The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
|
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 Never forget! I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page). Relocating to Boise? Use my realtor, neighbor, and friend, Cindy Smith csmith@1realtyone.com.
Magazines for cheap!
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through. |
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Fallujah Insurgents Threaten to Use Chemical Weapons I guess we should assume that they are lying, right? INSURGENTS in the rebel Iraqi city of Falluja claimed yesterday that they had added chemicals to mortar rounds and missiles that they intend to fire at American forces preparing for an all-out assault. If You Live in a Red State... Make sure you take a look at the mature and responsible way that San Franciscans handled the Bush victory. Warning: not worksafe because of langugage on the signs. Did California Abolish Freedom of the Press? I'm getting email from friends left behind that makes me wonder... For example, this question which really makes you realize how insular you can get out there. This email from a multimillionaire liberal friend: Clayton,To his credit, even though he only hears about Republicans (there not being any available to talk to--perhaps not allowed in Marin County anymore), he wants to understand. As I explained to him: Your remarks tell me that you have no contact with Republicans, nor any Republican points of view in print or electronic media.Another old friend emailed me from California: Hi Clayton,First of all, distinguish the constitutional question from the public policy question. On gay marriage, I have a public policy objection to it, but if a state decides to do so, that's their choice. Being in the minority would not make me happy, but I would have no constitutional basis for objecting to such a law. For a judge to order a state to recognize gay marriage--or polygamous marriage, or first cousin marriage, or child marriage, or anything else--is very presumptuous. The supposed constitutional basis for this in the Goodridge decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is simply factually wrong, as is the U.S. Supreme Court's subtle hint that direction in the Lawrence decision. The Lawrence decision itself is based on falsification of history. See here for examples of the colonial sodomy laws that the Lawrence decision claimed don't exist. Prayer in public schools? It is pretty clear that the way that the laws many states had passed to require prayer in public schools were arguably unconstitutional (but the history of the decisions on this is pretty dubious for how it was decided), and clearly they were counterproductive. I would encourage you to read William J. Murray's My Life Without God. (This is the kid on whose behalf Madelyn Murray O'Hair filed suit in Maryland.) He is very clear that the state mandated prayer in public schools was meaningless and stupid. Murray is a Christian evangelist today. There is no great enthusiasm for bringing back those sort of mandated prayers, even among the most vigorously traditional fundamentalists. There is considerable upset at the way in which the ACLU has taken a pretty reasonable position and stretched to it to the absurd position where events that are not mandatory parts of school (like football games) have been turned into similar situations. If you asked me whether prayer before a football game makes sense, my reaction would be to scratch my head a bit (remembering that in Texas, football is almost a religion in itself), but then again, you and I don't live in these places. This attempt to remove all expressions of religion from anything that can be even remotely called public institutions is dangerously close to violating the First Amendment's protection of freedom of religion. Display of Christian symbols in public places? This is a real no-brainer as to Constitutionality. See here for a list of examples. You had to be a Christian to hold public office in just about every state that ratified the Constitution. You had to be a Protestant in many states. The Massachusetts Constitution actually REQUIRED the legislature to pass laws mandating church attendance. The U.S. House of Representatives hall was used for church services every Sunday until 1868. Whether it is good public policy or not is a legitimate question, and I certainly would not support doing anything that makes non-believers, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. feel uncomfortable, but to claim that a tiny cross of historical significance on the County of Los Angeles seal is a violation of the First Amendment is not just wrong--it stands the Constitution's intent on its head. I want to ask you about a few other issues where we may or may not agree. I'm asking because you're my best window into an American demographic that is somewhat alien to me, but which has just demonstrated its power convincingly enough that I recognize a need to understand it better.I think it is a mistake to interpret this Bush victory entirely in those terms, but these values are certainly a real part of America--perhaps 60% of the United States. Even in Sonoma County, there's a sizeable fraction that would call themselves evangelical Christians, and who would regard me with a little suspicion as being a bit too liberal. Teaching creationism in public, tax-funded schools: As a non-parent, this issue doesn't really REALLY hit home with me; yet as a citizen I believe rather strongly that creationism undermines the scientific and technical, and therefore the economic, future of our country. Can your demographic and mine find any common ground on this one?Think of creationism as a proxy for larger problems. Keep in mind that there is an ignorant form of creationism which is very popular in some circles. The Creation Research Institution is a good example of where this comes from. I do not respect CRI, both because their notion of creationism is bad science, and because they claim in court documents that what they are promoting is not religiously based--while raising money from Christians on the grounds that they are spreading the Gospel. One or the other--not both. There is also a considerably different form of creationism, and it includes some pretty reputable scientists. Hugh Ross, Ph.D. Astronomy, University of Toronto, is author of The Fingerprint of God. He had a serious career in astrophysics before switching to evangelism. His book makes a compelling argument for some serious problems with current astrophysics that suggest that there's a lot more going on than the simplified form of astronomy that you were probably taught in high school. I'm knowledgeable enough in the field to know that he isn't just blowing smoke. What's really fun is to get into a conversation with an astronomy professor, and have them admit that yes, there are some serious problems with the fact that the current models tell us the universe is 13 billion years old--but there are globular clusters that are 20 billion years old. Hmmm. There is also a serious problem with how biology is being taught. About ten years ago, a biochemistry professor named Michael Behe--one with a pretty impressive list of publications--pointed out that there is a serious problem with Darwinian evolution and the complexity of many cellular organelles. I'm not going to do justice to his argument, but visit here. The essence of the argument is that even the simplest of cellular components, such as the flagellum that allows single cell creatures to move around, has an enormous number of parts to it. None of these parts gives an organism an advantage by itself; all of them, or nearly all of them, have to be present for the organism to get any benefit at all. Yet what are the chances that all of these rather dramatic components would just happen to appear as the result of mutation? Yes, one of the thirty-something components could just happen to be there, and then mutation makes another one just happen in an organism with that functional but useless mutation, and then another, and then another--but this is starting to become troublesome. I mentioned that creationism is something of a proxy. The irreducible complexity question is an example of how Darwinian evolution, to the extent that it is taught as Revealed Truth in many schools (certainly the ones that my wife Rhonda and I attended in California) is bad science (because it discourages serious questioning) and offensive (because it is often taught in a way that demeans the beliefs of both students and their parents). If evolution were taught as proper science--with all the questions and difficulties involved, and it has some--I would have no objection. But evolution is taught badly, much like the way history is taught: Revealed Truth, and often used as a political bludgeon by the teacher. American Exceptionalism: I don't understand why Christians, who are supposed to render unto Caesar grudgingly and partially, have become so infatuated with the earthly might of one particular nation-state. To me it borders on blasphemy; and bears more resemblance to the ideal chuch-state relationship of Islam than to anything Jesus ever said. Are there any near-term prospects for heartland voters accepting some measure of Christian humility on behalf of their imperial government? In some respects, the notion of American Exceptionalism comes from Britain, which suffered from this same problem. It is an unsurprising reaction, however, when you consider that Americans enjoy a level of wealth and freedom that is quite exceptional. In 1774, Americans were about as wealthy as the average Third World country today--maybe slightly better off. Imperial government? I'm afraid that I don't know what you are talking about. We went through an imperial phase, starting during the Spanish-American War and the acquisition of Hawaii. We were never completely happy with it. Cuba was released in 1903. The Philipines was supposed to be released July 4, 1942, but someone else came in and took over instead. The only vestiges of our imperial past are Hawaii (which has the same status as the rest of the nation--so hardly imperial), Puerto Rico (whose population overwhelmingly likes its "commonwealth" status), and the Virgin Islands (which seems to enjoy its status as well). If you mean U.S. intervention in other countries, you might want to look up the definition of empire. An empire is a government (traditionally run by a sovereign) consisting of many different nations under a single crown. Different nations in the empire have different legal systems, different legal status--and often, the nation from which the empire sprang has a preferred status. Economic preferences are given to the empire, and traditionally, the non-core nations are looted for the benefit of the core. This simply does not describe the U.S. We intervened in Afghanistan in response to a criminal attack by al-Qaeda, based in Afghanistan, with at least the acquiesence of the Taliban. We cleaned up an evil bunch, organized the first elections in Afghan history in which women voted, and are still trying to shut down the last of the Taliban. We have poured blood and money into Afghanistan, and for the benefit of the Afghanis. There is NOTHING that Afghanistan produces that matters to us economically, except perhaps opium--and we don't want it. We want it stopped. Iraq is a more complex story, but not fundamentally different. The decision to invade Iraq--a nation that was Hitler's Germany on a smaller scale--was based on what has now turned out to be faulty intelligence. If you read the Iraqi Survey Group final report, Lord Butler's report to the British Parliament, and the many other significant reports that I have blogged about, you will see that the Iraqi government misled a lot of people about WMDs, not because they wanted the U.S. to invade, but because they were trying to keep the Iranians scared. It is also clear from the ISG final report that Hussein had kept together significant facilities and personnel for the purpose of recreating his WMD programs upon the end of sanctions. By the way, Lord Butler's report found that while most of the rest of the WMD stuff was faulty, Iraq was actually trying to buy yellowcake in Niger. Contrary to Ambassador Wilson's claims, this was NOT bogus. (The French did pass a bogus document about this to the Italian intelligence service at one point, with the goal of discrediting it later--but the effort by Iraq was real.) Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq does have something that we would like to buy--but it would have been FAR cheaper to just have dropped sanctions in early 2001 (as some of Bush's advisors wanted to do--since sanctions weren't working) than to have invaded, occupied, and all the rest. There are a lot of people that want to see 9/11 as something set up by the Mossad, or intentionally allowed to take place to justify invading Iraq. If so, why bother with Afghanistan? Bin Laden has now admitted that he organized 9/11. Iraq's ties to al-Qaeda are tenuous (although real--as the 9/11 Commission report acknowledged), but its ties to other terrorist groups, such as Hamas, are clear, including providing payment to suicide bombers. There's a reason that Israel is having less of a problem with that the last year. Guess why. Zionism: As I see it, the Christian community is rather split on this one. I'd be interested in both your personal opinions, and also your observations from the inside of The Movement, regarding the schism (if you see one) between traditional "America-first" paleocons and "Greater Israel" Christian Zionists. I really don't have a clue how this is playing out in the Red State heartland.Zionism was originally a secular, even openly atheistic and socialist movement, when it started after the Dreyfuss trial. This led to significant conflict during the Holocaust, with Orthodox Jews often reluctant to work with Zionists (who they regarded, and not witout reason, as atheistic Communists). Christians who know much about Zionism don't think much of it. Israel as a nation doesn't have a lot to say for it except: 1. Democratic; 2. Less than wonderful record of human rights, which means better than just about any nation in the Middle East; 3. Instead of whining continuously (as the Palestinians have done), they have tried to make something of the land that they stole. There are some legitimate disputes that the Palestinians have with Israel, but watching them dance in celebration of 9/11 gave me strong reason to not be very interested in their cause. There are a lot of Christians who think that because Israel is the Land of Abraham, that the government there now deserves some special pass. Not me. Millenialism: Some of Bush's critics claim that he literally believes that the End Times of Revelation are imminent -- meaning, within our lifetimes. This idea scares the hell out of me, and I would dismiss it as just another wild accusation against Bush, except that I personally know people who really do believe this -- people who seem otherwise to be perfectly reasonable and sane. If a belief in imminent Armageddon and Rapture is forming the basis for public policy regarding Palestine and the environment... well, I can hardly think of a better reason to move to Montana, dig a very deep hole, and start stockpiling ammo like crazy. Does this idea truly hold a lot of stock out there in the heartland? Millenialism has pretty well gone away the last fifteen years. I don't remember the last time that I talked to someone that believed this, although I know that there are those who are partial to it. This is very attractive as an idea to young people, and to new Christians, partly because it gives them this idea that they aren't going to have to die. I was never very persuaded by Millenialist arguments because I've seen the same set of symbols (known as the Darby-Scofield eschatology) fit, just as precisely, into world events in a book published in the mid-1930s. The ten horns of the Beast were the revived Roman Empire of Mussolini (who was the Anti-Christ), and civilization would be saved by Hitler (who was still Mussolini's enemy at the time, and hadn't really gotten mass extermination under way yet--just the retarded and defective). I have a good friend who used to be very big on this, but as he has matured, he now describes his objection to the effect that, "These people don't care about this world because they think we are polishing the brass on the Titanic." The claim about the environment is one of the old chestnuts of the left. There was a question asked of Reagan's Secretary of Energy James Watt during his confirmation hearings in 1981. His response has been quoted out of context and sometimes completely manufactured to say that we didn't have to worry about running out resources, because the Rapture was at hand. He did NOT say that; in fact, he specifically rejected such an approach. I don't know anyone whose foreign policy beliefs is motivated by the belief that the Rapture is at end. Why would we be doing what we are doing? Afghanistan plays no part in any the Millenialist ideas that I've ever seen. Perpetual war against Islam: Again, from the outside there appears to be a schism between Old Testament "Crusader" Christians, and New Testament "St. Augustine" Christians. Which theory do you see prevailing in the second Bush term?Huh? We are not at war with Islam. Bush has been very clear on that from the beginning. We are war with a bunch of death worshippers that Bush keeps emphasizing have perverted Islam. (I'm not so sure that it is much of a perversion.) Polygamous religions are especially prone to aggressive death worship, because men who can't ever marry can either be directed outward, or they will topple the structure that allows some men to accumulate wives. I blogged about this a while back. Thanks for your insights Clayton! Y'all have the power now -- you break it, you bought it.....It kind of scares me that what is at least a widespread belief system is so alien that Californians have to email me to find out how much of a distortion they are being fed. Labels: Iraqi WMDs Friday, November 05, 2004
Promises, Promises Apparently there has been a big increase in Americans visiting the Canadian government's immigration web site: OTTAWA (Reuters) - The number of U.S. citizens visiting Canada's main immigration Web site has shot up six-fold as Americans flirt with the idea of abandoning their homeland after President George W. Bush's election win this week.Of course, it is a bit more complicated than that. I would imagine that most of these potential immigrants are going to need jobs (not all Democrats are billionaires, after all), and I suspect that they are going to discover that along with all that Big Government concern there aren't as many good jobs as they are used to in capitalist running dog-eat-dog America. I am reminded of a conversation that I overheard at an outdoor restaurant in Santa Monica, California, about 1981. The left had picked Santa Monica as their next concentrate and take over the government zone. My wife and I were sitting at one table, and at the next table, two recently arrived leftists were engaging in such a predictable conversation that I was able to tell my wife that shortly they would be talking about the Los Angeles Times, the Owens Valley aqueduct project, and the corruption associated with it. Sure enough, within thirty seconds, they were doing exactly that. (How creative can parrots be?) The highlight of the conversation, however, was when one of them observed, "The Los Angeles economy seems to be pretty robust, in a laissez faire sort of way, but there is absolutely no provision for public policy planning here!" Gee, do you suppose that there might be some connection? George Soros Is Not Happy Over at George Soros's web page: Obviously, I am distressed at the outcome of the election. I hope, but don't trust, that the second Bush administration will have learned something from the mistakes of the first. What is at stake is our ability to recognize our own fallibility.Soros intended for the antecedent for "our own fallibility," to be the United States (which is nowhere in the paragraph). But perhaps Soros should be considering the possibility of his fallibility. This is the letter I sent to Soros: Dear Mr. Soros: Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Planning To Move To Canada Because of BusHitler's Victory? I mentioned yesterday that lots of Democrats in California were muttering about leaving the country if Bush won, many talking about moving to Canada. It turns out to be a bit more complicated than that: OTTAWA (Reuters) - Disgruntled Democrats seeking a safe Canadian haven after President Bush won Tuesday's election should not pack their bags just yet.Well golly gee! Maybe having the left in charge of everything isn't all peaches and cream after all. My Daughter Asked, "Is It Okay to Gloat?" The answer, of course, was, "No. That's a bad Christian witness. It is no fun being on the receiving end of it--and believe me, I know what it is like!" This is the first election in which she has voted, and to be on the winning side is a heady sensation. You should have heard the message on the answering machine yesterday when she told me that she had gone out and voted--pure adrenalin rush for her, I guess. I am going to make a guess that perhaps 60% of Kerry voters did so because they do not read very much, and mistakenly assume that CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR, and their local newspaper (for most Americans) are fair and objective sources of information. I might fault them for not spending a bit more time trying to gather information from a wider range of sources but realistically, most people are just struggling to get through every day and pay the bills. Most people just aren't curious enough to spend the time trying to find out what is really going on. (You, of course, are atypical, or you wouldn't be reading my blog.) Sad to say, there is are a lot of people who grew up during the Vietnam War for whom every event must be seen through that trauma filter. Every war is Vietnam. Every President is either Johnson, or Nixon. I have relatives who got the all expense paid tour of Vietnam, who saw and did things that they still feel guilt about, and who will never see the American government as anything but an evil institution. I know people who had friends go off to die for a war that made little sense at the start, and less sense at the end. I feel sorrow, not anger at people like this. There is another sizeable fraction of Kerry voters who did so for cynical and dishonest reasons, and I include Michael Moore and much of his herd of sheep. They have to know, or at least have reason to suspect, that Moore is playing fast and loose with the truth. But the old saying that most people, if they stumble over the truth, will pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and continue onwards, applies to this bunch. Wake Up, Democrats: Gay Marriage Is a Great Way To Energize Republicans There were eleven states with initiatives on the ballot that added a definition to the state constitution that marriage was "one man, one woman" or went even further, and prohibited legislatures and judges from creating civil unions: The amendments won, often by huge margins, in Arkansas (search), Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and Oregon — the one state where gay-rights activists hoped to prevail. The bans won by a 3-to-1 margin in Kentucky, Georgia and Arkansas, 3-to-2 in Ohio, and 6-to-1 in Mississippi.An interesting quote from Gary Bauer: "This issue does not deeply divide America," said conservative activist Gary Bauer (search). "The country overwhelmingly rejects same-sex marriage, and our hope is that both politicians and activist judges will read these results and take them to heart."It does deeply divide America, however. It divides activist judges from overwhelming majorities of voters. Now, homosexual marriage advocates aren't going to let a little thing like huge supermajorities get in their way: "Fundamental human rights should never be put up for a popular vote," said Matt Foreman (search) of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "We'll win some states and we'll lose some states, but eventually the Supreme Court is going to look at the Bill of Rights and isn't going to give a damn what's in any of these state constitutions."This really captures the arrogance of this crowd. What do you think will happen when (not if) the Supreme Court decides that the Supreme Court's ahistorical reading of the Bill of Rights takes precedence over a strong majority? The Federal Marriage Amendment is what will happen. At that point, homosexual activists might want to start looking for a closet to hide in--because by that point, the absurdity of this will have reached a point where the temptation in some circles might be strong to pass a Federal Perversion Definition Amendment as well, or a State Police Powers Amendment. Kerry Is Kidding Himself (And Everyone Else)... if he thinks he's going to win Ohio. As of 3:10 AM EDT, CNN is reporting that Bush has a 139,000 vote lead on Kerry, with 98% of the precincts reporting. That leaves about 106,000 votes unreported, plus the provisional ballots, of which there may be 250,000--many of which will probably not be allowed. Kerry would have to win every one of the remaining votes, and about 60% of the provisional ballots (the first impossible, and the second most unlikely) to take Ohio. Tuesday, November 02, 2004
How Can The Democratic Party Not Lose In The Future? The election hasn't been called yet, but I don't think too many people think that Bush is going to lose. Fox News is saying that Bush has 269 electoral votes, including Ohio. The last I checked, Bush had a lead of 160,000 votes over Kerry, and unless Kerry wins effectively every one of the expected 250,000 provisional ballots on which Kerry is staking everything, this just isn't going to change things. Even if Kerry wins every remaining electoral vote, it becomes a 269-269 tie, and the House makes the decision--and elects Bush. A few points worth considering as to why the Democrats lost. I saw Paul Begala and James Carville talking on CNN about 9:50 PM MDT, and Carville was acknowledging that gun control, same-sex marriage, and other moral issues are a big problem for the Democrats in much of the United States. Carville seemed to be saying the same thing. It's true. One of them (I don't remember which), observed that middle class voters were voting against their economic interests becuse of the moral issues. I'm not sure that they really are voting against their economic interests, but if Democrats think that, they better ask why. There were eleven states with initiatives on the ballot today that defined marriage as "one man, one woman." Some of these were winning by insane margins--79-21, for example--early in the evening. The lowest win I saw for such an initiative was in Montana, where Yes had 63%. It wasn't just white evangelicals turning out for these initiatives. Earlier in the day, I heard a report on NPR where the reporter acknowledged that the multi-hour waits to vote in poor black precincts in Ohio were because of the same-sex marriage initiative. Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell (a black Republican in elected office, yeah!) explained that much of the expanded voter registration in Ohio, and many of the provisional ballots cast by those registering to vote today, were the result not just of labor union efforts, but churches pursuing the same-sex marriage initiative. As a result, he was expecting the provisional ballots to split roughly evenly for Bush and Kerry--and perhaps even more towards Bush. If the Democratic Party had been running against a Republican with a booming economy and no war problems, this would have been disappointing. But they ran against a President who has been fighting with a sputtering economy, an unpopular war that has not worked out very well--and they can't win? They have among the most astonishing media campaigns in recent memory including Fahrenheit 9/11, with a campaign finance law (McCain/Feingold) designed to disarm the NRA, billionaires like George Soros spending tens of millions of dollars to defeat George Bush (and perhaps manipulating oil prices to that end), and they still can't win? There's a message here, and the Democratic Party better start asking some questions about why it couldn't beat a stupid Texas cowboy like George Bush. What does the Democratic Party have to do to become a realistic player on the national stage again? It needs to abandon some of its very unpopular policies. I don't mean soft-pedal them, as they tried to do this time. I mean abandon them, and jettison those fringe sorts that have caused the Democratic Party to be unable to beat a President who was fighting an incredible uphill struggle. 1. Homosexuals are about 3-4% of the population--and the identity politics game that the Democratic Party is committing seppuku over is probably embraced by no more than 2/3 of homosexuals. (I say that based on the sizeable fraction of homosexuals who vote for Republicans anyway.) Even if you include straights who have bought into the homosexuality as a civil right argument, the number of Americans for whom it is really important to take the gay marriage position can't be more than about 15%. By comparison, there is a clear majority that disapproves of gay marriage, and even a majority that disapproves of civil unions and other such fig leaf forms of homosexual marriage. Democrats could take the position that the states shouldn't criminalize adult consensual sexual behavior, but that it isn't the government's job to recognize homosexual marriage, or pass non-discrimination laws for homosexuality. 2. Gun prohibitionism. There are legitimate arguments for some forms of regulation of guns, but they are based on the person, not the gun. A convicted felon with a .22 rifle is far more dangerous than a law-abiding adult with a machine gun. The Democrats should tell the Violence Policy Center, the Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March, and the other gun banners, to go join the Green Party. Reasonable regulation of gun ownership and transfers could be a legitimate Democratic Party platform--but it would start out this way: The Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding adults to purchase and possess firearms, regardless of type. Reasonable regulation to control or prohibit possession or transfers of guns to felons, minors, the mentally ill, and non-residents, are legitimate forms of regulation of this right. We will work towards the goal of making a concealed firearm permit available to any law-abiding and mentally healthy adult that can pass an NRA firearms safety class. This permit will cost a few dollars to obtain, and be good for four years. It will allow you to carry a gun, or to buy one. Transfers without such a permit will a misdemeanor.It isn't exactly what I would want, or what the NRA would want, but it would neutralize the gun control issue. 3. The Democratic Party needs to tell the ACLU that a cross on a city seal--or a Ten Commandments monument in a city park--isn't a First Amendment violation. When the Democratic Party stops treating the dominant religion of the people of the United States as though it is a form of devil worship, they might find that some of their voters will come back, too. Voting in Moscow My daughter attends the University of Idaho in Moscow, and hit the ballot booth about 12:30. (You should have heard how excited she was to vote!) This was her first election, and because she recently married, she had neglected to register to vote. Fortunately, Idaho allows registration on election day. She says that there were ten people ahead of her in line to register, but no waiting line for voting. Since Moscow is one of the few solidly Democratic areas of the states (aside from Sun Valley, where the billionaires live), this is not good for Kerry in Idaho--although, there wasn't much danger of Idaho's electoral votes going Democratic, anyway. Voting Problems This guy is reporting what would be clear evidence of disfranchisement (if he were a Democrat): I was not in the books. I've voted in every election in my district since moving there in 2000. I recently moved but hadn't changed my voter registration (as advised by the County election board) since the move was outside of the timeframe to change voting districts.Coincidence? Yeah, right. This is Chicago. Being Magnanimous Before The Victory Is Called I've decided to write this note to Kerry voters now, partly because one of John Kerry's pollsters, Mark Mellman, is predicting a 3% victory for Bush: You, dear reader, have the advantage over me. I am writing this Sunday, before the election takes place. The opportunities for me to look foolish are legion. So I will resist both predictions and triumphalism.After discussing all the factors that play a part in the electoral process, including economics and war casualties, Mellman concludes: Taking all that and more into account, an expert forecasting model suggests that Bush will get 51.6 percent of the two-party vote.There are a lot of Americans who are going to vote for John Kerry today, and for a lot of different reasons. Broadly speaking, there are three major groupings of Kerry voters: 1. Democrats who believe that Bush screwed up post-invasion Iraq. Even Bush has admitted that this didn't work as well as it should have. I can understand your frustration, and I share it. But mistakes in warfare are inevitable. We don't have a lot of recent experience with invading and stabilizing totalitarian states. I don't hold it against you that you decided to punish Bush for not being able to predict the future, and making decisions that seemed sensible at the time. I am going to assume that your desire to punish Bush took precedence over the clear evidence that John Kerry stands for absolutely nothing except getting elected. 2. Democrats who believe that Bush's mistakes were honest and unavoidable, but decided that having a Democrat as President was more important than continuity in the War on Terror and Genocidal Governments (WOT&GG). I am a lot less sympathetic to this bunch. I can understand the desire to get their billionaire boy into office, but let's face it: if we don't win the WOT&GG, in the long run (50 years from now), we won't be arguing about partial birth abortion--we will be debating whether American women are allowed to go out in public without a burkha. 3. The Michael Moore Democrats who believe that invading Afghanistan was immoral. This faction I hold in complete and utter contempt. There is nothing liberal about your values, which regarded invading the Taliban's Afghanistan and Hussein's Iraq as more contemptible than institutionalized rape, torture, and genocide. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party should tell you where to go. 4. The Democrats who voted for Kerry because they were afraid of a draft. I can understand with the enormous propaganda campaign that the Democrats put into this that many people honestly thought that there was some danger of a draft. Relying on MTV as a source for information, however, is hardly using your brain. It is easy to make mistakes at your age; just don't get fooled again. Is That a Promise? From one of the Canadian newspapers: LOS ANGELES - Some left-leaning Californians say they would rather leave the United States -- and go to Canada or elsewhere -- than stay with George W. Bush as president.Is that a promise? Is there some way to legally enforce these petulant screams? My Polling Place I haven't voted in a presidential election here in Idaho before today--only local and mid-term Congressional elections--so I don't have much with which to compare today. The lines were very long--I had to wait about twenty minutes, instead of twenty seconds. Idaho allows same day voter registration, provided you have a photo ID and proof of address. The line for that was surprisingly long--at least fifty people were lined up for that. Some of that might be because Boise is getting a lot of new residents moving in from elsewhere--or perhaps Karl Rove's effort to get the four million evangelical Christians who didn't vote in 2000 paid off. In any case, the voter turnout in my precinct looked impressive. I am reluctant to make any guesses about this, because one of the traditional markers of being a Democrat (black or Hispanic) just doesn't apply here in Idaho, the "white bread" state. The few people that I talked to in line were definitely conservative Republicans (one guy, a retired Navy man, was reading the 9/11 Commission report while standing in line). My neighor was there with her daughter, and I know that they are both safe Bush votes. Monday, November 01, 2004
DNC Lying About Schwarzkopf Endorsement How blatant do you have to be? TAMPA, FL – Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf today issued the following statement:I am so surprised! So Bin Laden Did Endorse Kerry... At least, the New York Post is reporting that the word used in the most recent tape indicates that Bin Laden's war on America is going to be state by state: MEMRI said radical Islamist commentators monitored over the Internet this past weekend also interpreted the key passage of bin Laden's diatribe to mean that any U.S. state that votes to elect Bush on Tuesday will be considered an "enemy" and any state that votes for Kerry has "chosen to make peace with us."UPDATE: I asked a friend who knows a bit of Arabic for his opinion: Everything that I look up on the Web, though, tends to support "dawla" as the typical term for "nation", with "wilaya" being "province" which should extend to "state" as we use the term in the US. Sunday, October 31, 2004
Another Bake Sale for the Pentagon Doubtless you've seen those bumper stickers that talk about what a great day it will when the public schools have all the money that they need, and the Pentagon has to have a bake sale to buy another bomber. Well, we're there. I've mentioned previously about a bunch of soldiers getting ready to ship out to Iraq who decided that their Humvees needed a bit more armor, so they bought a bunch of steel plate, and had a metal shop in Sacramento cut it to size. When the shop found out that they were paying for this out of their own pockets, he donated his services. Here's another example: Walt Rice from Texas contacted me a week or so ago and was telling me he was trying to raise $$$ to provide a couple spotting scopes and tripods for an Army squad he met via the internet. Walt helps the troops by getting things they need and ships it to them.So far, Anacortes Telescope & Wild Bird has received $190 in donations, and plans to make up the difference on the equipment. Go to that URL if you want to help out. "God Supports..." Don't you just hate it when these religious fanatics insist that God supports their candidate? Don't they know about "separation of church and state"? Don't you just hate it when it turns out to be the Democrats speaking for God? VINTON - Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin says John Kerry has been gaining in the polls every day since Oct. 21, and George Bush has been going down every day.Oh yeah, I believe that God would want a guy to win who has a long history of lying about things both trivial and important; who claims to oppose abortion, but supports Roe v. Wade (1973); who supported same-sex marriage--until he started running for President. The Latest Bin Laden Tape Does Seem To Indicate Bush Is The Better Choice Not Bin Laden's choice, but the better choice for civilized people: October 31, 2004 -- Osama bin Laden doesn't seem nearly so cocky in the unedited version of a videotape aired on al-Jazeera, complaining that the manhunt against him has hampered al Qaeda.Not surprisingly, Bin Laden's themes (it's all about oil; Bush is an evil man; Bush should have leaped from his chair at that elementary school in Florida, and flown to New York City in less than fifteen minutes to pull people out of a burning building; our government is as corrupt as any Arab thugocracy) are the themes of Michael Moore and the left end of the Democratic Party. Good News, Sort Of A CBS/New York Times poll shows that while the numbers are Bush 49% and Kerry 46% on who voters plan to vote for, when they ask voters who is going to win, 49% say Bush, but only 33% think Kerry will win. That means a lot of Democrats do not have confidence in their candidate--meaning that they may not show up to vote, or might vote for Ralph Nader. It wouldn't take a lot of those discouraged Democrats to turn the election, so if you know a Democrat, act confident about a Bush victory, and offer to buy them way, way too much alcohol Tuesday morning. (I'm kidding on that last sentence--I think.) I Think Bush Just Lost The Election: Update On This This is so obviously voter fraud: COLUMBUS, Ohio - Rulings by two federal courts Friday made it virtually impossible for Ohio Republicans to continue their challenges of 23,000 new voter registrations before Election Day, state officials said.If they don't live at those addresses, how do you know if they are even real people? While this isn't obviously voter fraud for this election, it is a tad suspicious: Hundreds of voters could easily cast ballots Tuesday in both Ohio and Florida because they are eligible to vote in both states and have received absentee ballots from election officials in Ohio, The Plain Dealer has found.UPDATE: Maybe I am being too discouraged. Everyone seems to be working together to make Bush look good now. Walter Cronkite (he used to be a highly respected journalist, before most of you were born) has suggested that Karl Rove arranged for Bin Laden's tape to be released when it was. China has harshly criticized the Bush doctrine of intervening in nations believed to be threats to peace. (When did China withdraw from Tibet?) John Kerry's stepson has accused George Bush of being a "cokehead"--and then admitted that he has no evidence for this. October payrolls apparently rose by 175,000 workers. |
