekstra, announced last week that the committee has suspended a Democrat staffer for leaking classified information documents. The leaks involved an NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) report that was given to the New York Times.
On Sunday Fox News’ Weekend Live, Rep. Hoekstra told Bret Baier that there is “sufficient evidence to suspend the person’s access to classified documents. We can’t politicize this. We’re still a nation at risk.”
The staffer, Larry Hanauer, is employed by Rep Jane Harman (D-CA). Harman is also a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
It really doesn't matter to me what political party affiliation Mr. Hanauer claims. What does matter to me is that he is alleged to have leaked classified information, specifically cherry picked portions of the NIE, to a newspaper, which in this case just happens to be the New York Times.
What Mr. Hanauer allegedly did is a crime. The fact that he now no longer has access to classified information is good. However, an investigation - if there isn't one already - needs to be made into this incident, and all of the relevant facts must be made known to the American public. If the allegations prove to be true, then Mr. Hanauer needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and sent to prison. I would say the same thing if it was a Republican staffer.
The New York Post is equally outraged at this as I am, and gives a few more details here.
On Sunday Fox News’ Weekend Live, Rep. Hoekstra told Bret Baier that there is “sufficient evidence to suspend the person’s access to classified documents. We can’t politicize this. We’re still a nation at risk.”
The staffer, Larry Hanauer, is employed by Rep Jane Harman (D-CA). Harman is also a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
It really doesn't matter to me what political party affiliation Mr. Hanauer claims. What does matter to me is that he is alleged to have leaked classified information, specifically cherry picked portions of the NIE, to a newspaper, which in this case just happens to be the New York Times.
What Mr. Hanauer allegedly did is a crime. The fact that he now no longer has access to classified information is good. However, an investigation - if there isn't one already - needs to be made into this incident, and all of the relevant facts must be made known to the American public. If the allegations prove to be true, then Mr. Hanauer needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and sent to prison. I would say the same thing if it was a Republican staffer.
The New York Post is equally outraged at this as I am, and gives a few more details here.
New urgency on viaduct repairs
As reported here, [a] chunk of Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct is sinking -- again.
One section has settled deeper into the waterfront fill it sits on, the state said Wednesday, perhaps adding more pressure to begin much-debated repairs on the 53-year-old structure.
Vertical supports between Columbia Street and Yesler Way sank another quarter-inch into the ground since March, according to measurements taken during a semi-annual inspection last weekend, state officials said.
The structure, built in the 1950s, remains safe to drive on with current restrictions on trucks and buses, but will need repairs if the same supports sink another 1.25 inches.
"It continues to reinforce our assessment that this structure is at risk and that we need to really move ahead with (a) replacement," said state project manager Ron Paananen.
State officials think the settling was at least partly caused by the Nisqually Quake in February 2001. [This is misleading, in that State officials know that the settling was caused by the Nisqually earthquake. Apparently, Larry Lange hasn't been reading his own articles!]
Seattle city officials agree the structure needs to go and think a waterfront tunnel should replace it, but many others disagree. Gov. Chris Gregoire is expected to decide next month which option should be pursued.
The latest news prompted Mayor Greg Nickels to repeat that "time is running out on this deteriorating structure. ... The latest settling highlights the need to get moving on replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with the preferred option of the city -- a cut-and-cover tunnel."
This is one issue where I am in agreement with Mayor Nichols. The Alaskan Way Viaduct is a disaster waiting to happen, and we need to do something about it now. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next month - NOW! We've had enough studies on this; we know it is going to fail, whether that failure is caused by another earthquake, or just heavy rains which we get here from time to time, does not matter. IT IS GOING TO FAIL. PERIOD!
I just hope that we do something about this before an untold number of the approximately 110,000 vehicles with people in them, have to suffer the consequences of our inaction, if it fails before we "get around to it."
Christine, you need to move up your timetable for making a decision.
One section has settled deeper into the waterfront fill it sits on, the state said Wednesday, perhaps adding more pressure to begin much-debated repairs on the 53-year-old structure.
Vertical supports between Columbia Street and Yesler Way sank another quarter-inch into the ground since March, according to measurements taken during a semi-annual inspection last weekend, state officials said.
The structure, built in the 1950s, remains safe to drive on with current restrictions on trucks and buses, but will need repairs if the same supports sink another 1.25 inches.
"It continues to reinforce our assessment that this structure is at risk and that we need to really move ahead with (a) replacement," said state project manager Ron Paananen.
State officials think the settling was at least partly caused by the Nisqually Quake in February 2001. [This is misleading, in that State officials know that the settling was caused by the Nisqually earthquake. Apparently, Larry Lange hasn't been reading his own articles!]
Seattle city officials agree the structure needs to go and think a waterfront tunnel should replace it, but many others disagree. Gov. Chris Gregoire is expected to decide next month which option should be pursued.
The latest news prompted Mayor Greg Nickels to repeat that "time is running out on this deteriorating structure. ... The latest settling highlights the need to get moving on replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with the preferred option of the city -- a cut-and-cover tunnel."
This is one issue where I am in agreement with Mayor Nichols. The Alaskan Way Viaduct is a disaster waiting to happen, and we need to do something about it now. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next month - NOW! We've had enough studies on this; we know it is going to fail, whether that failure is caused by another earthquake, or just heavy rains which we get here from time to time, does not matter. IT IS GOING TO FAIL. PERIOD!
I just hope that we do something about this before an untold number of the approximately 110,000 vehicles with people in them, have to suffer the consequences of our inaction, if it fails before we "get around to it."
Christine, you need to move up your timetable for making a decision.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
U.N. imposes trade embargo on N. Korea
As reported here, [t]he U.N. Security Council voted unanimously yesterday to impose punishing sanctions on North Korea for reportedly carrying out a nuclear test, declaring that the test posed "a clear threat to international peace and security."
Of course, North Korea immediately rejected the resolution, and its U.N. ambassador walked out of the council chamber after accusing its members of a "gangsterlike" action that neglects the nuclear threat posed by the United States.
"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is ready for talks, dialogue and confrontation," Ambassador Pak Gil-yon said, using the conventional long form of his country's name.
"If the United States increases pressure upon the Democratic People's Republic of Korea persistently, the DPRK will continue to take physical countermeasures, considering it as a declaration of war."
Walking out sure shows that you're willing for talks, doesn't it? Refusing to return to the six nation talks also sure shows that you're ready for dialogue, doesn't it?
As for declaring war against the US if the US continues to apply pressure goes ... well, that would be downright silly, considering that the US is the sole remaining super power, and with what forces we have in South Korea, Japan, and Okinawa, it wouldn't take much to overwhelm your little country's armed forces.
Am I advocating for war against North Korea? No, I am not. All I'm trying to point out is that if you are a 98 pound weakling, you don't go up to the biggest guy on the block and scuff his shoes, and not expect to suffer the consequences.
Meanwhile, in this related article, people in South Korea are fed up with their governments policy toward the North, as 78 percent of respondents thought South Korea should revise its policy, and 65 percent said South Korea should develop nuclear weapons to protect itself, from a poll taken recently by a JoongAng newspaper.
North Korea needs to get back to the six nation talks, and shut down their nuclear program to forestall the UN sanctions from going into effect, so the people of North Korea don't suffer even more hardships than they do now at the hands of their own government.
Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Of course, North Korea immediately rejected the resolution, and its U.N. ambassador walked out of the council chamber after accusing its members of a "gangsterlike" action that neglects the nuclear threat posed by the United States.
"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is ready for talks, dialogue and confrontation," Ambassador Pak Gil-yon said, using the conventional long form of his country's name.
"If the United States increases pressure upon the Democratic People's Republic of Korea persistently, the DPRK will continue to take physical countermeasures, considering it as a declaration of war."
Walking out sure shows that you're willing for talks, doesn't it? Refusing to return to the six nation talks also sure shows that you're ready for dialogue, doesn't it?
As for declaring war against the US if the US continues to apply pressure goes ... well, that would be downright silly, considering that the US is the sole remaining super power, and with what forces we have in South Korea, Japan, and Okinawa, it wouldn't take much to overwhelm your little country's armed forces.
Am I advocating for war against North Korea? No, I am not. All I'm trying to point out is that if you are a 98 pound weakling, you don't go up to the biggest guy on the block and scuff his shoes, and not expect to suffer the consequences.
Meanwhile, in this related article, people in South Korea are fed up with their governments policy toward the North, as 78 percent of respondents thought South Korea should revise its policy, and 65 percent said South Korea should develop nuclear weapons to protect itself, from a poll taken recently by a JoongAng newspaper.
North Korea needs to get back to the six nation talks, and shut down their nuclear program to forestall the UN sanctions from going into effect, so the people of North Korea don't suffer even more hardships than they do now at the hands of their own government.
Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Students in Texas taught to fight gunman
As reported here, in the wake of school shootings from Colombine to the recent Amish incident [y]oungsters in a suburban Fort Worth school district are being taught not to sit there like good boys and girls with their hands folded if a gunman invades the classroom, but to rush him and hit him with everything they got -- books, pencils, legs and arms.
"Getting under desks and praying for rescue from professionals is not a recipe for success," said Robin Browne, a major in the British army reserve and an instructor for Response Options, the company providing the training to the Burleson schools.
That kind of fight-back advice is all but unheard of among schools, and some fear it will get children killed.
Well, it seems that getting under desks, and praying for rescue by professionals gets children killed. These "concerns" are being voiced by the same people who have advocated that women and girls scream, kick and scratch in attempted rape or child abduction situations, and yet, they want kids in school confronted by someone with a gun to just sit there passively? That makes absolutely no sense!
If I had a child in school, and someone came in with a gun, I certainly wouldn't want my child to just sit there passively, hoping that the gunman wouldn't decide that my child was a target!
I for one think that this is an entirely appropriate program, and should be expanded to every school in the country. Why?
It stands to reason that if someone who was planning to go to a school with a gun just might think twice about that if they knew that they would be confronted by those in the school, and that they may be the one who gets injured, and not their intended targets.
"Getting under desks and praying for rescue from professionals is not a recipe for success," said Robin Browne, a major in the British army reserve and an instructor for Response Options, the company providing the training to the Burleson schools.
That kind of fight-back advice is all but unheard of among schools, and some fear it will get children killed.
Well, it seems that getting under desks, and praying for rescue by professionals gets children killed. These "concerns" are being voiced by the same people who have advocated that women and girls scream, kick and scratch in attempted rape or child abduction situations, and yet, they want kids in school confronted by someone with a gun to just sit there passively? That makes absolutely no sense!
If I had a child in school, and someone came in with a gun, I certainly wouldn't want my child to just sit there passively, hoping that the gunman wouldn't decide that my child was a target!
I for one think that this is an entirely appropriate program, and should be expanded to every school in the country. Why?
It stands to reason that if someone who was planning to go to a school with a gun just might think twice about that if they knew that they would be confronted by those in the school, and that they may be the one who gets injured, and not their intended targets.
Road taxes could drive voters over the edge
As reported here, as we get closer to November, some politicians are beginning to worry that local voters will be 'fatigued' with all of the road tax proposals on this years ballot, with two other massive tax proposals coming in 2007. These are some of the things we face:
Traffic jams, crumbling streets, bridges so vulnerable they must be closed to cars during fairly routine windstorms, along with trying to find the resources to replace both the SR-99 Alaskan Way Viaduct and the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, both of which are critical transportation conduits for the Metropolitan Seattle area.
Seattle got into this mess, politicians acknowledge, because those in charge gave the region's transportation network short shrift for decades.
Over those decades, it has been more about process and paralysis through over analysis, rather than actually doing anything about our road infrastructure, coupled with imprudent spending. Add to that the dot com bust of the late 1990's and the events of 9/11 with the resultant recession, resulting in jobs losses and reduced tax revenue, forcing cuts to most spending programs except entitlements, and you wind up with the mess we have today.
Now officials have a plan for breaking the logjam. More precisely, they have at least four proposals -- each with its own price tag, each headed to a ballot soon.
The projects could cost a typical Seattle household nearly $450 annually in coming years, plus any tolls, localized property tax surcharges, business taxes and developer fees official[s] tack on.
It's got some asking whether voters are being pushed too far. Some political insiders worry government is asking for too much, too late -- and all at once.
Let's see now ... a $1.6 billion dollar tax proposal from the Mayor of Seattle, and a sales tax increase proposal to "improve" transit from King County Executive Ron Sims for this years ballot at the tune of about $570 million dollars, and then two more massive regional tax proposals for 2007 costing close to an additional $17 billion dollars more, and "some" are asking if this is too much, too late, at all at once? You THINK?
Oh, and then there are others who think that the voters in both the city of Seattle and in the region will just give a blanket ok to all of these tax proposals without batting an eye, which smacks of arrogance to me.
Yes, our roads are a mess and do need to be fixed. The Viaduct is a disaster waiting to happen, as is the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge. Transit does need to be improved (I should know, since I take the bus to commute to work and back right now). All of these issues will take massive amounts of money to fix, but these issues should, and could, have been addressed in the previous decades, but weren't because of a lack of political back bone and vision.
Everything here is more about the process, rather than actually doing anything, so now we are faced with massive tax proposals in this years, and next years, elections.
To the tune of about $20 billion dollars.
Too much, too late, and all at once pretty much sums it up I think. I think it's time the voters in both the region and the city of Seattle take a very long, very hard look at our politicians, and make some needed changes to bring in some people who will actually get things done, and not just study something to death.
Traffic jams, crumbling streets, bridges so vulnerable they must be closed to cars during fairly routine windstorms, along with trying to find the resources to replace both the SR-99 Alaskan Way Viaduct and the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, both of which are critical transportation conduits for the Metropolitan Seattle area.
Seattle got into this mess, politicians acknowledge, because those in charge gave the region's transportation network short shrift for decades.
Over those decades, it has been more about process and paralysis through over analysis, rather than actually doing anything about our road infrastructure, coupled with imprudent spending. Add to that the dot com bust of the late 1990's and the events of 9/11 with the resultant recession, resulting in jobs losses and reduced tax revenue, forcing cuts to most spending programs except entitlements, and you wind up with the mess we have today.
Now officials have a plan for breaking the logjam. More precisely, they have at least four proposals -- each with its own price tag, each headed to a ballot soon.
The projects could cost a typical Seattle household nearly $450 annually in coming years, plus any tolls, localized property tax surcharges, business taxes and developer fees official[s] tack on.
It's got some asking whether voters are being pushed too far. Some political insiders worry government is asking for too much, too late -- and all at once.
Let's see now ... a $1.6 billion dollar tax proposal from the Mayor of Seattle, and a sales tax increase proposal to "improve" transit from King County Executive Ron Sims for this years ballot at the tune of about $570 million dollars, and then two more massive regional tax proposals for 2007 costing close to an additional $17 billion dollars more, and "some" are asking if this is too much, too late, at all at once? You THINK?
Oh, and then there are others who think that the voters in both the city of Seattle and in the region will just give a blanket ok to all of these tax proposals without batting an eye, which smacks of arrogance to me.
Yes, our roads are a mess and do need to be fixed. The Viaduct is a disaster waiting to happen, as is the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge. Transit does need to be improved (I should know, since I take the bus to commute to work and back right now). All of these issues will take massive amounts of money to fix, but these issues should, and could, have been addressed in the previous decades, but weren't because of a lack of political back bone and vision.
Everything here is more about the process, rather than actually doing anything, so now we are faced with massive tax proposals in this years, and next years, elections.
To the tune of about $20 billion dollars.
Too much, too late, and all at once pretty much sums it up I think. I think it's time the voters in both the region and the city of Seattle take a very long, very hard look at our politicians, and make some needed changes to bring in some people who will actually get things done, and not just study something to death.
THE OUTING
In this excellent op-ed piece by David Reinhard, regarding The List, he excoriates those who have released The List. Don't know what The List is?
The List is a roster of gay Republican congressional staffers that has circulated around Washington, D.C., since former Rep. Mark Foley's exit. It includes chiefs of staff, press secretaries and communications directors who work for GOP lawmakers such as Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum and Henry Hyde. List recipients include the social-conservative arm of the vast right-wing conspiracy: the Christian Coalition, the Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family and so on.
The release of The List at this time, a mere few weeks before the mid-term elections, is intended solely to influence the elections, but it is being met with yawns instead of the intended gasps.
The List is a roster of gay Republican congressional staffers that has circulated around Washington, D.C., since former Rep. Mark Foley's exit. It includes chiefs of staff, press secretaries and communications directors who work for GOP lawmakers such as Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum and Henry Hyde. List recipients include the social-conservative arm of the vast right-wing conspiracy: the Christian Coalition, the Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family and so on.
The release of The List at this time, a mere few weeks before the mid-term elections, is intended solely to influence the elections, but it is being met with yawns instead of the intended gasps.
This is just another demonstration of the ideological bancruptcy of the extreme left.
H/T: Hollie-is-Right
Democrats Have Foleys Too
In this well written piece, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. points out the hypocrisy of the Democrat's in the Foley situation, and asks why the Republicans haven't pointed this out yet.
I'm kind of wondering the same thing.
I'm kind of wondering the same thing.
Inhofe correct on warming
In this excellent piece by David Deming, a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis and associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma, he states, Sen. James Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, has been taking a lot of heat lately for his skeptical stance on global warming. He's been called a "social dinosaur" for his failure to accept the politically correct view. Yet Mr. Inhofe is absolutely correct to be skeptical.
In case you missed it, what Mr. Deming is referring to is a speech given by Sen. Inhofe, which I posted about here, which includes a link to Sen. Inhofe's speech.
Both what Sen. Inhofe said, and what Mr. Deming added, need to be heard, to counter the environmental extremists and their enablers in the MSM.
In case you missed it, what Mr. Deming is referring to is a speech given by Sen. Inhofe, which I posted about here, which includes a link to Sen. Inhofe's speech.
Both what Sen. Inhofe said, and what Mr. Deming added, need to be heard, to counter the environmental extremists and their enablers in the MSM.
Downtown tractor rally tries to cultivate support for property rights
As reported here, [I]t was a clash of two worlds that rarely meet -- tractors, flatbed trucks and other farm machinery rolled slowly down the streets of downtown Seattle on Thursday afternoon, stopping traffic and causing pedestrians to turn their heads and stare.
Their invasion said one thing to the city slickers of Seattle: There's a whole lot more to Washington state than the urban Puget Sound area.
The farmers driving the vehicles were the foot soldiers in the battle over Initiative 933, a controversial property rights proposal on November's general election ballot.
Backed by the Washington State Farm Bureau, I-933 would require the government to compensate landowners when property restrictions damage the value of their land, or to modify the restrictions.
"We think this is a common-sense proposal," said farm bureau President Steve Appel, who watched the demonstration from the sidewalk. "It's not that extreme."
Mr. Appel is correct - it is not extreme to expect fairness from local governments, where it comes to what they allow on private property, although those who oppose I-933 would have you believe otherwise.
Television ads produced by the No on 933 coalition have focused on farmers who don't support the measure, but Appel shrugs the ads off with an appeal to logic: "Would the farm bureau sponsor something that's bad for farmers?"
Unfortunately, logic doesn't apply to those who oppose this initiative, who are trying to use fear in their ads against I-933.
The concern supporters of the initiative have with the way land-use regulations work now is that they sometimes prohibit use of certain parts of their land, which can lower the value of the property.
In addition to creating "pay or waive" method for claims filed about regulations, the initiative would bar the creation of new regulations that would prohibit uses of property that are legal now.
"Do you want the government to control everything or do you want to control something yourself?" asked David Card, a Kitsap County resident who came with his wife to Seattle to lend their support to the initiative. "You're never going to get to control it all."
As I've repeatedly said, I strongly believe that property owners know better what they can and shouldn't do with their own property than any government entity ever will, and it should be left up to the property owners what is done with their own property.
It's the fair thing to do.
Their invasion said one thing to the city slickers of Seattle: There's a whole lot more to Washington state than the urban Puget Sound area.
The farmers driving the vehicles were the foot soldiers in the battle over Initiative 933, a controversial property rights proposal on November's general election ballot.
Backed by the Washington State Farm Bureau, I-933 would require the government to compensate landowners when property restrictions damage the value of their land, or to modify the restrictions.
"We think this is a common-sense proposal," said farm bureau President Steve Appel, who watched the demonstration from the sidewalk. "It's not that extreme."
Mr. Appel is correct - it is not extreme to expect fairness from local governments, where it comes to what they allow on private property, although those who oppose I-933 would have you believe otherwise.
Television ads produced by the No on 933 coalition have focused on farmers who don't support the measure, but Appel shrugs the ads off with an appeal to logic: "Would the farm bureau sponsor something that's bad for farmers?"
Unfortunately, logic doesn't apply to those who oppose this initiative, who are trying to use fear in their ads against I-933.
The concern supporters of the initiative have with the way land-use regulations work now is that they sometimes prohibit use of certain parts of their land, which can lower the value of the property.
In addition to creating "pay or waive" method for claims filed about regulations, the initiative would bar the creation of new regulations that would prohibit uses of property that are legal now.
"Do you want the government to control everything or do you want to control something yourself?" asked David Card, a Kitsap County resident who came with his wife to Seattle to lend their support to the initiative. "You're never going to get to control it all."
As I've repeatedly said, I strongly believe that property owners know better what they can and shouldn't do with their own property than any government entity ever will, and it should be left up to the property owners what is done with their own property.
It's the fair thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)