 Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
My Links
Dean's World
E Pluribus Unum
Insults Unpunished
A Small Victory
Right Wing News
Rosemary QOAE
IMAO
Deinonychus antirrhopus
Cox and Forkum
Martinis, Persistence, and a Smile
Drudge Report
Micheal Savage
New Weblog Showcase
The Ecosystem
TTLB HomePage
My Yahoo Profile
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
Libs WMD Quotes:
|
| Happy Memorial Day (Weekend) |
| 05.30.04 (4:53 pm) [edit] |
I will be taking a little break (as you may have already have begun to notice) from blogging for this holiday weekend.
While I am away check out the Blogs linked to on your left. I am sure they will all be more than entertaining for you while I am away.
Cheers! jim
|
|
|
| |
| Like he said... |
| 05.27.04 (6:40 pm) [edit] |
What a dope.
Just wanted to give one last link from the blog world before signing off this evening.
Enjoy.
|
|
|
| |
| It is your duty as an American to Read This Post |
| 05.27.04 (6:36 pm) [edit] |
Go read this, and help do your part in the war on terror.
You, as do all of us, have certain responsibilities that come with all our freedoms and rights.
Via Dean
|
|
|
| |
| More on Gore |
| 05.27.04 (6:18 pm) [edit] |
I blogged on the recent Dean-like moment from former VP (and thankfully not elected presidential nominee 3+ years ago) Al Gore, here.
However I had not yet seen the whole speech nor read the entire tirade either.
But since then I have done both. (Thank you C-SPAN) And I would have to agree with everything that is written about the scene over at Rosemary's Site. Not all of it was written by Rose herself but rest assured she pulled the best tidbits from around the blogsphere just for your reading pleasure.
Go take a look.
**Update** (Even More On Gore) Frank over at IMAO has a nice look into the issue of just who Al Gore is. It may help (certainly helped me) understand the causes of his delirium. Enjoy.
|
|
|
| |
| LMFAO! |
| 05.26.04 (4:28 pm) [edit] |
Funny Stuff
I particularly like the second one.
|
|
|
| |
| Talk About a Gore-ish Speech |
| 05.26.04 (3:44 pm) [edit] |
I didn't see the speec, I haven't even read the speech as of yet (well I lied I have read snippets of it), and as such have no opinion of the matter. I suppose it was just another screaming pile of leftist rhetoric where the world is coming to an end and everyone is going to die and it is all GWB's fault.
But, in case you want a real look at the speech, why don't you go check out The Iron Blog.
So now that you have been introduced go HERE and read his stuff about the Gore tiraid.
|
|
|
| |
| Some Cut 'n Paste |
| 05.26.04 (3:25 pm) [edit] |
I read this in the local paper and could't have been more reassured. I have cut and pasted below so that you can read the article without having to go through the free registration on the Orlando Sentinel website.
Enjoy!
Joel Pinzon loves America and can't wait for his buzzcut.
Eric Self longs to slog with infantrymen, but prefers to wait and see who wins the White House.
Alonna Smith bleeds Army green and can't understand why more Americans aren't waving the flag.
The three are graduating high- school seniors, among the thousands in Florida's class of 2004 expected to sacrifice their newly minted freedom to serve and protect the freedoms of U.S. citizens. Ask graduates why they would gamble lives of promise for the uncertainties of war, and they offer a date: Sept. 11.
For many, the attack only added fuel to something already burning inside: an old-fashioned sense of service, honor and duty.
'I wanted to be like them'
Joel Pinzon's room is the typical teenager haunt -- an obstacle course of clutter. However, three posters are taped neatly to his walls.
Two tout the Marines. The other features Marvel Comics' constellation of superheroes, with Spider-Man grabbing star billing.
"I don't think being a hero is all glory and fame," says Joel, 17, of Apopka. "I think it's more doing what you can, helping, facing what you need to face in the wake of odds and obstacles. That's what I love about Spider-Man. He's not a glory hound."
That Joel sees similarities between the webhead and jarheads isn't surprising.
Two years after he and his mother had settled in Homestead, about seven years after Luz Alvarez had immigrated from Mexico longing for a brighter life, Hurricane Andrew blew down their modest dreams. Joel, just 5 years old, watched men in camouflage uniforms tool around in Humvees, delivering food and hope.
"I played with little green [Army] men, bam-bam," he says. "To see them actually there, live and in person, it stuck in my head. I wanted to be like them, wanted to help, to be a hero."
Alvarez encouraged her son: You should be a Marine. They're the best.
Joel took her words to heart. When the family moved to Apopka, he joined the Apopka High ROTC, a Marine unit. He read books on the Vietnam War. Watched Platoon and Full Metal Jacket. Prepared for boot camp.
Then came 9-11, and a heightened passion to serve.
"Not for revenge," Joel says. "It made me want to be a Marine more, to protect the country, uphold the motherland, protect the Constitution."
Even through invasion?
"We are a superpower, and we need to take matters into our own hands, sometimes," he says. "The world is like a kid, and the U.S. is the mom or dad. [We] have to lecture the kids and put kids in their places and punish kids." His mother, who once encouraged Joel's march into the military, now trembles at the prospect.
"When I see the news, what happens in Iraq, what happens to the soldiers, I say, 'No,'" Alvarez says. But never aloud.
On June 7, Joel ships out to Parris Island, S.C., for boot camp. News of his plans garnered almost universal response from friends:
Are you crazy?
As Joel sees it, serving his country is the only sane move.
"War or not, to me, there's no excuse -- if you live here, you should be willing to fight for it, willing to defend it."
A leader in waiting
When Eric Self isn't battling with virtual Renaissance swordsmen on his PC, he's surfing the TV news for dispatches from Iraq -- and the latest comments from John Kerry.
When Kerry talks, Eric listens. Because the candidate's words possess power over Eric's first major life move.
"I'm not too confident with Kerry's decision-making," says Eric, 18, of Orlando. "I really believe in the way Bush has been handling the war on terrorism."
Should the president hold onto the White House, Eric intends to enlist in either the Army or Marines. Should Kerry win, he'll regroup.
"I'm not sure what Kerry has up his sleeve," he says. "If he decides that he's going to pull everything out, I don't feel like I want to be a part of that, so I'm waiting."
For Eric, strong, decisive leadership is everything. Even as a freshman at Apopka High, Eric brought a take-charge attitude to his duties as a ROTC squad leader.
He expects no less from the country's leaders And he feels Bush has been unfairly skewered.
"People forget that in the '80s, [Saddam Hussein] was killing his own people like crazy. The people who are saying we don't have a reason for being over there, I don't think that they are looking at the true mission, which was taking him out of power. Taking out this evil dictator is not something you think about -- you do it."
Should he enlist, Eric wants to see action with the infantry. "I could be up front, and see the result of what I'm doing," he says, "helping the cause."
The prospect of serving in harm's way "scares me a little bit," he concedes, but not as much as how his family would bear the loss. It all hit home with the April death of fellow Apopkan Jason Dwelley. His sacrifice in Iraq gave Eric pause. But just a pause.
"I don't think there's very much of anything -- except for Kerry -- that stands in my way of going into military." He quickly reloads. "Or my mother."
Putting her life on the line
Ordinarily a past of playing with Barbies is something a soldier would file under the heading, "Don't ask, Don't tell."
But Alonna Smith readily admits: "I was a Barbie girl."
Her fascination with the doll gave way to an obsession with the Army after the ROTC brought a recruiting pitch to Sanford Middle School. Later, watching Saving Private Ryan sealed the deal.
"I thought if people could do that," says Alonna, 18, of Sanford. "I should give back to my country."
Soon Barbie was evicted from her dream house. Alonna plastered her walls with Army posters and martial poems. As a freshman, she marched into Seminole High and joined the Air Force Junior ROTC. As a sophomore, she burned as she sat in her second-period class watching the images of the Twin Towers aflame.
"I wanted to do something about it," she says, "but all I could really do was sit and watch the footage."
So she did what she could, ratcheting up her sense of purpose. By her junior year, she was promoted first to personnel officer, and later to squadron commander. When American troops stormed Iraq, her patriotism soared. It hasn't waned with the toll of soldiers or the damning photos of prisoner mistreatment.
"It kind of makes me mad that they [Iraqis] think all Americans are like that," she says, her tone sharpening. "There are soldiers doing their best to help the Iraqi people."
What puzzles her most is a prevailing blasé attitude. Although Alonna doesn't expect everyone to wrap themselves in the flag, those even unwilling to salute that for which it stands torques her.
"A lot of kids don't stand for the Pledge [of Allegiance]," she says. "It aggravates me because I know I'm going to serve this country and serve people that don't care. If they understood their freedoms, and where they come from, they wouldn't take them for granted."
Alonna's yearbook brims with messages of pride and support. At home, however, digesting the Army has been a gradual process for her mom.
"When she first started talking about it about three years ago, I said, 'No, this is not where my daughter needs to go," says Marcinda Smith, 39. "But the more you saw her dedication to the ROTC program I realized this was something deep inside her." The test is about to begin. Alonna graduates Wednesday, and on June 15 she leaves for boot camp at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo.
Until then, she is training to trim her mile-run time, and cherishing family time.
"I am worried about getting killed, if I get sent over there," Alonna says of Iraq. "Everybody who gets sent over there is afraid they're going to get killed, whether they're willing to admit it or not. That's what's expected when you join the military. If I die, I die doing something I want to do."
Darryl E. Owens can be reached at dowens@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5095.
Emphasis added by moi.
|
|
|
| |
| NeoConservativism is neither Neo nor Conservative |
| 05.26.04 (3:08 pm) [edit] |
Read This
The link above is intended for all on the left and right who like to throw around the term NeoCon as some type of derogatory term for meanies who don't agree with you. Like me.
Via Dean's World
|
|
|
| |
| IB Dem's Scoring Summary |
| 05.25.04 (11:42 am) [edit] |
Now on with the scoring summaries. I have already done the challenger’s posts and now I am going to go over the IB’s. The first was fairly long and given that the IB likes to be a tad long winded I may wind up having to do the same (Folkbum I tease because I love :-P) So on with the show.
Judge’s Comments for IB Battle #2 Battle Gay Marriage The Iron Blogger
Iron Blogger’s (henceforth known simply as IB) ”http://theironblog.blogspot.c...” Opening Statement:
I love (absolutely love) the opening here. I too like being glib in response to questions I think are easily answered, however, later on you go beyond glibness and into a “too cool for school” attitude which turns a lot of people off to any argument. Outside of style points, right off the bat you step in a pile that the challenger was smart enough to exploit.
The Constitution of the United States, as well as state constitutions, is designed basically to do two things: Limit the scope and power of the government, and grant and extend rights to individuals.
While I agree with you on the first point, the Constitution limits the scope of the government (that’s why I am a constructionist conservative) I will not agree with you on the second, the constitution grants and extends rights to individuals. Rights are inalienable granted by the creator (Not just my belief but that of the founding fathers who wrote the document. Feel free to disagree with me on this point. This had nothing to do with my scoring but when I read this I felt the urge to scream at you. lol) As a matter of fact the whole set of the first amendments to the Constitution (AKA The Bill of Rights) was put forth simply to stop the government from intruding on these God given rights. You are correct however to say that the institution of marriage is not a right that needs to be protected by the Constitution. But by making this statement you are simply skirting the issue IMO, because the issue at hand is to protect the rights of the individuals to participate in the institution. Maybe this is just semantics but like I said I felt the need to argue with you on these points.
But I digress, back to the scoring summary. I will try to remain on topic of scoring at not on the topic of disagreement with the IB. Onward and upward to the next statement:
Civil unions, implemented successfully in Vermont, addressed one small aspect of the problem, which is that heterosexual couples can and do have benefits, rights, and responsibilities granted to them under a state-recognized contract that gay and lesbian couples, whatever their level of commitment or willingness to enter that contract, do not have.
This would lead me to believe that civil unions are working well in Vermont. They are a “success” even, because they grant the same benefits, right, etc, etc… as hetero people. So why oh why would the IB go on to write that civil unions create a “2nd tier citizenry”? I don’t see how they are extended the same benefits, rights, etc… and yet are not of the same quality as hetero couples. Do the verbiage differences between the words “marriage” and that of “civil unions” really carry that much weight? I don’t think so.
I am dismissing the next paragraph in its entirety mainly because the US is not a secular nation (In an ABC news survey as cited by UCONN educational site 95% of those surveyed answered yes to the question of whether or not they believed in God and an Opinion Dynamics Poll performed by FoxNews had 92% of all registered voters come to the same conclusions. Now belief in God is not religious in its entirety but it does counteract the belief of secularity) [ See it all Here] and because the idea that most who have a problem with SSM do so only because of religion is silly IMO. You will have fanatics or ideologues out there who use religion as a protest to anything but the majority? This argument would also lead one to believe that those against SSM are in the minority. Let me explain: The nation is secular, thus fewer religious people than secular, thus those who oppose SSM on religious grounds make up a small portion of the whole population, and since the majority of those opposing SSM do so on religious grounds there must not be too many of them, thus they are a minority, even though well more than 50% when polled are against SSM.
My wording may not be as exacting as I had hoped here but I think you can follow my logic rather easily coming to the same conclusions. If I am wrong comment for me and I will try to be more specific in wording.
Great use of Plessy. It really hits home as far as the separate but equal inadequacies, but this does start a unsettling trend for me in regards to your posts. SSM is not a civil rights issue. Gays were not slaves, gays were not forced to sit in the back of the bus, enter the back way, lynched for nodding at white women, etc… To compare the two is very wrong IMO, it is wrong in the opinions of the NAACP as well as many black leaders who integral parts of the civil rights movement. You also paint the scene of the Warren commission’s rulings being impossible with an amendment in place. Amendments can be overridden (Prohibition) so it would not have been the end of the world, the right thing could/would have been done even with the amendment in place. This is beside the point though, because to argue hypotheticals is always a losing proposition, plus to try and equate the Warren court to the true judicial activism of today’s courts does not show an adequate understanding of today’s judicial system. But your point is made, and made well, and is very persuasive throughout this whole post even if I may disagree or find irritation in a few of its points.
”http://theironblog.blogspot.c...”IB’s First Rebuttal (The Long One) I will try to keep my opinions out of this in a search for a short response to the IB’s post. 1.Again the “too cool for school” attitude turns me off. But it is overpowered by the quality of this post.
2.Good insight into the Goodridge decision. A couple of points made with very broad strokes but all in all it is a great summation and rebuking of the challenger’s statements regarding the decision.
3.By bringing up privacy in relationship to this debate I thought you were making a grave mistake. (Personal Privacy being scaled back for the security and good of the majority = privileges of gays to SSM scaled back for the good and rights of heterosexuals to continue to participate in marriage as a man and a woman) But the challenger I guess did not see it the way I did. Good proof of non constitutional written rights.
4.Far too much cut and paste, making the post too long IMO. But length was not really a concern of mine when scoring. Use smaller excerpts or maybe create a PDF with all the quotes and link to it. I don’t know but it got a little annoying to me.
5.The IB continues to use the race = gay card and I really don’t agree.
6.Invoking an argument about love and marriage seems logical but there is no quest for love here. If there were there would be no need for the state to recognize SSM at all. They could cohabitate without marriage or be married by any number of religious observances. The state does not have to recognize someone’s love. Otherwise I would be allowed to marry my dog, or my comic books, or any number of people because I love them.
7.Lawrence v. Texas is a dangerous card to play because it leads to the slippery slope. Also this judgment was to have nothing to do with SSM when made and now has impacted as much as anything. Meaning the idea that a SSM marriage ruling will not have impact on outside issues is a fallacy.
8.Good job of citing Scalia. His opinion goes to the heart of your case.
9.Great handle of Kurtz and his data but to simply try and dismiss his data simply because he followed the scientific process. Hypothesis, experiment, persuading peers to your work. His hypothesis (or question as some citations of the scientific process have it listed) is that SSM is bad or bad for society. He experimented by collecting data from sample groups in the wild so to speak. And then presented his work in a persuasive way.
10.The IB tries to end the slippery slope but does a poor job IMO. Time was just spent trying to show how the results of SSM in other countries would not equal that of the US and then the results of SSM in other countries is used to support the idea that NAMBLA and polygamists would not seek judicial recognition after SSM. Also does not give any support legally as to why its ok to prohibit or segregate these groups and not gays who want SSM. He simply drawing his line further to the left whereas the challenger (and I) are drawing it to the right.
11.There are clearly untouchable people. Very well written. Very well directed and received.
”http://theironblog.blogspot.c...”IB’s Second Rebuttal
One positive is that the IB attacks the holes left open by the challenger. Namely the one about the paragraph rephrasing in regards to the amendment process. This however, proved to be the beginning of the end in some ways. After this well educated rebuking the IB goes on toe poison the well against Kurtz (Calling him prejudiced against gays thus making his whole study null and void right? I don’t think so), ad hominem attacks against the challenger (more the attitude of the work than the words themselves, maybe I was just perceiving something that wasn’t there but it seemed as if you were taking his lunch money and saying I am smart and you are a stupid head.), makes arguments against the challenger’s sources that could just as easily be made for his thus making his just as presumptuous as the challenger’s. For instance he dismisses Kurtz, a scientist, and his study for not being peer reviewed, then cites a writer from Slate as an expert on the polygamy slippery slope.
Needless to say the 2nd rebuttal round was not a good one for the IB or the challenger in my scores, but the IB did do better than the challenger in upholding his assertions made earlier and his case is more provable than the challengers at this point. I write proveable because neither is proven at this point IMO.
”http://theironblog.blogspot.c...”IB’s Closing Argument
Finally a brief statement from the IB. lol Cool thing thanking everyone for their time and what not, but I think that would have been better served at the end if it had to be done at all, or in the comments or your own site etc… Just not the place for it I don’t think. The debate should be the only thing covered on the post, but this is just me being picky, and it did not impact scoring in any way really just irked me is all.
Very well structured. A blow by blow recounting of what was argued on both sides as well as some added solidarity to the IB’s arguments. Like I put in my comments to the chairman about the original scoring, my high school debate coach would have been tickled to see this closing. Everything was touched upon and everything put in its place for all of those that were viewing the debate to rationalize. Very good.
Now for the very bad. The new source and evidence. I understand it was new to you as well, and that it had not come out in time to add earlier, but that does not excuse you from the rule of not introducing new evidence in the closing. Very bad form.
One question for the IB. When might there be enough correlation in order to understandably be able to identify the consequence of an action? I understand your wording of correlation not being causation but can it not be identified that with enough correlation a end can be assumed from a set of means? For instance: The sun is up right now, I know that last time the sun was up night time followed, this happened yesterday and the day before and the day before etc… Now I can not come to the conclusion that daylight causes night (we all know it isn’t that simple) but I can come to the conclusion that next time I see the daylight soon thereafter I will see the night. So given the numerous correlations in the challenger’s evidence which you rebuke due to no causation, when are there enough correlation to understandably come to the conclusions that the evidence suggests?
Good closing argument and it may well have been a better score if not for the bad form on the new source, outside of that and the case being wobbly on a few points this was the best post of the debate. I gave the Iron Blogger a ”http://theironblog.blogspot.c...”61 out of a possible 100 points. Making his margin of victory in my scoring only 4 points (the smallest of any of the judges). Scoring by rounds is as follows: Opening Statement: 15 1st Rebuttal: 18 2nd Rebuttal: 11 Closing Argument: 17 For, like I wrote earlier, a total score of 61. IB Dem was the ”http://theironblog.blogspot.c..." winner.
|
|
|
| |
| Challenger's Scoring Summary |
| 05.25.04 (11:12 am) [edit] |
Once again sorry for the delay about posting this but I have had a hectic past few days. Now on with the show. Judge’s Comments for IB Battle #2 Battle Gay Marriage The Challnger
I will be going over all the challenger’s posts first and then all the IB’s posts second. So, if Folkbum (IB Dem) is reading this to see his own critiques look at the other post.
Challenger’s Opening Statement
I like the stylistic bait and switch in the opening lines. Goes to show that what is being debated is good vs. evil as many (including the Iron Blogger later on with his segregationist comments) want to make it out to be. I did not, however like the beginning of the sourcing where you lay out sources with no info from them. I think you would have been better served to add those as an addendum at the bottom trying to state what they each had as far as resources. Adding them where you did simply breaks the thoughts process developing on your thesis so that the reader can go search those new sources with very little direction. Basically you are trying to have them get the debate there cause it has been ongoing in those publications for 2 years instead of reading you. (Maybe I missed this whole paragraph’s idea in structure? I don’t know this did have little if any impact in scoring just a spot that awakened my English professors screams in my ear, I guess.)
The importance of marriage lies in how it holds a society together and builds children into healthy and productive citizens. That institution has been in decline and the damage to future generations is already beginning to show.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. This is possibly why I and the challenger are on the same side of this debate sans the details of each others arguments. Please elaborate on this is what I said in my brain as I skimmed the article the first time. But, maybe due to my need for instant gratification I was disappointed to read on and reread later and find nothing as to what the causes were for the decline prior to “gay marriage”. A spot that I would have felt the IB would have used later on. To show that the decline was in the hands of those already participating in the institution and homosexuals would only strengthen the process because they would value it more after fighting so hard to get it. But to no avail, the challenger goes on to make a quip about David Crosby (eww!) and jumps head first into the Kurtz studies. A few words of advice if I can, and I can because I am the judge (lol), if you are going to cite data and stats please make them peer reviewed or show another study with similar or matching results. Without them no matter how good the data, there will always be some that will: A. poison the well of the researcher, B. dismiss them as bogus out of hand because of this, or C. claim the results are wrong thus proving his point. The IB goes on to do all of these in certain spots of his arguments. This leaves Kurtz and his research better off dead, in my humble opinion.
Great explanation of the DOMA and why it leads to the need of an amendment. Really lays the groundwork well for future arguments. The challenger (I may be using you and the challenger intermixed in this post I apologize for the confusion) also touches another reason the amendment is needed and that is the courts making law, but does not drive this home. All in all the opening statement leaves me wanting more substance and less foundation and groundwork but in an opening statement the process he takes is a good one.
Challenger 1st Rebuttal
This was the highest scored piece that I read in this battle. (IB’s first rebuttal was only 1 point lower though) The arguments made a refuting of the IB’s argument were great. The gloves came off right from the beginning in response to the comments in regards to being a segregationist and bigot. Once I got past the slight snark at the end of the opening paragraph I was smiling the whole way. The IB food tie in was well done. In my opinion, we are not a secular nation and the challenger does well to refute this assertion made by the IB, as well as the argument that the government grants certain rights to the populous. He also uses some of the “proof” of his argument that I have used in the past, which may have lead to his improving score.
Even the Fourteenth Amendment, the false front of this argument does not confer rights, but prohibits the government from removing rights individuals already have.
"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The challenger leaves himself wide open for future attacks when making a snark about rights and failing to comment on rights not only coming via definition in the constitution. The IB is exploits this later on. Now to the best stuff:
Well, no. The law is pretty clear: you can't marry someone of the same sex. There is no separation here. Everyone is prohibited equally; no one is given preference. Segregation? Hardly. Bigotry? Not part of my consideration.
Did you see that kids? Jimmie just told us how bureaucracy works. Jimmie also showed us that everyone being included in the exclusion warrants the same reaction as no one being excluded at all. There is no bigotry in the stance against SSM at all and the challenger sums up the issue very well here.
And then the challenger goes through the casework very well but lands right back in snark land afterwards. Now I can take (and give) an ad hom. Attack as well as anyone but when it becomes a distraction from your very well put arguments I believe that a scaling back should be done. Good closing paragraph, but the challenger just couldn’t end it w/o one more parting snark, which really set the scene for the bad and ugly of the second rebuttals.
Challenger 2nd Rebuttal
The weakest and most snarky (I really love that word) post in the whole debate I believe was the challenger’s 2nd rebuttal. Right from the beginning this post rubbed me the wrong way. (The same can be said about the IB’s 2nd rebuttal but I will cover that later) Here is why I wasn’t too amped to read the rebuttal after the beginning:
You know, it's not enough that my opponent barely took this debate seriously enough to answer the topic in more than one-word answers. When he did decide to answer, he cut and pasted most of a post he wrote nearly three months ago to serve as his opening argument. He gussied it up a bit by calling me a segregationist and when I chafed (and wouldn't you?) he responded by saying that I wasn't a segregationist, merely that I was exactly like one.
That's the sort of serious thought and consideration I'm learning to expect from him in this debate. I expected better considering the valuable assistance he's gotten in the comment sections of our posts thus far. He might have done better cutting and pasting from those instead of what he's foisting on us now.
It's unfortunate for us that when he does get around to attempting a rebuttal, he has all sorts of problems with basic facts, reading what I've written, and keeping glaring fallacies out of his arguments.
How many times in this brief excerpt does the challenger attack? How many times does he go at the IB and not the arguments the IB has made? He is simply attacking the IB as well as his methods, not at all touching on the arguments and the real debate until 4 paragraphs or so into the post. This weighed heavily in my low scoring of this post, and I would be very surprised if the other judges saw differently.
On to the actual arguments in this rebuttal. Good job at showing the “untouchable” nature of the judges. BUT, (capitalized because it is a big but) why not continue on this topic somewhat and give some evidence of judges overstepping their powers? Why not show how others (mainly non-gays to get point across) have had judgments made against their rights and freedoms? Why not show that the problem causing the need for an amendment to the constitution are the judges not the fact that 1% of the population want to wed? I think if this argument were made the challenger would have been much better off going into the closing arguments. This was also the argument I had been anticipating and yet never got since the opening statement.
Onto to the Kurtz defense. Fabulous job calling the IB on poisoning the well, but the problem still remains with Kurtz, and was noted in the comments of this post by a couple of other posters, that poisoning the well does not cause the IB’s comments false just his methods, and it does not take away the fact that Kurtz is but one man, not peer reviewed, and you have shown no other studies pertinent to the impact on the US by SSM. The reason I use the caveat of impact on the US is due to the challenger’s use of the Scandinavian studies later in this post. As the IB points out in his post the Scandinavian studies allow for very little if any extrapolation to the US due to the varying social climate as well as the US not being a big a welfare state (Although this Republican among others will tell you that is our not so distant future given the entitlement mentality of our current system. The new Medicare plan included.) Ok, I am done with this post. All I can say is it had it good points and its bad points, but overall it left me wanting and looking for soooo much more as well as with a bad feeling for what might be coming down the pipe in the closings.
Challenger Closing Argument
Let us imagine that our country is as my opponent says it is. Imagine that the legislatures of all 50 states, the Congress, the Democratic challenger for President, his chief opponent, and over three quarters of the people of the country - your friends, family, and neighbors all willingly and intentionally choose to be just like segregationists and want to maintain bigotry.
Holy CRAP! We finally have a thread of majority rule!? Am I reading this correctly? Something I have been waiting for this whole time finally pops it head out in the closing? Ok enough lunacy. I honestly was looking for this the whole way through, but never got a payoff. And while I was happy to read this and to get the understanding that the challenger wants us to stop being oppressed by the “tyranny of the minorityTM” the rest of this opening paragraph would really been better left unsaid, or better off in the IB closing. The challenger really attacks his own arguments here, and I was thinking it would be the same type of bait and switch styling found earlier in his posts but I saw no switch, no payoff, just bait and damage. Damage is also done by the Roosevelt quote in my opinion. Why cite this quote: The institution of marriage is, of course, at the very foundation of our social organization, and all influences that affect that institution are of vital concern to the people of the whole country. if earlier on you made the argument that marriage is not a given right? I do not believe it can be both ways. If it is so fundemental and such an important instaitution than how can it not be viewed as a right. One more point, even though some quotes are timeless I do not believe this one, made in 1905, is one of them. The social climate and attitudes towards marriage are very different then those at the time of Teddy’s quote.
The challenger does go on to give strong ( I believe) support to the idea of “general welfare” (even though he does not use that term) by stating that individual rights sometimes are scaled back for the good of societal stability. If this argument was brought up earlier I think he would have carried much more weight. Another addition to this could have been the current sacrifices of individual rights for that of security a parallel can be drawn in my opinion.
The quotations of Kerry (flip flop supreme who has been for and against SSM) and Dean who skirted the issue even in the quotes given are weak at best and could have been skipped all together. A better quote would have been from someone with steadiness and a forthright answer to the questions. (Maybe George W. Bush? But I guess that would have too ideological/religious in foundation). Basically instead of the closing of the closing argument being a summation of previously argued topics and a final rebuking of the IB’s ideas it turns out to be simply a rephrasing of old ideas as well the intro of new ones. Very bad form in my opinion. And to some it could be seen as preaching to the choir.
Overall the challenger did a great job against one of the best minds from the left I have read in the blog world, but never sticks to a theme and never truly hammers home and case at all. In the end a lot of evidence is given but nothing is proven and further more nothing ever shown to stand on its own. Like a house of cards with no table underneath.
I gave the challenger a 57 out of a possible 100 points. The breakdown: (I don’t know if I am supposed to give this out? But I guess it will be okay. If I get in trouble with the chairman it is all your fault)
Challenger’s Opening Statement: 14 1st Rebuttal: 19 2nd Rebuttal: 12 Closing Argument: 12 For, like I said, a total of 57.
|
|
|
| |
| So busy... |
| 05.24.04 (7:57 am) [edit] |
Ok so I am running around like a chicken with my head cut off right now trying to get things in order for financial aid this fall semester as well as working extra hours because someone quit without notice among other more homelier things right now. What does this mean to you? Probably nothing but I will not be able to add a real blog for a little while. I am working on a post about my scoring for the Iron Blog 2nd Battle
Congrats to IB Dem who made the record so far a perfect one for the Iron Bloggers. Remember you too can challenge the best of the best.
But, I digress, I will be working on that post for the next day or so but will probably not have anything up until about noon tomorrow. I apologize to Jimmie (The Challenger) and to IB Dem (folkbum) for the delay. I just hope you understand that some things are more important than blogging, and paying for school is one of them.
Fear not I will return. Cheers! jim
|
|
|
| |
| Welcome to the Socialist State of California |
| 05.21.04 (3:37 pm) [edit] |
The House in California today voted to make tanning illegal for teens and adolescents without a parents permission. Yes, the state with quite possible the most opprotunity for a tan is making yet more sanctions against private business owners and their livliehoods. I am all for protecting the children ™ from "bad" or "evil" influences but is tanning really one of them?
The Indoor-Tanning Org. Response
In other news from the rogues on the left coast, it will soon be illegal to change the radio station, sing, eat, interact with kids and/or pets, combing your hair, putting on makeup, and so many others while driving your car in the state. Now these offense by themselves may not get you thrown in the slammer but they will make you eligible for additional fines given that you have been pulled over for anything else, even if no other fine is wiritten. Some think a cash cow to help the state, I think more like Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Northridge who stated:
"This bill makes it a crime to drive while driving," he said. "This is a bill the Legislature will rue the day it takes effect."
Mercury News Report about Legislation
|
|
|
| |
| Public Service Announcement |
| 05.21.04 (12:03 pm) [edit] |
The Chicago Cubs suck.
As a matter of fact Cubs is just an easier way of saying:
Completely Useless By September
This announcement has been made in part by the Organization for a Cardinals World Series Championship.
Thank you that is all.
|
|
|
| |
| Dean's World EXCELL-ANT! |
| 05.20.04 (7:14 pm) [edit] |
There are a couple of posts over at Dean's World that you should probably read. The are well thought and timely as usual, but more importantly I don't have time for blogging on my own so go there and get your fill.
Iraq Continues Going Well Why Ranting About the "Religious Right" Can Be Counterproductive
Hopefully the technical glitches will be over soon and I can return to blogging and commenting as usual. That will have to wait of course until I get back from the beach tomorrow. Thinking about taking some pictures for you guys though.
|
|
|
| |
| 3 and a half years of progress... |
| 05.18.04 (7:40 pm) [edit] |
I suppose you too have noticed that Kerry and the left like to make the statement that Bush has no record to run on, but rather one to run from. You heard that too right?
The must either think 1. We the voting public is stupid and has a bad memory
or
2. They can co-op everything he has done or make everything look bad.
Take a look and see just what has been accomplished in a mere 3 and a half years. And realize that this was all done with a razors edge majority in the Congress and the left operatives like Daschle and Kennedy stonewalling proceedings.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=2042" title="http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=2042" target="_blank"http://www.rightwingnews.com/...
|
|
|
| |
| Congratulations to Randy Johnson |
| 05.18.04 (6:31 pm) [edit] |
First pitcher to pitch a no-hitter this year. First pitcher to throw a PERFECT GAME in the majors since Cone in 1999.
Randy Johnson becomes the oldest pitcher to ever throw a perfect game. Previously that record was held by Cy Young. You know that guy that the pitcher of the year award is named after. He was just 37 when he pitched his last perfect game.
For those of you who have made it this far in the story and aren't aware of what a perfect game is, let me first say get out more, but let me explain. In a major league baseball game there are 9 innings in which the team at bat gets to bat and try to score runs until there are three (3) outs made against them. 3 outs per inning * 9 innings = 27 outs. A perfect game is when a pitcher get 27 batters out with no walks, no errors in the field by teammates, no hits, and no hit batters thus retiring every batter he faces through an entire game. Very rare.
For a 40 year old, it is very rare in deed, as a matter of fact it has never happened before.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap?gid=2405181 15" title="http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap?gid=2405181 15" target="_blank"http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/r...
|
|
|
| |
| Craziness via the IOC |
| 05.18.04 (6:24 pm) [edit] |
The summer Olympics (should I be capitalizing that or not? Some english major help me out here) are mere weeks away and the athletes involved all over the world are getting geared up and ready to go. Especially here in the US. This is a premier showcase for the country at large and couldn't be any bigger unless they were being held in the states.
These games, in my humble opinion, will be the largest political spectrum in the world of sports since the 80 & 84 spectacle. Both were boycotted (80 by the US and 84 by Russia and Cuba) due to Cold War hostilities between the capitalist and communist nations. These games will give the exact same chance for the US to hold its head up high and strut their stuff. Some involved with the Olympics (I decided to capitalize it Don't know why) don't want the US to strut their stuff or hold at least their flags up high.
That's right the US athletes have been warned to not wave their home coutries colors or drape themselves with the Stars and Bars after a victory. What the hell is that nonsense? I hope that someone trounces the field and runs through the crowd with Star Spangled boxers on. We have not battled with imperialists, struck down dictators, and freed masses throughout the history of this country just to pander to the feelings of already angered. The games should be a time for spectacular glory in victory. One of the greatest memories I have of my youth was watching girls gymnastics team on the podeum with the anthem playing after that little girl hit her vault with a broken ankle. But they would now have us bow and back out of the auditorium.
Is Terrell Owens available to run sprints or something? Perhaps he can teach the basketball team how to use a sharpie, or use pon poms under the hoop.
If this wasn't enough silliness for one week from the IOC, they now have set up rules for transexuals to compete in the games. Maybe it is just me, or maybe I just don't "get" the whole idea, but isnt there a slight advantage to girls who used to be guys competing as girls?
The only thing more ludicrous than the idea itself, in my opinion, are the rules overseeing this fiasco.
"Surgical anatomical changes have been completed, including external genitalia changes and gonadectomy.
"Legal recognition of their assigned sex has been conferred by the appropriate official authorities.
"Hormonal therapy appropriate for the assigned sex has been administered in a verifiable manner and for a sufficient length of time to minimise gender-related advantages in sport competition."
Hormone treatment must have ceased at least two years before competition, IOC spokeswoman Giselle Davies said.
Lets check that second one again shall we? "Legal recognition of their assigned sex has been conferred by the appropriate official authorities." Legal recognition? By appropriate official authorities? What constitutes "legal recognition" and who are these "officials"? I mean are they doing strip searches of the guys/girls?
Like the title states Craziness via the IOC
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/more/11/13/bc.eu.spt.oly.transsexual.ap/" title="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/more/11/13/bc.eu.spt.oly.transsexual.ap/" target="_blank"http://sportsillustrated.cnn....
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=usatoda y-goldenbehavioratgamesca &prov=usatoday&type=lgns" title="http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=usatoda y-goldenbehavioratgamesca &prov=usatoday&type=lgns" target="_blank"http://sports.yahoo.com/top/n...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sports/sportsstorydisp lay.cfm?storyID=3567044&these ction=sport&thesubsection =olympics&thesecondsubsec tion=general" title="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sports/sportsstorydisp lay.cfm?storyID=3567044&these ction=sport&thesubsection =olympics&thesecondsubsec tion=general" target="_blank"http://www.nzherald.co.nz/spo...
|
|
|
| |
| I need a new home... |
| 05.17.04 (8:16 pm) [edit] |
Ok so I have just about had it with my not so gracious host here at tblog. I try and post and have things deleted due to errors loading pages (Yeah I should have saved it elsewhere first I know, hindsight really is 20/20 isnt it) and have to wait for hours while the page is down for maintainence among other things.
So if you have a better idea for a free blog host or a cheaply priced one where I could move this wonderful piece of cyberspace let me know. Free would be the best idea because of my financial situation with school and such. But right now anything would be better I believe. As I type this I am still awaiting the stinking page to open with my blog on it. I can only imagine how frustrating this is for someone who followed a link here and actually wanted to read something.
|
|
|
| |
| WTF?!? |
| 05.16.04 (7:01 pm) [edit] |
Ok, let me preface this post by saying that until recently I was not a "religious" viewer of the Sopranos. I just got a freebie HBO package with the cable so I was able to be upto date with the show outside of the DVDs. This coupled with the fact that my new favorite show of all time (Deadwood) comes on right afterwards has given me a new viewing schedule for Sunday night. Swarengen is such a bad ass.
But I digress, of you out there who were watching tonight's episode of the Sopranos who can tell wht the fuck that dream sequence was all about? I mean its an hour show and 40 minutes was a dream sequence with pieces of the Godfather among other things thrown in. And what was the book he held up in the john?
Please help. lol Otherwise I will just have to strain to stay up and watch again at midnight. God, I need a tivo.
|
|
|
| |
| Iron Blogger Battle #2 |
| 05.16.04 (4:37 pm) [edit] |
Iron Blogger Democrat Jay Bullock has been challenged by Jimmie Bise of Suburban Sundries Sack
Topic: Gay Marriage I am soooo glad I didnt get this topic while I was challenging. There are only so many times that you can make the same argument before you realize that those who want to hear already have and those who dont want to hear aren't paying attention. I have made my arguments on this topic too many times in too many places to remember.
Go check it out: www.theironblog.blogspot.com
|
|
|
| |
| Iron Blog Verdict |
| 05.14.04 (7:44 pm) [edit] |
The Ironblog verdict is up.
And the winner is....
What you think I am going to tell you and kill all of the suspense? Go HERE and read it for yourself. While your at it read the actual judgements as well. They are nearly as good as the battle itself. Good, detailed, well structured, opinionated debate was had by all involved.
Don't forget you to can challenge one of the IronBloggers.
|
|
|
| |
| Why you should never put your picture on the net... |
| 05.13.04 (8:38 pm) [edit] |
Via The Professor, AKA KING OF ALL BLOGS.
|
|
|
| |
| The Good, The Bad, and The Media |
| 05.12.04 (8:58 am) [edit] |
Go read this at Cox and Forkum.
He has really well drawn pictures too. To tell you the truth his whole site is pretty much spot on. That tears it I am adding him to the links section on this site.
Ok enough inner monologue, go read this at Cox and Forkum. NOW!
|
|
|
| |
| Patriot Act Views |
| 05.10.04 (3:01 pm) [edit] |
Go read this over at Dean's World. I believe those of you who are familiar with my musings on the act will find this very familiar. For those of you who still think its the end of civil rights and a collapse of the USA as we know it, please read it twice. Also try and find any evidence of abuse of this legislation.
Then rethink your stance.
That is all I have for you today. Far too busy with summer registration among other things to really give you anything of substance.
It should be noted though that the Iron Blog because they are getting ready to launch the first battle. Battle "Rumsfeld" The competitors are Iron Blogger Republican Rosemary and Ara from E Pluribus Unum. Ed. Note Rose and Ara are friendly aqcuaitances but are each others diametric opposite in regards to POTUS Bush and his admin. Should be fun to see what comes out of this first ever Iron Blog Battle.
|
|
|
| |
| Luv Ya Mom |
| 05.09.04 (6:59 pm) [edit] |
Even though I know you can't read this, I know that somewhere you are looking down on all of us laughing at some of us and applauding others. Let's just hope that I am in the latter group most of the time.
To the most powerful woman I have ever known. To the most courageous person I have ever met. To one of the most influential people in my life.
Happy Mother's Day. I will love you always.
|
|
|
| |
| Iron Blogger! |
| 05.09.04 (4:36 pm) [edit] |
I am sure anyone that has not been living under a rock for the past few years has heard of the The Iron Chef.
Well now there is an Iron Blogger.
And the beautiful and sassy QOAE is one of the iron ones.
The challenge is to all of you to take on one of these Iron Bloggers in a match of verbiage unseen until now. Check this out and read how you (Yes even you flaming moonbat liberals like Mr. SamAdams.) can become a challenger.
There will be a topic given to Iron Blogger and Challenger for an essay to be completed within 24 hours. After that judges (a few from the righ and a few from the left) will declare a winner based on the quality, persuasiveness, sourcing, etc... All judges will be looking at this with no outside bias in belief systems while judging. The essays are judged not by agreence but by the actual substance of the argument. Kind of like a giant interactive debate tourney for the blogsphere.
So what are you waiting for? Go make a challenge. I would love to judge some great material (I am a judge, I think, but different judges are selected for each competition.) from tblog and elsewhere.
***UPDATE*** The first match is up on the Iron Blogger. Go check it out.
|
|
|
| |
| Ignorance and Arrogance |
| 05.07.04 (3:04 pm) [edit] |
Ignorance and Arrogance.
Ignorance to what the testimony and the committee is really working to accomplish as well as the methods for getting the desired results. (Desired results of course being the guilty being found out and punished)
Arrogance to believe that their voices are more important and their twisted ideology more true than any of the rest of us and especially any of the people on the committee.
I hope they are all sitting in a jail cell very proud of themselves right now for their disturbances earlier. They shouldn't be arrested because they tried to stand up for what they believed was right, but because of the forum in which they did it and the methods they employed. (I picked disturbance instead of protest for very obvious reasons)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1 896&ncid=1896&e=1&u=/nm/2 0040507/us_nm/iraq_abuse_ protesters_dc_3" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1 896&ncid=1896&e=1&u=/nm/2 0040507/us_nm/iraq_abuse_ protesters_dc_3" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...
|
|
|
| |
| "We will never run out of oil" |
| 05.07.04 (1:00 pm) [edit] |
Well thats what he has written. And I am very inclined to believe him.
Go read and then try and tell me why he is wrong and why I am wrong for agreeing.
|
|
|
| |
| Mikey Lied To Us, Mikey Lied |
| 05.07.04 (8:32 am) [edit] |
Well would you look at that, aparently Mr. Moore was fibbing when he was talking about being broadsided by Disney's decision not distribute his newest farcical movie.
Michael Moore lie?
Who would have ever predicted that it was all a publicity stunt? I know I would have never thought that. Oh wait thats exactly what I thought, and I got labeled a fascist censore monger, and was likened to a Nazi for not saying that Disney should make his movie for free. Man I love the left.
Via Dean
|
|
|
| |
| Happy Cinco De Mayo |
| 05.05.04 (9:43 pm) [edit] |
Today is a day of celebration.
A celebration of the day Mexican forces outnumbered 100 billion to 1 beat down an invasion. It should be noted that the invaders were French so it hardly even should count, but look at it this way, it's a chance to wear a big sombraro and dance to mariaci bands without being looked at strangly.
Vive la Mexico!
|
|
|
| |
| Another New Link |
| 05.04.04 (9:01 pm) [edit] |
I have another new link to add to the listing on the left. I found a while back while perusing the blogrolls of some of my favs. The nicest thing about this site is the professional manner it is displayed and the topics that are posted on. You will find "Martinis, Persistence, and a Smile" has one of the widest varieties of topics provided anywhere.
To try and cut this post short in an attempt to get to sleep I want you all to go visit the site, leave comments, and just become part of the site. I sure your presence will be welcomed with open arms.
|
|
|
| |
| Some Good News |
| 05.04.04 (12:08 pm) [edit] |
Finally some action is being taken to show the UN for what it really is, a farce.
The United States walked out of a U.N. meeting Tuesday to protest its decision minutes later to give Sudan a third term on the Human Rights Commission, the world body's human rights watchdog.
U.S. Ambassador Sichan Siv called the vote an "absurdity" and accused Sudan of massive human rights violations and "ethnic cleansing" in the western Darfur region before getting up from his chair and walking out of the Economic and Social Council chamber.
As he was leaving, Sudan's deputy U.N. ambassador Omar Bashir Manis launched into a heated response, accusing American forces of engaging in degrading treatment of Iraqi prisoners and committing "atrocities" against innocent Iraqi civilians.
But the United States' seat in the chamber was empty, and no American diplomat was there to hear it.
Finland's U.N. Ambassador Marjatta Rasi, the president of the 53-nation Economic and Social Council, then noted that the slate of candidates from Africa was uncontested, and it was approved by consensus as she banged her gavel.
Under U.N. rules, regional groups decide which countries are nominated to fill seats on U.N. bodies.
The African group waited until late last week to present its list of candidates for four seats. It presented four names, guaranteeing election for Kenya, Sudan, Guinea and Togo.
The United States scrambled to get another African nation to apply in an effort to make it a contested race and unseat Sudan. But with so little time it was unsuccessful, U.N. diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Siv, the U.S. ambassador to the economic council, said the United States was "perplexed and dismayed" by the African group's decision to nominate Sudan, a country that he said "massacres its own African citizens."
He noted that at last month's Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva, members expressed concern about Darfur even though they blocked a stronger U.S. resolution that would have condemned the Khartoum government.
"The least we should be able to do is to not elect a country to the global body charged specifically with protecting human rights, at the precise time when tens of thousands of its citizens are being murdred or left to die of starvation," Siv said.
"Consider the ramifications of standing by and allowing the commission to become a safe-haven for the world's worst human rights violators, especially one engaged in `ethnic cleansing'," he said.
Manis countered that Sudan has acknowledged the humanitarian problem in Darfur, noting the government's call for international help and the recent visit by two U.N. teams.
"It is yet very ironic that the United States delegation, while shedding crocodile tears over the situation in Darfur ... is turning a blind a eye to the atrocities committed by the American forces against the innoncent civilian population in Iraq, including women and children," he said.
Manis also cited "the brutal attacks against innocent civilians in Falluja where for the first time in our lives we saw live reporting of mass graves -- women, children and elderly and other innocent civilians buried in a football stadium" and the "infamous and degrading treatment of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers in Abu Ghraib prison."
So Sudan's seat on the Human Rights Commission "is not at all different" from the U.S. presence, Manis said.
Sudan was one of 14 new members elected to the 53-member commission by the economic council.
Three other African countries -- Kenya, Guinea and Togo -- were also elected by consensus to represent Africa. Armenia and Romania representing Eastern Europe and Ecuador and Mexico representing Latin America also faced no opposition.
In the contested race among Western nations, Canada, Finland and France won seats, defeating Spain. And in the contested Asian race, Malaysia, Pakistan and South Korea defeated Vietnam.
A coalition of 10 organizations concerned with human rights issues complained Monday that too few democracies are being nominated for seats on the commission.
It said among the four African countries, only Kenya was a democracy and both Pakistan and Vietnam had serious human rights problems.
Last year, the United States also walked out to protest Cuba's re-election to the Human Rights Commission, which it called "an outrage." Russia, Saudi Arabia and several African countries with poor human rights records also won seats, and Libya chaired the commission in 2003.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2004/05/04/ international1217EDT0547.DTL" title="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2004/05/04/ international1217EDT0547.DTL" target="_blank"http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/art...
|
|
|
| |
| A New Link, and a post worth reading |
| 05.04.04 (10:52 am) [edit] |
I posted here on the Rall idiocy. But I believe my post was far too visceral and reactionary in nature because I was not happy to see the near treasonous "cartoon" Michelle at here has a much more collected post on the subject and has a call to action for those who like myself are tired of the free passes being given to this man.
Check out Michelle's post here and join us in action against those publishing his garbage.
Michelle has been deserving of a link (although a link from me at this point may be useless given my lack of posting lately) for quite sometime. You should all read her on a daily basis, hell multiple times per day, ya know what just make it your homepage and refresh every chance you get.
Cheers! jim
|
|
|
| |
| Deplorable and Disgusting |
| 05.04.04 (8:04 am) [edit] |
How else can you describe this cartoon?
=http://img19.photobucket.com/...
The man made the ultimate sacrifice, turning down greatness and wealth in his personal life in order to help so many others, and post morteum, and a day after a memorial service was held in his honor, this is how he is portrayed?
I still dont know what the worst thing about this is. It could be the fact that this is going to get this man more noteriety and exposure than he deserves, but also it is possible more horrid that so many on the anti-war side will agree and hold him up now as a demigod.
Now all of those trying to compare Iraq to Vietnam may be getting exactly what they wanted. Because even though the wars themselves and the actual events related to them are entirely inconsistent with each other, there is now one simple similarity. The portrayal of our soldiers as baby killers, morons, idiots, etc... This was the issue at the heart of the domestic views of the Vietnam war fueled by those like Hanoi Jane and John Kerry and now this sam ugly farce is showing its head again.
I for one just hope that we as Americans are smart enough to differentiate between the bad guys and the good guys, and if you personally can't tell that Tillman was one of the latter than I feel sorry for you.
=http://img19.photobucket.com/...
|
|
|
| |
|
|