#2
Click on the tune links - they suck pretty bad, lol - and I played in a garage band, myself. We were better than this... At least my memory tells me we were, lol!
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/24/2004 08:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Dang. And I clicked on the headline thinking it was sarcastic and the story would be about something totally different.
But reading the story does bring a thought to mind. Does anyone honestly think a show would make in on the air today with a bus driver and a sewer worker as lead characters?
As a society, we've gotten really snobby about acceptable jobs. (Or as least Hollywood has.)
To our detriment. I have a college degree, so I can say this: I have a lot more respect for the skills of good electricians, plumbers, carpenters, car mechanics, etc., than I do for those of us with just a "college degree." I know plumbers contribute more to our society, overall.
I just wish more people would respect trades. Those in the trades make our world go. (And they can make better-than-decent bucks, too. Pssst. Pass it on to the kids.)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/24/2004 8:59 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The Great One would have adapted.
Reggie Von Gleason Show anyone? :>
#7
My favorite parts of the JG show were the June Taylor dancers and when Gleason played Joe the bartender. I think it was Frank Fontaine who did the singing. . Hiya Joe, Hi Mr. Donaheeeeee. Makes me laugh just thinking about it.
#9
I was watching a show about Jackie Gleason a few months ago. I never realized that there are probably hundreds of "lost" Honeymooners episodes, in that he kept "Honeymooners" running with some cast changes all through each reincarnation of "The Jackie Gleason Show" up until the early 70s. Many were in color, too.
PS: Jackie Gleason was funny as hell.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
09/24/2004 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
It would probably be just as accurate without "that odd little dot in the middle" of the sentence. :-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/24/2004 13:20 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Probbly da greatest showman of our time. Singer, orchestra leader, comedian, dancer, actor, writer, producer - he did it all. His characters will live in infamy just like Red Skelton's. You can have the Leno's, Lettermans, Cosby's and Carlin's but they will never duplicate Gleason and Skelton's output and quality.
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
09/24/2004 14:07 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Is this the one where Ralph and Norton find the memos on Eisenhower's bad conduct discharge and try to peddle them to Edward R. Murrow? I hear it's a hoot.
#14
Probbly da greatest showman of our time. Singer, orchestra leader, comedian, dancer, actor, writer, producer - he did it all.
Jack, you left out "classical music composer." The man was almost alone in his field at that time. While others surely exceeded him in any individual category, few if any, could lay claim to so many skillfully applied talents.
If anyone ever wants to take a decidedly psychoactive trip through the comedic looking glass, rent a copy of "Skidoo." With a cast that reads like a veritable laundry list of Hollywood comedy elite, the movie is, to put it politely, strange as a snake's suspenders.
"U.S. film. Gangster prisoner Jackie Gleason spikes the prison punch with LSD! Absolutely bizarre 1960s hippie, drug cult movie with an amazing all-star cast. Carol Channing, Frankie Avalon, Mickey Rooney, Peter Lawford, Groucho Marx (as God), Richard Kiel, Slim Pickens, Frank Gorshin, Burgess Meredith, Caesar Romero, Harry Nilsson. (Nilsson also composed soundtrack.) Many others. Directed by Otto Preminger. Tune in, turn on, drop a tab! Skidoo!"
#15
Is this the CBS version where Ralph writes a love letter to Alice but it gets misdirected to Trixie who is convinced that a secret admirer wrote it then thinks Ed wrote it? All because Ed borrowed Ralph's palm pilot to play breakout....
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/24/2004 03:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Please tell me that we are pursuing covert action to put these sick puppies out of their misery. Cowardly terrorists targeting children, where have we seen that just recently?
F*ck with my kids and you will learn the meaning of hell.
EFL
A day after moving to nullify the Bush administration's new rules restricting family travel to Cuba, the House on Wednesday voted to remove barriers to agriculture sales and student exchanges in the island nation. But, as in past years, actions by the House and Senate to ease decades of economic and social sanctions imposed on Cuba are expected to make little headway against an administration determined not to make life easier for Fidel Castro's government. The White House has threatened to veto a $90 billion Transportation and Treasury Department spending bill if it contains any language to weaken sanctions. The bill, for fiscal 2005 programs, passed 397-12. The House on Wednesday approved two of the Cuba amendments without a roll call vote. The admendment sponsors are all leftist members of the Black Caucus. Has anyone else noticed that none of the most powerful Latin American leftists are black.
The first, introduced by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-LaLaLand Calif., would make it easier to sell agricultural products, medicine and medical supplies to Cuba. Sales of such goods have been legal since 2001, but restrictions on commercial financing and credit guarantees have discouraged exports. The second, sponsored by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., prohibits funds to enforce regulations promulgated June 30 this year that erect obstacles to American student programs in Cuba. The rules are "just plain undemocratic and punitive and simply don't make sense for Americans," she said.
On Tuesday the House voted 225-174 to approve an amendment by Rep. Jim Davis, D-Fla., that blocks another June 30 rule allowing Cuban-Americans to visit family in Cuba only once every three years. Davis' provision would restore the old system allowing one visit a year. A far broader proposal by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., to end the economic embargo with Cuba, lost 225-188. Cuban-American Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., led the opposition to any easing of sanctions, saying it was "in bad taste" to give breaks to Castro at a time he is stepping up the suppression of dissidents. "We don't think it is appropriate now to reward the dictatorship with financing," he said of Waters' amendment.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/24/2004 4:03:44 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Slovenia has withdrawn its support for Croatia's EU membership bid following a border incident on Thursday. Ljubljana withdrew its support following the arrest of a number of men, including an opposition party leader — who are believed to have refused to show identity cards in a disputed border region. The arrests prompted Slovene Prime Minister Anton Rop to say that he was withdrawing support for Croatia's bid to join the European Union, according to Le Monde. "Unacceptable incidents like that on Wednesday... mean that Slovenia — for now - can not back Croatia's accession to the EU", Mr Rop told national radio, according to the French daily. Croatia is aiming to join the Union in 2007, along with Romania and Bulgaria. The authorities in Zagreb reacted angrily to Slovenia's announcement stating that EU membership should not be used as a tool to exert pressure. Hooey! Where *have* you been? Greece recently threatened to veto the EU membership of *nine* countries if Cyprus wasn't also given membership. In comparison this is quite small potatoes. Atleast they are only threatening the country they have a problem with.
In a foreign ministry statement the Croatian authorities described the reaction as the "inappropriate politicisation, unprecedented in European Union practice". Dedicated to Mimesis and Bomb-a-rama. Without the EU, what leverage would a tiny nation like Slovenia have to use against Croatia?
Not that this incident is *nice* of course. But it shows about the boost of diplomatic power that EU gives to its members.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris ||
09/24/2004 6:53:41 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
THE EUROPEAN Union could be destroyed by divisions over plans for a new constitution, the world's most influential business journal declared today. In a warning to Europe's leaders, The Economist said it was 'probable' the EU would split into rival camps if one or more countries votes against the constitution. But it argued that such a collapse would actually be a good thing with Britain and other countries able to choose how much - or how little - they wanted to be involved. 'These referendums could throw the EU into the sort of crisis that puts the integration process into reverse or even causes the EU to split,' warned the magazine. 'The EU may indeed split. But a split need not be a dis-aster. It could lead to a multi-layered EU in which different countries adopt different levels of political integration and experiment with different economic models.'
However, the magazine added that there was also the potential for a 'darker' out-come. 'A split could cause Europe once again to divide into rival power blocks. 'That could threaten what most agree is the Union's central achievement - peace in Europe.'
The Economist's analysis is spelt out in a special 14-page report today on the state of Europe under the headline 'a divided Union'. It argues the European Union have been gravely damaged by three core problems - economically it is falling far behind the U.S. and Asia, politically it is deeply divided on issues like Iraq, the new EU constitution and the euro and its legitimacy has been shattered by a crippling 'lack of popular understanding and enthusiasm'.
Translation: an increasingly proportion of the governed think it's crap.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/24/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One problem with the EU is that there are at least two countries in there that think they are God's gift to the planet. Change that attitude and maybe something can come of this "union". But I doubt it.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/24/2004 0:22 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Aris, I have no idea why any country would give up its sovereignty to the arrogant, unelected, unaccountable princes in Brussels.
They must think there's something in it for them to make it worthwhile to have France dictating policy to them, while ignoring it herself.
For their sakes, I hope there is. But I've seen no evidence of it so far.
I really feel sorry for Europeans. It appears you're willing to give up liberty for security. I hope for your sake it works out, but I suspect you'll end up with neither.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/24/2004 1:55 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Oh, in short because they actually believe it's to their countries' *benefit*. How odd.
#8
'..It could lead to a multi-layered EU in which different countries adopt different levels of political integration and experiment with different economic models.'
If it's not possible to get everybody to pretty much do the same thing, what's the point of this whole EU exercise then?
#9
Hey assclown Aris don't insult me. I never have insulted you. I don't think the "citizens" of any of these countries were looking for a "constutition" They are looking for economic federation and equal trade. I doubt very much Poland and most of the ex USSR satelites are looking for German and French masters to dominate them politically afer being under the USSR for so long.
#10
It's the new craze! Everybody is doing it.
And yes, they are *all* such morons if the citizens of these countries enter the EU without given a chance to vote on it.
Barbara> Instead of your arrogant presuming attitude about how horrible and stupid and servile us Europeans supposedly are, why the fucking hell don't you try to educate yourself?
"Arrogant"? France dictating policy to us, while ignoring it herself? Get your brain out of those Europhobic tabloids, and out of those xenophobic rags.
Giving up liberty for security? HOW VERY FUCKING ODD, that it was liberty we didn't have *before* we entered the EU. How very fucking odd that Greece inside the EU has its longest period of liberty EVER, as oppose to before when we were nothing but the pawn in the hands of the Great Powers. How very fucking odd that all the other Eastern European countries would prefer to stop being pawns also and choose to become players instead.
The only reason you think that any of us gave up "liberty" by joining the EU is because you don't belong in a nation that has ever been actually deprived of it. Those of us who live in nations that *have* been enslaved, do know the difference pretty well, and we do know that the EU has increased liberty, not diminished it.
#13
doubt very much Poland and most of the ex USSR satelites are looking for German and French masters to dominate them politically afer being under the USSR for so long.
I likewise doubt it. Which should have instead let you known that the EU isn't about the games of domination, it's about preventing games of domination, and substituting them with a framework of law instead.
But hey, keep on with your assumptions. Everyone is "dominated" by the evil Germans and French, and everyone's so fucking hates such domination that they're lining up in the door for the privilege to join us.
if the citizens of these countries enter the EU without given a chance to vote on it.
Yeah, jn1, those nine referendums last year with mostly overwhelming results in favour never happened. Or perhaps they all happened while you were sleeping. But hey that's the level of knowledge about the EU hereabouts.
#14
I have been monitoring polands views on the EU and it seems to me that they have some serious issues with the Ephew, they dont want to give up military sovergnty and accept the useless weapons that the eu has to offer, to me it seems that the eu says accept what we say or else.
But i guess u figure the polish are pollacks
"But hey, I guess all those stupid EasternEuropean don't know what's good for them",
to me with talk like that, why would they want into something that that would compromise thier security, I only know that Poland is wary of European promises, Russian promises as well as promises from USA, And with the history of that country I wouldnt blame them.
Its hard to forget the Ghettos and the turned backs which they have endured since the 1930's especially since they provided the one peice of info that won the war.. the enigma...
#15
Aris, take a deep breath and back away from the keyboard. You're losing it.
Tell you what, if you're happy with the EU, I'm happy for you. Knock yourself out. Regulate the curvature of a banana.
And of course France is following all the rules. What was I thinking.
Oh, yeah - I was thinking I don't really give a rat's ass.
Say goodnight, Gracie.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/24/2004 2:11 Comments ||
Top||
#16
why would they want into something that that would compromise thier security
You tell me, SCPatriot. They voted in favour of EU however, that's the one fact that you can't deny. So could it be that they felt it *wouldn't* compromise their security? Could it be again that they're not sharing your assumptions?
And Sockpuppet, did you somewhere see me insult you at #4?
#17
Aris, you say "they voted in favor of the EU."
Which countries had national referenda about joining the EU? (Not just the government or parliament deciding.)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/24/2004 2:15 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Out of the ten in the last entry? Nine of them. Malta, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary. In *all* of them the outcome was YES. In most of them overwhelmingly so.
The only one not to have a referendum about this issue was the Republic of Cyprus -- they had a referendum about rejoining with the Turkish Cypriots instead.
#19
It appears at least some of them are having second thoughts now.
Is there a procedure for backing out of the EU?
And in all seriousness, doesn't it bother you to have a layer of unelected bureaucrats, who appear to be answerable to no one, dictating from afar how your country will be run?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/24/2004 2:23 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Arseclown, there is a Czech saying: "When they catch a bird, they sing sweetly".
I am not living in Czech Republic for 20 years, but maintain contacts, just to per-empt your presumptions.
Before entering into EU, Czechs enjoyed liberty, for more than a decade after disolution of Eastern Block. Not sure where you get an idea that they were liberated from slavery by the mighty EU empire. Don't confuse Slavs with slaves, k?
Ther reality is that the country is slowly becoming an economic colony of Germany. Since within the framework of EU, Czechs have 2% of vote, any concept of liberty is illusory. They sold their soveregnity for a bunch of trinkets.
It is not the first time such thing happened in history, I just am a tad sad that Czechs swallowed it line, hook and sinker.
#21
sorry aris, your right that they wanted into the eu, but they have stated they dont want the euro fighter and want to keep the f16s which are cheaper and a better plane that suits ther needs. and if the eu insists that they use the strikefighter that means an attack by a rouge eu nation would have the same firepower as them. If they want better security go with the best weapons it only makes sense
#22
"It appears at least some of them are having second thoughts now"
No, they are not, no matter how much you would like that to be the case. Do you have any opinion polls that tell otherwise?
"Is there a procedure for backing out of the EU?"
It's in the proposed EU constitution. Read it up. Am done educating you.
"And in all seriousness, doesn't it bother you to have a layer of unelected bureaucrats, who appear to be answerable to no one, dictating from afar how your country will be run?"
It would have bothered me if that was what was actually taking place. It isn't.
But keep on with your blissful ignorance. How many false assumption may I reply to in this thread?
#23
SCPatriot, do you know that the EU has nothing to do with the eurofighter, except the fact that some of our member-states formed the consortium to build it?
If it's someone pressuring Poland to buy Eurofighters I very much doubt it's the EU.
Memesis> Freedom means that a nation has the right to choose. They freely chose to enter the EU -- not that you would ever understand something like that. To you all marriages are rapes, all contracts are slavery, all unions are surrender.
#24
Aris, fair enough. Then those people who had the chance to vote and voted "yes" are not morons. I'm sure they know exactly what they've gotten themselves into.
How many false assumption may I reply to in this thread?
As many as you like, Aris.
You don't need our permission. :-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/24/2004 2:36 Comments ||
Top||
#26
And Arsis spake thus:
"Freedom means that a nation has the right to choose. They freely chose to enter the EU"
Unfortunately, that is true. However, if you saw how the campaign was conducted by Europhiles, you would have to concede that the matter is not that straightforward. The parties that are led by Eurosceptics are starting to gain. In Czech and in Poland as well.
"-- not that you would ever understand something like that. To you all marriages are rapes, all contracts are slavery, all unions are surrender."
Ah, I see, you are already firmly footed in the LaLa Land. Too much Koolaid (or Euro equivalent)?
Forgotten to take medication? Full moon?
Not sure, but you sure sound like an utter loonie.
#27
Memesis, why should I care to speak with a person whose intellect is still at the kindergarten level of making fun of other people's names?
The parties that are led by Eurosceptics are starting to gain.
Let them gain. And if they convince their people that they are better off out of the Union, by all means let them leave it. It is their right and their freedom, which again you wouldn't know anything of.
But personally I doubt it. The Greek Socialist party (PASOK) back when we had first entered the EU had ridden to power on anti-EU (back then anti-EEC) rhetoric ("EEC and NATO, the same crook of gangs" was one of the popular calls used - it rhymes better in Greek) but once they took power they just tended to grumble and whine a lot about the EU and didn't make a single move to get us out of it -- and by now that once-Eurosceptic antiWest party has evolved into Europhilia and Atlanticism.
Even if they get into power, those Eurosceptic parties, they'll just end up only whining and grumbling I guess: The benefits EU gives poor nations are simply too many and the desire that these governments will have to build airports and hospitals and whatever with EU money will supercome their nationalistic zeal. UK and Norway may have a reason financially to want out, Eastern European nations don't.
jn1> No, jn1, I'm sure *you* know exactly what they got themselves into, you and Barbara even if you are so uninformed about the EU that you didn't even hear of the referendums in question.
#28
"right and their freedom, which again you wouldn't know anything of."
Based on what? I see you are lapsing again into some sort of loonie state. Perhaps some form of delusional projection? Snap out of it!
"The benefits EU gives poor nations are simply too many"
That sounds reeeeally great an enticing, and that was also the main thrust of EUrophile campaing in Czech Republic: "...we will have so many benefits that to list them would take a very long time, just take our word for it..."
#29
Ooh, just looked the stats. Czechia, as you prefer to be called: You voted 77.3% in favour, so this was one of the overwhelming YESes. (not as overwhelming as Slovakia or Lithuania or Slovenia though!)
And it was also the first referendum you *ever* had. See, even in this respect EU has been good for Czech democracy. ;-)
IRI Institute in Europe characterizes the vote as "partly free" and "fair". Among the pluses that your President did not appeal to one side, and that the referendum was binding. The main minus "high mutual distrust between electorate and political elite (âdo not talk to communistsâ campaign)"
http://www.iri-europe.org/i&reurope/reports/Country-Summaries.doc
If in the eurozone, a currency that can't fall easy prey to Soros.
Influence, definitely far more so than outside the EU.
Greek Cypriots for the first in 30 years could cross over to the Turkish side, and the island almost got reunited, because of the boost that Cyprus' membership in the EU gave her.
A membership which was ofcourse aided by Greece's own earlier membership. Turkey had all the troops but Greece had all the diplomatic power. That was pretty even.
Open borders for trade.
An ability to resort to the EU court if another member doesn't play by the rules.
Now if in Czechia some of these don't apply you'll have to ask a Czech pro-EU fella about things specific to your country.
#32
You mean it was a typo when you called me "Arseclown" and then again with "Arsis"? Now "Arseclown" I could accept as an unfortunate typo, but "Arsis" is just too far fetched for me to accept. :-)
#34
Do you know, Aris, that in the last elections in Iraq, Saddam Hussein got 99.8% yes votes? I suppose that reflects the state of democrcy in Iraq before war. Or does it?
Things are not always what they seem on the surface. Czechs will likely grow to regret the vote (I know my pappenheimers) and that they did not pay more attention to the fine print. Of couse, they have the option to get out. I hope they do, before the consequences of their poor judgement would result in too great a damage.
#36
Are you insinuating the people of Czechia were physically intimidated into voting YES?
And if you are not insinuating that, please stop your foolish comparisons with Saddam. There's a reason I searched for the IRI description of the event: in order to see how it rated and described the event. The worst it had to say was "high mutual distrust between electorate and political elite"
So do please shut up with your foolishness. You feel they made a mistake. Tough -- it was their mistake to make one way or another. That you disagree with the outcome is no reason to try and bring Saddam into it.
#37
But once there is an imballance, they turn into parasitic symbiosis.
Something can't be both a parasite and a symbiont, Memesis.
And in the case of parasitism, it tends to be the smaller party that's the parasite on the body of the larger. An unfortunate analogy unless you meant to insult your homeland.
(Aris, please get over your snobish snottines and your entrenched idea that you are a representative of some superior culture, there is really nothing that should give you a foundation to feel that way. Advice from even a very old fart long past his prime may have some value, try it, you may find it useful and get to like it)
#41
Aris, also, you forgetting that sometimes semantic meanings of words shift and what originally was mutually exclusive is used for description of states. So, just for elucidation:
"Symbiosis basically means âliving togetherâ and in the context of marine biology refers to a close relationship between two species, for example the Clown fish and the anemone.
These symbiotic interrelationships can be divided into three main categories; Mutualism, when both species involved benefit from the relationship, Commensalism, when one species benefits and the other isnât affected, and Parasitism, when one species benefits, and the other is harmed in the process.
There is a fourth, less âintimateâ category of symbiosis known as Mimicry, which involves one species imitating another to gain the benefits enjoyed by that species. For example a Banded snake eel mimicking a venomous sea snake in order to deter predators."
#42
you are a representative of some superior culture,
I never said I represented some superior culture -- I was born in *modern* Greece after all and that's in the *Balkans* after all. As far from "superior" as you can get in Europe, the Balkans are.
My arrogance and snottiness are highly individualistic, I assure you -- as is my contempt. Each of you have to gain it separately.
#45
This chat on the European Union
Is a little like peeling an onion
It's making me cry
And I think I know why -
Aris keeps singing these loony tunes.
#48
Can we agree to assume that the Greeks and others think joining the EU is worth the risks? They get economic benefits (relative to being shut out). And the spector of an overwhelming unelected but unmalicious bureaucracy probably seems less frightening than events from their own recent past: in Greece's case military dictatorship and vicious social unrest. And these are little countries, trying to keep their footing during the elephant dance.
We see obvious problems down the road, they see a different set of problems right now.
And no, I'm not convinced that the EU as currently designed is all that great an idea. I have a gut reaction (based not on any knowledge of popular opinion but on seeing how bureaucracies interact) that it won't last long. Is there a pool for guessing how long it will be before the EU is just a facade?
Posted by: James ||
09/24/2004 12:08 Comments ||
Top||
#49
Why did so many Europeans jump at the chance to dump thousands of years of history and culture and join the sparkling new, minty fresh EU. I'll take a shot at that.
Most Europeans have serious problems with guilt and nationalism. American's displaying their flags all the time are seen as vulgar for this reason. Flags and nationalism are associated with Facists. They'd love to be proud of their nations again (look at the flags at a Futball (soccer) match) but there is too much damage done by WW2, Cold War, and transnational progressive thought.
By joining Europe thousands of years of history are reputed and the whole thing is a do-over. Its a clean slate. Something everyone can be proud of.
I've got a real question for you, no attempt at snarkiness.
Personally what I know of the EU constitution and the EU in general scares me as I hate the entire idea of an unelected technocratic oligarchy with almost unlimited power, but that's just me.
My question for you is this....
Did you guys ever consider a federal model based on the US constitution? We figured out how to solve the big state, small date dilemma 200 years ago. Also the separation of powers between states and the central government. Sure there have been some rough spots, but, by and large you have to admit it works pretty well. So, why not give it a look and discussion amongst the people, instead of accepting something handed down from the unelected elite in Brussels?
PS Is it a straight banana or a curvey one that's illegal? ;^)
#53
Part of the EU idea is very reasonable and a good thing. The free trade zone is obviously a benefit (remember that the US is a free trade zone between 50 states; think if it weren't so). The unified currency may be beneficial to some countries, perhaps not so to others (Britain would be foolish to agree to it).
I'm not so sure about the idea of a common military, but it will be so weak that it probably won't matter.
Now, the idea of a centralized government controlling what a local grocer can sell or label products is an example of what's wrong with the EU people. Really, if the central government has jurisdiction over everything, why bother having the national (or even city) governments at all?
That's the real flaw I see in the EU system. Simply saying that Slovenia has 4 seats (or whatever) in the EU parliament doesn't really give them much influence. You can argue that they shouldn't have much influence over Europe as a whole, and I'd agree, but if the central government can control local Slovenian matters, in effect they will be ruled by foreigners.
You can see the same tensions here in the US, with the Big State/Small State issues. We have the Senate, where the States are to be represented as States and theoretically, the federal government has only certain enumerated powers, with the States being left (theoretically) to control everything else within their sphere. Wyoming doesn't mind have only 1 out of 435 votes in the House because they have equal representation in the Senate and even if they didn't, the federal government doesn't set most laws in Wyoming. If we had a central national government with only the House, the small States would be powerless to affect laws that control them. There would be a lot of divisiveness and maybe even civil war. And that is a country that (for all the left's attempt to set us against each other, culture against culture), is still basically one single nation, with one language.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/24/2004 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#55
Re #51 Oh, I don't think he's an idiot, really. He has a perspective that I don't agree with, but, I've seen him make a point or two whilst I've mostly lurked here. And, he is out-numbered so a certain amount of testiness is understandable, if not helpful.
Re: 52 Well, that would be my guess, but, I'd like to get a "local" opinion.
Re: 53
That's the point I'm trying to make. How about the EU looks like the US circa 1830? Limited if any central military. State militias with the most power. Limited central taxation, therefore, limited central power. If you have a free trade zone and a common currency you have to have the central legislature (two houses splitting power proportionally and severally) to set the common rules for trade etc.i.e. our elastic clause.
Rather than trying to have a complete monolithic government spring from the Jovian Brow. The Euros would be better off starting small and restricted (think BoR) and growing as their needs and desires dictate. Of course this doesn't fit the needs of the oligarchy, does it?
#56
#55 - guess you needed to see this guy's rants over the last year and half..but we are entitled to our opinions. Good luck if you choose to go down that road with him..
Posted by: Dan ||
09/24/2004 14:22 Comments ||
Top||
#57
#31 Well, list them.
Money and grants.
& et. al. blah, blah, blah. Except you forgot to mention one important factor to all those benefits - Greece cheated! It cooked the books (now admitted by its Ministry of Finance)that allowed its membership in the Euro currency. But that is small potatoes to the French and Germans and somewhat the Irish all agreeing to certain fiscal disciplinary provisions to maintain the quality of the Euro and then reneging by unbalancing their debt portion of GDP. God forbid it ever has to defend itself or take pre-emptive action. The military is short-changed (even the UK) and the rest (French and Germany, etc.) are a mirage of defense capabilities.
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
09/24/2004 14:25 Comments ||
Top||
#58
Wow, I guess that Aris is living proof that EU healthcare lacks adequate access to psychotropic meds.
#59
Ya know, what, Aris? Print up you utterance, put it in a box and set it aside for 20 years.
*Which* utterance?
China matters far more to us than anything that happens with the EU
True, but then again EU doesn't exist in order to matter to *you*. It matters enough to the people of Europe.
"Why did so many Europeans jump at the chance to dump thousands of years of history and culture and join the sparkling new, minty fresh EU"
We didn't dump anything at all. Once again with the foolish assumptions.
Personally what I know of the EU constitution and the EU in general scares me as I hate the entire idea of an unelected technocratic oligarchy with almost unlimited power, but that's just me.
When people speak about "unelected technocratic oligarchy" they are speaking about the Commission. And yet the Commission can't really do anything without the consent of either the European Parliament (directly elected) or the Council (which is composed of either the prime ministers or the ministers in some subject of each of the countries). Unelected -- yeah, the way that Colin Powel and Rumsfeld are unelected. Unlimited power? Hardly.
My question for you is this.... Did you guys ever consider a federal model based on the US constitution? We figured out how to solve the big state, small date dilemma 200 years ago.
That's... not the dilemma IMO. The big state-small state thing is mostly a facade I believe: in pretty much all the conflicts and disagreements that have occured in Europe after all (both military and political) it was an alliance of big and small countries in one side versus an alliance of big and small countries from the other.
The real dilemma I believe is federalism-versus-intergovernmentalism. If you trust the people of other nations not to actively strive for your harm, you'll be willing to share sovereignty with them regardless of whether you are a big nation or a small one - that's federalism, you'll know in some cases you'll find agreement and you know in some cases you'll find disagreement, but you are willing to try it out and make it work.
If you don't trust them as a whole however, if you don't believe their goals largely are the same as yours, you don't hand power over to a larger union *regardless* of how much representation you have in said union. Because you'll always be afraid the other eeevil countries will make an alliance against you. In that case you only accept intergovernmentalism when absolute consensus is required before a decision is made, or such a large majority that it'd be unlikely to be achieved if there was any dispute involved.
Your system of big-small state representation didn't work as nicely as that, I believe. For example for the first century you kept on splitting states or admitting them precisely in order to have slave-states be numerically equal to the free-states. And because these two groups *didn't* trust each other, this eventually collapsed also -- and the division between small and big states had nothing to do with it: it was the division between federalism and the (equivalent of) intergovernmentalism that did you in.
Most continental EU nations largely trust each other to a smaller or greater extent -- which is why we can tell the difference between a union and a conquest. Britain on the other hand doesn't seem to trust the others, and sees all sharing of sovereignty as a foreign invasion against her shores.
Also the separation of powers between states and the central government. Sure there have been some rough spots, but, by and large you have to admit it works pretty well.
It led you to a civil war, the disagreement about the separation of powers between states and the central government. It *now* works pretty well. But then again you are extremely homogeneous as a nation and aren't allowing states to secede.
And besides your own expansion you've been largely static since the civil war -- nobody has *asked* to join you for a while. Even Puerto Rico hesitates to change its status to full statehood.
So, why not give it a look and discussion amongst the people, instead of accepting something handed down from the unelected elite in Brussels? PS Is it a straight banana or a curvey one that's illegal? ;^)
And again with accepting something handed down by an unelected elite -- no, it's been mostly the European Council that's been pushing further integration AFAIK, not the European Commission. And the European Council is formed by the *elected* heads of government of each country.
I don't know about other countries but further integration with the EU is highly approved here -- Greeks, with the exception of the communists, largely want EU to strengthen, partly in order to be able to be a protective guard if anything bad comes from Turkey. And all non-communist parties wanted to be part of the Euro, as the drachma was hardly a currency we had faith in.
And when the EU tries to do something we don't like, we hardly go into rabid EU-hate rants, we simply smile, roll our eyes upwards and keep on doing what we were doing. "kokoretsi" for example has been prohibited by the EU for health reason. We keep on eating it. Do you think that the Franco-German troops gonna invade us for that?
#61
Thank you but I believe that with the exception of Hawai (in which there was a coup), the rest of those states were all already part of US territory and settled by people of the USA? Their status changed to full-fledged states, but they didn't join up the way Texas had done -- being independent and then applying to join the US.
My point was that independent countries like Jamaica or Belize or Panama or whatever, they haven't shown desire to join you as states.
Thanks for the long and calm reply. There are a couple of things that I'd like to bring up.
1) The issue of slavery has always been the distorting feature in American history. You either have to examine the country as it was before Slavery became a big issue, say pre 1830, or post civil war. The problem with it was the fact that slave or free was originally the "great" compromise in the constitution this is where the balancing of new admissions came from. The civil war was basically fought on states rights issues of which slavery was the most visible though not the only one, the biggest one had to do with agrarian vs. industrial economics (that should sound familiar, no?). So....
2) let's leave the slavery issue aside as much as possible. Many states have joined since the civil war. Arizona the last of the lower 48 in 1912 or 14. The reason that none of the countries you mention wanted to join the US are that they are culturally different being either Spanish or French colonies / provinces and having thrown off their colonial masters they wanted to be independent. One reason for this is that their post-colonial periods were quickly taken over by elites that liked being the top dog, not a whole lot of egalitarian democracy cropping up.
3) Puerto Rico gets the best of both worlds in that they have virtually all the bennies of statehood and few of the responsibilities of independence or statehood. Personally I wish that they would petition for statehood or go independent.
Okay, enlighten me on the distinction between the Council and the Commission. If the commission is the unelected bureaucracy, where does it get its power? Does the parliment pass explicit laws or what? Everything I've heard from my British and German friends indicates that the "banana rule" (my metaphor for the unelected bureaucracy since the concept tickles me pink) comes from the Commission NOT the Council. Did the Council just give the Commission carte blanche?
#63
"enlighten me on the distinction between the Council and the Commission."
Council
The "European Council" is the meeting of the 25 heads of government. Blair, Chirac, Shroeder, Berlusconi, Karamanlis -- all 25 of them. They are elected by their nations. The "Council of Ministers" is the same thing but in this cases it's not about the heads of government but ministers meeting e.g. the 25 Ministers of Finance, or the 25 Ministers of Defense, or the 25 Ministers of Agriculture. And so forth. They indicate direction and give authorization.
Commission
The Commission on the other hand serves as the bureacratic/executive arm. The President of the Commission (used to be Prodi) must be agreed upon by consensus of the European Council. Then he must be approved by the directly elected European Parliament.
The other 24 members of the Commission are selected one by each member-state. They are appointed to their respective positions by the President of the Commission. In the case of malpractice the European Parliament has the power to force the entire Commission to resign -- in fact this has already happened when the Sander commission resigned over some scandal.
Everything I've heard from my British and German friends indicates that the "banana rule" (my metaphor for the unelected bureaucracy since the concept tickles me pink) comes from the Commission NOT the Council
Since the "banana rule" is a minor bureaucratic point rather than a major point of policy, my guess (I don't know for sure) is that indeed the Commission made the rule under the guidelines of consumer protection or product standardization or whatever -- and *then* it was approved in the European Parliament.
Once again: The Commission can't do anything alone. It must have either approval of the Council or from the Parliament, depending on case.
Does the parliment pass explicit laws or what?
The parliament must approve all laws passed. Hold on a sec for me to check the treaties if they can pass laws by themselves -- I doubt it.
#64
In the Treaty of Nice, atleast, (and boy is that a confusing document -- makes me appreciate how the simplification of the EU Constitution was sorely needed) I don't see the European Parliament being able to pass any laws alone. The three instruments, Council, Commission, and European Parliament must almost always act in agreement for anything to pass.
The specific law may have been *written* by the Commission, but the other two instruments approved it.
"And makes me appreciate how the simplification of the EU Constitution was..."
OMG are you saying that the EU constitution is simplified??!!?!?!!???!!!!!????
Can I suggest that your boys need to get out more, look at some straight forward documents.
I really think that if the EU could be tremendously improved if they do 2 things:
1) Have a short simple constitution that explicitly enumerates what the EU government does and does NOT own in terms of governance, and
2) Take all that other s*** out of the damn constitution and make the legislature pass each item as individual law like any normal government does.
"
#70
"Have a short simple constitution that explicitly enumerates what the EU government does and does NOT own in terms of governance."
HOOOOOO BOOOOY! That was a knee-slapper.
It would never happen, the apparatchiks love bureacratic fascism too much to allow it.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
09/24/2004 18:46 Comments ||
Top||
#71
AlanC, compared to the mass of multiply-amended treaties, yeah it's simplified. It's not simplified *enough* for my tastes ofcourse.
But your suggestion about the further simplification that would give the legislature so much power -- that would be a major shift in favour of federalism. EU Legislature passing laws without the consent of the unlected but rather *appointed* members of each nation's government whether in the Commission or the Council of Ministers? I heartily approve myself, but the Brits wouldn't accept a major shift in favour of the European Parliament, because that'd be a major shift in favour of a *federalist* rather than an intergovernmental body. Not that they are the *only* ones wary of federalism. The French aren't the most federalist types either. But Brits come first in anti-federalism.
#72
A further note -- the function of the Senate which has equal representation, is done in the EU to a great extent by the Council's role.
It would be as if, instead of 100 members of the Senate, two from each state, you had the 50 governors going and voting. The idea of equal representation between states would still be upheld.
There are caveats here, in which the Council can't take a decision *only* by numerical majority, but the states voting yes must also be representing a certain amount of population -- that's the kind of thing I object to, since I feel the Council's function should be simplified and points of population sizes should be referred to the Parliament.
Thanks for your explanations. Since I'm basically conservative with Libertarian tendencies we probably have some differences about what the proper role and limits of governments are.
But, I think that the EU needs to decide if it is truly going to be a treaty based organization of sovereign states or a federation of equals with a common central government. I doubt that the sovereign states idea will work very well unless the issues are really limited such as the common market. That doesn't seem to be the case though (ref. one curved banana)the bureaucrats want to get into all the details of life. That's the problem with Socialism, the elites know better.
Don't see how it will work, too many elitists all wanting the power, maybe you won't shoot each other anymore.
#74
Since I'm basically conservative with Libertarian tendencies we probably have some differences about what the proper role and limits of governments are
I tend to care more about freedom in *practice*. Banana regulations might have mattered more to me if I was a banana-eater or a banana-producer. In practice I'm more likely to care that my brother is able to live and work in the UK without hindrance, or that I don't need to lose money through exchanges when I'm travelling through the Eurozone, or that we no longer need passports to travel through the Eurozone. (One noteworthy incident is how Turkish Cypriots are now travelling to southern Cyprus to get EU passports, in order to be able to freely study at European universities at much lower costs. It's especially noteworthy because Denktash's own grandson did that: Denktash had once called it treason for a Turkish Cypriot to seek to get a passport of the Republic of Cyprus.)
Freedom of residency, freedom of employment -- if lack of freedom in *bananas* is the price to pay for those other freedoms, then I'm willing to pay it.
Well, yes they did. But like I've said so many times before, in Poland's case, it is not because they loved the EU so much, but because they were frustrated with their current government, and all the governments they have ever had since 1990. They voted with the hope that for the first time their own government will have to answer to a still higher authority, and thereby change its ways. This is not an insignificant point, even if the vote was an overwhelming "yes".
Aris: Money and grants.
The jury is still out on this one. Though a couple of education grants were thrown Poland's way lately.
Aris: If in the eurozone, a currency that can't fall easy prey to Soros.
OTOH, you're giving up control over monetary policy, which is a useful tool in fine-tuning the economy. It would be fine if Europe was homogeneous in terms of economic activity. But at this point, what's good for Germany isn't necessarily good for Poland.
Aris: Influence, definitely far more so than outside the EU.
In this case it just trading one thing for another: gaining influence but at the same time being subservient to the biggest players in the union, mainly France & Germany.
Aris: Open borders for trade.
Currently only western Europe can take advantage of this.* Western Europe should be extremely generous towards the new members as a result of getting this "gift". Closing borders to movement of labour is not a generous thing to do.
Aris: An ability to resort to the EU court if another member doesn't play by the rules.
More like: an ability to resort to the EU court if another member's government doesn't play by the rules. OK, so this is a good thing :)
*True, eastern Europe will eventually catch up, but they would have done so even without joining the EU. Western Europe needs these markets as much as eastern Europe needs the west.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/24/2004 21:35 Comments ||
Top||
#77
Flip flopping between preview and editing, my comment above lost the italics on Aris' comments. But y'all can figure things out.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/24/2004 21:37 Comments ||
Top||
#78
Western Europe should be extremely generous towards the new members as a result of getting this "gift". Closing borders to movement of labour is not a generous thing to do.
Agreed on that, but let me just note that it was one of the negotiated agreements for accession. In return Poland has also gotten big transitory periods before it needs to fully conform to certain aspects of the "acquis".
Agreed on pretty much everything you said, except the bit about being subservient to the biggest players in union, "mainly France and Germany". I truly think that poor and small countries are forced to more de facto "subservience" outside the union than inside it.
#3
The images which went with it is what sparked my interest:
Mike Al-moore: There is no terrorist threat (image: plane hitting WTC tower - Mike your a liar....)
Woman: If a dictator gives free health care - I like that dictator (image: man having his fingers hacked off -- some health care...)
Woman: If a dictator offers free universal education to everyone - I like that dictator (image: woman being executed in a soccer field - some education...)
I always knew Michael Moore was a strange bird. But many people have no idea how extreme he really is. Perhaps that is why I find it so troubling that he has been embraced by the Democratic Party and the left-leaning news media so closely. He sat with Terry McAuliffe at the Democratic National Convention and has used everything from the Oscars to his personal web site as platforms from which to attack America's war against Jihadist terrorists.
And then there's USA Today using him to cover the Republican National Convention. I have no problem with USA Today selecting someone from the left to cover the conservative party's convention, but Michael Moore? Michael Moore is way beyond the term "liberal." He could more accurately be described as a leftist radical. Just take a look at Moore's friends and allies.
First, he defended the Taliban regime when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan after 9-11, claiming there was no proof that the Taliban — or even Osama Bin Laden--had anything to do with 9-11. Then he defended Saddam's brutal regime. He will deny these charges of course, but, if Moore had his way, the Taliban regime would still be in power, harboring Al Qaida and Saddam would still be filling up the mass graves of Iraq, periodically threatening his neighbors and lining Kofi Annan's pockets with kickbacks as Iraq did business with France, Germany and Russia.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/24/2004 12:26:47 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
MICHAEL MOORE on the floor of the REPUBLICAN CONVENTION
#2
Didn't Chomsky's retarded little brother recently say he thought our intervention in WWII was unjustified? Also called Zarq and Co the equivalent of "the minutemen" and wrote in one of his books that "the South won the Civil War"....
#3
yeah, I got to pile on this one. mike al-moor is a self-loathing fat f*cking piece of shit whose self esteem is obviously so low he would suck castro's dick even if it was runny from the clap. There, I feel better.
#6
Lemme see if I have this right: according to this article, Moore is the enemy because his movie has been released in the lands of our enemies?
I don't know, with all the real arguments to use against Moore, including his own vile words and deeds, this strikes me as a particularly weak approach to take.
With that being said, since we are talking about the lord of lard, I say bravo!
#7
No Doc, but I was a Series and Company Commander for a long while down at Parris Island. Had a blast. Drill Instructors will always hold a special place in my heart - magnificent bastards. Plus, I just like to swear sometimes and mike al-moor is always good for that.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/24/2004 9:39:48 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If the rest of Canada was smart, they'd throw the Qs out. Everybody would be happier and border control could be improved.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/24/2004 9:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
That's what I've been sayin. Actually, it would be a nice opportunity to split Canuckistan along the western Ontario border. We western rednecks simply don't understand easterners.. and we don't want to. :-)
If interference from Ottawa hindered Quebecâs development, the "autonomous state" would override federal laws. For example, in new hydroelectric projects, the ADQ says Quebec should disregard federal environmental regulations.
In other words, they want to suck at the teat of the rest of the Canadians, while simultaneously telling them to fuck off.
How perfectly Phrench.
Go it alone and become a sovreign nation with all that entails, you tranzi pussies, or STFU.
U.S. to the rest of Canada: You have my deepest sympathy.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/24/2004 10:46 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Recall not everyone in the PQ is in favour of this insanity.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/24/2004 10:47 Comments ||
Top||
#5
That's why my darling mother-in-law moved South of the Border, and traded in her Quebecois citizenship for American. But she did keep the most adorable accent :-D
Ed Morrisey Jr. has his opinion about rumors President Bush received preferential treatment when he was allowed into the Texas Air National Guard in the late 1960s. The Blount Countian also has firsthand knowledge.
The 75-year-old Jackson Hills resident is a retired colonel with Texas Air National Guard. He swore Lt. George W. Bush into the service in May 1968. On Thursday, Morrisey said the argument that Bush got off easy by being in the National Guard doesn't take into consideration the context of the 1960s. ``Bush and the others were flying several flights day or night over the Gulf of Mexico to identify the unknown,'' he said. ``The Cold War was a nervous time. You never knew. There were other things going on equally important to the country, and the Air National Guard had a primary role in it.''
Morrisey said the commander he worked for at the unit in Texas was sent there to rebuild the image of the unit. There were only two to four pilot training slots given to them per year, he said. Individuals questioned by an evaluation board and then chosen by the commander had to be the best. ``Bush was selected and he turned out just fine,'' he said.
According to Morrisey, after Bush began working as a fighter pilot, he became regarded as one of the best pilots there. Unit commander Col. Maurice Udell considered Bush to be one of his top five pilots, Morrisey said. ``The kid did good,'' he said.
Each pilot had to perform alert duty where they patrolled for unidentified aircraft during the threat of the Cold War, Morrisey said. ``Bush Jr. did good for us,'' Morrisey said. ``He pulled alert and he did it all.''
Morrisey said that while Bush didn't get preferential treatment, not everyone was allowed into the National Guard. ``We wanted the best we could get. We never knowingly took an unworthy individual in the units I belonged to,'' he said. ``You're only as good your worst individual.''
This isn't the first time a reporter called Morrisey asking whether or not Bush received preferential treatment. Shortly after Republicans nominated Bush for president in 2000, a reporter from Texas called Morrisey. ``That floored me. The only people that got preferential treatment was when Jimmy Carter pardoned those guys that went to Canada,'' he said of individuals who fled to Canada to avoid the draft during the war in Vietnam.
Speaking of the controversy surrounding Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam era, Morrisey said: ``I think it's tragic. I think real people can filter through this. At least I hope so.''
I'd hope so too, but see how it's been going so far?
Morrisey said he agreed with Bush's work as president and supported the administration's aggressive stance toward fighting terrorism and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. ``We've got to eliminate terrorists,'' he said. ``Let's get them where they're living instead of them getting my grandkids and great-grandkids here.''
Morrisey worked as the executive officer of the 147th Fighter Group from February of 1967 to July of 1968.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/24/2004 5:18:49 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I like the quote: ``That floored me. The only people that got preferential treatment was when Jimmy Carter pardoned those guys that went to Canada,'' he said of individuals who fled to Canada to avoid the draft during the war in Vietnam.
Does anybody know whether the flights over the Gulf were designed to prevent attack from Cuba?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/25/2004 3:13 Comments ||
Top||
Fred - This is a post to another blog - But it is ANOTHER Walter Mitty story. O'Reilly on Fox has also gone there.
If I am out of line in linking this please remove...
But it is too good to pass up!
From Captain's Quarters:
Was Kerry In Iraq In 1991 For Cease-Fire Accord?
Frequent CQ contributor Bandit watched the O'Reilly Factor last night on Fox News, which replayed a 2001 interview with Senator John Kerry. Bandit reports that during that interview three years ago, Kerry stated that he went to Iraq on March 3rd during the signing of the cease-fire agreement that ended the first Gulf War:
Leavin on a (private) Jet Plane.
.....
Even more remarkably, John Kerry managed to miss no Senate votes during that week. On February 28th, Kerry voted to table an amendment during a roll-call vote. On March 6th, Kerry again managed to make a roll-call vote, this time voting against tabling an amendment by Senator Tom Harkin. It's not impossible for him to have been to Iraq and back, but it seems less likely.
Bandit discovered a March 4th, 1991 Boston Globe article that narrows the timeframe more. According to the article, John Kerry attended a fundraiser for Cultural Survival, Inc. and the Rainforest Alliance (no link available):
Boston Globe Newspaper March 4, 1991
Saturday it was off to "Brazil Night" at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel ballroom for a sold-out party to benefit the Cambridge-based human rights group, Cultural Survival Inc., in conjunction with the Rainforest Alliance. Simple little black dresses were de rigueur at this party. But the most chic women took the reliable style and gave it a dramatic fashion twist. They wore understated black dresses that bared the shoulder, dipped into daring v's or somehow focused on the natural and impressive art of decolletage. They made headlines with their necklines.
Meanwhile, Sen. John F. Kerry, an honorary committee member, breezed in and out of the black-tie gala in minutes. The subject of fashion/style seemed an enigma to him. Kerry, wearing a business suit, stayed only long enough to accept a gift: a tin of candy called Rainforest Crunch.
Saturday night would have been March 2nd in Boston. However, since Iraq is several hours ahead of the East Coast, it would already have been Sunday, March 3rd in Safwan. It means that Kerry would have had to jet out in his fashion-enigma outfit, take the long flight to Iraq just to be in the country when the accord was signed, and then jet back pronto to attend the March 6th roll-call vote.
Now that's darned near impossible.
No - He IS JOHN F'ING KERRY AFTER ALL, AND HE IS HIGHLY - HIGHLY SKILLED
#4
Kerry still doesn't understand that the information age has arrived and his lies are easily tested? Long ago he got away with this crap because it was too hard to check up on him. Now, anyone who can spell Google can do it. Years of inconsistent positions and contradictory remarks (and Senate votes) are now plain to see. Yet he still doesn't get it? Pathological liar? I'm beginning to think so -- because he just can't stop at a time when all eyes are on him and the stakes are high for him.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/24/2004 17:10 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Doncha know - "Forest" Kerry was at all the important events of the late twentieth century.
#1
A two-point skip isn't a wild swing, that's a Bush-favorable day of sampling dropping out, and a Kerry-favorable day of sampling coming into the three-day average. If you've been following the Rasmussen, it tends to have weekly cycles of about two to three points. For a while, those tended to peak for first Kerry, then Bush, on days with weekend samples in the average, and there were various theories about first Democrats not going to Church on Sunday, then Republicans not going out Friday and Saturday nights. It seems mostly bunk - randomly chosen samples of significantly small size will produce pseudo-patterns of no evaluable significance in the short term.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
09/24/2004 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Most of the polls are BS. The election will be decided in the last 48 hours of the campaign. If gasoline prices don't spike by 25% or more in October then the election will be a contest between battle fatigue/latent isolationism and fear of another 911/determination to finish the job. If Kerry were clever he could pull it out, but one should never (mis)understimate the Dems' incompetence in presidential election campaigning.
#6
Rassmussen is rumored to use "data normalization" - that is, he takes polls of republicans, poills of democrats, and polls of independants, then applies them to create an overall poll that is distributed in the same percentage (Dem, Rep, Ind) as shown by the exit polls in 2000.
This methodology guarantees results that match 2000.
THey do not account for independant moves toward Bush, the 9/11 increase in Republican party identification, nor in increased Republican registration and turnout as compared to 2000.
SO Rasmussen shoudl be taken with a large grain of salt, and used only as part of several different polls in order to get a picture of where the electorate stands.
Also - the national "Bush v. Kerry" is meaningless - its the state polls that count.
Kerry can carry NY and California by 7 million each, and win the "popualr vote" going away, but if Bush manages to win Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florid by 100K each, Bush wins the election in electoral votes.
Democrat bloc votes in California and NY distort the national poll (for Kerry) as does Texas (for Bush).
#7
OldSpook: you might want to check out the web site electionprojection.com
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
09/24/2004 22:29 Comments ||
Top||
#8
How do past successes of polls count? Rasmussen totally missed 2002.... but still, my $0.02 feels that "silent majority" that Reagan sensed, is now again very present.
Hard to believe, but this is from Stanley Fish, an old hard-left deconstructionist lit prof at the U. of Chicago. Harder to believe, it's on today's op/ed page in the NY Times.
In an unofficial but very formal poll taken in my freshman writing class the other day, George Bush beat John Kerry by a vote of 13 to 2 (14 to 2, if you count me). My students were not voting on the candidates' ideas. They were voting on the skill (or lack of skill) displayed in the presentation of those ideas.
The basis for their judgments was a side-by-side display in this newspaper on Sept. 8 of excerpts from speeches each man gave the previous day. Put aside whatever preferences you might have for either candidate's positions, I instructed; just tell me who does a better job of articulating his positions, and why.
The analysis was devastating.
[...]
Now of course it could be the case that every student who voted against Mr. Kerry's speech in my little poll will vote for him in the general election. After all, what we're talking about here is merely a matter of style, not substance, right? And - this is a common refrain among Kerry supporters - doesn't Mr. Bush's directness and simplicity of presentation reflect a simplicity of mind and an incapacity for nuance, while Mr. Kerry's ideas are just too complicated for the rhythms of publicly accessible prose?
Sorry, but that's dead wrong. If you can't explain an idea or a policy plainly in one or two sentences, it's not yours; and if it's not yours, no one you speak to will be persuaded of it, or even know what it is, or (and this is the real point) know what you are. Words are not just the cosmetic clothing of some underlying integrity; they are the operational vehicles of that integrity, the visible manifestation of the character to which others respond. And if the words you use fall apart, ring hollow, trail off and sound as if they came from nowhere or anywhere (these are the same thing), the suspicion will grow that what they lack is what you lack, and no one will follow you..
Nervous Democrats who see their candidate slipping in the polls console themselves by saying, "Just wait, the debates are coming.'' As someone who will vote for John Kerry even though I voted against him in my class, that's just what I'm worried about.
Go read the whole thing for a bit deeper of an analysis. And keep in mind that when a guy like this writes a piece like this and the Times runs it, the Dems have big problems on their hands, and a losing campaign.
As someone who will vote for John Kerry even though I voted against him in my class
Uh, Stanley, what happened to "if the words you use fall apart, ring hollow, trail off and sound as if they came from nowhere or anywhere..., the suspicion will grow that what they lack is what you lack, and no one will follow you"?
What does it say about you that you conclude this, and write this, but are still going to vote for Kerry?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/24/2004 13:11 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Devastating. When an old deconstructionist starts to speak some common sense, there's hope after all that literary studies are becoming less of a joke.
#4
Words are not just the cosmetic clothing of some underlying integrity; they are the operational vehicles of that integrity, the visible manifestation of the character to which others respond.
#5
pshwaw! This old coot is in as much denial as Dan Rather if he thinks this "substance over style" bullshit will adequately justify voting for Kerry. It's barely different than Dan Rathers, "accurate if not authentic" meme.
His problem is that he's got all these young, bright kids in his class and in the past they've always looked up to him as a hip, cool, knowing teacher. Now, if he shills for Kerry, they just seem him as another daffy 60's guy - stuck in the summer of love and unable to bring himself into the realities of the 21st century with it's Islamist threats.
It makes him feel old and foolish, so he's found a way to straddle both sides of the divide. Thumbs up to him for at least attempting to find a loop-hole to connect with these kids. To bad, like Dan Rather, he doesn't have the guts to admit that the "enlightened" 60's with it's Clintons and Kerrys were a fraud.
Inside the Beltway
By John McCaslin
Kerry out attack
During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.
So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr. Kerry on the program.
Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.
Yes, but Bill Clinton was president in 1997, and Kimmy's "girlfriend" was our UN ambassador...
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."
What would his cousins say??? especially that Green Party mayor over there????
While no "Crossfire" transcripts from 1997 are available, Mr. King in recent days produced a tape of the show, sharing it with New York radio host Monica Crowley for broadcast, and this Inside the Beltway column for publication. Stay tuned.
That Rascally Congressman. "There must be some high order fraud in the video! Remember the movie Forest Gump? I don't remember Crossfire in 1997!" - J F'ng K
#5
Its BS. Redstone is a big time Demo and Kerry financial contributor as is his top management. This is serious CYA time. When you are caught with your hand in the cookie jar - you have some options - one is that you were putting cookies in the jar not stealing them. This is one of those type cases.
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
09/24/2004 14:28 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Jack has got it. Redstone's denial sounds like something out of Dr.Suess' "Cat in the Hat"
#7
Professor Bainbridge took at gander at OpenSecrets.org to verify how Mr. Redstone has voted with his wallet. All Dems but for a contribution to Orrin Hatch. He opines that perhaps it is an effort to shield CBS from the bias accusation. Not a particularly effective one, but hey... (Hat tip: Vodkapundit)
Cal Thomas article. Severely EFL. Hat tip: Country Store.
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has achieved something that may be unique in the history of our country. He has managed to oppose two wars while they are being fought, undermine the objective of the nation and give aid and comfort to those who are killing American soldiers and kidnapping American civilians. The objective should be victory. It was a word absent from Kerry's speech, because it is a concept foreign to a man who has demonstrated his preference - first with Vietnam and now with Iraq - to help America's enemies in times of crisis far more than helping his own country. Read the rest at the link. Thomas nails the traitorous Lurch. With railroad spikes.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/24/2004 2:05:38 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Barb, the thing is, Lurch nails himself with railroad spikes. Thomas only marks them with red tags, sort of like a crime scene, so it is not such an unsightly clutter.
#2
The Democrats bungled with Kerry
Who's alternately bold and contrary
In a war he would fight
But he'd turn and take flight
If he thought it might win him the presidency.
There is a proud president called Bush
Who the terrorists decided to push
But they picked the wrong man
Since he well understands
That all of them need to be crushed.
I hope to visit the Middle East someday. So far, it looks like Israel and (hopefully) Iraq will be the only stops. Pity.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/24/2004 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Since I am no good at this HTML and web posting stuff, can someone please post the article I saw over at LGF on Kerry stating he was at Safwan on March 3rd for the 1991 surrender. I got a picture over at
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/safwan.htm
But couldn't find Kerry in that picture. This guy is becoming more and more like Forrest Gump.
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
09/24/2004 14:35 Comments ||
Top||
At Rantburg, I'd prefer to see an atlas of "acute onset lead poisoning"...
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/24/2004 13:44 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Interesting how high India ranked! Being Hindu, and hence vegetarian, the common opion would be Indians should be less prone to these health hazards. But it looks like the data does not bear that out. (Sorry Mucky!)
Posted by: Emir Abu Ben Ali Al-Yahood ||
09/24/2004 20:05 Comments ||
Top||
The hardliners who won Iran's parliamentary elections last February have focused on women's rights in their efforts to reverse some of the reforms carried out under moderate President Mohammad Khatami. After the legislative session began in June, the 290-member Parliament, including all 12 of the women, abruptly rejected proposals to expand the inheritance right of Iranian women and to adopt the United Nations convention that bans discrimination against women. They also backed away from previous efforts to make gender equality a goal of the country's next four-year development plan. Instead, the new Parliament has called for placing more restrictions on women's attire and on their social freedoms.
EFL.
Oh, boy! Where's my lucky hat...
An upcoming video game lets players re-enact the Swift boat mission in Vietnam that won Sen. John Kerry a Silver Star award for battlefield heroism. The first-person shooter "Kuma War" uses a ripped-from-the-headlines approach where gamers can download and then relive actual battles, mainly from the current war in Iraq. Beginning Sept. 30, the "John Kerry" mission will be available for download as an add-on pack for the game, made by New York-based Kuma Reality Games. The Kerry mission is based on the Navy's records of the encounter on Feb. 28, 1969. Lucky hat. Check...
Super Eight. Check...
VC the dog. Check...
Seared memory. Check...
Playing as Lt. John Kerry, you lead three Swift boats into enemy fire on the banks of the Mekong Delta. Don't try to turn around and flee — the game is scripted, so you have no choice but to attack the enemy before they kill you. Can the enemy flee so I can beach my boat and shoot them in the back?
Kerry is unaware of the game and had no comment, spokeswoman Allison Dobson told The Associated Press. She said Kerry doesn't play video games. Too "plebian" for him, probably. Coming next month, "Windsurfing to Cambodia".
Multinational oil giant Royal Dutch/Shell has evacuated non-essential staff from two oil production plants in Nigeria where troops are fighting a major offensive against rebel militia, a spokesman said. The decision was taken as a precaution after the company noted troop movements on Thursday around the Soku and Ekulama flow stations, which gather oil from wells near the oil city Port Harcourt, he added. Oil production has not been affected. "We noticed the movement of troops to the Soku and Ekulama areas where we have flow stations and for security reasons we had to evacuate non-essential staff," the spokesman said.
"We have not heard of any exchange of fire, but we sense there may be clashes."
OPEC members have lost control over the oil market. A report by the Center for Global Energy Studies asserted that the price of crude oil was no longer under OPEC control. The report said OPEC, with spare production capacity of 1.5 million barrels per day, does not have sufficient capacity to significantly reduce oil prices, which have exceeded $47 a barrel. "This leaves only the thinnest margin to cope with the unexpected and the market is worried that it could quickly be used up in the event of an interruption to supply or a cold winter," the report said. The center said OPEC production in the third quarter of 2004 reached 29.19 million barrels per day. The figure did not include Iraq.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/24/2004 12:24:26 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
EAT CROW!!!
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
09/24/2004 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This is actually worrying. If OPEC has reached it's maximum capacity that means that oil production in the world has reached it's upper limits.
Since the demand (especially China) is still growing, you know what that means.
Oil will never go back under $40 a barrel.
WE eat crow here, not them.
#3
Here is a better summary:
"The course of oil prices over the coming months is largely out of the hands of both OPEC and the international oil industry."
"Increases in oil production capacity are on the way, both within OPEC and outside, but oil demand is growing too."
"While commercial oil inventories are rising ahead of the coming Northern Hemisphere winter, global stockcover remains ten days lower than it was in 2001."
"Without a sudden slowdown in oil demand growth this winter, the market looks set to remain tight and prices high." Reference
Posted by: Tom ||
09/24/2004 16:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Looks like increases for alternative fuel R & D should have been a LOT bigger.
In addition to the EOR issue, what happens if the Gulf of Mexico is hit by additional hurricanes effecting oil's flow prior to the high driving volume Thanksgiving holiday, plus the other economic real unknowns such as potential energy market jolts for a colder than average, high usage 'heating oil-natural gas winter of 2004-5 season, and or, if the death driven jihad boys breach our beefed up national counter-terrorist measures and some how stage another major attack on U.S. soil, all components for much higher price spikes for the entire energy complex could prove a rough ride over the next 6 months.
Is $55 to $60 a barrel oil a realistic temporary target price during the dead of a frigid winter? With crude prices currently heading toward $50 , again, what's another panic driven $5 to $10, with a typical trending reversal of the same amount or more? What goes up should (it used to be will) come down. The bottom line is with supplies of global energy under the gun from various unstable sources, there are very few bears in this bullish energy market these days.
The White House on Thursday agreed to tap an emergency oil reserve to help refiners that have suffered supply disruptions from hurricanes that recently pounded the Gulf Coast. Spencer Abraham, energy secretary, said his department had entered into negotiations with several oil companies to provide short-term loans until supply conditions improved.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/24/2004 08:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
At last, some light at the end of my long dark tunnel! If the price at the pump rises 20% or more in October I might even have a chance at winning this thing. Hey Holbrooke, is there anyone you know at OPEC who can help us with this?
Posted by: John Kerry ||
09/24/2004 11:56 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Forget about it John LOL
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/24/2004 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Sorry, John, the Saudis and Kuwaitis tell me they're booked solid with the Bush folks until January, and Chavez isn't taking my calls.
Posted by: Dick Holbrooke ||
09/24/2004 12:04 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
