|
Archive main page |
One small voice in the proud tradition of FreeBlogging* Sunday, October 24, 2004 posted by gbarto at 3:46 PM:G. Takamatsu's Book Review:John Steinbeck,Writer by Jackson Benson I'd like to look at just one aspect of this book alongside UNFIT FOR COMMAND. One can connect the dots. Steinbeck spent time in Vietnam as a reporter for Newsday magazine. Steinbeck spent at least six weeks in Vietnam. He also visited Thailand and Laos. I think his overall stay in Southeast Asia was about three to four months. Steinbeck had a completely different view of the American soldier in Vietnam than Kerry (the Kerry of 1971). Kerry portrayed the American soldiers as barbarians. Steinbeck had a high regard for the soldier, though he had doubts about our policy. He was offended by two misperceptions of the war: 1) that the American soldier was brutal, and 2) that the Viet Cong had the support of the people. Steinbeck viewed the Viet Cong as thugs. An associate said that whenever an incident which reflected badly on the Americans occured, reporters were all over the place; but when an attrocity was committed by the Viet Cong, no reporters were to be found. Steinbeck sent several pictures back home, but the news media would not print the pictures. Read the rest...  posted by gbarto at 3:38 PM:G. Takamatsu's Book Review:An American Soldier by Tommy Franks I found this an interesting autobiography: the author has lived an interesting life. He was a goofball when he graduated from High School and entered college at the University of Texas, Austin. After a poor performance at the school, he decided to enlist in the Army. He qualified for cryptography school, but found that was not his interest, in other words not real soldiering. He eventually qualified for OCS and became an officer, specifically a second lieutenant. He served in Vietnam and was wounded three times. He received a serious enough injury to be put in the hospital. So it looks like a legitimate wound not a "John Kerry wound" which could be fixed with a band aid. [As an aside, I think the swift boat captains should be allowed to express their views. These people where there. Why shouldn't they be allowed to say what they think?]. Read the rest... Saturday, October 23, 2004posted by gbarto at 10:40 PM:Team AmericaI've just come from the foulest, trashiest, most vulgar and least culturally sensitive movie I've ever seen. It was funny too. One hates to give away the story line, so suffice to say that what you've heard is true: It is puppets. You can see the wires. Rather than amazing feats of puppetry, what we see is not unlike a ten-year old attempting to manipulate marionnettes for the first time. The film opens with a mise-en-abyme - a (puppet) puppeteer making his puppet dance around in front of a picture of Paris. The scene opens... to puppets walking around Paris. And then the political incorrectness starts. And keeps going... and going... and going... By the time they're done, not only have they dissected Hollywood's most obnoxious anti-war pieties - they've dissected a fair measure of Hollywood too! Team America is plainly satire and plainly has a nasty thing or two to say about how the War on Terror has gone. But the underlying message is plain: The world's in trouble if America's obnoxious, self-righteous, blustering, bumbling and arrogant swagger isn't there to keep it on a halfway even keel. Absolutely positively not in a million years for anyone under the age of seventeen or of delicate sensibilities. But for foul-mouthed, pornographic puppeteering and a pro-American song you'll never hear at the Republican convention, this can't be beat. posted by gbarto at 7:04 AM:Short takesJust in case you needed one more reason to vote for Bush... Jesse Ventura Backing Kerry --- What happened to the Saudis doing anything to win this for Bush? Crude Price Tops $55 a Barrel --- Uh, no... The Anti-Voter Opinion: It's time to start demonizing apathy and ignorance Actually, in a relatively free society where our freedoms and the stable transitioning between governments are assured by a well-run constitutional process, those without the time or inclination to get involved in politics should stay out. If your ox is being gored, do the research to find out why. Otherwise, if you're not interested, don't mess up a system relying on collective knowledge by casting an ignorant vote. Of course, if you're reading this, that's probably not you. Friday, October 22, 2004posted by gbarto at 1:17 AM:First Lady: No Need for ApologyNEW LONDON, N.H. — Laura Bush (search) said Thursday that Teresa Heinz Kerry (search) didn't need to apologize for saying she couldn't remember whether the first lady had ever had "a real job." Hmm. It's kind of telling, isn't it, the difference between the Kerry team's cheap shots involving family members vs. the graciousness of the First Lady? Laura Bush, like her husband, is a class act, finding the charitable interpretation and seizing on it. On the other hand, though I haven't written a whole lot about it, I'm still ticked about Kerry's "Mary Cheney - she is a lesbian..." comment. One blogger - I don't remember who - said that Kerry had won over every gay swing voter with his answer. I don't know. Did the gay swing voters ask themselves how they'd feel being used as a point of attack against their parents? Kerry and the DNC have consistently attacked the GOP as closed-minded and intolerant, yet it was Clinton who signed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the same John Kerry who's oh-so-sensitive to gays has effectively repudiated one of the about four noble things he's done in politics, downplaying his vote against the DOMA and claiming his views on gay marriage are practically the same thing as the President's. And his campaign manager has made it clear that politically inconvenient gays are "fair game," leaving the question of when it's open season. The answer to that, at least, is clear. Dick Cheney, whatever his reservations or views about homosexuality, has made piece with and has a friendly relationship with his lesbian daughter. He is as close as a conservative Republican can get to doing what the Democrats say we all should without outright renouncing his socio-political worldview. And for that, his daughter wound up in the crosshairs when Kerry got desperate. My advice to gay Americans on Kerry: Watch out! He gave not a tinker's dam about Mary Cheney's privacy when he had a chance to scare a shot off pops and maybe enhance his prospects. Do you really think, then, that he won't be just as quick to use you when it seems necessary? Bush's answer about whether homosexuality is a choice - I don't know, but we should all be civil, regardless - showed the honest beliefs of a good man doing his best with something a lot of people his age and older aren't really sure about. John Kerry, on the other hand, wouldn't come out and say yes. He just implied that Dick Cheney's daughter would say yes, gave anecdotes implying he felt yes whatever she might say, then ended by giving gay marriage about the same prospects with Kerry that it would have under Bush. It was a big time dodge and an ugly sell-out. Despicable. And here, at least, there's no question of where Kerry stands - if a family member of yours is in my way, you'd better watch out or I'll use you to embarrass a loved one. Just what we want in a President. Thursday, October 21, 2004posted by gbarto at 11:30 PM:Book Reviews - It's Chopra time!The Book of Secrets This has been hailed as Chopra's most insightful book to date. You can either pause, curious, or insert your punchline here. Whatever your choice, though, this book makes for an interesting read. At some point, Chopra took up the "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" challenge with regard to quantum physics, and what he's come up with is a marvel to behold, showing connections between the metaphors of the major religions and what science is actually discovering and asking the question, so what pieces are missing? And what can be done with them? You may or may not buy Chopra's theories about spirit, but his observations about matter, energy and the ridiculously incredible potentialities of the universe are striking more for the angle of observation than what is in the end shown. The question, of course, is how to tap into the potential of the universe, and whether it can in fact be tapped into. Chopra says yes, and while I'm not fully convinced, he does look to be in pretty good shape on his book covers, of which you can see plenty in most major bookstores. This guy has tapped into something, without question, and it's worth a peek to see just what. Creating Affluence This is an interesting volume that includes the sort of instructions we're all looking for in financial advice books - you don't have to believe or understand, just keep reading and unconsciously your attitudes will shift until you feel affluence and make a space for it in your life into which all the money you need for happiness will flow. After only two weeks, I found the money for a second Deepak Chopra book, so you know it must work. Seriously, though, if you're looking for a hatchet job, you can check out Chris Buckley and John Tierney's hilarious send-up of Chopra and company, God Is My Broker. If you're looking for a sincere effort to help you rethink how you deal with money, life and your attitudes about success, though, this is a great book, full of little insights into how the world, our place in it, and the abstract representation of value known as money are connected and how to balance them for a fulfilled life. And as I noted above, Deepak at least seems fulfilled by all this. He might just be on to something. The Deeper Wound In my own opinion, this may be Deepak's most insightful book. Written very shortly after 9/11, it looks at what to do with pain and suffering - both one's own and their existence in the world. Chopra and two family members were all in the air when the WTC was hit and spent not a little time getting reconnected in the mad rush of events on that day. Confronting the loss of his father (to natural causes, a little before) and the fear of losing his own family, Chopra tried to map his own path to spiritual solace so that others might follow. What he has created is a sweet little book that tries to help us shed dhuka (sp?), the suffering created by attachment, not by detaching us from the world but by enriching our sense of the number of levels on which life can be lived and meaning found. For those wondering why God allows suffering and all those other big questions, this is a beautiful book with practical tips on dealing with the fear, anxiety and finally depression that can arise when grief and fear of the sort produced on 9/11 come to dominate one's worldview. God Is My Broker If all the above is too much for you, and you're looking for a little comic relief, this little book by Chris Buckley and John Tierney is a quick and amusing read, satirizing the books in the self-improvement section but with a spirit of good fun that makes one laugh with delight, not malice. And, in their efforts at mocking, these two gents (ghosting for a troubled monk, Brother Ty) accidentally offer a little bit of wisdom of their own. Wednesday, October 20, 2004posted by gbarto at 7:31 PM:G. Takamatsu's Book Reviews:How to Talk to a Liberal by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter writes the truth in an irreverent manner. I don't always agree with her, but she does argue persuasively and she does her homework like Michell Malkin. I am reminded of a Christian friend who grew up Buddhist. He was exposed to Hinduism, but showed no interest in converting from Buddhism (or atheism?) to Hinduism. He said "I just couldn't see becoming a cow." Such irreverence is what Miss Coulter's writing reminds me of. This book is a collection of essays. Since she is an established author, Coulter is able to include essays which were rejected by the publishers. Those are in the back of the book and make for interesting reading. In one article she debunks the idea that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemmings children. If I remember correctly, NONE of the Jeffersons could have been the father. [I'm not sure where this stands; it was the other way last I heard. -ed] But I guess this is a case of "Political Correctness" triumphing over hard science. Looking through the book, I was surprised to learn that some of Coulter's articles were published in GEORGE magazine. Well, I guess John Kennedy jr. was not all bad if he gave Miss Coulter a chance. Coulter's essays cover a range of subjects and I think she writes with a good deal of common sense which seems lacking in our so-called "Politically Correct" - or should I say, "Politically conformist" (the real P.C.) - culture. Coulter's article on "Sex in the City" argues that this show is NOT a reflection of real women but fantasies of homosexual men or men in women's bodies. This essay reminds me of an article in the moderate/ conservative paper, THE STANFORD REVIEW, by a Mr. Rawls. In an essay on women and beauty, Mr. Rawls points out that people in the fashion industry who determine fashion are often homosexual men who have no interest in women. Unrealistic standards are being set for women as women don't have men's bodies and vice versa. That is why so many women are insecure about their looks. I am told that the fashion industry preys on women's insecurity. I, myself, was surprised when one attractive woman told me that it wasn't the case that a lot of guys were pursuing her. I later told her they felt so unworthy of her. I told her about an argument a friend and I had over her. I said to him that he should pursue her and he said I should pursue her. I guess that was the wrong move. Her comment was "I know, I'm just not wanted." In the later part of the book, Miss Coulter writes about her ladder to success. It was not a straight climb. Conservatives just don't have the perks that liberals do. But she encourages young conservative writers to take heart. I guess she is one example of success. But she points out that even with three book under her belt, magazines have still rejected her articles. Oh, well I guess you can always include the rejects in the latest books. - Guy Takamatsu posted by gbarto at 10:49 AM:Interesting Kerry quote round-up here. (via Instapundit)Most disturbing: So... a small-minded war criminal who trusts the United Nations more than the United States. Great. posted by gbarto at 9:26 AM:from the e-mail bag (from the TurkeyMom, in fact - as was the Noah story below):A lady goes to her priest one day and tells him, "Father, I have a problem. I have two female parrots, but they only know how to say one thing." "What do they say?" the priest inquired. They say, "Hi, we're hookers! Do you want to have some fun?" That's obscene!" the priest exclaimed, then he thought for a moment. "You know," he said, "I may have a solution to your problem. I have two male talking parrots, which I have taught to pray and read the Bible. Bring your two parrots over to my house, and we'll put them in the cage with Frank and Jacob. My parrots can teach your parrots to pray and worship, and your parrots are sure to stop saying that phrase in no time." "Thank you," the woman responded, "this may very well be the solution." The next day, she brought her female parrots to the priest's house. As he ushered her in, she saw that his two male parrots were inside their cage, holding rosary beads and praying. Impressed, she walked over and placed her parrots in with them! After a few minutes, the female parrots cried out in unison: "Hi, we're hookers! Do you want to have some fun?" There was stunned silence. Shocked, one male parrot looked over at the other male parrot and exclaimed, "Put the beads away, Frank. Our prayers have been answered!" posted by gbarto at 1:20 AM:CARE Suspends WorkAgency says it will put Iraq operations on hold because of director's abduction Another stunning blow by the Religion of Peace's fiercest advocates to protect the Iraqi people from... assistance? Let's face it. There may be Baathists who sincerely believe the old government was better. There may be ordinary Iraqis who are ready for us to be the hell out of there. But the people pulling these stunts are not thinking of Iraq or the people of Iraq, nor, for that matter, of what their religion may or may not call upon them to do. To the contrary, their primary aim is to see the Iraqi people sufficiently miserable that maybe even their 14th century mindset will come to seem progressive. But just remember - the Islamists have yet to create a functional society, yet to figure out how to actually educate young girls, yet to even figure out how to make their own weapons. They believe themselves warriors for Allah, but if Allah gave a crap He would have given them brains, not the porridge that passes for their gray matter. He would have granted Taliban-controlled Afghanistan the means to get a single plane off the ground without an American or United attendant having to first confirm that everyone's seat was in the upright and locked position, would have given that nation the means to attract the best and the brightest, not the dimmest and the darkest. It is true that in Iraq and in the War on Terror we find ourselves sometimes fumbling about. There are real problems whose solutions aren't always apparent. But we will win this thing and in part because the God of Abraham, if He is taking an interest in this, is not on the Islamists' side. He has given the decadent West so many tools. To the Islamists He has bequeathed... the kamikaze. Kamikazes and suicide bombers alike can seem frightening for their determination to kill and their willingness to die if that's what it takes to do so. But in spite of the chatter about the Islamists winning because they do not fear death, well, we know how the last such conflict turned out. The war has developed, noted Hirohito, not necessarily to Japan's advantage - or words to that effect. The War on Terror, too, will develop "not necessarily to the Islamists' advantage." To the contrary, not only will their own specific cause know setbacks, but the religion of Islam will in time face the same challenge that the Catholic church faced after the Inquisition went from awful to absurd: proving that it is a viable religion for reasonable people in spite of the actions of its fiercest partisans. Two hundred years from now, the division in Islam won't be between Shiite and Sunni but between those who address September 11, 2001 with a "yes, but..." and those who unconditionally repudiate it and mock as backward those who don't. Mohammed Atta may have known how to fly a plane, but he was otherwise an idiot, unless his plan was really to unleash forces that would one day see Muslim women wearing pants and driving cars. Monday, October 18, 2004posted by gbarto at 10:25 PM:from the e-mail bag, author unknown to me...Noah's New ArkThe Lord came to Noah, in Oregon, in the year 2004. The earth was wicked and over-populated. The Lord instructed Noah to build another Ark and save two of every living thing along with a few good humans. "Here's the blueprint", said the Lord. "Hurry.... in six months I start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights." Six months later the rain started. The Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his flooded yard....and no ark. "Noah", He roared, "Where is the Ark?" "Forgive me, Lord," begged Noah. "Things have changed. I needed a building permit. I've been arguing with the inspector about the need for a sprinkler system. My neighbors claim that I have violated the neighborhood zoning laws by building the Ark in my yard and the height limitation being exceeded. We had to go to the Development Appeal Board for a decision Then the Department of Transportation and Hydro wanted a bond posted for the future costs of moving power, trolley and other overhead obstructions, to clear the passage for the Ark's move to the sea. I argued the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of this. Getting the wood was another problem. There's a ban on cutting local trees in order to save the spotted owl. I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls. No go! I gathered the animals, but then I got sued by an animal rights group. They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will. As well, they argued the accommodation was too restrictive and it was cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in so confined a space. The county decided that I could not build the Ark without filing an environmental impact statement on your proposed flood. I'm still trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on how many minorities I' m supposed to hire for my building crew. The trades union wants me to hire only Union trades-people with Ark building experience. To make matters worse, the Internal Revenue Service seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to leave the country illegally as well as with endangered species. So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least ten years to finish this Ark." Suddenly the skies cleared and the sun began to shine. A rainbow stretched across the sky. Noah looked up in wonder."You mean you're not going to destroy the world?" he asked. "No", said the Lord. "The Government beat me to it" posted by gbarto at 1:07 AM:Nice Bleat today on the question of Bush and faith. And further proof that some Americans have set their sights too low:Lileks for President - 2008There. If he stumbles across this, that ought to scare the hell out of him.Anyway, Lileks does hit the right notes in the right places in the right ways. He seems like such a nice, thoughtful guy that one can hardly believe he's a journalist. On to Bush and religion... Once upon a time, someone noted words to this effect: They claim to believe in God and in Heaven, but their actions show this is not true. For how could they lead the lives they lead - how could they not lead lives wholly given to this miraculous truth revealed to them in spite of the cares of this world - if they truly in their hearts and minds understood what they claim to be true?This is where Bush really gets on people's nerves: While he is not necessarily the exemplary Christian, he does seem awfully committed to what he believes his calling to be, and seems not to shrink from it no matter how much the wiser heads at the NY Times, Washington Post and elsewhere try to explain how sophisticated people understand the world. One gets the sense that with his perceived calling to keep the country safe, Bush is prepared to run the risk of losing dignity, power, reputation, just about anything, to keep the terrorists on the run and away from our shores. The NY Times, which survived the loss of a couple thousand fellow New Yorkers, on the other hand, can't understand how you can let that old thing get in the way of the latest thing, John Kerry's poetry or that sassy Lizzie Edwards, last I heard. Myself, I kind of like the idea of a president who views keeping my butt safe as more important than looking good to the French. Others, I understand, don't. We can all vote accordingly in a few days. Sunday, October 17, 2004posted by gbarto at 11:50 PM:Book ReviewInveterate reader G. Takamatsu will be contributing book reviews to this site from time to time while a site of his own is set up. This is the first of doubtless many. TWICE ADOPTED by Michael Reagan. ISBN: 080543144-6. The title refers to Reagan's two adoptions, first, into the Reagan family and second into the family of God. Michael Reagan did not become a Christian till late in life. His wife Colleen was the one praying for him. He had been raised Roman Catholic by his mother, actress Jane Wyman, who converted to that faith as an adult. But though he was raised Catholic, he simply went through the motions. The fact that he was adopted and born out of wedlock bothered him. He thought God was mad at him. There are verses in the Old Testaments about "bastards" that may have given him that impression. Reagan was molested by a day camp counselor while he was an elementary school student. The counselor took pictures of him and made Reagan develop those pictures. This incident traumatized him but he did not talk about the experience for thirty years. This trauma made him an angry, rebellious person. Ronald, Nancy and Jane were not aware of what happened till he told them about it years later. I think they were at a loss as to how to deal with him. The content of Reagan's book is not limited to his own life. He also talks about how to detect signs of child abuse. I don't think he is a professional counselor, but as a victim, he knows about what he is talking about. After the trauma and before he met Colleen, Reagan lived a worldly existence. He attended a rich kids' high school in Arizona and using his poker skills supplemented his father's "meager" allowance. I think he viewed himself as separating the rich kids from their allowances. Must have been a good poker player or maybe the rich kids were not really wise in the game of poker. He took up speed boat racing and won the world championships. And he accumulated a lot of debt. He was going on a downward spiral when he met Colleen. She did not change him overnight - he was dating eight women at the time. I get the impression Colleen was more or less forced upon Reagan by his friends as a blind date. He does not appear to have been an easy person to live with. When his wife was asked why she put up with him, she said she saw potential. Personally I think she was taking a dangerous gamble. My impression is that often times nice women get hurt when they marry jerks. I call it the "Beauty and the Beast syndrome." This is where women think they can tame the savage beast by their love. Doesn't always work out. But I guess in Michael Reagan's case it worked out. Colleen was supportive of him when he told her of the trauma he had suffered many years ago as a child. (He also informed Ronald and Nancy; I am not sure how Jane Wyman found out.) It appears that the catalyst for Reagan's talking about his childhood trauma came when he was offered a book deal. He was offered two million dollars to write a "Daddy Dearest" book slandering his father. He broke down and told the collaborator that he couldn't do it. He said it wasn't his parents' fault. He told his collaborator about the trauma. The money offer was withdrawn. I should backtrack a bit for one other important note: Michael Reagan was adopted, so it seems, because Maureen wanted a brother. She took money out of her piggy bank and plopped about 97 cents on the counter of the pharmacy saying she wanted a brother. I think that gave Ronald Reagan and his wife at the time, Jane Wyman a hint. They adopted Michael. Michael Reagan also and unsurprisingly talks about his father's presidency. This portion of the book seems a little brief but memorable. He notes that Reagan had suffered a defeat to Gerald Ford in 1976. But Michael thinks that it was not yet Reagan's time, that the other key characters were not yet in place that year. The other key players came into play later: Pope John Paul II (1978), Margaret Thatcher (1979) and Gorbachev (1985). I think Brian Mulroney of Canada should be included here. One wonders what a Reagan presidency would have been without them. In the end, though, this is not a book about Ronald Reagan, but about Michael, and about how, in spite of the bad things which happened in his life, through God's grace he has managed get his life on track. - Guy Takamatsu posted by gbarto at 4:25 PM:Mickey Kaus, wildly generalizing from his own personal experience, suggests wireless-only voters may break for Kerry because of their demographic, and then concludes this could mean Kerry's numbers are better than they appear.But... most of the wireless-only people I know fit a different group: Republican-leaning libertarians who got tired of dealing with government protected landline monopoly phone services and went where the free market alone ruled. A small, perhaps, but important group, and one that's more likely to actually vote. Saturday, October 16, 2004posted by gbarto at 1:24 AM:From Lileks:Lynn Cheney fires back: Kerry is “not a good man,” which is a rather remarkable statement to make. Good Lord! You’d almost think her daughter had been dragged into a discussion of Constitutional amendments to score a point, or something. Lizzie Edwards on ABC radio responded:If I recall, the debate question was, "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?" President Bush said, and wisely, "I don't know." Which probably didn't appeal to the "Let's convert 'em back to God's way, the whores" crowd on the Far Right, but it seemed like a pretty honest answer from a guy who wants us all to be nice to each other but isn't sure how nice. Listening to Kerry's answer, I think he said it's not. Or at least, I don't think it's a touching thing for a wife to support her husband choosing to run off with a man when he could love her to whom he had sworn eternal love and fidelity, so I assume that his talk of liberation, etc. meant there was no choice. So... why is Elizabeth Edwards referring to "preference" ? This may be a new first for the Dems - a Kerry-Edwards' wife multiregional, multiperson straddle. Stay tuned to see if the Southern Dems keep talking about preference - a hint to the hillbilly wing of the Democratic party that they know what "them homos" are really up to - or if the Democratic party straggles back to a position where its rhetoric matches at least the earnest and humble graciousness that our supposedly intolerant born-again Christian president displayed the other night. posted by gbarto at 1:03 AM:Charles Krauthammer, himself paralyzed, is quite right to rip John Edwards for the claim that somehow a vote for Kerry will get people out of their wheelchairs. One wonders, though. Are Edwards and his trial lawyer friends this optimistic about medical advances when advising juries on how much their personal injury clients should get? Has a single trial lawyer ever said, "I don't think my client really needs, say, $30 million - $2 million to get him through the next two years and pay for the amazing but expensive treatment I understand is around the corner should do it" ? (found at Instapundit)Thursday, October 14, 2004posted by gbarto at 6:31 PM:Interesting bit about online polls...I guess the Dem memos about voting in online polls went through. Last night about an hour after the debate, the AOL poll was about 70-30 for Kerry. But now it's 50-50, with 73% saying the debate didn't change who they were voting for. Which may mean, contrary to Mr. Hewitt, that we're headed for another close one. The big question is whether the anti-Bush and pro-Bush sentiment wins. Which leaves on question for the Kerry camp - what happens to their voters when suddenly, in the voting booth, those who thought you couldn't get worse than Bush suddenly have to pull a lever for Kerry, as opposed to merely opposing Bush? This could be a problem for them, and you can tell the Kerry camp knows it by the frequency with which Kerry attacked the status quo while only alluding to plans, even if those plans are laid out in massive position papers. Who else noticed that Bush could talk in concrete terms about the structure of programs he's implemented or tried to implement, explaining not only what he wanted to do but how the program connected to his philosophy? Who else noticed that Sen. Kerry talked in concrete terms about what he felt was wrong but not about why his solutions were the right ones? posted by gbarto at 1:39 AM:Why we're fighting...Here's the headline for a post at LGF: Mass Grave of Women and Children in Iraq And here's the first line: A mass grave in northern Iraq has been found to contain the remains of toddlers clutchingJust to make things really awful, here's why the Europeans aren't helping investigate the atrocity: The Europeans, he said, were staying away as the evidence might be used That about says it all for how the Europeans are operating today. A corrupt head of state slaughters thousands and they stand idly by. And when it's time to hold him to account, they're still more concerned about protecting tyrants who abuse(d) their power than about justice. Given all the European braying about human rights and the need to hold Pinochet and others accountable, the whole thing seems strange. Till you remember all the prosecutors lined up in case Chirac leaves the Elysée Palace other than in a coffin. Update: Having seen the latest turn of events, Pinochet supporters have secretly sought to have Pinochet extradited to the US for trial, reasoning that if he faces American justice, Europe will surely leap to his aid. Wednesday, October 13, 2004posted by gbarto at 7:34 PM:Final thoughts, part II do wish I could have seen the debates. Bush sounded okay and Kerry sounded a bit, well, Kerryish. But I don't know, for example, whether Bush looked pensive or lost during some of the pauses, nor whether Kerry looked self-satisfied, self-righteous or just serious after some of the more arrogant sounding remarks. And I know it makes a difference. Overall, I think both Bush and Kerry got in a few shots and took a few hits. I think Bush did fairly well, simply because I stopped holding my breath about five minutes in and only headed toward the blue zone once or twice. I liked a lot of Bush's responses, which spoke to my own issues. And even in places where I disagreed, I felt okay about him. But I don't know whether others were as irritated by Bush's x tax hikes, y budget caps... bit as I was by Kerry's x for the top x percent bit. Hope not. Best hope there is that Bush usually looks a little more irked and a little less like he knows because he's the smartest kid in class. I was that kid and even I didn't much like him (and no one's hoisting TurkeyBlog for President banners, so I think my judgment here is spot on!). Final analysis: Probably a draw, from what I've heard. Which means, of course, a little victory for Bush. We know that he can be president, because he's done it. We know how, because we've seen it. And we know... that Kerry has a plan... though he's not ready to share it just yet. Which isn't enough. Still, vodkapundit says the Fox News guys look happy and that's usually a good sign. Off to see what others thought. posted by gbarto at 7:32 PM:more debate...Kerry loves the minimum wage. Hmm. I worked at McDonald's in college. Every time the minimum wage went up, a new machine appeared and hours got cut. I was fine, but the people who didn't know and couldn't do crap went from having a job, however lousy, to being eased out - hours cut and jerked around till they quit. The problem, incidentally, wasn't that anyone had it in for them. The problem was that once you went from six people and six machines to two people and ten machines, those in the worst shape couldn't handle the stress... yep, it's true... of prioritizing tasks and synchronizing machine output in a McDonald's kitchen. In the last few years, though, I've noticed that some of these places are using more people again. They're falling over each other in the local Jack in the Box, for example. That's because with inflation the minimum wage is no longer making labor too expensive. (To the contrary, machine/labor cost is now at a place where a lot of places pay above the minimum wage because people are cheaper than the machines now.) --- "I never suggested a test..." What's with the "..., people!" from Kerry? Smack! What passes Kerry's test? Not the international coalition for Gulf War I. --- "It was a failure of presidential leadership not to extend the assault weapons ban." Au contraire, it was a successful effort in getting someone else to kill it. -- Is it that easy to get an assault weapon? I want one! --- Affirmative action Discrimination is still there and George W. Bush wants it that way! (That's the phrase that has Kerry's tongue bleeding for his inability to say it in this forum.) Wow! George W is so historic! You pick a "worst," and he's done it. As for not meeting with the NAACP, why would he? It's a Democrat side group at this point. Whatever respect the King legacy commanded is gone. Bush's positive developments response is a good, if not exceptional, one. --- Faith and policy Very nice, personal response. Whatever else you think of him, this guy is genuine. He believes his own crap. And a fear of mine with Kerry is I'm not sure he would, even if he could figure out what it is. Kerry not doing too badly here. He's a bit Richard Gerish here and there, but good on religion. Crap. On to the class war. If he mentions 89 billion again... --- Polarization Sen. Kerry - will you set a priority in bringing the country back together? Hmm... he's going for the Kaus "Thank you and goodbye" bit. If he's smart... Nope. I was going to say, if he's smart, he'll leave it at that. But he couldn't. Never seen people locked out before? That's cause he held the key in the '80s when Bobby Byrd, Ernest Hollings and Co. were running things. ... Secret meetings in the White House? Like Chinese generals? --- The McCain response was intersected oddly - he'd been waiting to say it - but point well taken. --- On strong women. Bush doing very good. Did very good. Kerry joke about marrying up a little forced, but follow-up good. I'll give him that. Still can't manage Bush's folksiness, though. Deathbed anecdote, though. Don't like. "Don't let me take myself too seriously." Too bad they're not on stage. Still, a not bad Kerry answer. --- Closings: Kerry - Who is he? Kennedy? Nope. No country has a veto on our security - the Bush team's global test line must be working. Bush - Can't see what he looks like, but he sounds like he's musing, not preaching. Reminder of what we've been through. Ideas about how we move forward. And hitting on freedom and liberty and our plan to spread them. And he goes for the sale: "I'm asking for your vote." I'm disappointed Kerry didn't.
French Elections, 1st round
|
Day by Day is on hiatus due to family issues for Chris Muir. We wish him well and hope he's back soon.
* Freeblogging is a term coined by Joanne Jacobs.
